Throughout history we have known that not everyone is mentally fit to hold political offices. This is an unfortunate fact about our world.
Being unable to properly comprehend and retain knowledge can hinder people from taking appropriate actions when they need to. This is as much detrimental to the cognitively impaired as it is to the people who would be electing them with the expectation that they would be able to reasonably govern. Noble or not their intentions may be, achieving their goals can be impossible if their comprehension is impaired.
The same is true if they lack the aptitude for logical reasoning. Despite popular belief, “logic” is not just a five letter word for “the things I agree with”, but rather it is a determination if whether the claims you make contradict one another (illogical) or if the complement one another (logical).
The APA already has a robust set of tests to determine whether someone is cognitively impaired and inductive/deductive reasoning tests have been refined well before Psychology was even a field of study.
My proposal is that we push for every potential candidate of every political office be required to take the MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test), the MMSE (Mini-Mental State Exam, and the Mini-Cog with their results published publicly in order to be eligible for office. These are APA (American Psychological Association) approved and verified standards for mental health.
Furthermore we push for a standardized APA deductive/inductive reasoning test in their informal ability to understand logic. I say informal ability to understand logic because I am aware that formal logic training is something that is rare, as I had to fight to find such programs in my home state of Mississippi. Still, the APA has been very good at putting out reasoning tests that can determine whether someone can be logically consistent despite not being formally trained in logic theory.
If the candidate seems cognitively impaired from the first battery, I believe that should be a disqualification inherently. If the candidate lacks logical aptitude, I believe that they should also be disqualified until such time that they can prove that they have learned enough about how to be consistent with their claims.
A cognitively impaired candidate cannot be reasonably expected to legislate, adjudicate, or enforce even the values they hold most dear because of their inability to retain cohesion.
A logically impaired candidate cannot be reasonably expected to legislate, adjudicate, or enforce even they values they hold most dear because they can and will have conflicting values within their own belief system.
To be clear: This should be pushed with a mindfulness that a diagnosis of a mental health condition is not an automatic disqualfier. Rather, the tests speak for themselves and neurotypicality or neurodivergence is a separate matter entirely. This can and should be done without any ableism involved.