this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
169 points (92.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43791 readers
1525 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Candidates for public office should be required to undergo a mental health assessment as part of the process of getting on the ballot, and those who score beyond (above or below, as may be relevant) particular thresholds are barred from seeking office.
I sincerely believe that there's no single thing we could do that would provide more benefit to the world than to get sociopaths and narcissists and megalomaniacs out of positions of power. Each and every one of the most notable and contentious politicians in the world today is, if you just take a step back and look at them honestly, blatantly profoundly mentally ill. Enough is enough.
The idea itself is fine, but in practice it wouldn't work. The kind of people you are trying to screen out in the process would just study do give the responses of a passing assessment, probably with the help of heavily paid mental health professionals.
Psicology is hard to test and prove, most of the things you are looking to test would not be visible in bloodwork or brainscans.
Not to mention, who is in control of making the tests? Mental health/aptitude tests have had a history of being at least a little bit racist, kinda like the old 'intelligence' tests that were designed to prevent black people from voting.
That'll just be used as a tool to discriminate against certain groups of people. If you standardize it to avoid any personal bias, then it'll be coachable/trainable and then people will work around it.
Imo any random person should be able to run for office
Skip the psych exam. Restore the “public servant” aspect.
All assets are sold and the cash is placed in a trust that earns 1% interest. When you leave office you get your money back.
24/7 audio and video coverage of your life as long as you are in office. The toilet is not filmed unless someone goes in with you. Other than that, your life is an open book.
After you leave office, you can teach classes as long as your compensation is no more than the lowest-paid professor at the school that employs you. You can write books. Or you can enjoy your pension. No corporate jobs or partner positions at fancy law firms.
So, we'd be governed by influencers?
The minimum threshold is tricky. Sometimes due to alliance or political dynamic, a party/list struggle to reach 5%. But banning them from running again seems aggressive. An election even lost without any seat nor a public payment of the campaign fee, is a chance for a party to be heard and put back some issues in the debate. Look at the green who often do low score, but sometimes manage to win