[wallace_f]

Unfortunately, I've also learned the same in the last year.

My interactions with people after reaching adulthood have also taught me that people have different inclinations, ethics, intentions and internal reward systems. Some people gain satisfaction by helping others, or doing 'good;' while some others, gain satisfaction from hurting others, or feeling superior to them. Unfortunately I've met a lot of terrible people, and that makes me wonder what we should reasonably come to expect in who we collectively elect?

[ridgeguy]

If you consider the incentives and selection filters that operated on those who successfully sought elected office, it's a little discouraging.

We might do better drafting from a pool of otherwise qualified people who really don't want the job!

[Ntrails]

There was a cool article on why in many cases random selection is better than human choice https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...

I've just never really solved how to apply it to politics. I've long felt that if you're going to have 2 "houses", one ought to be appointed by ballot as a check/balance on the elected members (a variation of hereditary peers in many ways but without the same bias).

[wallace_f]

It does seem to be the case that someone who doesn't really want the job, but is otherwise qualified, is the best person for it in this case. It seems to me to be very likely that this is true for both politicians, as well as LEO, including the FBI, CIA, and probably all other three letter agencies as well.