Should presidential candidates take some sort of general knowledge test?

Question

When voters go to the polls, they generally don't have a good grasp on the actual intelligence level of the candidate. I'm not talking pass/fail things. Just a test that shows how knowledgeable a candidate is in various categories such as the global community, economics, law, etc.

This information doesn't necessarily come out in campaigns, nor debates.

Would you, as a voter, think that information would be useful to take to the polls with you?

Answer 1

A small, brief blurp on the qualifications, i.e. knowledge on information they will need to do their job if elected, on each candidate sounds like a great idea. A lot of people, like me, go into to voting booth without a clue as to the background, or qualifications of candidates.

Answer 2

The real issue is that the media and general public has become enamored in sound bites instead of good old fashioned rhetoric. Speeches are no longer flowing oratories penned by the speakers but a group of one-liners written by a pool of speech writers. A candidate/politician gages the response of each one-liner and the bites that get the best reaction becomes the platform. As long as this is the type of exposure voters get, we will never know the true intellect of the speaker.

Answer 3

This is what public speeches and public debates are for, to give you an idea of where the candidates stand on issues, how articulate they are, how intelligent, how well thought out their answers are, etc.

This very good (not perfect, but certainly effective) process of identifying and weeding out unworthy candidates has been subverted, so that the American people are told what they will see from their candidates, limited debates with limited candidates, sound bites, feeble character assassinations, etc.

Truly relevant information is ignored in order to comment on a candidate's WARDROBE for crying out loud. We pay entirely too much attention to how a candidate looks, then on how he or she thinks.

Then of course, come the ENDLESS polls, asking 16 people in the Ozarks what they thought of the debate. Of course, thes 16 people are the only ones who haven't put their numbers on the national "Do Not Call" list, which removed the rest of us from having to answer stupid polling questions. Then national newsreaders report these polls numbers as though they are real data, when every poll in the history of polling has a natural bias, one way or another. Then the panicky candidates start "adjusting" their image, in a time-wasting and futile attempt to appeal to as many of the voting public as they can.

So, in the end I agree, give em as many tests as they have a stomach for, It's too importan a job to just let people coast into

Answer 4

Here are some things that should diquailify a prez candidate. If they are lawyers or doctors, if they can't change a flat tire on a pickup truck, if they don't know the price of a gallon of gas within 50 cents, if they have never drawn unemployment or food stamps, if they have never had to mow their own grass, etc. etc. You get the idea. They all ( dems and repubs ) are for the most part born with that silver spoon in thier mouth. And to boot, mostly liars.

Answer 5

Nope, but reporters should ask them good questions.

Most candidates are in fact well educated:
Clinton Rhode scolar,
Bush went to Yale even if some suspect he got their through family influence his general knowledge is still ok. Also he was a governor.
Kenedy like Bush had the connection factor.
Carter was trained officer in US navy operating niuclear subs and a minister.


Reagan was probably not well eductated; at least his career did not require an education. He was an actor
Truman was self educated other than what he learned serving in artillary during ww I.

Answer 6

YOU can't get people out to vote, how are you going to make them read something?? If they care about the election, they are informed and ready to vote. The voters that go in and do whatever don't care anyway. They are the ones that should stay home and not vote at all....................

No, I have never needed anything to take to the polls with me. My mind had been made up far before it came to the voting.

Answer 7

In the spectrum of U.S. Presidents, we have Jimmy Carter at the very low end, and Ronald Reagan at the very high end.

Jimmy Carter, even by his own admission, was a terrible President. However, he is the type who would ace the sort of test you propose.

Ronald Reagan is cited as being either the best President ever, or the second best ever. However, he would score poorly on your test.

So you see? It's not so easy.

Answer 8

No but the voters need to pass a test, look at the last election

Answer 9

It will never happen. As long as any dumbass can get a drivers license, and anyone with reproductive capabilities can have a kid, then anyone with a lot of money and free time will be able to run for public office without taking any sort of qualifying test.

Answer 10

Sure, would have eliminated all the candidates in the past 5 elections.

Mental screenings would have also eliminated Kerry and Gore.