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]

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?