in both foreign and national events, issues, and history? I say only the brightest and the best to avoid future presidents like Bush.
2007-06-19 14:13:56 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
YES!
Like define sovereign...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W28CQQsH9S8
2007-06-19 14:33:15 · answer #1 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No there shouldn't be. A high S.A.T. score may measure a person's intellect, but it is not an effective way to determine whether or not that person will make a good president. It's not a bad question though in that our leaders SHOULD have a good grasp of what is going on in the world with foreign and national issues. But to say only the brightest should be president wouldn't exactly guarantee that you won't get someone like G.W. Bush again. If only it were that simple, but it's not.
2007-06-19 21:24:06 · answer #2 · answered by Bumblebee711 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well you know that is a good idea. I think that we should also adopt the literacy tests again because we want to make sure that the voters know what they are doing. Don't forget poll taxes. Also we should do away with the electoral college that voted in a "stupid" president like Bush. Not only that but we should make it so that presidential candidates can't get any campaign funding from the US government. You know you don't want poor people becoming president. It could also increase the chance of high scorers as candidates.
2007-06-19 21:28:23 · answer #3 · answered by Annonymas 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Why not include a comprehensive exam into these elections?
This would actually streamline the entire process and eventually allow voters to eliminate the "politician's politician" and finally vote for a scholarly "people's politician." Imagine choosing someone who's tough on a particular stance but has little or not knowledge on how to deal with it versuses an opponent who understands the issue but can't communicate as effectively as the man who's against his proposed legislation? I think people could see crystal clear who'd they pick and partisan politics might die
A major service reform act would have to be passed through Congress and I doubt this would be ever be actualized.
2007-06-19 21:17:49 · answer #4 · answered by ibid 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes, the humble people of this nation have better
sense than the upper crust, so quit judging people that way.
The only thing it takes right now for citizens to run for office
is plenty of money, even millions it cost them. The poor don't
stand a chance like Abe Lincoln was anymore. Since they'll
never make as much as they spend, the only thing that draws
them to be president is "POWER". This is what is dangerous,
especially any Muslim taking over the United States of
America. Very scary. They'll overtake US any way they can...
remember that.
2007-06-19 21:23:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. There several insurmountable obsticles:
1) Who writes the test?
2) Who grades it?
3) What is a "passing" score?
4) Such tests only measure how many facts the person remembers, not judgement, which IMHO is more important than command of facts.
5) Tests can't measure integrity which IMHO is also more important than command of facts.
2007-06-19 21:20:01 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and I wish you would have brought that up during the 2000 elections. We wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
2007-06-19 21:23:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
nope, the voters should have ultimate authority to decide who is elected president, if a majority of Americans want to elect a moron, they should be free to do so
2007-06-19 21:18:15 · answer #8 · answered by Nick F 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you kidding? We'd never find a politician that could be President!
2007-06-19 21:17:58 · answer #9 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All you would have to do is to give them a BILL OF RIGHTS knowledge test
2007-06-19 21:24:35 · answer #10 · answered by kato outdoors 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋