I believe the reason for this is that not a single person in this country is "qualified" for office, possibly because you're looking at in terms of a "job", which may be an error.
No, public office is a "position", not a "job".
If you have a job, and you don't do your job, you can be fired. Instantly. Not so with a position. Certainly a person can be removed from a position, but usually not without a lot of voting and meetings and arguments and motions and other such rigamarole.
A job has a set of criteria with which the above can be measured. Not so with a position. A position is a set of amorphous responsibilities with no clear standard of measure. So long as the position is occupied and the person appears to be participating in those responsibilities on some level, the "standard" is generally satisfied.
Positions are just that. Literal or figurative points in space which beg occupation by someone or something. Ultimately, we are really boiling the concept of position down to its essence. In a lot of ways, giving a position-holder responsibility seems just a way to convince ourselves that it has the look and feel of a job, that it bears at least a passing similarity to what we know to be "productive work". That pretense is rather rapidly being dropped leaving the essence behind.
If this is the case, I believe your queries can best be answered as follows:
To introduce substance into the concept of held position, at least in this rather entropic situation we find ourselves in, would seem somehow inappropriate and retrograde.
= new reply since forum marked as read
