28

A statement by Robert Reich on Facebook makes the following claim:

America is the only democracy in the world where anyone can declare himself or herself a candidate for the presidency. Which makes it all the more important that we distinguish leaders from demagogues. The former ennoble our society. The latter degrade and endanger it. What do you think?

Is this true?

To clarify, the claim is that in the US, any (eligible) person can declare him or herself a candidate for president. That is to say, I believe, they needn't be nominated by a specific political party, or be the member of some other governing body (congress, parliament, etc).

Flimzy
  • 15,520
  • 14
  • 63
  • 132
  • 3
    "Anyone"... [except naturalized citizens (ie. immigrants) or those under the age of 35 or anyone who hasn't been in the US for fourteen years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office). But otherwise anyone. – Schwern Nov 06 '15 at 17:41

3 Answers3

43

No, this is not true. A counter-example is Ukraine.

My interpretation of the claim is that:

  1. America is a democracy where it is possible to self-nominate for Presidency, without having to get permission or pre-selection from existing parties, cartels or government bodies as part of the normal administrative process for candidacy, AND

  2. There is no other country with a democracy that has that property, for Head of State or Head of Government.

From discussion on the question and other answers, I see that some people challenge the former of these propositions. I am ignoring that and targeting the latter.

The President of Ukraine is:

elected by the citizens of Ukraine on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by means of secret ballot for five years.

In 2014, Intefax reported:

a total of 23 candidates will take part in the presidential race, seven of them are nominated by political parties, 16 are self-nominees.

So, the electoral system support self-nomination, and everyone votes for the candidates directly.

Note that nomination requires the collection of massive numbers of signatures. I consider this to be merely administrative evidence that the potential candidate is a serious contender, as opposed to getting permission from a party, so I argue this still fits into the definition.

I understand Russia to have a similar signature-gathering hurdle. I suspect there are many more examples.

So the USA is not the only democracy in the world where anyone can declare himself or herself a candidate for the presidency.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • 2
    If you like, and think it would help, feel free to edit into this answer any of the examples I found and make one answer that is better than the some of the parts. – DJClayworth Nov 05 '15 at 00:27
  • In Ukraine one also has to collect signatures. I think the original claim was that in the US one can write any name in the ballot list during votion. The same was in the USSR, by the way! But in both countries it was totally impossible to utilize this possibility. – Anixx Nov 05 '15 at 13:51
  • @Anixx: Bah, you are [correct](http://www.day.kiev.ua/en/article/close/million-signatures-ukraine). That puts Ukraine in the same boat as Russia, which I avoided using as an example because I didn't want to get bogged down in definitions - does this count as being able to self-nominate. After all, it isn't getting permission from a party, but just an early demonstration that you will get some votes from the public. – Oddthinking Nov 06 '15 at 13:29
  • I've made a significant edit, thanks to @Annix's suggestion. – Oddthinking Nov 06 '15 at 13:43
  • This might be considered a semantic quibble, but the claim has to be interpreted somehow: I think that if you need N signatures for the nomination to be valid, that means you aren't really "self-nominating", rather you are nominated by N people. Of course this makes perfect sense if all candidates are to be listed on the ballot: the system doesn't want to be open to needing to create a ballot paper with thousands of people on it, each of whom is nominated only by one person. In the US, not all "candidates" necessarily are on the ballot, so anyone and their natural-born dog can be a candidate. – Steve Jessop Nov 06 '15 at 19:11
  • 1
    @SteveJessop: Yeah, these are the definitions I didn't want to get bogged down in. I think we agree on all the facts, it is just trying to glean the meaning of the words in the claim. I see your interpretation. I think you see mine (that signatures are just "pre-votes", and they can be from any voter, not from an "elite" group). There's no way of objectively deciding. – Oddthinking Nov 07 '15 at 02:56
  • From this one from History.SE: http://history.stackexchange.com/a/1801/466 "each state has its own ballot, which means a prospective candidate has to try to get themselves on the ballot in 50 states (plus DC). Each state gets to decide how one does this. Some make it fairly easy, but some make it next to impossible if you aren't from one of the big two parties". This means that you can declare yourself a candidate, but you cannot win even theoretically because you would not participate in enough states to have enough votes of the electoral assembly. – Anixx Nov 07 '15 at 20:46
  • @Anixx: I'm avoiding touching the first proposition. Others can deal with that. – Oddthinking Nov 07 '15 at 21:28
33

Let me first rephrase the claim as I understand it:

In the US, if you meet the individual eligibility requirements for President (the head of state and head of government) as outlined in the Constitution, there are no external hurdles other than administrative filing requirements in order to run for the office of President. For example, you don't need to be nominated by a party.

The US is the only country like this.

Here are some countries with similarly low barriers to candidacy.

Afghanistan

To run for President (their head of state, not head of government), one only has to file nomination papers to the Independent Election Commission, who will check that the candidates meet Article 62 constitutional requirements. (ref, ref, ref)

Philippines

To run for President (the head of state and head of government), one only has to file a Certificate of Candidacy with the Commission on Elections. While there is a space on the form to indicate a party affiliation, one can run as an independent. (ref)

Community
  • 1
20

This is more of a political claim than a factual claim, but let's try to examine it.

First thing to note is that it is an exaggeration that anyone can declare himself or herself a candidate for the presidency. Declaring yourself to be a candidate for the presidency does not necessarily get you on the ballot.

The presidential election ticket will not list every candidate running for President, but only those who have secured a major party nomination or whose size of their political party warrants having been formally listed.

A sampling of other countries reveals some with very similar qualifications to the US.

These countries typically have a larger field of candidates for electors to choose from than the US.

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • 4
    "appearances on the ballot by candidates other than the nomines of the two main parties are very rare" — What kind of non-crazy state are you living in? The 2008 presidential ballot in New Jersey had [ten candidates](http://nj.gov/state/elections/election-results/2008-official-gen-elect-candidates-pres-vice-pres-092208.pdf) (including a member of the "Vote Here" party), with [another ten](http://nj.gov/state/elections/2012-results/2012-unofficial-general-candidates-president-0913.pdf) in 2012 (the "Vote Here" party apparently having been renamed "NSA Did 9/11"). – jwodder Nov 05 '15 at 02:18
  • 1
    Indeed, I usually see at least a few third-party candidates for President on the ballot in Tennessee, as well, though I don't think I've ever seen anyone run from the "vote here" party. - haha - Also, George Washington was elected President of the U.S. without even being a member of a major party, let alone being nominated by one. That was before the current system of electing the President was established, though. – reirab Nov 05 '15 at 03:10
  • Edited the answer. – DJClayworth Nov 05 '15 at 04:01
  • States in the US do have different rules for getting on the ballot in elections. These mainly concern primary elections, in which a large field of candidates from one party are reduced to a manageable size. If you are unopposed in a primary, for instance, you may not get on the ballot. In theory, a state may even find it unnecessary to hold a primary, if there are no parties that run more than one candidate. The big parties would never let that happen, however. – Mohair Nov 05 '15 at 13:52
  • 2
    At this time (October 2015), very few of the "candidates" have done enough to get their name on the ballot in many states. So your claim that "declaring yourself as a candidate" and "being on the ballot" are equivalent is false. Unless, you don't believe that all those people that we've been seeing on the debate stage are candidates. IMO, if someone formally files paperwork declaring themselves to be a candidate for president, even if in just 1 state and can now raise tax deductible contributions as a candidate then they are a candidate. – Dunk Nov 05 '15 at 17:42
  • An interesting point is that each state defines its own rules for who is on the ballot, for an election to a federal office. – Paŭlo Ebermann Nov 05 '15 at 20:59
  • @DJClayworth these elections do not *officially* determine who will be the next president. Instead the elections elect a "College of Electors" who will vote for President. In practice, the electors are bound to particular candidates, but in theory they could vote for anyone. In addition if the electors can not decide (by majority) on the President, then the Congress chooses. The Congress is not obligated to follow the popular vote and could choose someone who was not even actively campaigning. – emory Nov 05 '15 at 22:01
  • In Ireland the incumbent can nominate themselves as a candidate for a second term. – Alan B Nov 06 '15 at 11:15
  • @Dunk: indeed, the claim is difficult to interpret since it's not clear what a "candidate" is. Here in the UK, I can say "I'm going to try to win the leadership of the Conservative Party" when there isn't even a general election on: I could seek the Conservative nomination in the next by-election, for example. Obviously I'm several steps away from achieving the party leadership, but does that mean in the UK I can self-declare as a "candidate" for Prime Minister, just as Donald Trump is several steps from the Presidency and hence is "a candidate"? Probably not in the opinion of Robert Reich :-) – Steve Jessop Nov 06 '15 at 19:19
  • @AlanB - What you just stated is exactly the point Robert Reich was making. In the USA, you don't have to already by part of government, you don't have to belong to a political party, you don't have to know the "right people", you don't have to be anything other than meet the minimum qualifications: a natural born citizen (whatever that means), at least 35 years old and not have been convicted of a felony. If you meet those qualifications then you can declare yourself to be a candidate for president by filing the proper paperwork and then you are "officially" a candidate for president. – Dunk Nov 09 '15 at 20:00
  • This has gone way past improving the answer, and therefore relevance. – DJClayworth Nov 09 '15 at 22:12