Beyond that, it\’s entirely up to voters to decide whether a candidate is qualified to be president.

Please respond to ONE of the following prompts. After posting your discussion, review your classmates\’ posts and choose at least one to reply to. Option 1: Parties\’ Presidential Nominating Process – Now that you\’ve learned about how the process by which parties select their presidential nominees has evolved over time, write a post discussing what you see as the benefits and drawbacks of the current system. If you had the power to make any changes to how parties nominate their presidential candidates, what would you do to improve the process? Option 2: The Electoral College – The U.S.\’s system for electing its highest national office is…kinda weird, at least compared to other democracies. What do you consider to be the biggest pros and cons of the Electoral College? What aspects of the Electoral College are still fuzzy to you and could use further explanation? Option 3: Presidential Qualifications – Notably, the Constitution is mostly silent on the qualifications necessary to become president. One must be at least 35 years old, have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years, and be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Beyond that, it\’s entirely up to voters to decide whether a candidate is qualified to be president. Do you think that is wise? Or, would it be better if the Constitution listed a more rigorous set of necessary qualifications? If so, what should those qualifications be? Option 4: Financing Presidential Campaigns – As mentioned in your textbook, post-Watergate campaign finance reforms created a relatively transparent and well-regulated environment for presidential campaign spending for roughly a quarter century. Those reforms have collapsed over the past decade or so with the rise of internet-based campaign fundraising superstars like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders and with the opening of the floodgates to corporate, union, and other interest group money in the wake of the Citizens United v. FEC. If it were entirely up to you, how would you change the system for financing presidential campaigns? How would your proposal balance 1st Amendment rights to political speech with the corrupting potential of political cash?