Absolutely. You reminded me of an old hitchhikers guide quote;

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Genuine step up.

But i guess no more accellerationism.

Ill take it over this shit.

My hunch says that the good people who get into politics, end up staying more local to help their communities directly. The ones who aspire to raise the ranks are the ones you don't want leading to begin with.

Then there's peer pressure and opportunities and that's how the whole government gets corrupt with time.

I think thats somewhat demonstrated, but its possible the power corrupts and brings those traits out, too

"Never attribute to stupidity that which can adequately be explained by selfishness", or something

Very Douglas Adams. Those who are capable of being elected President are absolutely not qualified for the job.

I wonder if we need a multicameral legislature with several smaller bodies segregated by purpose.

Have a house of politicians, career folks who do things like treaties and appointment of diplomats, that sort of thing. This probably needs to be no term limit or lifetime appointment because the purpose here is to be a member of the boy's club, you're the guy the chancellor of Germany has a rapport with. If you're caught taking bribes, foreign or domestic, your death will be humiliating and uncomfortable.

Have a house of professionals, open only to doctors, engineers, folks like that. This body handles industry regulation, this is where anything from highway construction to food and drug laws to aviation regulations will be written. I would be tempted to eliminate voting here and make it like jury duty. If you've got a professional degree or license, (in fact I'm favoring licenses; I don't care if you have a medical degree, I want a license to practice medicine. I don't care if you've got an AeroSci degree, I want an airline transport pilot certificate, I don't care if you have an engineering degree, I want a certified PE) you might be called to serve a term. It might be that this year the body is made of ALL medical doctors as health, wellness and medicine related laws are reviewed and updated, then next year it's all civil engineers and they review highway and building codes, etc. Maybe mixed sessions happen for things like occupational safety where industrial engineers and medical doctors both weigh in. May also need to include folks with technical certifications like nurses, A&P mechanics, folks like that. This body doesn't touch social issues, only things like standards for mineral content in municipal water supplies and testing standards for fall arrest gear.

Have a house of businessmen, who are given fake microphones and staff that pretends to do what they're told, with actors making fake news broadcasts that make them think they're policies are enacted. I think a core problem with democracies in the modern day is they don't feature such dummy loads, so we shall install such a thing.

A house of lawyers whose job it is to maintain things like contract law.

What else am I missing?

Really need some term limits and total service years. Pick your numbers, something but like 6 for congress, 4 for Governor, 20 max in public office.

Also their salary is based on their represented area. For a Congress representative, the national average is their base pay. If the area they represent is below average, a 30% of the difference is deducted. If it's above average, 30% of the difference is added.

After 1 year, the percentage increases by 10 every year you're in office.

So by year 6 if your doing a shit job your pay will be -90% the difference. If the national average is 50k, and your area is at 20k, the difference is 30k, 90% of that is 27K, so your salary is 50k-27k, which is 23K.

I firmly believe, for every politician, when they reach a certain level, there is a period of discovery. I'd bet money even the ones who join politics with good intentions get to a point in their political career where there are absolutely no good choices .

I know this because I live it in my own life. For the politician, though, they have to settle into it, reject it and defect, or gamble. A good politician, one people mostly admire, is probably just a gambler that won the jackpot. They were in the right place at the right time and pulled the right lever. A bad politician is someone we see as bad only because we see them constantly making safe bets. Like a drunk who spends all day at the horses they bet the 2:1s and try to beat the house.

Its crazy to me that logic, reason, and decency arent very good political tools. They cant sway the masses. They always need to be propped up by some underlying moral structure that no one ever agrees on.

Anyway...

All im asking is for standards. Idiots is maybe too broad a term but Im wish casting not making policy.

Mr. Genie? Yeah, this guy right here.

Yay, I can be bullied by the local idiots instead of idiots abroad.