• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should US Presidential Candicates Be Tested?

Should US Presidential Candidates Be Tested?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • No

    Votes: 22 95.7%

  • Total voters
    23
The problem is, as you have indicated, that the process does not always work. It's far too important a position to let someone who is not at least knowledgeable slip through the cracks.

If someone slips through the crack as you say, it is first because the majority of those belonging to his political party wanted him to slip through the crack. They nominated him. Then in the general it is the majority of Americans who decided for what ever reason experience and knowledge of the issues wasn't needed. But the key word here is majority. No system is flawless.

Then there is the problem of deciding what questions would be on the test, also who determines what answers are right or wrong. political point of view may decide the right or wrong aspect.

The two major parties have monopoly on our political system and thus in having that monopoly they limit the choices of candidates. But in the end who is elected always boils down to the people, even if the people are forced to choice from a very shallow pool of candidates.
 
I think it's time to come up with some more stringent requirements for someone to be President of the United States. Right now we only require that a person be a minimum age and be born in the US. We need a little more than that for such an important office. Presidential candidates should be required to take a test to make sure that they have at least a basic understanding of some of the major issues and are able to give some sort of decent analysis of the current major points of tension in foreign policy.

What do you think, is it time for US Presidential candidates to be tested?
No, that's our job as voters. If we're too unconcerned to educate ourselves, then we deserve what we get.

Ideas like testing and term limits is just an attempt to protect us from ourselves so we can sink even further into ignorance and apathy.
 
Yep, I'm serious. It would be fairly rigorous. Part written, part oral. Very rarely would someone get an A++, if at all. They just need to be at a level of basic proficiency. Somebody running who is going to be President of the United States should at the very least be able to elaborate at length on the significance of Marbury vs Madision for example.
The problem is, as you have indicated, that the process does not always work. It's far too important a position to let someone who is not at least knowledgeable slip through the cracks.
The other problem is establishing correct answers. We don't often phrase it as such, but really most issues we have with politicians are over individual ideology, not knowledge.
 
The campaigns and elections (primary and general) are the test. A good executive does not rely on only their own knowledge and experience - they surround themselves with experienced and trusted advisors to present policy options and then choose among them. Trying to get any large organization to perform or alter a plan requires more than the effort of any one person. A good leader sets goals, defines priorities and then ensures that those under them remain focused on those areas.

While the campaigns and elections are a test, candidates should be required to demonstrate that they have a command of the understanding of the issues that they will be faced with when they assume office. I also disagree that good executives don't rely on their own knowledge and experience. Large successful corporations always select someone with at least some experience directing some crucial operation of a large firm.
 
I think it's time to come up with some more stringent requirements for someone to be President of the United States. Right now we only require that a person be a minimum age and be born in the US. We need a little more than that for such an important office. Presidential candidates should be required to take a test to make sure that they have at least a basic understanding of some of the major issues and are able to give some sort of decent analysis of the current major points of tension in foreign policy.

What do you think, is it time for US Presidential candidates to be tested?

GWB and Obama both graduated from Harvard...

Take your pick political fanboys but the point is, tests are pointless.

Edit: And George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't... test are now double pointless.
 
If someone slips through the crack as you say, it is first because the majority of those belonging to his political party wanted him to slip through the crack. They nominated him. Then in the general it is the majority of Americans who decided for what ever reason experience and knowledge of the issues wasn't needed. But the key word here is majority. No system is flawless.

No system is flawless, but we should require more than just being born in the US and being over the age of 35. That's way too low for such and important position.

Then there is the problem of deciding what questions would be on the test, also who determines what answers are right or wrong. political point of view may decide the right or wrong aspect.

I fail to see why that is a problem. As I stated in another response, a candidate should be able to expound at length on something like Marbury vs Madison. That's just basic stuff that anyone who is President should know. You ask some things that have concrete objective answers. Then you ask some things that are more abstract where there might be different points of view. In that case a successful answer should demonstrate sound reasoning, rather than adherence to a certain point of view.

The two major parties have monopoly on our political system and thus in having that monopoly they limit the choices of candidates. But in the end who is elected always boils down to the people, even if the people are forced to choice from a very shallow pool of candidates.

I am tired of choosing from a shallow pool of candidates.
 
No, that's our job as voters. If we're too unconcerned to educate ourselves, then we deserve what we get.

Ideas like testing and term limits is just an attempt to protect us from ourselves so we can sink even further into ignorance and apathy.

As I said before, in an ideal world, voters would be tested as well. However, the problem is that would be use to unjustly disenfranchise people. However, we can and should expect more from a person who is going to be President, that we would from ordinary citizens.
 
The other problem is establishing correct answers. We don't often phrase it as such, but really most issues we have with politicians are over individual ideology, not knowledge.

I disagree. Again, anyone who is going to be in office should know the Marbury vs Madison established judicial review and they should be able to talk at length on the significance of that. You can ask questions that may get an ideological response where you are just looking for sound reasoning. For example although I like Angela Davis very much, I disagree with her on some major issues. However, I am always impressed with her reasoning ability even when I don't agree. That's the type of thing I am talking about.
 
GWB and Obama both graduated from Harvard...

Take your pick political fanboys but the point is, tests are pointless.

Edit: And George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't... test are now double pointless.

George W Bush went to Yale where he got by because he was the son of a rich man. He is a good reason why we should have tests.
 
George W Bush went to Yale where he got by because he was the son of a rich man. He is a good reason why we should have tests.

You do realize that there are a lot of rich and powerful people who go to these colleges and DO fail, right? I get it, you have a blind hatred for Bush and to you he was probably the Anti-Christ.

In a roundabout way though, you just proved my point. What's to stop someone who was the son of a rich man from passing your test the same way I assume you think Bush did.
 
No system is flawless, but we should require more than just being born in the US and being over the age of 35. That's way too low for such and important position.



I fail to see why that is a problem. As I stated in another response, a candidate should be able to expound at length on something like Marbury vs Madison. That's just basic stuff that anyone who is President should know. You ask some things that have concrete objective answers. Then you ask some things that are more abstract where there might be different points of view. In that case a successful answer should demonstrate sound reasoning, rather than adherence to a certain point of view.



I am tired of choosing from a shallow pool of candidates.

I agree on the shallow pool, that is why I have voted for third party candidates in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate just because they happened to be a Republican or Democrat. Even if the least worst candidate wins, you still end up with a dud in the White House.

But even if all the candidates could expound on Marbury vs. Madison or anything else one could think of, that does mean he will know how to react to ISIS or the Ukraine situation. It doesn't mean he will know what to do to turn the economy around or to hand our illegal immigration problem. More important it doesn't mean that a president will be willing to go against his party's base or the will of the American People to keep this country safe if need be or to do what is right when the popular will is against it.

I suppose what is really needed is for our elected officials to put the country and her people ahead of their political party. If they did this, there would be no test needed.
 
George W Bush went to Yale where he got by because he was the son of a rich man. He is a good reason why we should have tests.

And Barack Obama went to Harvard (I also thought Bush went to Harvard) where he got by by being a product of quotas. What's your point?
 
I disagree. Again, anyone who is going to be in office should know the Marbury vs Madison established judicial review and they should be able to talk at length on the significance of that. You can ask questions that may get an ideological response where you are just looking for sound reasoning. For example although I like Angela Davis very much, I disagree with her on some major issues. However, I am always impressed with her reasoning ability even when I don't agree. That's the type of thing I am talking about.

You seem to be hung up on Mabury, but while the decision is important, when I vote it is not in my top ten issues. I am interested in more current issues like the border, the economy, the current world situation. Stuff that matters to me and now. How are you going to test the issues important to me?

Another small point. We cannot come up with a way to test for the two Constitutional requirements. Age and citizenship. Why would your new requirements be any different?
 
You do realize that there are a lot of rich and powerful people who go to these colleges and DO fail, right?

Yep, I realize that. I also realize that there are a lot that get by because they are rich.

I get it, you have a blind hatred for Bush and to you he was probably the Anti-Christ.

No I don't hate him. I just think he did not have the depth to be President of the US.

In a roundabout way though, you just proved my point. What's to stop someone who was the son of a rich man from passing your test the same way I assume you think Bush did.

There's nothing to stop a rich person from passing. If they pass, then they pass.
 
I agree on the shallow pool, that is why I have voted for third party candidates in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate just because they happened to be a Republican or Democrat. Even if the least worst candidate wins, you still end up with a dud in the White House.

But even if all the candidates could expound on Marbury vs. Madison or anything else one could think of, that does mean he will know how to react to ISIS or the Ukraine situation. It doesn't mean he will know what to do to turn the economy around or to hand our illegal immigration problem. More important it doesn't mean that a president will be willing to go against his party's base or the will of the American People to keep this country safe if need be or to do what is right when the popular will is against it.

I suppose what is really needed is for our elected officials to put the country and her people ahead of their political party. If they did this, there would be no test needed.

The purpose of testing is not to find someone who will always make the correct decisions. The purpose of testing would be to make sure you have a candidate who is at least minimally qualified for the job.
 
And Barack Obama went to Harvard (I also thought Bush went to Harvard) where he got by by being a product of quotas. What's your point?

Barack Obama got by from hard work and by his intellectual ability, not because he was the son of a rich man.
 
I think it's time to come up with some more stringent requirements for someone to be President of the United States. Right now we only require that a person be a minimum age and be born in the US. We need a little more than that for such an important office. Presidential candidates should be required to take a test to make sure that they have at least a basic understanding of some of the major issues and are able to give some sort of decent analysis of the current major points of tension in foreign policy.

What do you think, is it time for US Presidential candidates to be tested?

it would be nice if they were tested. they should be given a bluebook type essay exam on the history of empires, for one.
 
You seem to be hung up on Mabury, but while the decision is important, when I vote it is not in my top ten issues. I am interested in more current issues like the border, the economy, the current world situation. Stuff that matters to me and now. How are you going to test the issues important to me?

Another small point. We cannot come up with a way to test for the two Constitutional requirements. Age and citizenship. Why would your new requirements be any different?

I am not hung up on Marbury, I'm just giving it as an example because Sarah Palin comes to mind. Someone who could not cite Marbury and expound on it right off hand should not be President of the United States. I said we should at least test to see if the candidates have a basic understanding of the major issues and can provide some sound analysis based on their understanding. That does not mean that some ideological preference should play a factor. The testing would be based on how sound the reasoning was, in that case.

We test for age and citizenship. People may dispute it but we test.
 
The purpose of testing is not to find someone who will always make the correct decisions. The purpose of testing would be to make sure you have a candidate who is at least minimally qualified for the job.

I do not think testing is the answer. There are so many intangibles that goes with job. It is one thing to be book smart, it is quite another to the the common sense to apply that knowledge in the best way possible. Then there is always common sense to be used, I have know quite a few people in my lifetime who were very knowledgeable, but lacked the common sense to do the right thing or to perform the task at hand.
 
I do not think testing is the answer. There are so many intangibles that goes with job. It is one thing to be book smart, it is quite another to the the common sense to apply that knowledge in the best way possible. Then there is always common sense to be used, I have know quite a few people in my lifetime who were very knowledgeable, but lacked the common sense to do the right thing or to perform the task at hand.

Well, we can at least insure that the knowledge is there. We don't need a person who cannot demonstrate that they have a command and understanding of the issues, at least theoretically, in the Oval Office.
 
Well, we can at least insure that the knowledge is there. We don't need a person who cannot demonstrate that they have a command and understanding of the issues, at least theoretically, in the Oval Office.

It won't happened. Most people do not care about the issues or the knowledge of the candidates, even their experience. They vote on the political party or on a bumper sticker slogan. Some vote hot button issues or a single hot issue for them, some vote just on the looks of the candidates or because someone's friend also voted for that person. There are a ton of reasons, a test wouldn't make a difference.
 
Well, we can at least insure that the knowledge is there. We don't need a person who cannot demonstrate that they have a command and understanding of the issues, at least theoretically, in the Oval Office.
If I understand your position in this thread correctly, you'd vote for someone with historical knowledge over someone who would vote in line with your beliefs.
 
It won't happened. Most people do not care about the issues or the knowledge of the candidates, even their experience. They vote on the political party or on a bumper sticker slogan. Some vote hot button issues or a single hot issue for them, some vote just on the looks of the candidates or because someone's friend also voted for that person. There are a ton of reasons, a test wouldn't make a difference.

Those are reasons why we should test people. At least we would know we were getting someone who is knowledgeable.
 
If I understand your position in this thread correctly, you'd vote for someone with historical knowledge over someone who would vote in line with your beliefs.

That's not necessarily so.
 
Back
Top Bottom