With increasingly-replicated data that increasing seniority levels of leadership and simply the plain wealthy over-represent sociopathic and psychopathic traits

With increasingly-replicated data that increasing seniority levels of leadership and simply the plain wealthy over-represent sociopathic and psychopathic traits when compared to the general population, I doubt the idea of paying government leaders more will move the corruption needle any appreciable amount. Generally, it seems the prevalence and diffusion of these traits is semi-stable depending upon the cohort or even industry (financial services, for example) under observation. Note we're still talking about relatively small groups even so: single digit percentages at most is all I've seen for US population cohorts of various selection criteria. The positive takeaway is that in the US at least, while leadership overrepresents these traits, you are more likely to simply meet well-intentioned and honest leaders (or well-intentioned but ineffective) leaders than those who exhibit the aforementioned traits. What paying government leaders more CAN pave the way clear for however, is for far less "privacy" of their daily lives, and far stricter anti-corruption regulations. Something along the lines of a bodycam streaming straight to a replicated digital vault, accompanied by rules like unexplained gaps in the stream are grounds for instant, unappeal-able, permanent dismissal with revocation of all retirement benefits, with the ability to let third parties also vault the encrypted streams if desired. If they're paid so much out in the open, then it will probably be easy to sell the voting public on keeping such "digital tabs" on the leadership. Still wouldn't prevent the corruption, but I'd be happy to root it out before it rots out the infrastructure from underneath us.