system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: A huge investment in Public Policy education would go very far to remedy the USA's problem producing reasonable candidates and viable solutions to today's problems.

From the experience of the last twenty years, I think a reasonable case can be made that ability to drive a narrative and name recognition is the primary driver, if not the only driver, of politicians' success. I think enlarging districts and the click-based (rather than subscription-based) nature of news on the internet has made this aspect many times worse, and has warped the US' ability to propose qualified candidates. Rather than reforming the news, likely a violation of the first amendment and I believe a futile fight against the natural progression of technology, and the current court's belief that election reform can only be carried out by a Constitutional majority, I think we should focus more upon producing qualified candidates in the first place.

Furthermore, scientists' solutions to present problems are meaningless if a government does not have the capability and foresight to adopt new ideas that seem feasible. A scientist who wishes to improve the world, say for example a scientist who develops a food additive that reduces cows' production of methane, is directly reliant on a politician who has the free time and resources to drive narrative for them.

I think the federal government should allocate financial resources to the development and sponsorship of schools of public policy in every state, a sort of decentralized system of the sort that turned China into the preeminent power in the world until Opium and guns led to its' downfall.

I think, if properly decentralized, a system of schools of public policy that say, give massive election financing to top ten graduates (using matching funds or multipliers, maybe) would do a great deal to improve political discourse and robustness. Money is becoming a greater and greater driver of political success (as Trump and Hillary aptly illustrate - one has the trump brand, the other the Clinton brand), and if it is not feasible to take money out of politics because Roberts thinks money can't be excised from speech, why not sponsor qualified candidates, rather than letting candidates rise upon their own meager financial resources.

Hope to hear your thoughts.
gpt
The problem is not that there are no quality candidates.  The problem is that those candidates don't win.  It's not like Trump was the most qualified person that the GOP had running this year, and many would obviously argue that Hillary wasn't the most qualified candidate that the Democrats had to choose from, yet here we are.  

The point of a representative democracy isn't to have a government full of trained elites who've spent their lives preparing for public policy.  It's to have a system of representatives who the people feel best represent their ideals and will speak for them.  And that's subjective.  

What you feel is "qualified" on paper, others may disagree.  Where you see a ridiculous election, there are MILLIONS of people who firmly believe that either Clinton or Trump is absolutely 100% qualified for this job.  Why are you right and they're wrong?