Out on the stump or in debate, the Presidential candidates do and say whatever is self serving. Why not require them to silmultaneously take an essay quiz, together in a room, with no one but a proctor present? Kind of like college essay exams. Quiz areas could include subjects such as the war, the economy, welfare, taxes, abortin, etc. Essay questions would be asked in each subject area. The questions would be secret until the exam. The exam would be run by the League of Women Voters. The same league would compose the essay questions. The questions and answers would be made public immediately after the exam but would not be "officially" graded.
Wouldn't this give us a better idea of what each candidate really stands for without being assisted by his or her "handlers"?
2007-06-01 08:43:29 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let's give them that exam TWICE and see if they have the same answer BOTH times!
2007-06-01 08:52:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Under some circumstances this would be fine, however much of the need in the White House is for someone who can speak, answer and make decisions without writing them down - such as in the case of meeting with dignitaries.
I like the idea of asking the same questions of each candidate and taping their replies ahead of time. Done live, but no changes can be made to what they're saying on the fly - then have it telecast and critiqued.
That way they don't hear what each other has said, nor do they get the chance to bullshwa their way on issues. (Which in my opinion, makes a mockery of everyone involved in nationally televised debates.)
2007-06-01 08:59:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What makes you think that the American people vote on the basis of the native intelligence and knowledge of the candidates? Harry S Truman didn't go to college, Ron Reagan barely passed in college and George Bush went to Yale because he couldn't get into UT Law School. Your winner would be someone like Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes Scholar, or Jimmy Carter, who holds a masters in nuclear engineering. Okay by me, but how about you?
2007-06-01 08:54:05 · answer #3 · answered by Buffy Summers 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they still might lie knowing that the essay will be shown to the public. but it will have the candidates think and answer for themselves. I don't think they should know the subject they will write about or be given any study materials.
maybe if the questions were close ended like 'which is better' or 'is this good' - they must say 'this is better' or give a yes or no. not any of that lovely 'neither is better' or 'it depends on the person judging it'
basicly we should find a way to make them give their opinions and some straight answers. not using techinques that please everyone but don't answer the question
2007-06-01 08:50:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd doubt it. The handlers will prepare the candidates for potential essay questions the same way they do for debates. Most candidates are skilled at saying nothing to offend anyone. I like the idea, but I think that the candidates would still give the same answers.
2007-06-01 08:47:42 · answer #5 · answered by jargent100 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thats a really good idea. I think they should do this right before the presidential debates. Atleast that way in their minds, they can be positive on where they stand on the issues. We need to have stronger presidents that dont flip flop as soon as they hit the white house. Im tired of poll watchers.
2007-06-01 08:50:05 · answer #6 · answered by amorudence 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The League of Woman Voters would not be partial with the questions they asked. Hillary would be best suited to give them the answers they were looking for. Why not get them to join Yahoo Q&A?
2007-06-01 08:48:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think, just for fun, they should give a live essay test to good ol' George W. They should pit him against a fifth-grader. That would be an interesting competition.
2007-06-01 08:55:14 · answer #8 · answered by Jared 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No,.because they will still give spin answers.
For example:
Explain the reasons for World War 1.
Answer: War is a terrible thing. The present war in Iraq, for example.... blah blah blah
2007-06-01 08:47:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's what the debates are for.
I'd rather hear them have to actually speak, rather than having the time to write it all out ahead of time to make sure it sounds good.
2007-06-01 08:48:16 · answer #10 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋