# Would you be in favor of a basic knowledge test for presidential candidates? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2019, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763 "2019-03-30T12:44:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/41 "2019-04-01T17:50:21Z")
Odd idea - go back to Trumps old TV show “The Apprentice”. On that show each person had to show how they would run different businesses. Now what about a similar show for political office? Start with a low level thing like say something a small town mayor would deal with. Then work your way up to things politicians deal with say as state governor, member of congress, senator, etc… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/42 "2019-04-01T17:58:17Z")
The problem is that, if the questions are fact-based, any political candidate (yes, including Trump) will pass easily. However, no candidate, including all Republicans, all Democrats, and all "Other"s will be able to stop themselves from changing the subject to policy and delivering a stump speech. The problem is not that politicians of either stripe do not understand the facts. The problem is that they misapply, or draw the wrong conclusions, from the facts. You fix that problem at the ballot box, not with a pop quiz. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/43 "2019-04-01T17:59:40Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > For candidates, maybe some of the following questions: > > 1. Blank world map with unlabeled nations: Name at least 30 nations within three minutes. > 2. What are tariffs? > 3. What is the difference between national debt and national deficit? > 4. How much of the federal budget is spent on international aid? (1%, 10%, 20%?) > 5. What is NATO? (minimum 100-word answer) > 6. What is an executive order? > 7. Explain veto vs. pocket veto > > Questions that would be too slanted for such a test: > > 1. Are tax cuts good for the economy? > 2. Is the Earth six billion years old or several thousand years old? > 3. creationism vs. evolution > 4. most questions pertaining to religion I’ve actually always wanted to do this, but at the local level. Say for member of congress: 1. What is the population of the district you are representing? 2. What is the major employer? 3. What are the top 3 wealthiest and top 3 poorest cities. etc… For governor of Kansas 1. When did Kansas become a state? 2. What are the top 5 agricultural products of Kansas? 3. What are the top 5 employers in the state? 4. What are the main income sources to state government? For president I’d add in “Name the current leaders of Canada and Mexico?”. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/44 "2019-04-01T18:01:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The problem is that, if the questions are fact-based, any political candidate (yes, including Trump) will pass easily. However, no candidate, including all Republicans, all Democrats, and all "Other"s will be able to stop themselves from changing the subject to policy and delivering a stump speech. > > The problem is not that politicians of either stripe do not understand the facts. The problem is that they misapply, or draw the wrong conclusions, from the facts. You fix that problem at the ballot box, not with a pop quiz. > > Regards, > Shodan totally agree. Still, it does show they know basic facts about who they are representing. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/45 "2019-04-01T18:57:49Z")
The Constitution (as interpreted to date by SCOTUS) does not allow a prior condition for election to the office of President, or Vice President. However, the Constitution has no authority to require, or allow the parties to implement such a requirement. A test of knowledge is not likely to favor either the left or right. Too bad there isn’t a simple test for integrity. At least you would have a better chance of getting actual left or right from your choices. Tris * * * I got nothin’ ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/46 "2019-04-01T19:17:39Z")
I’m not comfortable with the idea of an official knowledge test, but perhaps this is something that political parties and debate moderators (and networks) could collaborate on. I think the idea of having 15-18 candidates on a stage answering random kindergarten questions from idiot moderators is out-dated. What I’d rather see is a rather large pool of questions from a panel of policy experts and moderators. Each candidate has to answer up to 10 questions that are pre-loaded into a computer system and then randomly generated by the computer. It could be as many as ten questions, but it could be fewer. Regardless, they all answer the same number of questions, and they’d have to answer a minimum in each category. This way, we don’t have one candidate having to respond to 5 questions about his DUI arrest as a college student. Most questions would be about matters of substance, but perhaps candidates could be asked one or two ‘wildcard’ questions by the media or by viewers at home. The accuracy of responses could be shown to viewers at home in real-time. Viewers could then make their own judgments about who won/lost. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/47 "2019-04-01T19:26:54Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > A test of knowledge is not likely to favor either the left or right. It depends on what area of knowledge is being tested. Which would push both sides into trying to implement questions about GMOs or global warming, that are about policy issues, or else the questions would be about irrelevancies, like calculus. Even factual questions are subject to this kind of slant. Several years ago, some professors were testing how much partisanship led people to believe things that weren’t true, and one of the questions was “true or false - no WMDs were found in Iraq.” The professors said the statement was true. [Technically, it is false](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/11/iraq). Their problem was that they were confusing that question with the question “Were there significant enough numbers of WMDs found in Iraq to justify the invasion”, and that’s not the same question. > [@](#): > > Too bad there isn’t a simple test for integrity. Well, that’s true. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/48 "2019-04-01T19:57:45Z")
A few years ago, I would’ve thought this a stupid idea because naturally candidates understood the basics of the Constitution, and if they didn’t, nobody would vote for them because nobody wanted an ignoramus in the White House. Then a few weeks before the GOP convention, the presumptive nominee expressed support for the Twelfth Article of the Constitution, and that along with other obvious signs of ignorance led me to throw my assumption out the window. The Constitution would, of course, have to be amended because the Framers also assumed an ignoramus couldn’t get elected President. We have failed them. So be it. Of course the questions wouldn’t be, “Explain how capitalism works” but the sort of basic, fill in the blank or multiple choice questions on a standard high school government class exam. How many articles are in the US Constitution? What is the role os the Executive Branch? How many votes are needed to override a presidential veto? Nobody would fail such a test because even an ignoramus would memorize the answers first, and that’s the point. Such a test wouldn’t be designed to weed out anyone but to ensure that anyone assuming the highest office in the land would have a minimal understanding of how the government works. ---
**Author:** ![Unabashed\_Fascist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/c2a13f/32.png) [@Unabashed\_Fascist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unabashed_Fascist)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/49 "2019-04-01T21:14:52Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > Your username is…interesting. I know it’s a thread hijack but I have to ask - do you really mean it? No, it’s not serious. I appropriated it from a bit of wordplay in Infinite Jest. > [@David Foster Wallace](#): > > I know bashing, Pat, and this was unabashed bashing at its most fascist. I respectfully ask that she be kicked out of here on her enormous rear-end. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/50 "2019-04-01T21:22:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It depends on what area of knowledge is being tested. Which would push both sides into trying to implement questions about GMOs or global warming, that are about policy issues, or else the questions would be about irrelevancies, like calculus. > > Even factual questions are subject to this kind of slant. Several years ago, some professors were testing how much partisanship led people to believe things that weren’t true, and one of the questions was “true or false - no WMDs were found in Iraq.” The professors said the statement was true. [Technically, it is false](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/11/iraq). Their problem was that they were confusing that question with the question “Were there significant enough numbers of WMDs found in Iraq to justify the invasion”, and that’s not the same question. > Well, that’s true. > > Regards, > Shodan That bit from the professors is on the whole a true statement still. This is because the big lie then was that Iraq was making them those weapons **right then at the time of the invasion**. Finding buried past warheads from past efforts that Iraq had acknowledged before does not make it even technically true. > **[The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons (Published 2014)](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html)** > > The Pentagon kept silent as munitions left over from Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran found new targets from 2004 to 2011: American and Iraqi troops. > [@](#): > > The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/51 "2019-04-01T21:35:47Z")
As for the OP, IMHO there was indeed a test made for presidential candidates and it takes place during their candidacy, it was clear that Trump failed to show basic knowledge about very important issues, but unfortunately a good number of voters ignored what Trump said or already believed that scientists were and continue to be wrong. > **[As Election Year Unfolds, Climate Concern Rises](https://thinc.blog/2016/03/17/as-election-year-unfolds-climate-concern-rises/)** > > Gallup: Americans are taking global warming more seriously than at any time in the past eight years, according to several measures in Gallup’s annual environment poll. Most emblematic is the … > [@](#): > > Woman’s question: “I’m a volunteer with a leading conservation voters group and we want to know about what your plan is to reduce pollution that is driving climate change and endangering public health.” > > Trump: “That’s an interesting question. Let me ask you a question… Ok, so we have global, let me ask you this, ok to [hissing and some boos from the crowd] take it easy… How many people, how many people here believe in global warming? [Turns around looks for hands up] You believe in global warming? > Who believes in global warming? > Who believes in global warming? > Raise your hand, nobody? \* > One person…” [Then Trump just humiliates the woman and shuts her up] - This is worse than ignorance, it is idiocy. Even professional “skeptics” tell us that global warming is happening but is natural, so the answer should had been yes, but not even that basic awareness could be reached by Trump. > **[Donald Trump and vaccines – he's wrong](https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/donald-trump-and-vaccines-wrong/)** > > But there's one area that may indicate the depth of his ignorance. Donald Trump and vaccines – his views are just plain wrong. > [@](#): > > Donald Trump and vaccines – he’s wrong > > Each of those statements have been and continue to be refuted by the enormous amount of scientific evidence – vaccines do not cause autism. Vaccines are unrelated to autism. There is no correlation between vaccines and autism. How many different ways should we parse this? > > Across the blogosphere, science writers have attacked Trump’s views on vaccines. Emily Willingham. Steven Salzburg. The secretive Orac, who has been pointing out Trump’s ignorance on vaccines for several years. The Washington Post. I could go on forever. > > Annoyingly, there is a broad swath of vaccine deniers who continue to make this claim, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence. Just read the replies to each of Trump’s vaccine tweets, and you’ll see the pervasiveness of the ignorance of the facts surrounding vaccines and autism. > > Vaccines prevent diseases, ones that can cause grave harm to children. This is a scientific fact. Vaccines have extraordinarily low rates of minor adverse events, far below the rates of many simple medical procedures. This is a scientific fact. This ignorance of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines would be laughable, if it didn’t put children at risk of dangerous diseases. > > Donald Trump’s attitudes about vaccines are just some of his science denying beliefs. He thinks that climate change is a hoax (unless it affects his golf courses). His opinions about evolution appear to be in line with most Republicans, although it may just be political expediency rather than actual belief. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/52 "2019-04-01T22:47:26Z")
Some people don’t want their candidate to be accurate, right, intelligent etc. They want their candidate to _win_, and if saying stupid and/or hurtful things brings in the votes then by _ghod_ they will support a stupid and/or hurtful candidate. If you doubt this, listen to the roar of the crickets when you ask what what hateful and/or stupid thing their candidate would have to say for them to vote for somebody else. ---
**Author:** ![Wallaby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dc4da7/32.png) [@Wallaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallaby)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/53 "2019-04-03T20:58:55Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > For candidates, maybe some of the following questions: > > Questions that would be too slanted for such a test: > > 1. Are tax cuts good for the economy? > 2. Is the Earth six billion years old or several thousand years old? > 3. creationism vs. evolution > 4. most questions pertaining to religion Ok - I’ll accept that those questions (the last 3 in particular) are slanted, but they are slanted in exactly the right way to obtain fairly important information regarding the candidates prejudices (prejudices here meaning unscientific or incorrect beliefs that probably influence thought processes). ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2019, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763/54 "2019-04-03T21:51:43Z")
> [@Wallaby](#): > > Ok - I’ll accept that those questions (the last 3 in particular) are slanted, but they are slanted in exactly the right way to obtain fairly important information regarding the candidates prejudices (prejudices here meaning unscientific or incorrect beliefs that probably influence thought processes). Considering that [over 40 percent of Americans are creationist](https://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx), it could also backfire on the pollsters unintentionally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-be-in-favor-of-a-basic-knowledge-test-for-presidential-candidates/831763.md?page=2)