What you pose is interesting, but perhaps a little difficult to achieve, especially because of the two things you mention at the end of your question. It's difficult because even though he's a good candidate, he may not be the right one or he may surround himself with incompetent people who don't do their job. The fact that a person has a good curriculum and has studies done on politics, that is no guarantee to say that will make a good government. I have seen some presidents who have done a good job without more credentials. That is to say. The way, perhaps you can see more immediately, is that those who run as a candidate must have a recognized experience in the place or city being launched. From there perhaps people, and I say perhaps, have the intelligence to see that if he did well or badly, he will reproduce the same thing in the other position to which he aspires. The ideal is that each person who votes does so knowing the real intentions of the candidate, but we all know that everyone says they want to do good and solve the problems of others. Promises we hear, hearts we don't know!
No one can correctly tell who is best fit in an office, beside with portfolio of candidates it's usually difficult to tell who is really genuine because they all come with promises of a better future. Same way we can't really understand the thoughts of human the same way ,we can't point out who will be fair in his operation after succeeding.
This is a game of politics, who is able to convince the majority wins, be it he is qualify in the office or not. Most adult are literally wise so the need of educating them is not essential.
It's the duty of the qualify candidates to use his intellect to draw more candidates to himself. If he proves capable, then he should be able to convince people with his activities and portfolio.