We need a better way to vet candiates running for office and I have an idea

Ok. So Donald Trump has shown me an incredible weakness in our republic. You don't need to know anything about our Constitution, our laws, or our established precedents to run and hold office. You just need enough charisma and a message that resonates with enough of the base to get elected. This also applies to other offices too with such gems like Kid Rock now wanting to run for Senate. Traditionally this hasn't been TOO much of an issue. Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger were only governors of their states and Reagan did a few good things (though I still think he is one of the worst Presidents of the modern era, even worse than Bush jr, so he can even be used as an example here).

Now a solution people like to pitch is that we implement a civics test for voters, but this violates the Constitution. I cannot agree to such a thing. The smartest person in the country and the dumbest person in the country are entitled to the same vote. By that same reasoning, we should also relax taking voting rights away from felons, but that is a discussion for another thread.

So, what we need is a solution that doesn't punish the voters. So how about instead we punish the candidates? If we create a non-partisan office that implements a civics test for any candidate running federal office (this would be too hard to implement at lower governmental levels) then have the results of the test given to the voters before they vote so they can digest each candidate's knowledge base without the help of aides or prepared remarks. The non-partisan office would make the test unique each year and scramble the questions for each test given to each candidate to minimize cheating, and the questions could range from easy "name all 50 states and their capitals" to hard "Describe the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending". You could also have some questions to get an idea on how a candidate feels on issues like asking, "Define what compromise means to you and name a historic compromise that motivates you in today's politics".

Of course these tests wouldn't be able to inherently disqualify a politician for their answers. They could get every answer wrong and tell the public they want to enslave us all and it still wouldn't be enough to disqualify them. The decision would still be ultimately up to the voters on who they want to vote for, but this would give them an opportunity to be better informed on their choices. Naturally, they wouldn't be required to look at the results before voting, but any bit helps and I feel like this would be a good compromise to ensure better quality candidates in the future. After all, every other job in the world requires you to demonstrate some sort of competency in your field before being hired. Why shouldn't the most important jobs in the free world be the same?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A great method for picking president:

With your suggestion at least a President would know how many states are in the USA



Perhaps we should also demonstrate that they are qualified to hold the office.

And, show ALL past personal documents, tax returns, Collage transcripts, books, etc.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is a pretty good idea. It is also a good way to get definitive answers on their positions on civil matters.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure, can we also extend it to high schools?

It's truly is a mixed up world these days.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Another thing we need to do, is to drop the R or D off a candidates name. Far to many people vote for their team and not the person(I'm No one to talk, as I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary). I know many on this site and in real life that vote straight party ticket without knowing the candidates.

I've never voted a straight party ticket and I'm quite conservative. Ya got to know the players, not just the game.

The worst way to pick a president is by letting the American voter decide.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ok. So Donald Trump has shown me an incredible weakness in our republic. You don't need to know anything about our Constitution, our laws, or our established precedents to run and hold office. You just need enough charisma and a message that resonates with enough of the base to get elected. This also applies to other offices too with such gems like Kid Rock now wanting to run for Senate. Traditionally this hasn't been TOO much of an issue. Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger were only governors of their states and Reagan did a few good things (though I still think he is one of the worst Presidents of the modern era, even worse than Bush jr, so he can even be used as an example here).

Now a solution people like to pitch is that we implement a civics test for voters, but this violates the Constitution. I cannot agree to such a thing. The smartest person in the country and the dumbest person in the country are entitled to the same vote. By that same reasoning, we should also relax taking voting rights away from felons, but that is a discussion for another thread.

So, what we need is a solution that doesn't punish the voters. So how about instead we punish the candidates? If we create a non-partisan office that implements a civics test for any candidate running federal office (this would be too hard to implement at lower governmental levels) then have the results of the test given to the voters before they vote so they can digest each candidate's knowledge base without the help of aides or prepared remarks. The non-partisan office would make the test unique each year and scramble the questions for each test given to each candidate to minimize cheating, and the questions could range from easy "name all 50 states and their capitals" to hard "Describe the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending". You could also have some questions to get an idea on how a candidate feels on issues like asking, "Define what compromise means to you and name a historic compromise that motivates you in today's politics".

Of course these tests wouldn't be able to inherently disqualify a politician for their answers. They could get every answer wrong and tell the public they want to enslave us all and it still wouldn't be enough to disqualify them. The decision would still be ultimately up to the voters on who they want to vote for, but this would give them an opportunity to be better informed on their choices. Naturally, they wouldn't be required to look at the results before voting, but any bit helps and I feel like this would be a good compromise to ensure better quality candidates in the future. After all, every other job in the world requires you to demonstrate some sort of competency in your field before being hired. Why shouldn't the most important jobs in the free world be the same?

Love the idea...their answers could then be archived and kept for all to read anytime. This is actually pretty brilliant. It would cut the clutter of debates which are BS anyways, though they could still be held.

a reply to: Bluntone22

So we just continue to let the corporations decide.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ok. So Barack Obama has shown me an incredible weakness in our republic. You don't need to know anything about our Constitution, our laws, or our established precedents to run and hold office. You just need enough charisma and a message that resonates with enough of the base to get elected. This also applies to other offices too with such gems like Kid Rock now wanting to run for Senate. Traditionally this hasn't been TOO much of an issue. Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger were only governors of their states and Reagan did a few good things (though I still think he is one of the worst Presidents of the modern era, even worse than Bush jr, so he can even be used as an example here).

How about that! It still works with Obama's name in there.

As for the rest your OP, I'm sure it couldn't hurt. But I think the democrats would say it's racist.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a well thought out and great idea.

It is such a great idea I'm struck by the obviousness of it.
Why haven't we been testing those running for congress and president this entire time?
Other important offices should have tests as well. Like head of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., school teachers, police officers..etc.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ok. So Donald Trump has shown me an incredible weakness in our republic. You don't need to know anything about our Constitution, our laws, or our established precedents to run and hold office. You just need enough charisma and a message that resonates with enough of the base to get elected. This also applies to other offices too with such gems like Kid Rock now wanting to run for Senate. Traditionally this hasn't been TOO much of an issue. Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger were only governors of their states and Reagan did a few good things (though I still think he is one of the worst Presidents of the modern era, even worse than Bush jr, so he can even be used as an example here).

Now a solution people like to pitch is that we implement a civics test for voters, but this violates the Constitution. I cannot agree to such a thing. The smartest person in the country and the dumbest person in the country are entitled to the same vote. By that same reasoning, we should also relax taking voting rights away from felons, but that is a discussion for another thread.

So, what we need is a solution that doesn't punish the voters. So how about instead we punish the candidates? If we create a non-partisan office that implements a civics test for any candidate running federal office (this would be too hard to implement at lower governmental levels) then have the results of the test given to the voters before they vote so they can digest each candidate's knowledge base without the help of aides or prepared remarks. The non-partisan office would make the test unique each year and scramble the questions for each test given to each candidate to minimize cheating, and the questions could range from easy "name all 50 states and their capitals" to hard "Describe the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending". You could also have some questions to get an idea on how a candidate feels on issues like asking, "Define what compromise means to you and name a historic compromise that motivates you in today's politics".

Of course these tests wouldn't be able to inherently disqualify a politician for their answers. They could get every answer wrong and tell the public they want to enslave us all and it still wouldn't be enough to disqualify them. The decision would still be ultimately up to the voters on who they want to vote for, but this would give them an opportunity to be better informed on their choices. Naturally, they wouldn't be required to look at the results before voting, but any bit helps and I feel like this would be a good compromise to ensure better quality candidates in the future. After all, every other job in the world requires you to demonstrate some sort of competency in your field before being hired. Why shouldn't the most important jobs in the free world be the same?

The system is broken.

1) Voters need competency tests. I don't think anyone should be able to vote unless they can show basic understanding of our system. When you have a significant number of people who can't name the three branches of government or even the current Vice President, these people should not be voting.

2) I don't think you should be able to vote unless you are a tax payer. I also don't think you should be able to vote while being on the dole like welfare.

3) We need term limits for congress & senate. The President is a figure head. Most of the problems we have are coming from congress and senate. I don't think anyone should be able to serve more than two terms in the Senate and maybe 3 or 4 in Congress.

4) To prevent future BS, let's just all agree that anyone running for congress, senate, or Presidency should have to release school transcripts, personal and business tax returns, and birth certificate

5) Congress & senate should be a part-time. They should be entitled to cover any expenses associated with the job, but there should be no compensation. There should also be no pension or other benefits like healthcare. Congress and senate should have to use the same exact programs and benefits as the general public. I don't want professional politicians and people who don't have real jobs being in office.

6) Lobbying after being office should not be permitted for at least five years.

7) Contributions by individuals is fine, but I have an issue when associations are making donations. I don't care if it is association of Realtors or Unions or NRA or whoever. I don't want our politicians beholden to large organizations. If the members want to ban together INDIVIDUALLY it is one thing, but they can't do it as an official group.

8) Fixing Tax Code: One of the reasons I am for a simplified tax system is that the tax code has become who politicians reward their lobbyist by carving out deductions and other favors within the tax system. If we have a simplified system, then we remove a huge area of corruption and graft.

9) Legislation should be simplified and focused. There is no reason for bills to be 2000 pages full of non-relevant amendments and pork. IF you want a bill on something, if you can't communicate it in less than 20 pages there is a problem.

10) Every regulation or legislation should be up for review of efficacy at least every 10 years if not sooner. At that point, they can vote to either continue, amend or remove.

I don't think the problem is that the majority of people don't know that these candidates are bad, it's more that there aren't any good candidates. And it will remain that way as long as we continue to centralize and grow the power of government, the psychopaths will be drawn to it like moths to a flame.

a reply to: Edumakated

I like everything but number 2.
Social security is welfare so retired folks couldn't vote?

Disabled couldn't vote?

A working mother on assistance couldn't vote?

a reply to: whywhynot

The more info the better. Not arguments here.

a reply to: Edumakated

I can understand or agree with all your points but one.

I also don't think you should be able to vote while being on the dole like welfare

Just because a person is bad with finances and on welfare doesn't mean they can't be an informed voter.
Money does not equal intelligent.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The worst way to pick a president is by letting the American voter decide.

Maybe, but it is currently the most fair way to select our government out of the existing governmental systems in existence. We need to make it work because if we don't things could be much much worse.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting approach, but the only federal election, really, is the office of the president. The rest are state elections and smaller. So, are you only thinking for the president, or extending it out to Congressmen as well when they campaign and officially throw in their hat?

My only concern is how to maintain any non-partisan committee as being non-partisan; everything at the end of the day requires vigilance, something many people can’t be bothered with.