The presidency should be determined by means other than voting

Archbob

Archbob

Ancient CFC Guardian
Joined
Oct 25, 2000
Messages
11,776
Location
Corporate USA
The position of president of the United States is far too important to leave up to a bunch of incompetent voters. They process of selecting a candidate from each of the two parties should remain the same but in order to actually become president, they should compete with each other to prove their worthiness. Here are some competitions they might compete in to prove which one is more worthy.

1. Marathon

2. Take a finance test

3. Mortal Kombat(No, not the video game)

4. Strategy games

what do you guys think?
 
What make you think that someone is "better" than another person? You can't compare too people based on a financial test or a strategy game. I am assuming that this is a lighthearted thread.
 
I believe the presidency should be first determaned primarly though voting. But during the primaries, the presidenial canidate will have to take a mandentory IQ test to prevent another Bush-like president ;).
 
MobBoss said:
Two men enter...one man leaves....
Click to expand...
I thought it was four or five men enter (if you include third party canidates)....only one winner :confused:.
 
Clearly, the Ideal method would be to imlpiment the British system of Parlimentary Kung-Focracy, wherein the citizens of each riding elect four representatives for each seat in the house of commons, who are sent to the capital to band togeather with their parties and egage the others in a federal tournament, with each fight being to the death. The winner of each mini-tournament claims the seat in the anme of their party, and the leader of the party with the most seats becomes Prime Minister and forms a government. The leader of the second becomes the head of the oposition, and must battle the PM over the creation of the federal budget. If the PM is unable to perform a fatality, the Governor general must dissolve parliment and annother round of battles be held.

Once a governing party is in place, debates between emembers of parliment are settled in the ring, with the speaker of the house presiding as referee. Cameras are put in place and add space sold as the Government channel becomes the highest rated show in the country.

First created by King Charles the Bored of England, and a proud part of the policy of the Old Democratic Party. Cherrio!
 
The Shaolins of the East and the West must unite and fight to find out who is the best!
 
CivGeneral said:
I thought it was four or five men enter (if you include third party canidates)....only one winner :confused:.
Click to expand...
Third party canidates aren't invited. ;)

I think we should watch canidates undercover 24/7 for a year before thier presidency. Then we wouldn't be stuck with baby-eaters and puppy drowners!
 
Fallen Angel Lord said:
The position of president of the United States is far too important to leave up to a bunch of incompetent voters. They process of selecting a candidate from each of the two parties should remain the same but in order to actually become president, they should compete with each other to prove their worthiness. Here are some competitions they might compete in to prove which one is more worthy.

1. Marathon

2. Take a finance test

3. Mortal Kombat(No, not the video game)

4. Strategy games

what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

This issue has been plaguing democracies since the Classical Age. The electorate has always been stupid, relatively speaking, so that every election is a popularity contest, not necessarily a determination of merit. In the US, there are checks and balances. It doesn't matter that the president is a buffoon because there are 2 branches that will circumvent that buffonery. What I'm saying is that these tests of ordeal are neither necessary, nor helpful, and irrelevant. The president is not elected to be the best person for the job, just the person that people think is the best person. If the people decide that they need a president to do certain other things, they'll elect someone else later.

What you're advocating is some sort of meritocracy. If you're going to do that, you have to change the nature of government entirely. The problem lies in what means you'd determine to find out who was best for the job.
 
Actually think about what you wish for. If you pick some type of marathon or running race as a contest, chances are you STILL would have Bush for president. He is pretty darn fit and an excellent runner. I have no doubt he would leave Kerry or Gores behinds in the dust.
 
I still think a financial IQ test would be good because the economy is the most important part of the presidency.

So the candidate who can win in Sid level in Conquests wins the election?

I think this system can work.
Click to expand...

No, then we wouldn't have a president.
 
Fallen Angel Lord said:
The position of president of the United States is far too important to leave up to a bunch of incompetent voters.
Click to expand...
heredrule15st.png
 
are you suggesting someone should rule because of his genes?
 
Bah, voting is better than any other alternative. For having such a "stupid electorate", overall, we've had pretty good presidents.

CFC posters are just damn arrogant. Sorry that not everybody scored a 1500 on their SAT like our 16 year old wunderkids did
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zardnaar
The Death of the Left/FPtP
Replies
1
Views
607
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Klaus Hergersheimer
Drugs and the US market
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
5K
Hygro
Hygro
Z
Unable to win, so resorting to assassination, which is much more serious than any president being assassinated
Replies
5
Views
1K
Lexicus
Lexicus
eaglet123
Treasure Fleets should have random destinations, and their rough locations and routes disclosed to all parties
Replies
6
Views
896
Brian Bloxam
Brian Bloxam
Hawke9
I wish the border colors were determined by civ, instead of leader
Replies
2
Views
506
Lord Lakely
Lord Lakely
Back
Top Bottom