Your username is…interesting. I know it’s a thread hijack but I have to ask - do you really mean it?
I agree with this.
Let’s say that a candidate refuses to submit answers to this exam. What happens next?
If knowing the difference between a veto and a pocket veto is “elitist academic bullshit”, then this country is circling the toilet. Exactly how low do the standards have to be before the candidate you support has a chance?
We offer him or her a free tutor trained to teach a middle school civics course. If your candidate is too ignorant to pass a simple civics course she or he shouldn’t get to hide behind bullshit and bluster, and you should have enough respect for this country not to let it happen.
Heck, the whole process is already descending to reality/game-show theatrics. Why not make it fun, too?
Now I have to rethink my position.
The candidate I support has a chance with things just the way they are. I haven’t yet seen a good reason to change them. Do you have one (besides that your girl lost)?
I didn’t ask if he couldn’t pass the test. I asked if he refused to take it. What then?
And if the candidate has to pass a test, shouldn’t the voters voting for the candidate have to pass a similar test? Say a literacy test?
No, because the former is constitutional, and the latter isn’t. That is like asking both prospective employees and customers to pass a background check at Burger King. Surely your standards when it comes to the President of the United States is higher than the standards you have for a fast food clerk?
Girl?:rolleyes:
I fully realize that you are happy with the way things are.
I think we can do better, though…and I at least want them to be better.
No. If there are any changes to the process, I would first like to see it made so that the majority of votes determines the outcome. This would have prevented the current situation, and reflected the will of the people. With this theoretical change if the people vote choose a doofus anyway, then a doofus is what we get.
Since the debates have degraded into a sort of joint press conference, sound bite generator, lets have the candidates do an episode of Jeopardy instead. Added benefit, they have to let in a third party. Monday through Thursday could be spent battling it out between the Greens, Libertarians, Socialist Workers, etc.
Would it be fun to do? Sure. Is there a way to make such a test a useful and consistent way of assessing all candidates’ fitness for office? Not remotely.
But I’d like debate questions to be more substantive and on-point than the current shallow nonsense we get.
The requirements for President are laid out in the Constitution. I don’t see any civics test listed, but perhaps I missed it. I doubt either of these tests would a pass constitutional challenge.
The qualifications for President are laid out in the Constitution. Passing or submitting to this silly test is not one of them. It would be unconstitutional.
There is nothing, OTOH, unconstitutional about requiring a voter to pass a literacy or other test. States are currently forbidden from doing so under the Voting Rights Act, but there in nothing unconstitutional about this.
So, in other words, you have it completely backwards.
We’ve already got a popular organization that hands out written report cards on the candidates’ handling of gun issues. There’s no reason that an organization advocating for general education couldn’t do the same, and base it fully or in part on a written test. I fail to see how it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Participation would have to be voluntary, of course, but a refusal to take the test could be handled just like your high school teachers used to do it: Don’t take the test, you flunk, and are ranked at the bottom.
Of course, it would have exactly the importance that voters attributed to it, and it would be difficult to convince pols to participate until the tipping point at which it became expected.
So because the answers are factual now it’s a trivia quiz? The fundamentals of economics, civics, international relations, etc., is trivia? I’m glad I went to college to get better at Jeopardy.
Why don’t you try providing a single question and answer that would appear in the test you imagine.
Then you can explain how the questions and answers will be kept secret until Presidential Test Day, and then explain how that works.
To heck with economics, civics, law, international relations, and so forth, I’d like to see a quiz on social and interpersonal skills. It could even be a true/false test…
- Every woman wants to sleep with me.
- Groping is OK if you have enough money.
- Tweeting is the best way to communicate complex thoughts.
- It is important to listen to other points of view.
- Authority is more important than responsibility.