I have a new idea... I just came up with this recently... I have posted this in a couple other threads, but I'd like a separate thread to get your thoughts. I think it would work perfectly to help the American public be a bit more objective in the election of politicians... this hit me after bouncing between NFL radio and news channels stuff...

1) Anyone running for an elected office MUST take wonderlic test within 3 months of the election. For EVERY election...

2) Anyone running for an elected ofice MUST take a recent photo, 8x10, within 3 months of the election...

The scores of the test and pictures (8x10) will be displayed in the voting booth at the election...

And there should be a minimum requirement scored on the wonderlic to be eligible to run for office... if you score an astonishing Vince Young 6 on the test... maybe your not fit for office...

We may not be able to have term limits, but should we have a little bit more of an objective measure of these people... we have a combine for football players, we measure them left right and sideways... should we not have a bit more of a baseline and measurement for politicians...

_________________

It might not be a bad idea, but it probably needs some tweaking. Intelligence does not in itself make a good leader. I guess I have an issue with those things being placed in voting booths since people have a tendency to judge based on their most recent experience with something.

I would however like them to be well known and widely circulated beforehand.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

It still can't hurt for it to be a factor.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

The Wonderlic test doesn't do an accurate job measuring the aptitude of football players. Why would we expect it to do a better job with politicians?

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

Im just looking for a more objective measure.... and a base line to see when someone's skills has diminished... and picture and a test score would tell me a lot... and it certainly does NOT have to be a factor in how you vote.... but say you take someone like Robert Byrd... and his wonderlic test shows that when he first ran for office he scored a 19 on the wonderlic, which would be an extremely high score.... and in his latest election, he scores a 2.... well you now have a bit more of an objective measure of the persons mental capacity ... you can't tell me that someone like Robert Byrd and MANY others through out the years, are just as sharp when they get into office, as say when they are 91.... and if they are, god bless and keep rolling.... but if they aren't, shouldn't WE the people know a little more about these guys...

_________________

_________________
"Go out and run 'em."
- Lindy Ruff, 23 Feb. 2007

oh i totally agree that it is still the responsibility of the people to be educated on their decisions! But the politicians don't make it overly easy for the people. Byrd still uses a photo probably taken 40 years ago... why shouldn't politicians have a baseline that could be tracked year in year out? Doctors and nurses need to do continuing education... Asking a politician for term limits is something that will probably NEVER occur, so why can't we ask for a simple aptitude test and picture, so we have a simple concise baseline of measurement on these people election in and election out... Of course you bring up a great point, how would we know its not simply the staff taking the test, lol....

_________________

You shouldnt base someones intelligence off a speech they make during their campaign. I mean dont get me wrong when I say this.. but Obama didn't write any of his speeches for his campaign. I think he is a very intelligent man but I dont think you should base someones intelligence off of something that they probably didnt write. Im sure in fact that most presidential candidates dont write their own speeches.

_________________

LETS GO BUFFALO!

They also have to say and do things during the election to gain party support. That's why I'm not a fan of "broken promises". Just judge the guy by what he's actually doing once he's in office. The election is a whole different ball of wax.

Also, Zilla is correct. It's the voters fault if they allow a tarded representative to fall through the cracks. Just don't vote for the dumb guy, and he won't represent you(no offense if G.W. Bush reads this).