In nature, if you can't do what it takes to survive, you die, your genes are eliminated from the pool, and someone else takes your place.
Maybe what takes your place is better, maybe not. But if not, it will also die, be eliminated, until eventually something able to do what it takes comes along and so, by this process, things generally improve over time.
This is my theory of voting. Rule #1: if the incumbent isn't doing a good job, vote them out.
So often in elections I hear about the "lesser of two evils". "I don't like the incumbent XXX, but he's better than YYY." Sorry: the rule of natural selection says I vote XXX out of office anyway. Maybe YYY is even worse. But then I vote YYY out at the first opportunity.
Eventually corrupt and unqualified candidates will stop running. Eventually you get someone good in office.
But if you vote "lesser of two evils", things will never change. You'll always have candidates who suck, just slightly less than the competition. We'll remain mired in the corrupt stagnation which we've had at all levels of government for as long as I remember.
So my first rule is if I don't like the way things are going, the incumbent doesn't get a vote. I pick from the alternatives.