Should political experience be required to run for President?

[JasonDebenah89]

In your opinion, do you think political experience (a set amount of time as either as Governor, Senator, or Member of Congress) should be required to run for the Presidency? Yes or no?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Of course not.

[Enduro]

No!

[Hermit For Peace]

YES. Otherwise, you get someone like Trump in there.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

YES. Otherwise, you get someone like Trump in there.

[Frodo]

Until the advent of Donald Trump, I didn't think political experience necessary either. 

Now.....   

[The_Doctor]

Obviously. That's a dumb ass question.

Let me explain why. If you want to hire a CEO you don't hire a plumber to become a CEO. End of story. You cannot just jump from business to running the country as a President or something. There's a reason lower offices exist. There's a reason all 44 presidents have been lower office members.

The civil service is not yet that independent enough to run the country and have a president (who has vast powers and influence) be basically an outsider who comes in. That's not just happening at this point in time.

[Ban my account ffs!]

In your opinion, do you think political experience (a set amount of time as either as Governor, Senator, or Member of Congress) should be required to run for the Presidency? Yes or no?

If you believe that a president should have pertinent experience in government, then you should support and vote for candidates that have that experience. 

I happen to agree that they should have some experience... but not because it's required by law.

[RI]

YES. Otherwise, you get someone like Trump in there.

Not a fan of Eisenhower, I take it?

[Hermit For Peace]

YES. Otherwise, you get someone like Trump in there.

Not a fan of Eisenhower, I take it?

Not a fan of Trump.

[Virginiá]

Sort of. I believe the candidate needs some sort of experience in government. Whether it's a high-ranking military official (like Eisenhower) or some sort of other office holder, from state govt to the executive branch, they should have at least a couple years of something. I'm not that picky, and I understand these aren't necessarily prerequisites of success, but, still.

[Free Bird]

YES. Otherwise, you get someone like Trump in there.

Not a fan of Eisenhower, I take it?

Not a fan of Trump.

So a good presidency should be retroactively made bad and henceforth impossible because you don't like one person that hasn't even done any policy work and won with the same amount of political experience as the good president?

[Vosem]

Yeah, I don't think it would be unreasonable to restrict running for President to current and former members of Congress, current and former state Governors, current and former members of the U.S. Cabinet or Cabinet-level positions, or people who had achieved a certain rank in the U.S. military. This covers every post-Civil War major-party presidential nominee with three exceptions (Alton Parker, Wendell Willkie, and Donald Trump), none of whom really should have ran for President. In general, it's hard for me to think of a modern example of a candidate who didn't fit these requirements whose run didn't originate as a thinly-disguised publicity stunt. If there was really a massive surge of support for a candidate who didn't fit these parameters, it would perhaps be possible for Congress to give a waiver. In fact, the endorsement of say 10 members of the Senate, or 50 members of the House, should be sufficient to waive someone through.

[RI]

In general, it's hard for me to think of a modern example of a candidate who didn't fit these requirements whose run didn't originate as a thinly-disguised publicity stunt.

Do you consider Ross Perot's campaigns a "thinly-disguised publicity stunt?"

[Hermit For Peace]

Yeah, I don't think it would be unreasonable to restrict running for President to current and former members of Congress, current and former state Governors, current and former members of the U.S. Cabinet or Cabinet-level positions, or people who had achieved a certain rank in the U.S. military. This covers every post-Civil War major-party presidential nominee with three exceptions (Alton Parker, Wendell Willkie, and Donald Trump), none of whom really should have ran for President. In general, it's hard for me to think of a modern example of a candidate who didn't fit these requirements whose run didn't originate as a thinly-disguised publicity stunt. If there was really a massive surge of support for a candidate who didn't fit these parameters, it would perhaps be possible for Congress to give a waiver. In fact, the endorsement of say 10 members of the Senate, or 50 members of the House, should be sufficient to waive someone through.

I like your answer. Makes the most sense.

[Confused Democrat]

It shouldn't be a mandatory requirement, but I most likely won't vote for that person.

[Beet]

No; this election proved that most politicians are not very smart.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Yes, and it should be a constitutional amendment.

[JA]

Yes, and it should be a constitutional amendment.

^^ This. I love all these people saying no, yet they'd never say no to having a CEO or a doctor needing previous business or medical experience, respectively.

[Phony Moderate]

Life itself is a form of political experience.

Yes, and it should be a constitutional amendment.

^^ This. I love all these people saying no, yet they'd never say no to having a CEO or a doctor needing previous business or medical experience, respectively.

And the people voting yes are probably too dumb to electorally defeat a misogynistic, loudmouthed reality TV show host and decades-long public buffoon and hence need to resort to the low energy tactic of amending the constitution.

[Sir Mohamed]

No. Besides the age and nationality requirement, there should be no other limit. The people should be able to elect anyone they want. The Trumpster, for sure, is a bad example, but we had other presidents without political experience like Eisenhower whose presidency wasn’t bad. On the other hand, political experience alone doesn’t prevent bad policies or problematic characters. Also: what counts as experience? Congress, Cabinet and Governors only? And how many years? Consecutive years? These questions are not to answer in a consensus.

[fhtagn]

No. Besides the age and nationality requirement, there should be no other limit. The people should be able to elect anyone they want. The Trumpster, for sure, is a bad example, but we had other presidents without political experience like Eisenhower whose presidency wasn’t bad. On the other hand, political experience alone doesn’t prevent bad policies or problematic characters. Also: what counts as experience? Congress, Cabinet and Governors only? And how many years? Consecutive years? These questions are not to answer in a consensus.

[NeverAgain]

Political experience, no. But public service, and government experience, yes, most definitely.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, but it doesn't hurt.  We've elected more than a few military leaders but let's be honest, to rise to the level they rose to requires some political savy, at least.

[Del Tachi]

Yes.  A Constitutional amendment should be passed to require any candidate for President to have previously served in the House, Senate or as a Governor.