One of the mistakes made in hiring is to over emphasize the failings or weakness of the person who previously filled the position.  You may be successful in obtaining characteristics that were weak before, but you may also lose strengths from before. We tend to take strengths for granted.

It is important to have clear written job descriptions with key measurables to avoid such errors.

I sense that in our political debates we have lost sight of the strengths we take for granted and have focused on the weaknesses of current office holders. We have become reactionary.

True, voting is different from hiring, and committees generally function poorly compared to competent experienced executives and managers.

But somewhere in that job description for our highest office is a knowledge and understanding of the constitution. An understanding means not just knowing what it says, but why it is in there and how it came to be. Somewhere in that description is a knowledge and understanding of our current policies, whether it is trade or foreign engagements.  Somewhere in that description is an understanding of economics, commerce and the political economy, and the management of a monetary system.  And somewhere in that description is a reference check of previous work that would verify the critical characteristic of trust.

Trust has two critical components: competence and character. Competence is the ability and knowledge to do the job, and character is the willingness to do the right thing.  We often confuse ability and knowledge with credentialsim, but they are not always related. Character includes honesty, humility, and transparency.  Character does not try to skate past accountability on legal and moral technicalities.

In an executive position trust is essential and I would guess that more executives are dismissed for breeches of character that incompetence.

They may have different positions on issues and offer different solutions, but those positions must be consistent with the knowledge, experience and trust required for the job.

In my opinion neither Trump nor Hillary would make it past a precursory first cut. I trust neither one, albeit for slightly different reasons.  Gary Johnson and Bill Weld would merit serious consideration.

Johnson and Weld face the strong headwinds any third party faces in a two party system. They are also tied to a party too few take seriously, most commonly because it is associated by the most extreme positions of its adherents.

They also face the problem of a reactionary voting populace who are only focused on the weaknesses of the current office holders. They are hiring without a job description.