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.
|
Those are all pretty significant and really cut out the "representative" aspect of representative democracy.
Why can't someone who is 25 years old run on policies that would be attractive people of that age? do only middle aged, university educated people get representation?
What would a 35-55 year old engineering graduate with a career in real estate law know about safe injection sites or public transportation initiatives that a bus driver or public health official with a two year certificate at SAIT wouldn't know?
Our issue isn't the quality of candidates, it's that people still end up voting for idiots like Johnston, Taylor-Greene, and DJT despite their clear incompetence and stance on issues.
The voters are the issue - candidates are a reflection of that.
Maybe we restrict voting to the people who own property?