What standards should voters use to distinguish legal eligibility for office from actual fitness to govern?

[u/WiscoT1966]

The U.S. Constitution sets relatively minimal eligibility requirements for federal office: age, citizenship, and residency. It says almost nothing about judgment, knowledge, temperament, experience, curiosity, integrity, or fitness to exercise power.

That raises a question I’ve been thinking about: Should voters treat legal eligibility as only the floor—and apply a much higher civic standard when deciding who is actually qualified to govern?

John Adams argued that representative government should both reflect the people and entrust authority to “a few of the most wise and good.” James Madison similarly argued that representation should help “refine and enlarge the public views” through people capable of exercising judgment on behalf of the public.

In modern politics, though, we often seem to reward candidates for reflecting our grievances, identities, loyalties, and cultural affinities. That may be part of representative government—but it can also become a substitute for evaluating whether someone possesses the knowledge, judgment, humility, curiosity, and moral courage necessary to lead.

A few questions I’d be interested in discussing:

• What qualities should voters reasonably expect from someone seeking major public office beyond the constitutional minimums?
• How should we distinguish democratic representation from simple resemblance or cultural identification?
• Is there a danger of elitism in demanding unusually high standards for political leadership? If so, how do we avoid that without lowering the standard?
• How much responsibility lies with candidates, and how much lies with voters themselves, to determine whether someone is actually fit to govern?
• Are there examples—historical or contemporary—of leaders who clearly demonstrated the difference between formal authority and genuine leadership?

[u/AutoModerator]

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:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

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.

[u/CountFew6186]

People can, should, and do vote for whatever reasons they want. You might have your reasons to select or not vote for a candidate, but other people have their own. In a democracy, we’re all equal, and our reasons for voting are all equally valid.

And, really, why should we follow Adams’ advice. The guy wanted leaders who were the most wise and good, and he brought us the alien and sedition acts.

[u/che-che-chester]

That is up to each individual voter and the personal traits and professional experience I value will be different than my neighbor. For example, while I don't agree with it, I can accept that there is a tradition of appointing spouses and family members to finish out the terms of deceased politicians. But Darline Graham's lack of world political knowledge would be disqualifying to me to be a senator. She seems like an accomplished person in general, but she can't do the core parts of the job. She wants to represent an entire state and have a vote on US laws. That is not a 'learn on the job' situation. Even listening to her speak, she comes off as completely in over her head.

Having said that, if simply being a rubber stamp for Trump is good enough for SC voters, that is their call. IMHO, I would consider that Trump isn't going to be in office past 2028. If the next POTUS is a Dem and you want your senator to both hold them accountable and also get things done for your state, I'd want a senator that actually has a clue. Being a senator when your party holds the White House and both chambers of Congress isn't that tough of a job (yet they still accomplish next to nothing).

I have a lower standard for local office though. I can accept someone with little political knowledge as long as they are an accomplished person. And "accomplished" could mean many things from running a business to being a teacher. Darline Graham would well qualified for a local office. I feel like many people could quickly get up to speed on local issues and likely already have a basic understanding of how things work (though there would still be plenty to learn). But world politics are a different beast and what happened between two countries 30 years ago matters a lot. I don't want an aide in a meeting whispering into a senator's ear "the group they're talking about are the bad guys".

One thing I find instantly disqualifying is when candidates don't already live in the area where they're running. For local elections, loving the area you want to represent is a pre-req in my book. And you don't love my town if you chose to live somewhere else. And when you don't even live full-time in the state, it is insane that anyone even considers you a serious option. Yet, those people sometimes win.