Will future primaries have a new requirement?

[Bigby]

Regardless if Trump wins the GOP primary or not, his run this cycle will surely have an impact on future primaries. Since Trump has never held a governmental office, will one or both parties make it a requirement that you must have held some form of office before you are eligible to run for office? Would it become an amendment to the Constitution instead? If so, how would people react and would it be struck down as unconstitutional?

[Slander and/or Libel]

An amendment to the Constitution couldn't very well be struck down as unconstitutional.

[Bigby]

An amendment to the Constitution couldn't very well be struck down as unconstitutional.

How quickly would it be overturned like the 18th amendment, then?

[The Mikado]

I highly doubt this would be a legal or constitutional change, I think it'd be done through the parties. The RNC and DNC would just agree to have their internal rules state that debates cannot include candidates who do not meet such and such criteria and that any candidate who participates in a debate that breaks these rules with such a candidate is barred from the regular debates.

[Vega]

The Democrats very, very, rarely feature prominent candidates who haven't ever held office. It's more of a problem with the GOP.

[Indy Texas]

Considering how even politicians who have held office before have to go to absurd lengths to talk about what "outsiders" they are and emphasize their non-political accomplishments, I doubt an American public that is so cynical and chronically dissatisfied with the collective mass of career politicians is going to get behind an amendment to ensure they're the only people allowed to become president.

And how do we define "held office?" Elected office? State level? Federal level? Local? Appointed positions? Cabinet? Non-cabinet? Military?

[Bigby]

Considering how even politicians who have held office before have to go to absurd lengths to talk about what "outsiders" they are and emphasize their non-political accomplishments, I doubt an American public that is so cynical and chronically dissatisfied with the collective mass of career politicians is going to get behind an amendment to ensure they're the only people allowed to become president.

And how do we define "held office?" Elected office? State level? Federal level? Local? Appointed positions? Cabinet? Non-cabinet? Military?

I assume that definition would be include both elected office and appointed office.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Perhaps you could adopt the French system where one must be endorsed by x number of elected officials (even stuff like local mayors etc.) in X numbers of states to appear on the ballot. That's similar to the French method iirc.

[ElectionsGuy]

That would be an abomination.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Perhaps you could adopt the French system where one must be endorsed by x number of elected officials (even stuff like local mayors etc.) in X numbers of states to appear on the ballot. That's similar to the French method iirc.

Hillary is sad that she couldn't have used that to kick Sanders out.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The good thing about that is that it would force minor parties to start focusing attention onto downballot races and end vanity candidtures.

Sanders would easily get a bunch of nominations from local officials and even state leg people.

[SillyAmerican]

Regardless if Trump wins the GOP primary or not, his run this cycle will surely have an impact on future primaries. Since Trump has never held a governmental office, will one or both parties make it a requirement that you must have held some form of office before you are eligible to run for office? Would it become an amendment to the Constitution instead? If so, how would people react and would it be struck down as unconstitutional?

Could the parties really make such a rule? The parties have way too much control over our system of choosing leaders as it is. We really should be trying to figure out how to get rid of the party system; it's ineffective and has led to hyper-partisanship (and, ultimately, huge problems with our elected officials being able to govern). Bottom line is that the reason Mr. Trump and the other non-politicians are currently enjoying such huge poll numbers is that the electorate is tired of having people they elect to represent them completely forget who it is they work for. Once in office, politicians on both sides of the aisle become more worried about raising money and blocking the activities of the opposition than getting anything done and actually governing. Perhaps that's the root problem that should be addressed, not the fact that Mr. Trump, Dr. Carson, and Mrs. Fiorina have no political experience...

[Slander and/or Libel]

There's not a way to get rid of parties. People will organize into communities of interest no matter what.

[SillyAmerican]

There's not a way to get rid of parties. People will organize into communities of interest no matter what.

Communities are fine, but when the money starts getting big, and those "communities" start making rules about who's in and who's out, and the implications start to hurt the nation as a whole, it becomes time to look at alternatives. In my opinion, the No Labels (http://www.nolabels.org/) and Open Primaries (http://www.openprimaries.org/) organizations represent steps in the right direction...

[Kingpoleon]

The Democrats very, very, rarely feature prominent candidates who haven't ever held office. It's more of a problem with the GOP.

Al Sharpton, Wesley "Imprison American Citizens" Clark, and Jesse Jackson beg to differ.

[SillyAmerican]

The Democrats very, very, rarely feature prominent candidates who haven't ever held office. It's more of a problem with the GOP.

Al Sharpton, Wesley "Imprison American Citizens" Clark, and Jesse Jackson beg to differ.

Yes, and please let's not forget that one of the major plusses of the Obama candidacy was that he didn't have much of a voting record to worry about.

But I'm kind of wondering if we have reached a tipping point and people are truly fed up with having the same politicians maintaining the same policies and digging us further into the same hole. If we've reached that point, all bets are off...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Regardless if Trump wins the GOP primary or not, his run this cycle will surely have an impact on future primaries. Since Trump has never held a governmental office, will one or both parties make it a requirement that you must have held some form of office before you are eligible to run for office? Would it become an amendment to the Constitution instead? If so, how would people react and would it be struck down as unconstitutional?

Could the parties really make such a rule? The parties have way too much control over our system of choosing leaders as it is. We really should be trying to figure out how to get rid of the party system; it's ineffective and has led to hyper-partisanship (and, ultimately, huge problems with our elected officials being able to govern). Bottom line is that the reason Mr. Trump and the other non-politicians are currently enjoying such huge poll numbers is that the electorate is tired of having people they elect to represent them completely forget who it is they work for. Once in office, politicians on both sides of the aisle become more worried about raising money and blocking the activities of the opposition than getting anything done and actually governing. Perhaps that's the root problem that should be addressed, not the fact that Mr. Trump, Dr. Carson, and Mrs. Fiorina have no political experience...

If anything, parties don't have enough control, and the whole affair is too led by individuals responsible for their own fundraising.

[Sir Mohamed]

I don't think there will be a change.

However, it would be far more interesting to have one nationalprimary for the presidency, instead of various.

[Figueira]

An amendment to the Constitution couldn't very well be struck down as unconstitutional.

How quickly would it be overturned like the 18th amendment, then?

In order for that to happen, 3/4 of the state legislatures (or at least half) would have to want such an amendment in the first place, AND change their minds on it later on. I don't see why you think that's a likely chain of events.