Lol thats not how things work. If someone doesn't like a law - try to get it changed. Don't make up laws out of nowhere because voters get butthurt.
WTF? What is dumbass and archaic about expecting that people running for office should have a connection, affinity, experience, and background in the area from which they are running? Maybe we should just have no standards for anything.
If there weren't eligibility requirements, voters would elect a gerbil from Ethiopia that they saw on some youtube video. barfo
We should elect Florida's governor! If he's elected governor of 26 states I think that means he'll be king.
I would agree that’s an important piece of critera, but shouldn’t I be the one making that choice as a voter in Oregon? Why do I need a law that prohibits someone from running for office? That simply limits my choice, and in the future the best candidate running may not be a resident of Oregon until they become governor. Would suck having to vote between Tina and whoever the Republican is simply because of this dumb law.
If that is who the voters in Oregon vote for, then so be it. Why do we need a law that dictates who we can and cannot vote for?
Because by very definition this law is anti democratic. You’re limiting the choice essentially arbitrarily. If your opinion is important to the majority of voters, then no one without an affinity to Oregon would ever win the governors office. But what if the best candidate is not a resident? If he or she checks all the other boxes, I am excited about them, and want to vote for them, then who cares if they are a resident or not? I can make that decision for myself, just like you can, I don’t need a law to screen them out.
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make? Are you simply stating I am not allowed to complain about a law I don’t like?
My (25% joking, 75% serious) point was that voters are several kinds of stupid, and need to be protected from themselves. Residency isn't great protection, of course. One can think of other things that ought to disqualify someone from office, simply to avoid the harm done if elected. barfo
The voters accept this law else they'd vote for those that would change the law. I wanted to get employed by the Cowlitz County PUD (public utility district) as an engineer but they said I had to live in the district to be employed by the district. I think the same goes for Portland.
Should only Oregon residents be allowed to vote in Oregon? If we're going to allow non-residents to run for office we should allow non-residents to vote here.
You are free to complain about a law you don't like. And I am free to tell you to do something about it if it bothers you that much. You can't just willy nilly want to change laws immediately because it isn't working out how YOU want it. It is a process. Having a governor from New York is stupid. They haven't even been around the state to know what issues we are even having.
The thing about Nick Kristoff however is that he is from here, owns a business in Yamhill, has many connections here. It's not like he has no connection. He has many.
I know that. But a little different than someone living here and experiencing it. If I move to New York and still have family living in Oregon. I can hear second hand about all the things going on and how Kate Brown is the worst. But, it is different than you living here.
Okay thanks for clarifying, I have never advocated for changing a law willy nilly. I am a random Oregonian complaining about a law in Oregon in the OT section of a basketball forum. I would have thought it obvious the guy arguing for more democracy not less would want to follow a democratic process for changing a law. Maybe I wasn’t clear in my OP but I am simply making an observation that the law is anti democratic. I never argued the law should be overturned willy nilly, that is not at all what I have argued and I do not know where you’re getting that from that’s ridiculous.
Obviously yes only Oregonians should be allowed to vote, that’s silly and a poor analogy. You’re conflating who is allowed to vote versus who is allowed to run for office. The better analogy is should only white people be allowed to run for office? If you’re going to make arbitrary restrictions on who can run, that would be the better analogy and demonstrates the distinction and danger inherent in creating these kinds of barriers to running for office.
You may think so, and there is nothing wrong with your opinion. But it doesn’t change the fact of what I am arguing, the law is anti democratic. It is arbitrarily limiting who the voters are allowed to vote for. If the voters feel the same way as you, they will vote that way. IMO we don’t need a law that dictates who we can and cant vote for, that is not democracy. Again for the record I have no idea who this guy is, I am simply arguing that the principle of preventing who can run more or less arbitrarily is bad.
Another question- what if someone who specializes in Oregon politics, economics, and works in Portland but lives in Vancouver were to run? They are almost certainly more aware of what’s going on in Oregon than the vast majority if Oregonians, but they legally wouldn’t be allowed to run. Again the law is IMO bad and can and does limit the state from having potentially good to great candidates unnecessarily. Determining these “residency” requirements is left up to the SOS rather than the citizens of Oregon, I just don’t see the necessity of it.
