Auto-generated description: A glass of light beer sits on a wooden table in a bar setting.

Tap Room Tuesday 9/17/24

Once again we gathered together to spend time talking about things that mattered in the Annex of the Tap Room in downtown Ypsilanti. It was a bit difficult for me to fully focus as I my attention was somewhat divided with the Tigers in the playoff hunt.

The Recap

The conversation was robust as we took on the question about what qualifies someone for public office.

We discussed some of the more subjective issues first. Everyone basically agreed that there were some non-negotiables for a person to be qualified for office. Honesty was one trait that came up for everyone. Being ethical was also a key component for everyone. Interestingly, only one person suggested that for someone to be qualified for office they needed to demonstrate the ability to actually get something done. Along those lines, there was some good conversation about the need to be able to put together a team of experts who can navigate the difficult technicalities of writing legislation.

The bulk of our discussion was about objective qualifications. These were boiled down to a few things. First, when it comes to legislators folks want the minimum age requirement to be increased to 25. The thought was this would give potential legislators time to become educated and also get a “real” job. This is the second thing that the crew wanted added, people running for public office have to have had a non-politics related job for at least 3 or 4 years. Add to this a minimum education requirement for at least an Associate’s Degree. There was some challenge to that as this would disqualify people who attend trade schools. We didn’t really get a concession either way, but all acknowledge the need for some education beyond high school for people running for public office. It was also determined that someone could not hold office while also running for a different office (for instance a Senator would need to leave their office immediately to run for VP or POTUS). One last thing that was discussed was a maximum age requirement. This ranged from the social security age (62.5) to 73ish. These maximums would be when one would be leaving office not running for office.

We closed our time talking about what would convince you to vote for someone who didn’t meet your subjective qualifications for public office. Some said that a candidate with a specific expertise that would meet a particular need in office was something that could move them from their subjective qualifications. Another thing was shared values. For instance, if the candidate for office was involved in charitable organizations, or showed other things in their private that displayed shared values.

Reflection

As I moderated this conversation, I noticed that it was very difficult for us to offer positive qualities. We wanted to keep moving toward what negates someone from being qualified for public office. I think this displays the nature of our political climate in a very stark reality. We have become, by and large a people who vote against someone as opposed to voting for someone.

I wonder, what if we as an electorate identified the non-negotiable qualities we want to see in our public officials and then only for women and men who had those qualities, could we make change? I want to believe we could. I want to believe that we have a system that is indeed responsive to the will of the electorate.

Next week, we are going to discuss what it means to be a good citizen in our democratic republic. I hope you will join us at 8 pm in the Annex of the Tap Room in downtown Ypsilanti.