Thursday’s Perspective articles dealt

<a href=

“https://northernstar.info/opinion/article_ada3f0b2-e24c-11df-9c8c-00127992bc8b.html”>

with the contentious issues of the public office and <a href=

“https://northernstar.info/opinion/columnists/article_627dcdae-e23f-11df-ae69-0017a4a78c22.html”>

the comical idiocy of a few unqualified gubernatorial

candidates.

Although slighted in presentation, I

do agree that the few examples provided are not the ideal images of

responsible governance; and yes, the qualifications for candidates

are a bit minimalist, and in so doing, allow for inexperienced

candidates to run for office.

However, if the qualifications were

stricter, they risk becoming exclusionary. Like Michael Clark said,

the concept behind minimal limitations allows for a more

“democratic” representation. Imposing stricter requirements on

candidates as an effort to only accept those truly competent of

office would also resemble a sort of elitism, a concept consistent

with an oligarchy, or rule of the privileged few.

And even then, entrusting a high level

of power in a relatively small class requires complete reliance on

public servitude to exist. And public servitude, as we can see in

the latest statistics of voter turnout, isn’t exactly reliable

either.

In the U.S. presidential election, the

voter turnout was a dismal 63 percent. A third of the eligible

public chose to be unrepresented. Low turnout may be due to

disenchantment, indifference or contentment; whatever it may be, it

is clear that the level of mutual reciprocity between those who

govern and the governed themselves has receded.

If we are to demand for a more

responsive, qualified and educated politician, then we too must

demand of ourselves the same level of responsibility.

After all, our next “leaders” need

someone to lead, and without anyone following, they become just

another guy taking a walk. They represent you; you must show them

how to do so.

Loren Legorreta

Junior

Political science major