Do voters have a right to know if a candidate is in poor health?

[BSM1]

Of course not. That would be unconstitutional.

I understand why the founding fathers set things up that way, 200 years ago. Information technology was primitive, but decisions had to be made.
In my lifetime, since the Eisenhower administration, the only president to take office when the people clearly voted for someone else was G W Bush. And it was obvious that it happened because of his family connectio
Tom

You do realize that the Electoral College prevents a multi-billionaire from "buying" a presidency. This is exactly why it was initiated. Love or hate them the Founding Fathers had vision that far surpassed their time. BTW, sour grapes over the results of the 2000 election doesn't become you.

 

[BSM1]

maybe she was overheated and maybe she had pnuemonia.... she doesn't have a knack for engendering trust and her track record isn't helping her cause in regard to transparency

There is some speculation that she may be a clone that has malfunctioned.

 

[McBell]

In these cases I think you need to present your health status to those who making the decision of whether or not to hire you. That is why in the case of the democratically elected President the public is informed.

Except it is not the public who elect the president...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do voters have a right to know if a candidate is barking mad and one sandwich short of a picnic?

 

[McBell]

Do voters have a right to know if a candidate is barking mad and one sandwich short of a picnic?

As if Trump has even made any attempt to hide it....

 

[Augustus]

Do we have a right to know if the potential leader of our country is in good health? Absolutely.

I agree (not that America is my country). It just seems like common sense that a person with the potential to have to make (very quick) decisions which are a matter of life and death for (millions of) people should be in fair health.

I think Ronald Reagan's son said Reagan had Alzheimer's whilst still in office.

As a hypothetical, if a candidate was aware that they were suffering from the onset of such a condition prior to being elected, and based on the fact that this could deteriorate significantly during the time in office, should it be their 'right' to keep it a secret from the electorate?

Even if the medical records were not made public, the 2 parties could select a panel of independent doctors to certify all candidates fit to run for office.

I don't trust any candidates private, and very well paid, doctors to be impartial judges.

 

[Willamena]

The Freedom of Information Act* assures all individuals that no one else has a "right" to their private information.


*which includes the Privacy Act of 1974

Edit: Not only do you have no rights to her private information, it's actually none of your business.

 

[Augustus]

Since you have said "You can't isolate factors in the result though." and that your method to determine whether her health will make any difference is to "See who wins the election I suppose...", what makes your guess an educated one ?

What I believe about the effects of narrative, affect and persuasive rhetoric on the decision making process of humans. As I said though, I might well be wrong. Countless people make educated guesses as to factors that will affect the election, many of them are on TV or in your newspapers or working for political parties, and many of them are wrong also. Humans suck at making predictions, but it doesn't stop us from doing so because it is fun.

What makes you think it won't be a factor?

 

[Willamena]

As a hypothetical, if a candidate was aware that they were suffering from the onset of such a condition prior to being elected, and based on the fact that this could deteriorate significantly during the time in office, should it be their 'right' to keep it a secret from the electorate?

It's irresponsible to withhold such information... but it's their right.

 

[Augustus]

It's irresponsible to withhold such information... but it's their right.

Why should it be their right though?

 

[BSM1]

The Freedom of Information Act* assures all individuals that no one else has a "right" to their private information.


*which includes the Privacy Act of 1974

Edit: Not only do you have no rights to her private information, it's actually none of your business.

In theory you may be right, however if you are running for the most exposed job in the world you should expect to lose your "privacy". Also if you are asking me to put you in a position where you could actually make life and death decisions that impact my life I will demand to know everything about you. If you are not willing to 'fess up, then go home.

 

[David1967]

Why should it be their right though?

Translation. Its their right to withhold if its the candidate a person supports.

 

[David1967]

In theory you may be right, however if you are running for the most exposed job in the world you should expect to lose your "privacy". Also if you are asking me to put you in a position where you could actually make life and death decisions that impact my life I will demand to know everything about you. If you are not willing to 'fess up, then go home.

Exactly.

 

[Willamena]

Why should it be their right though?

The right to privacy is formally guaranteed in the above-mentioned acts. Additionally, it is informally enforced through social convention.

Or, if you mean why should privacy be a right, that's a larger discussion related to human rights, autonomy of selfhood, and personal liberty.

 

[Willamena]

In theory you may be right, however if you are running for the most exposed job in the world you should expect to lose your "privacy". Also if you are asking me to put you in a position where you could actually make life and death decisions that impact my life I will demand to know everything about you. If you are not willing to 'fess up, then go home.

Doesn't matter. Until the law changes, you don't ever lose rights that are guaranteed by law.

 

[jonathan180iq]

A better question here is whether or not voters have a right to know anything?

And if we do...what do we actually know?

Whose fault is it when we don't know? Who will be held accountable?

What are the differences between our perception of the candidates as their narratives are fed to us versus the reality of their personal position on things?

 

[Augustus]

The right to privacy is formally guaranteed in the above-mentioned acts. Additionally, it is informally enforced through social convention.

So you think an individual who voluntarily enters themselves into a contest for public office which affords them great power, wealth and prestige and the power of life and death over vast numbers of people more deserves the right to privacy than the millions of people whose life and death may rest on this person deserve the right to make a more informed judgement?

Seems strange to me.

 

[Willamena]

So you think an individual who voluntarily enters themselves into a contest for public office which affords them great power, wealth and prestige and the power of life and death over vast numbers of people more deserves the right to privacy than the millions of people whose life and death may rest on this person deserve the right to make a more informed judgement?

Seems strange to me.

Ah. The issue is what constitutes private and personal information, vs public. Health information of an individual is firmly private and personal. That doesn't change for a person entering a career in the public sector.

Edit: I might add that your attitude borders on treating the United States as a monarchy, rather than a democracy.

Being a democracy means that "We, the People," includes Hillary.
(It means that when you hear she has pneumonia, you should be worried about her, not yourself.)

 

[Augustus]

Ah. The issue is what constitutes private and personal information, vs public. Health information of an individual is firmly private and personal. That doesn't change for a person entering a career in the public sector.

Edit: I might add that your attitude borders on treating the United States as a monarchy, rather than a democracy.

Being a democracy means that "We, the People," includes Hillary.

I wasn't talking about Hillary, just a more extreme, hypothetical idea.

I find it hard to see it as more ethical to protect the rights of someone with a known mental impairment to dishonestly conceal this from the people and thus risk catastrophic decisions being made, rather than slightly reducing the right to privacy of an individual who volunteers to accept the great rewards of high public office.

Were it a monarchy, it would be less important as they are not elected to serve in their name. Mentally ill monarchs don't serve as exemplars for the custodianship of executive authority.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Especially when you spend 16 hours a day shaking thousands of hands...

Yes, that doesn't help.