Mark Small

Ultimately the checks on those processes are elected officials.

Judges, psychologists + investigators including community oversight.

And I think those ppl can do great work, but the ultimate oversight has to be from elected officials. Example: a candidate is unpopular w/entrenched interests. Report comes back the person is unqual'd. I agree w/your gen'l idea, but believe there are better means to effectuate it

What means? The vote is obviously insufficient.

And anything else is better? Checks on each other.

Psych evals + ethics background checks with specific diagnoses or history being disqualifying: ASPD Sexual assault Non-disqualifying diagnoses or history made available to the public for its consideration: Mild depression Adultery

How R "mild depression" or "adultery" clinical diagnoses to be disclosed to public? ASPD - again, who makes diagnosis? DSM-IV & DSM-5 criteria largely subjective Background chk re sex'l assault - should B public not a mechanical bar 2 candidacy

1. Release the results of exams + investigations to media. 2. 1st + 2nd psychology opinions. Optional 3rd opinions. 3. A history of violent crime should be disqualifying. The bar to qualify for a position of power in government should be higher than that for a police officer.