Let's say it is an exam, like an multi hour long SAT's with written portions, and the other part is mental functioning exams by a team of Doctors. The whole exam process, including medical and mental functions takes about two days, like a Military MEPS processing.
Everyone must PASS with a minimum score if they are to be allowed on the ballot. There can be no prior studying or assistance by staff, other than a brief outline of the SAT style exam part given to the prospects 24 hours before the written exam.
Every ballot prospect must have their reports reviewed before approval to be placed on a ballot.
The approval board is free of bias, unable to be influenced by party lines either. No loopholes or waivers...either pass or fail.
If we require many Professionals to be licensed to practice a specality, why not the President of the USA?
2006-11-25 06:42:38 · 13 answers · asked by Middy S 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I think what there needs to be is test for voters. You should have to prove that you know the issues and what the candidates stand for. If we had educated voters, instead of 'rock the voters' we wouldn't have to be so concerned about sub-par people becoming president. Elected officials are just a reflection of the population as a whole.
2006-11-25 07:05:32 · answer #1 · answered by Chris J 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I'd prefer the test be given to voters. If that is not unconstitutional, it would become unconstitutional in record time.
You said the approval board is free of bias. This disqualifies every human being from serving on the board. You and I are both included in the above statement. Anyone that does not believe themselves to be biased doesn't even qualify to take the test.
2006-11-25 13:47:09 · answer #2 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
are you able to assert b*tch slap, Iranian type? i'm actually extremely shocked that MSNBC lined this tale, using fact the liberal media is in the tank for Obama and has been extremely selective recently in the thoughts they elect to record. nonetheless, i'm hopeful that in the time of a few unspecified time sooner or later Barry will finally start to appreciate that diplomatic kin are actually not the answer in coping with those lunatics. it extremely is obvious that Ahmadinejad cares approximately not something extra advantageous than furthering his anti-American schedule and could grow to communicate our willingness to work together in talks as precisely what it extremely is... a substantial sign of weak point. Obama's next step could desire to be to drop communicate with those jackas*es and start to construct alliances with different sane and prefer-minded worldwide places accompanied via an agreed upon plan of action against Iran. If the pansy-as*es in this u . s . a . who positioned Barry in place of work don't sense that the invasion of Iraq grew to become into justified, a minimum of Obama can pander to this demographic via in seek of consensus from different worldwide places formerly taking action.
2016-12-29 11:41:54 · answer #3 · answered by frahm 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, every kid in the US wants to be the Man n° Uno of the States. And thats a good thing - I can't understand why the other ones in other countries do not have such ambitions ?
2006-12-02 21:23:07 · answer #4 · answered by hma6hunyadi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well it would have kept Bush out of office, after all he barely scored high enough on his ASVABS to get into the National Guard, so that's one good thing about such a system.
While testing for civil service positions is usually a good idea, it would be against such a position for electable public office, even of the president. I just think that the person who scores the highest in such tests don't necessarily make the best presidents. I think the ability to deal with people and surround yourself with people smarter then yourself and honestly listening to what they're telling you is more important.
Besides, if we can reform the way elections are run so money doesn't play as big an influence, we would naturally more qualified candidates appear for public office. The fact that stupid people get elected is more of a symptom of the corrupt politics that occurs in the US rather then the sole problem that can fixed just by administering tests to be president.
2006-11-25 06:57:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
One would think that having degrees from pretigious universities would be enough, but apparently not. The problem is that the current President had a normal IQ but lowered it substantially by drinking and drugging.
2006-11-25 06:53:01 · answer #6 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. The public is smart enough to figure out if someone is intelligent or not and a test would inhibit our free choice.
2006-11-25 08:38:33 · answer #7 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yep, and imagine, if we would have done that 6 years ago, we would have saved ourselves from the mess we're in now.
2006-11-29 00:29:34 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure, let's amend the Constitution to demand this test. Then no one would run.
2006-11-25 07:20:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton had an extraordinary high IQ and he only used it to trick, deceive, and personal gain. President Bush's is higher than average, but he is honest.
2006-11-25 06:48:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋