For instance, requiring psychopathy tests for politicians, or psychological evaluation, seems very unrealistic.
Seems like you could do polling and start a ballot initiative where it looks promising, if anywhere. Starting small can get the momentum rolling and more attention to the issue, and then pick up support elsewhere.
Is there any particular reason you think it would be too unpopular or not work well? People might not like it in case it becomes a weapon used by the state to shut out political opponents, but maybe there are ways to prevent this, with bipartisan testers, or letting the subject choose at least one of the testers (who must have appropriate credentials). It could be like jury selection, with subjects allowed to challenge/​strike potential testers (see strike for cause, peremptory challenge).
Also, we wouldn’t need to require them to pass these tests; we could just publish the results so the public can be informed.
Maybe, in the US, it wouldn’t be very effective other than in primaries, given how partisan things are.
Seems like you could do polling and start a ballot initiative where it looks promising, if anywhere. Starting small can get the momentum rolling and more attention to the issue, and then pick up support elsewhere.
Is there any particular reason you think it would be too unpopular or not work well? People might not like it in case it becomes a weapon used by the state to shut out political opponents, but maybe there are ways to prevent this, with bipartisan testers, or letting the subject choose at least one of the testers (who must have appropriate credentials). It could be like jury selection, with subjects allowed to challenge/​strike potential testers (see strike for cause, peremptory challenge).
Also, we wouldn’t need to require them to pass these tests; we could just publish the results so the public can be informed.
Maybe, in the US, it wouldn’t be very effective other than in primaries, given how partisan things are.
Or do you think no useful tests could be made?