@ISIDEWITHQuestionselections8yrs ago

Should a politician, who has been formerly convicted of a crime, be allowed to run for office?

The U.S. constitution does not prevent convicted felons from holding the office of the President or a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives. States may prevent convicted felons candidates from holding statewide and local offices.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Christian Democratic Party

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 5.4k Christian Democratic Party voters.

7%
Yes
93%
No
3%
Yes
91%
No
2%
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
2%
No, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
1%
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence
0%
Yes, as long as the crime was not committed while in office

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 5.4k Christian Democratic Party voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 5.4k Christian Democratic Party voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Christian Democratic Party voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8TMB2P7answered…4yrs4Y

Sometimes people are unfairly convicted. For example, Nelson Mandela.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies