Logical Candidate.
 

When a candidate for a position of employment, with moderate responsibilty for the fiscal future of a company goes through an interview process they are tested. Certain criteria must be met in order to verify someone is capable and fit to fullfil the obligations of the job.
I find it odd that the most prominent position in the entire country, has no such failsafe testing in place. You would think that the importance of intellect and understanding of leadership qualities, as well as human relations and problem solving skills would be tested before accepting someone as a candidate for President of the United States.
It would seem many of the mistakes we make as a country could be avoided if we had the "right person for the job" in place.

I was wondering if anyone has a perspective to explain the reasoning behind placing the future of an entire country, in the hands of someone who may or may not be suitable to handle the position.

The problem: Who will do the testing?

What level IQ can money and power buy?

your analogy is one of a position of appointment, the President is determined by election. i'm certain i would choose the process of the latter over the former.

some fail-safes are in place. the US does make certain restrictions based on age and citizenship.

and there is an interview process in place: the election campaign. the people who choose the criteria are the voters. and they determine how well their qualifications are met by each candidate.

Bingo.

And this interview process s far more thurough then any you'll see in the private sector. I mean, we learn everything about these people.

In addition, while I have my problesm with the policies of some of our recent presidents, and I may tell jokes that call into question Regan's sanity and Bush's intelligence, I don't think that any of our recent presidents were genuinely unqualified for the job. At least in the sense that I would be unqualified to be the CEO of IBM, or to fly a jet liner. If you think they've failed, its probably because either you don't agree with them ideologically or because its a really hard job.

Besides, what would you test them on? Intelligence? Knowledge of Politics and History? Managerial ability? Charisma?

Simpson's Trivia.

you know what i want? "write your own damn speech" week. i've got it all mapped out -- each day at noon each candidate gets locked in a hotel room with the topic and a computer (no internet) with some basic relevant research materials (articles on the topic, other politicians stances, etc) -- they can ever request other articles that they may have read in the past. there is no contact with advisors and no notes can be brought in. at 6pm you give your speech on the topic.

I know the candidates would never agree to this..

haha

i'd love to see that.

Brianna, the candidates won't be president without advisors helping them. Why make them run for president without advisors?

All of the above, and then some.

Add to the list Geography, Foreign policy, and domestic/civil rights history to create a starting point.
In this way we may get someone bordering on the Genius mentality required to run a complicated and difficult system of government. This would also insure some level of functionality in the cabinet and advisory structure chosen by the elected president.

I want a smart president with his own ideas -- i don't know that I can trust someone who cannot write his own speeches to even be capable of picking a decent cab

Speaking as someone who has been an advisor and written speeches, I think your view is way too simplistic.

Most of the people in positions of power in this country are capable of writing their own speeches, but defer the majority of it to writers/advisors who have spent much more time on the intricate details of the given topic.

Everytime one of those leaders opens their mouth, the words that they choose could have international/domestic economic or security consequences. It's impossible for any leader or candidate to have an intimate knowledge of every hot topic of the day.

For instance, a Senator/Congressman will have advisors that specialize in Defense, Agriculture, Trade, Healthcare, etc... It's their job to know everything inside and out and then advise. The ultimate decision is made by the elected official, but without the advice of staff, they wouldn't have time or the physical mental capacity to understand every nuance.

Remember, when the founding fathers were around and designed our government, they did write their own speeches. But then again, they didn't have a tax code that fills a room or pass omnibus bills that are 10,000 pages long.

Who would make up the test? An "independent" commission? "Leading scholars"?

The idea is inherently anti-democratic and smells a lot like how they decide who can be a candidate in Iran. If we did something like this the people you would have to create an elite who would decide what a president should know. This would be their view, not the view of the majority of american people. Further, the tests would invariably reflect what slant they took on the controversial issues involved. So the people get to chose between a few candidates who mostly agreed with some powerful elite. Who has the real power in that situation? The powerful elite, not the people.

Behind most of these arguments for "better government" or "smarter government" I find lurking a lust for oligarchy, the idea that the people are stupid and some powerful elite need to take control before the people lead the country to ruin. In reality, the people aren't that stupid, and generally make pretty good choices. If you don't think so its probablly because you don't agree with them on an ideological basis, not because they are factually or inherently wrong.

Besides, you can't test for the qualities that matter. Jimmy Carter was a very smart man, and a horrible president. How do you test for the ability to get along with Congress, to schmooze forigen ambasadors, to delegate athourity properly? How do you test for leadership?

That is already an issue, we are electing people who are in agreement (if not owned by) a powerful elite, Corporate Amarica. Who has the real power in THAT situation?

We elect our leaders, the president isn't equivellent to a king, we won't prosper or die by his skills alone, election is currently suffecient.

Alright, the rich probablly have more then their fair share of influence in Washington but

1. giving them this influence was not a concious decision on anyone's part. Money has given people additional political influence since the begining of politics. Also

2. This plan doesn't do anything to stop that.

If I could take the influence of money out of politics I would, but thats a topic for another thread. The fact that one elite group already has a disproportionate share of power is not a very good argument for giving another elite group a disproportionate share of power.