It beats mud wrestling

A Modest Proposal for Training Future Presidents:

You’d think we’d have a very solid process for figuring out the best person to fill the position, but we have been completely clueless on this for more than two hundred and thirty years. And the Founding Fathers weren’t much help on the task of picking a president, only listing two qualifications: he or she has to be thirty-five years old and has to have been born in this country. Nowadays, that limits the pool of potential applicants to about two hundred million people. Luckily we have a two-party system which somehow uses New Hampshire and Iowa to whittle down all the choices to two.

And we still have no idea how to decide.

In the current election, for example, people say they think Barack Obama would be a good president because he’s inspirational, but if you want inspiration, can’t you buy books or tape sets for that? Others say John McCain has the experience to be president, but experience at what? He’s been in the Senate a long time, but what do they do there? Vote on stuff? You could get the same experience just clicking on a lot of internet polls.

The other day I thought “Wouldn’t it be funny to have the presidential election determined by a reality show?” But the more I thought about it, the more I doubted there would be any real difference between the system we have now and a “So you want to be a President?” reality show.

One Response to “It beats mud wrestling”

  1. Tim Identicon Icon Tim Says:

    My take on it — forget reality tv and go with an eHarmony approach to e-voting:

    Rather than traditional voting, you fill out a brief “personality profile”.

    Last question is a simple yes/no checkbox: “I’m willing to be president”.

    At the end of the process, an algorithm spits of the country’s most “compatible” candidate.

Leave a Reply