A simple and straightforward question, give the apparent (lack of) intellect of Sarah, and also George W, would you support a minimum IQ as part of the needed qualifications to be president?
Forget for the moment how you would do the constitutional ammendment, or just how high it should be - would you support such a requirement?
Also, please do assume that its not part of some sort of “slippery slope” - its no more or less than the age requirement.
of ocurse it is. Barring accidents etc everyone will reach the required age. Not so with IQ. The electorate decide the Presidency, as it should be.
I guess then your answer is “NO”, the elecorate is a good enough judge.
I would not, even though I think that people tend to be too skeptical of the importance of intelligence to effective leadership. Reasons:
I also don’t think the minimum age of 35 has had a huge effect on presidential elections.
Yes. Not American, but I figure the q applied to any democracy.
Practical issues alone would make this unworkable.
Cheating at exams would have nothing on the resources that would be used to cheat at this. All of the standardised tests are easily available and can be gamed.
Otara
No, the public will get whatever they deserve. Even if that sinks some of us with them.
Standardized tests aren’t especially good measures of leadership ability, AFAIK.
Agreed they’re not, although intelletual ability would be one measure that your “leader” has the ability to talk to others, make decisions, and generally not embarrass the country (not infalliable or the only by any means)
But isn’t the role of the President to be more than a “leader” doesn’t this person also make policy? Isn’t he or she also supposed to be CiC? Which should require some form of decent decision making ability?
IQ is of more relevance to solving puzzles. People who are intelligent have a tendency to be good at those because life itself is a puzzle, but some people can’t particularly apply that ability in a more practical sense than literally just solving paper and pencil puzzles. You still find conspiracy theorists and loonies even among people who should be geniuses, for example–possibly because they are too keen to solve problems, even when there is no problem there, then get fixated on their “clever” solution when presented with more plausible theories.
It’s less important what someone’s IQ is as whether they do research, attack problems critically, and are willing to drop preconceptions. As yet, there’s no test for that.
For a politician, you also need to have good salesmanship abilities and charisma. A guy who knows what to do but can’t get anyone to go along with him or care is ultimately still a failure. I suppose that the electoral system is a decent enough system for testing that, so we probably don’t need to worry about testing for that quality through any other means.
Who shall watch the watchmen? Or in this case, who shall watch the people writing and grading the test?
Me, obviously. Who else would you trust?
If we had one for the voters, we wouldn’t need one for the candidate.
No. The idea is antidemocratic, but I guess that’s by design. The bigger flaw is that I don’t think IQ tells us much about intelligence, and it wouldn’t yield much useful information for a president. And when would this test be administered? Because if it were given at any time during the campaign or in preparation for it, the system would get gamed so thoroughly that the number wouldn’t mean anything at all.
I work in a field full of people with high IQs (medicine) and I think it would be a poor choice of test.
I do want a smart guy over a dumb guy; no doubt. But a number of qualities besides raw intelligence come into play. For the most part the average candidate has a certain floor intelligence level to get to the point where he or she is in a position to run for office. I’m not too worried most days we’ll get a truly subpar IQ successful candidate for President. They would make too many dumb decisions and blow it along the way.
I’d love to get hold of all standardized tests, though, for folks serving in public office. I do think a number of people in office have the gene that lets you schmooze well without the smart gene(s). Having said that, there are a lot of skillsets besides just raw intelligence that are needed, obviously, and a lot of high-IQ folks are dumber than mud fences for some of those skillsets.
I’d be more in favor of a test that has validity for the position of presidency, or any public office for that matter. Like the citizenship test that US immigrants have to take. Providing their test results could be part of the application process for candidancy. That way, people could scrutinize which questions they got correctly or incorrectly and it wouldn’t necessarily boil down to a single score. A bad score wouldn’t bar anyone from running, but it woud indicate two things: 1) how serious they were about running (because you could work your ass off studying for the exam, or you could be a slacker) and 2)how much do they really know about how this country’s history and government, which I believe are critical for being a good leader.
I had to show knowledge, skills, and abilities to get my government job. So I don’t think it’s unfair to require that from our leadership, even if they are elected. But I’m also satisfied with the system we have now.
Given that the OP names two specific names, as someone who has at times expressed distress at both W’s and Sarah Barracuda’s ascent into positions of ability to ruin lives, I must still say no. IANAPsychologist but as far as I can tell no member of the party ticket in the modern age has been a person of subnormal intelligence (shame on Gary Trudeau for falling for and perpetuating a myth). I strongly suspect both George and Sarah would easily clear any reasonable hurdle – unless you were to require something like better than two deviations above normal to qualify.
Besides I had thought that IQ or any analogous tests were discredited as predictors of competence in the real world in anything but the broadest sense.
Bears repeating, that one can have above average intellectual abilities and still fail at practical implementation (hello, Mr. Carter) or be sharp as a tack on policy but also have serious personality and moral-center issues (howdy do, Mr. Nixon). As Gump’s mama said, stupid is as stupid does.
That the voters have supposedly embraced the “guy I’d like to have a beer with” standard for supporting candidates, is IMO a problem with the voters , not the candidates – if it’s even really that big a factor to begin with.
I have had to face something like this in my own work, where every term some “brilliant mind” proposes that we should amend the Commonwealth Constitution so that the requirements for public office include a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree. My easy way of shutting them up is to point out to them that 80% of our legislators and mayors DO have a degree, so THAT is not the problem.
The kinds of things I’d want to filter for, such as a requirement to have had real-life success in creating jobs, or running a corporation, or even holding a significant real-life management job–are not easily put into a test form. In the end voters decide, and of course it turns out you can persuade most of the people most of the time if you promise them enough goodies from the public coffer.
I’d be OK with making a requirement that a law degree is a reason for exclusion. 
As to the OP, I kinda like the idea.
What I’m more interested in, and this should probably be a separate topic, is the idea expressed in many posts here that IQ is not a very good indicator of intelligence. It actually is, and it is a pretty good indicator of function in a lot of domains. It’s also one of the most stable quantities we have measured in people over time.
I’m saying no. I prefer the traditional Tuesday in November test.