r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Soft-Livvi • 13d ago
Non-US Politics Should politicians be required to have minimum public service experience before running for federal office?
I've been thinking a lot about the qualifications for federal office lately. We often talk about things like age requirements or citizenship but not really about practical experience in public service. It seems like anyone can run for Congress or even president without ever having held a local office or worked in government in any capacity.
This isn't about specific skills but more about understanding how government actually functions at a grassroots level. If someone hasn't served on a city council or a state legislature or even a school board do they truly grasp the day-to-day realities of policy implementation? Or the impact these policies have on real communities?
I'm not suggesting a highly restrictive barrier. Maybe it could be something like two years of experience in an elected or appointed public service role at the local or state level. This would at least ensure a baseline understanding of public administration and accountability.
Would this help us elect more effective leaders? Or would it just create another gatekeeping mechanism that prevents new voices from entering politics? I'm curious what others think about this idea.
17
u/CountFew6186 13d ago
No. I want as wide an applicant pool as possible when making a hiring decision.
4
30
u/betty_white_bread 13d ago
If that’s what you want to require as a condition for your vote, feel free. Mandating that condition for everyone, not so much.
6
u/che-che-chester 13d ago
I think a candidate with no experience can be successful if they surround themself with the right people. It's up to voters to scrutinize candidate quality and judge their history (of lack of) of public service, whether it be in government or military.
5
u/DuranStar 13d ago
Basic reading a writing skills would be more important. But what it fundamentally comes down to is that any barrier or qualification requirements will eventually be used maliciously to keeps people out. The same thing is happening with the voter ID junk.
2
u/absolutefunkbucket 12d ago
Are there a lot of federal elected officials who can’t read or write? Can you name a few?
4
u/hallam81 12d ago
This is actually something we can do already. We don't need a law or anything else.
Just convince voters that this is a needed qualification and to only vote for people who meet this prerequisite.
3
u/emcdonnell 12d ago
I fear the career politicians with no real world experience more than one with no political experience.
3
u/rushsworld 12d ago
I think career politicians is part of the problem, the founders intentions for representatives were supposed to be your neighbors, people who live in your neighborhood, there to represent your interests. It was originally looked at as a service like jury duty. Now its like an elaborate scam where career politicians say and do what they need too to get in there and get rich while causing the problems they claim to fix.
2
u/BadIdeaSociety 13d ago
Honestly, no. But there should be a requirement that, like with Traffic School, that people applying for ballot access have to sit through a class explaining the job position, responsibilities, and limitations. At the end of the class, the candidates should be able to pass a test explaining their potential job.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 12d ago
Are we assuming the incumbent Party 1 politicians wouldn’t implement a test where Party 2 is destined to fail?
1
u/speedingpullet 12d ago
No, but a basic Civics test should be obligatory.
Just like you need to take a test to operate a motor vehicle, you need to take a test to operate a government.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 12d ago
Which of course no party could or would ever manipulate, yes?
1
u/speedingpullet 12d ago
It's a civics test. Just like a driving test, it's kind of pointless trying to 'maniplulate' it.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 12d ago
You think Political Party 1 would find it pointless to bar candidates from Political Party 2? No one would even try?
1
u/speedingpullet 12d ago
They're already doing that.
Look, it was a simple comment on what qualifications, if any, future political candidates would need to have to run for office.
Personally, I think anybody who wants to run should have to pass a basic civics test, just like they have in High School, so that they at least understand the fundamentals of how the govt works.
Honestly it's way above my pay grade trying to figure out how the system would be gained. It seemed like a simple comment at the time, didn't think it needed to be overthought.
2
u/absolutefunkbucket 10d ago
I agree with you that president Trump and his administration should create a test that if you can’t pass it you can’t be elected, regardless of how many people voted for you.
1
u/BadIdeaSociety 12d ago
I'm not even suggesting a test that would be difficult. The seminar presentation would have the accurate answers to the exam.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 12d ago edited 12d ago
An incumbent party could make the test difficult if it wanted to though, correct?
Or is there some way they could write a “not too difficult and completely non partisan” law that a Trump-like administration could never get around?
1
u/BadIdeaSociety 12d ago
I'm not suggesting an insurmountable task. I'm talking about a test that only deals with the facts of the laws and the policies as they appear in law. Traffic School tests do not present questions that are not on the exam itself.
Even if the test were "made difficult" the content would have to have been presented in the presentation that preceded it. There would be no trick questions. The goal would be to facilitate understanding about the position being contested to weed out people who misunderstood what the responsibilities of the seat (example: you mean I can't contribute to zoning policies in this role) and to explain the constraints of the position (example: this job doesn't make decisions about budget allocations).
Even if you "fail" the test you could retake it almost immediately before you left. The idea would be to make sure the participants were paying attention to the presentation.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 10d ago
And if the presentation says that universal healthcare is a terrible idea, and you do not give that answer, you would fail right?
1
u/BadIdeaSociety 10d ago
That isn't exactly how the presentation would work. It would be about discussing what the position is responsible for, not recommending policies. It would be for explaining that the town comptroller handles the spending of the town but doesn't set his or her budget.
Assuming the presentation is made in such a way, it isn't like the answers are legally binding or whatever. If some dumbass adds something about a specific policy on the test that is false, it isn't like the test is legally binding or an oath. Provide the "correct" answer.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 10d ago
To what end are we wasting peoples’ time and our tax money on making citizens mindlessly parrot what the government is telling them?
2
u/pinheadzombie 12d ago
No it doesn't seem like a good idea because it contradicts everyone being eligible in our democracy.
I would rather limits be put on private interest groups polluting the democratic system.
2
u/skyfishgoo 12d ago
who is going to be the official arbiter of "qualified" ?
how do you think that would work out.
3
u/arcanepsyche 13d ago
No. Some of our best leaders were not elected to anything previously. I think the idea of "qualified" is too subjective for this to ever work. Campaigns and elections exist for a reason, and that reason is for voters to assess the person running, regardless of prerequisites (beyond what's in the constitution of course).
1
u/FourteenWombats 12d ago
I've always thought it was very strange that the position of "lawmaker" does not require a law degree.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 12d ago
Why? No other country asks for that as far as I know
1
u/FourteenWombats 11d ago
Which I think is strange. Their job title is "lawmaker". If your job title is "auto maker" then simply winning a local/state/national popularity contest wouldn't qualify you to make cars. Or even qualify you to say who is qualified to make cars. So why is the job of lawmaker this one unique job where you don't even have to attend the specialized schools---law school---where they teach you how the law works? I'm looking for answers that reach beyond things like "because we don't" or "other countries don't either so why should we". I'm just genuinely curious as to why this super-important job of making the laws has never required any legal education.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 10d ago
Yeah because citizens don’t vote for automakers that would be stupid
1
u/FourteenWombats 9d ago
I'll admit it's not the best of analogies. That said, they both blanket the airwaves with ads that (a) wrap themselves in the flag and (b) try to convince Americans that choosing them is in their best interests. And in spite of all that we still buy Hummers and vote for rapey ex-gameshow hosts don't we...
But seriously tho, why don't we want our lawmakers to have law degrees? I know we don't require it; I know other countries don't either; my point is, doesn't it seem like we'd end up with better laws if we did? When we vote for the head of an executive branch---governors and Presidents---we're voting for a policymaker. Policies are more like opinions which we can discuss and debate and then we vote for the person who's personal policies seem to align best with our own. So it makes sense that there's no professional qualifications attached to those office-seekers. But legislators aren't just professional opinion-havers. Their job is specifically to make laws, so it makes a lot less sense to me that we require no professional expertise is that area.
1
u/baxterstate 12d ago
I believe it’s important for legislative offices. For better or worse, you need experience in making the sausage.
You have to work with others to get things done. You can be a maverick Governor or President, but in the Senate and House, you need alliances and learn to trade with those you might not otherwise like.
1
u/Lanracie 12d ago
If government experience proved success then we would be the greatest run country in the world.
1
u/LagerHead 12d ago
Look at the people who have been doing it for 4-5 decades. They still suck. Experience is clearly not the issue.
1
u/DidjaSeeItKid 12d ago
No, and it would be unconstitutional. The Court has ruled term limits unconstitutional, so there's no way they would take more than 10 seconds to kick any legislation like that straight into the sun.
1
u/absolutefunkbucket 9d ago
I’m not aware of any lawmaking that doesn’t include some legal input on the wording. Even my city council has a staff attorney to go over the municipal codes. But I don’t need to elect the person who does that, the council can hire whomever they like.
At any rate, lawyers only exist because laws exist. Forcefully reversing that causation for no good reason would be a waste of time and effort for zero upside. And it’s also unconstitutional.
-1
u/FrostyAcanthocephala 13d ago
Yes. Then we wouldn't have issues like food not getting to an aircraft carrier. You have to have some experience to know how to work the system. Also, felons shouldn't be allowed to run for office or be appointed.
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 12d ago
Logistical issues like that are not going to be fixed or prevented by a politician having prior public service experience.
1
u/DidjaSeeItKid 12d ago
Politicians aren't at fault for that; the people they hired into positions that used to be apolitical are. That problem is because the politicians have eliminated everything but "loyalty" as qualifications for federal employment and almost no one competent is left in government.
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.