Earlier this spring a crew of would-be local candidates took the stage at the North Door, a live music and event venue on the East Side. I was there because I was curious and because there was free beer. A surprisingly full house was there for the culmination of ATXelerator, a new program that promised to show 25 participants the ropes of local politics through a weekend retreat followed by 11 weekly classes on such scintillating topics as land use and municipal finance.

Candidates were selected through an application process that narrowed the pool to a diverse group representing each of the 10 Austin City Council districts. The inaugural class included a city intern, an accountant, and the founder of a pet-care business.

On this night, their studies finished with a role-playing game in front of a panel of judges that included political consultant Matt Curtis, former news anchor Olga Campos, and Rep. Donna Howard. It was a graduation of sorts, a granting of “insider” status cemented with in-jokes and satirical portrayals of the types of people whom they might (if actually elected) have to feign interest in during the Citizen Communication portion of a City Council meeting: traffic hysterics, people sick of city government, and straight-up kooks.

The public speakers lampooned were a not-entirely-unfair representation of oddballs Austin has seen run for office. That’s one reason the ATXelerator was launched by the Center for Austin’s Future, a political advocacy nonprofit with board members including former mayors and city council members. Though the group running the show has a Chamber of Commerce–friendly feel, the notion that candidates should learn about process, significant debates, and important issues ahead of an election is an objectively good one. It might be just what we need to ensure strong local leadership.

Our city government has a storied past with outsider candidates. The proud Texan disdain for politicians combined with the T-shirt slogan that asks us to keep it weird fosters the potential for office-seekers who don’t take the role seriously. Even before the current divisive situation at the federal level, the electorate and its chosen representatives have always had an uneasy relationship. Throwing the bums out is perennially popular—but also wildly inefficient. As new bums replace old bums, time is wasted getting everyone up to speed.

This was apparent following the 2014 election, when Austin changed from an at-large City Council system to its current 10-1 district representation system, expanding the council from seven seats to 11, including the mayor. The election was chaotic, with 78 candidates. One of them hoped to spread the word about “triads” and how government is based on the Pythagorean theorem of threes. One refused to answer any of my questions until I watched his YouTube channel, which he listened to me do over the phone for 15 minutes. Laura Pressley, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who claimed Austin Energy smart meters caused her leg to “twitch,” won the endorsement of the Austin American-Statesman. Don Zimmerman, a man who rails against government, became a part of government and sued the city while a council member.

Fortunately, for the most part, the winning candidates were sane and well-intentioned about serving their districts’ interests. Yet because each was voted in on a wave of “regime change,” it took months—if not years—for the 10 new members to get their bearings. Just recently one of the sitting members distanced herself from a vote taken a couple of years ago because she “didn’t know enough” what she was doing then. Is this the kind of representation that constituents deserve?

We have another City Council election in November. The same dynamics are dulled down by a reduced number of seats up for re-election. As a member of the press, I have a responsibility to give equal coverage to all the candidates. Ideally I shouldn’t use the phrase “dangerous idiot,” which I have had to resist using in print before. Could a political incubator be a way to circumvent the good-old-boys network and also ensure voters have alternatives who aren’t dangerous idiots? That seems to be the general idea. Still, I worry that it’s conceding a bit of the (flawed) democratic process before the polls.

Up until now, the imperfect system of separating the “real” candidates from the “triad” advocates has been a listing of endorsements (aside from that Pressley endorsement, I guess). The longer the list of endorsements, the more implied credibility—a shorthand for “not totally insane.” But endorsers include small groups with disproportionate power and their own interests at heart. I’ve been to endorsement discussions of Democratic clubs where only a dozen or so people have shown up—and yet that endorsement, and the candidate’s name, looks as significant as any other measure to the diligent voter trying to do research.

The training from an accelerator could offer us a new type of credential. Candidates emerge from the incubator as verified insider outsiders, instead of some nuts who’ve come straight from Twitter. That seems like a good thing, although I have concerns that it could morph into a king-making system for private interests.

As much as the 2014 election was a nightmare to cover, and for as many nightmare candidates as it produced, it’s much scarier when candidates run unchallenged. The more qualified people a city has to select from, the better. ATXelerator—and any similar programs that might spring up in its wake—has the potential to create a slightly more engaged citizenry, especially if they keep up with the free beer. I guess we’ll find out in November. As long as there’s no talk of triads, we should all be good.

Elizabeth Pagano is editor of the Austin Monitor. Read the Monitor’s continuous coverage of local government at austinmonitor.com.