A Twitter follower of mine asked this and I immediately thought it a perfect question for the Dope.
Assume that this test applies only for US House, Senate, and Presidential elections.
Joke replies are always welcome, but I would like some serious thought as well to the question.
Thanks!
If there were to be a mandatory exam for such offices, I’d be comfortable with the politicians having to pass the same citizenship test immigrants must pass to be naturalized.
For starters, I agree.
If the government spends 1 Trillion dollars, how much is that for each citizen?
Given the age of some (most) of these clowns, I wouldn’t mind tests of the man-woman-person-camera-TV variety once past 65 years of age, 70 at the latest. These tests should be held 1 year before the candidates (re)election day.
I’d start with a little basic math.
Which number is larger, 232 or 306? Is 81 million more or less than 74 million?
I would divide such a test into two parts: One to test for competency, the other to force them to publicize their stance on issues.
First part of the test would include questions about the Constitution, civil, criminal law, global affairs, domestic affairs, history, etc.
Second part would be things like “how many genders are there?” “in which circumstances, and trimesters, should abortion be allowed?” “stance on gay marriage,” “why do you believe your religion (if they are religious,)” etc. There would be no right-wrong answers per se, but these would be published for all to see.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party or any other organization that seeks the overthrow of the federal government?
Not at all original to me, but some say that the desire to hold elected office ought to be an automatic disqualified! 
I’m not sure of any specific question, but I’d expect some list of past work/education experiences relative to both the subject mater and functions involved. Sure, it is POSSIBLE that someone entirely lacking in such experience might be a good candidate for a particular office, but my HOPE is that there would be some explicable basis for their qualifications, other than just persona and glibness.
Some of the basic experiences would involve participation in complex organizations, pursuing and achieving longterm goals, and sensitivity to/work with persons different than yourself.
What are the powers given and the duties assigned for the office you are running for?
“Is the Earth: a) purty much 6,000 years old, or b) 4 billion years old”
For Representatives,
“Do you have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature?”
“Are you at least twenty-five years old?”
“Have you been a citizen of the United States for at least the past seven years?”
“Do you currently live in the State you are running for election in?”
“If you win your election, will you resign from any other federal office?”
For Senators,
“Are you at least thirty years old?”
“Have you been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years?”
“Do you currently live in the State you are running for election in?”
“If you win your election, will you resign from any other federal office?”
For President,
“Are you a natural born citizen?”
“Are you at least thirty-five years old?”
“Have you been a resident within the United States for at least the past fourteen years?”
"Will you take the following oath or affirmation? ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’
Any other question would be unconstitutional, except that these could be rewritten to say as of the day the term starts, and for representatives the qualifications could be enumerated.
~Max
Translation: “Which subgroup of your constituents do you want to alienate?”
Agreed! Of course, that means people would lie, but then, isn’t the general feeling that politicians lie all the time? At least we’d know that without qualification or reservation right from the start.
This is a useful approach, and I believe that if we administered such a quiz, and required that they had no help in answering, we would eliminate a percentage of candidates. Not that they would not qualify based on the constitutional requirements, but that there would be those who would get the answer wrong because they are unable to understand the questions.
The bigger issue is who exactly is going to grade their responses to this quiz. A lot of Republican voters have already shown that they no longer care if their candidates say the quiet parts out loud.
What is a Type 1 error? What is a Type 2 error? Give examples.
What is the purpose of the United States?
The idea being that there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers. If you answer ‘a’, you don’t get to politician.