Why should random people who are not experts in “ability to debate,” “ability to read and understand the impact of legal language,” or other attributes that make a good lawmaker get to decide which human beings are tasked with the process of writing and compromising on language?
People have an interest in having their values reflected, but that’s already determined by the party they vote for.
This is especially true in a system that encourages multiple parties, so the, for example, “low taxes” faction, the “low regulation” faction, and the “white power” faction can each be separate parties who collaborate (or not) on individual legislative priorities as needed. And each party can hire whatever mix of lawyers, negotiators, speech writers, and speech givers they want, without forcing “the person who decides who to hire,” “the person who gives speeches,” and “the person who has final say on how to vote” all be the same “candidate.”
Why should random people who are not experts in “ability to debate,” “ability to read and understand the impact of legal language,” or other attributes that make a good lawmaker get to decide which human beings are tasked with the process of writing and compromising on language? People have an interest in having their values reflected, but that’s already determined by the party they vote for. This is especially true in a system that encourages multiple parties, so the, for example, “low taxes” faction, the “low regulation” faction, and the “white power” faction can each be separate parties who collaborate (or not) on individual legislative priorities as needed. And each party can hire whatever mix of lawyers, negotiators, speech writers, and speech givers they want, without forcing “the person who decides who to hire,” “the person who gives speeches,” and “the person who has final say on how to vote” all be the same “candidate.”