NOT a partisan issue
 

Leaving any "party" politics out of the discussion, thought the topic of age and physical and mental acuity might draw some interesting (and HOPEFULLY THOUGHTFUL, not demeaning) discussion. Since we live in an age restricted community, I thought it might be especially interesting to see the thoughts of a homogeneous group !

Should our elected representatives of both/all political parties, attempt to agree on base line "ability to perform duties and responsibilities of an office" and apply them to potential office seekers ?

Ability to perform
 

No. The voters decide on a candidate's ability. Other than age and criminal records, all citizens are eligible to seek an elected office. Even nuts and pathological liars. So be it with our form of democracy.

Agreed.



Besides, who gets to make the final determination that a candidate isn't qualified? What happens when two professionals disagree on a candidate's qualifications? What traits disqualifies a candidate? Etc., etc., etc.

Quite frankly, applying basic intellectual acuity levels to voters (ie: ability to change mind after being presented with facts proving their "opinion/feeling" is dead wrong)...would serve our country much better.

Alas, neither will, nor should - ever happen.


The premise of the thread, is simply a not very clever attempt...at a backdoor 'P' fight.

Yes, but only to the extent that a party endorses or puts forward a candidate. Nothing wrong with the xxx party using that criteria before announcing, "this is our choice for the office."

What ? Thought I stated the premise of the thread clearly ! I'll try one more time. As a career researcher, thought requirements and fitness for office (NO MATTER what party an individual belongs to) would (hopefully) prompt some stimulating discussion. Even reflect some analytical thinking. Maybe not. Any requirements or prerequisites are perhaps just too qualitative ? Such things as must have reached age 25 (or 35, or whatever), and must not have passed age 80 (or 85, or whatever) at the time of filing ? When I was first in grad school in psychology individuals with a range of 40-54 on the Wechsler were considered moderately retarded. Not really qualitative as it was measurable, but, should there be a foundation level of mental ability so the individual representing the wishes of others, has the ability to understand the issues before them ? Anyway, in no way was this any kind of "back door" attempt at anything, other than to stimulate an interesting discussion. What a leap !

A very basic lesson of history/ human psychology is power corrupts, who, whatever group, organization that can to whatever extent control who YOU vote for by sitting a "standard" "evaluating" the candidates will end up up with their thumb on the scale by influencing your choice, experts picking the politicians I can vote for ? no thank you

Sounds like a good Idea, but are we better off letting the voters decide?

Would be nice not for things to turn P, but I have watched to many discussions go that way. Including a meal recipe on another forum.

Party appointed candidates should raise a red flag from the start.
Nepotism at its best.
Apposed.

Very sad that some folks are turning this about the ugly side of politics. It's sad that people our age can't remember back to a time when people of different beliefs could calmly discuss a topic, try to understand where the other is coming from and if you disagree do it respectfully.

To the OPs question in my opinion term limits (Congress/Senate/judges) would be a better idea

Can anyone tell the truth anymore?

It would be nice to know that the candidates are actually who they are, went to school where they said, worked at previously, etc., so that an INFORMED decision can be made. We have to weed out the charlatans, then stop propaganda cable promoting these people. That's how we will end up with an authoritarian/cult leader.