After 60 years living among the governed, I decided to offer four years of service in public office, so I appreciate Jerry Burris' column, "Fewer candidates fire up voters" (July 30, and his insight.

He is right.

Low voter turnout is a symptom, not the problem. Forcing people to vote, by ridicule in a free society, or by guns in a dictatorship, is no solution. That only creates false legitimacy, hides dissatisfaction and prevents correction.

The problem is too few well-qualified people are willing to serve in public office (many adamantly refuse). I think I know why.

It begins with too many disappointing "politicians" having created too many voters who expect "politicians" to be disappointing. As any illusionist can tell you, people see exactly what they expect to see. The result is magic. The instant a fully grown-up, well-educated, accomplished person registers to run, she or he disappears only to reappear as an unaccomplished "politician."

That justifies ignoring the candidate in advance, because everyone knows an unaccomplished "politician" can't win. And, being excluded from consideration in advance means such candidate won't win.

A radio station decides not to invite any candidate to speak on any topic, because "equal time" law prohibits it from exercising its own judgment over who it invites to speak on what. Interesting ideas can no longer buy air time — only money can. That does nothing to attract candidates who prepare for public service with careers other than politics — the ones most likely to have new ideas.

Tactics have displaced principles in public debate, e.g. four hours of "candidate training" taught me to parse ethnic demographics, but not what distinguishes Democrat from Republican (or what they share). Do parties only provide the "us" and "them" of a sporting event?

Candidates are expected to foot the bill for elections. One group even charges candidates $50 to attend its "candidate night." That is bad. If candidates buy their own forums, they will fill them with empty, professionally spun verbiage. Such verbiage causes groups to stop inviting candidates to speak at their meetings. Sign waving rules.

A candidate questionnaire asks, "should the state build more prisons or continue sending inmates to the Mainland?" Hey! I'd rather explore removing TVs and weight rooms, and switching prisoners to a vegetarian diet. That makes incarceration so unpleasant (in a healthy way) that prison terms can be cut in half without losing their deterrent effect — and double the space overnight. But, I can't.

A newspaper editor gratuitously observes that candidates who cluster to races with a good chance of winning must be driven by a desire for the spoils of victory. A radio talk show host adds that candidates who risk races with a poor chance of winning must be ego-driven. Now I am an unaccomplished "politician" who is greedy or an egomaniac.

I grin. It hurts those who love me.

My reason is an urgent need to end 25 years of echoed excuses for why Hawai'i provides a non-competitive public education to its children, because my future will soon be in their hands, as theirs is now in mine. Plus, I love learning for the same reason a champion athlete loves athletics — we excel at it.

Hawai'i will only get candidates who are more attracted to ideas and accomplishment than to spoils and ego, after we provide more open and vibrant forums for their ideas.

What do you think?

George Berish is a Republican candidate for governor.