Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Disagree completely. If anything, the society would be much better served if it discriminates harder against unqualified people running for public offices. The qualifications should include:
- Age limits (35 at the beginning of the prospective term to 65 at the end of the term);
- Degree from accredited university which includes at least some education in finance, law and history;
- Minimum 10 years of real work experience (i.e. blogging, podcasting and Instagram influencing would not count);
- No past bankruptcies;
- No criminal convictions for serious crimes (e.g. drunk driving or a bar fight at age of 18 is not the same as financial fraud, rape or murder in your past);
- Some proven history of volunteering and community service.
Right now, good salary, good pension and perks that come with Canadian public offices, are way too attractive to people without any meaningful skills, knowledge, talent and experience. And the apathy of Canadian voters towards elections , in general, is making it happen. This is hurting us all.
|
I'd be ok with the age criteria, and I think the upper limit is more important than the lower one (speaking as someone in your range). Bankruptcies and unpardoned criminal convictions could be argued as demonstrating poor judgment.
But the degree and work experience I'd be strongly opposed to. Is there evidence people with fancy degrees are better leaders? For every Nenshi there's an Ignatieff counter example.
I also think excluding a huge swath of the population from being eligible to hold office (even hypothetically) would undermine participation in democracy, and de-legitimize the government in the eyes of a big chunk of people. And we've had enough trouble recently with people not following necessary government rules - if you make the government seem less approachable and representative you will absolutely make that problem worse.