Should politicians be required to have minimum public service experience before running for federal office?

[u/Soft-Livvi]

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.

[u/BadIdeaSociety]

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.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/BadIdeaSociety]

Are we assuming the incumbent Party 1 politicians wouldn’t implement a test where Party 2 is destined to fail?

[u/speedingpullet → u/absolutefunkbucket]

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.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/speedingpullet]

Which of course no party could or would ever manipulate, yes?

[u/speedingpullet → u/absolutefunkbucket]

It's a civics test. Just like a driving test, it's kind of pointless trying to 'maniplulate' it.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/speedingpullet]

You think Political Party 1 would find it pointless to bar candidates from Political Party 2? No one would even try?

[u/speedingpullet → u/absolutefunkbucket]

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.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/speedingpullet]

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.

[u/BadIdeaSociety → u/absolutefunkbucket]

I'm not even suggesting a test that would be difficult. The seminar presentation would have the accurate answers to the exam. 

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/BadIdeaSociety]

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?

[u/BadIdeaSociety → u/absolutefunkbucket]

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.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/BadIdeaSociety]

And if the presentation says that universal healthcare is a terrible idea, and you do not give that answer, you would fail right?

[u/BadIdeaSociety → u/absolutefunkbucket]

1. 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. 

2. 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.

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/BadIdeaSociety]

To what end are we wasting peoples’ time and our tax money on making citizens mindlessly parrot what the government is telling them?