Graham Platner was the Democratic Party’s white knight in the Maine Senate race. Until he wasn’t.

Platner has stepped down, “suspended” his campaign – not that anyone expects it to ever be unsuspended) – after allegations of rape (which he denies). As shocking as the allegations were, it isn’t as if questions hadn’t already been raised about Platner’s suitability for public office.

The whole situation does have me thinking about the process in which we choose our political candidates. Is it broken? Or should our expectations be changing as society’s views have shifted?

Depending on where you live, it isn’t that many years since you would have been unelectable if you were divorced. Or Jewish. Or Roman Catholic. Or Black. And those may still be factors in some places.

Platner was a political outsider in a country that is looking for fresh leadership. People are jaded about politicians’ motives and abilities. That’s what opened the door for Donald Trump – and we know how well that has worked.

Someone from outside the political system is more likely to have a checkered past than someone who has always aspired to elected office. Life can be messy, and people make mistakes. There are no perfect candidates.

I also believe in growth, repentance and forgiveness. The past shouldn’t be allowed to hang over us forever if there has been genuine change. I understand why Canadian political parties drop candidates when old Facebook posts come to light – but I don’t agree with punishing people for things said when they were teenagers.

Yes, actions have consequences that can echo after repentance, but I wouldn’t want to be held responsible for my political views as a teenager. Back then I thought socialism had a lot going for it. In my defence I point out that I was young, and didn’t really understand human nature.

When I aspired to elected office I had to undergo a vetting process that I am sure is much more rigorous today. As I recall it, there were questions about policy and personal finances, and a dive into my personal life. Nothing about social media, which didn’t exist back then. It was intrusive, but the aim was to find a candidate that wouldn’t embarrass the party. (For the record, I passed the vetting but lost the nomination I was contesting.)

In Graham Platner’s case, it looks like his outsider credentials were such that no-one considered what they were getting. Leaving aside the latest scandal, the man had to have a tattoo altered because of it’s Nazi imagery. He says he didn’t know the significance.

That may be true – but I would have real doubts about the judgement of a person who has their body permanently inked with symbols they don’t understand. I would hope our legislators have better judgement. Platner wasn’t a teenager when he got the offending tattoo – but he was drunk at the time.

I’m not sure how that makes things better. Do we prefer our lawmakers ignorant, or intoxicated? Tough choice.

It isn’t just the USA and Canada that have scandals that raise questions about how candidates are chosen. Pick a democracy and you’ll find similar issues.

Maybe the answer is to change the system entirely. Re-invent democracy Instead of people applying to become candidates for their party of choice as is done now, why not just draw names at random from the voters list> Stick those random peope in the legisiature and see how they would do.

Would there be people with questionable backgrounds? Certainly. Extremist views? Quite probably. There would be a lot less agonizing over candidate selection though.

Would it be better than the system we have now? You tell me. .