What will it take to have a president in the future that is a normal american like evryone else
Executive summary
Creating a future U.S. president who resembles “a normal American” requires more than electing someone without elite polish; it requires legal clarity on eligibility, structural reforms to lower party, money and ballot-access barriers, and cultural shifts in what voters expect from leaders [1] [2]. The Constitution sets minimal formal qualifications, but informal gatekeepers—parties, campaign finance, and state ballot rules—now shape who can realistically reach the White House [1] [2] [3].
1. Constitutional minimums: who is already allowed to be “normal”
Article II imposes only three clear requirements—natural-born citizenship, at least 35 years of age, and 14 years’ U.S. residency—which mean many ordinary Americans are legally eligible to run for president [1] [4]. Legal scholars and government summaries reiterate that those constitutional gates are intentionally narrow, reflecting the Framers’ choice to leave broader qualifications to voters rather than the text [1] [5].
2. Informal barriers that make presidents unrepresentative
While the Constitution is sparse, modern reality is not: party nomination processes, massive campaign spending, and media-savvy profiles favor candidates with institutional backing, wealth or celebrity, narrowing the field of who can plausibly win [2]. State-level rules and proposed or enacted laws that require proof of eligibility or additional documentation can further screen out outsiders before voters ever see them on a ballot, as past state proposals and bills aimed at birth-certificate or affidavit requirements demonstrate [3].
3. Legal and institutional levers for change
Lowering structural barriers would involve concrete policy changes: ballot-access reform to simplify independent or outsider candidacies, campaign-finance overhaul to reduce the advantage of wealthy backers, and potentially congressional or constitutional actions to clarify or change eligibility rules if society chooses—an idea scholars at Georgetown have explored when debating whether Congress or an amendment could redefine or eliminate the “natural-born” clause [3] [2] [6]. Any move to change the Constitution or federal statutes will face political resistance and would itself be shaped by partisan incentives, a hidden agenda of elites who benefit from the status quo [6].
4. Safeguards and counterarguments
Proponents of the existing system argue that parties and fundraising act as vetting mechanisms to ensure competence and governance readiness, and that some institutional friction prevents chaotic mass candidacies [2]. Opponents warn that loosening those filters risks elevating inexperienced or demagogic figures; scholars note that the Constitution’s minimal requirements were deliberate and that altering them requires serious debate about trade-offs between accessibility and stability [1] [6].
5. Cultural change: redefining “normal” and voter expectations
Beyond statutes and rules, evolving public expectations is essential: voters must value lived, everyday experience over celebrity or polished political résumés if the electorate truly wants a president who looks like “everyone else,” and media and parties must amplify such candidates rather than marginalize them—an argument supported by analyses showing how informal expectations shape candidacies even when legal requirements are minimal [7] [2]. If citizens demand different kinds of leaders and reforms follow—ballot access, finance limits, and clearer eligibility processes—then an ordinary American has a realistic path to the presidency; otherwise, structural and cultural barriers will keep the office skewed toward the well-resourced and well-connected [2] [3].