I don't think politicians are particularly good problem solvers. Partly this is empirical. I just can't remember ever seeing or hearing about a problem that was actually solved by a politician. But also I think this because it seems that politicians universally lack the most important characteristic of really good problem solvers: the ability to admit when they're wrong.
Good problem solving requires you to embrace being wrong. You have to constantly adjust your thinking based on experimental results and changes in the current situation. Politicians on the other hand never do this but instead cling steadfastly to their positions no matter what the circumstances. Their stubbornness in fact is considered a virtue by most, as the deadliest sin in politics seems to be the "flip-flop".
On the upside, from a problem solving perspective, we should be able to get all sorts of meaningful data from this intransigence. Every politician is, in fact, a hypothesis. And every election is an experiment. If we elect "this guy" than "that" should happen. And since we know that nothing will change “this guy’s” opinion or approach it should be a very reliable experiment. So while politicians are terrible problem solvers, voters should be excellent ones. Each time an election is held we should learn something about our world. Over the course of the last 236 years we should have come to know just about everything there is to know about what works and what doesn't.
Now of course I do understand that there are myriad other factors in any problem besides who holds an elected office. And that holding all of these factors constant while changing only one is impossible. So I guess it's supposed to be the job of economists to sort out all the data and glean some useful information, but they don't all seem to agree on anything. So we're back to square one. With the same old hypothesis: "Vote for me, and your life will be better!" I guess maybe we need a better problem definition...
What say you?