How To Elect A President, Or Not

How To Elect A President, Or Not
           by Jack Dallas

I don’t live in a cave on a mountaintop and no one is going to ask me the meaning of life. I know, but I’m keeping it a secret. However, I have made an observation of our times that we are going about this presidential selection process all wrong. We have two dominant parties who put forth a group of candidates. In the case of a party with an eligible incumbent, that person is normally the de facto nominee. For the other party, the individual selected is the one who best explains their solutions to the dominant issues of the day and manages to score points in the early primaries.

I submit that, while those proposed solutions to current issues may provide some insight to the candidate, they are somewhat meaningless in terms of what is feasible. Present incumbent excluded, we don’t normally nominate or elect a wannabe dictator who will attempt at all costs to push their uncompromising agenda on an unwilling electorate and uncooperative Congress. We should instead be evaluating the character and skills of the nominees. To that end, I think the current debate process is not very helpful. We end up with a broad field of individuals arguing the minutia of complex ideas such as healthcare, the details, and rhetoric of which will never match the final plan if implemented.

We all need to better understand the character of the individuals who want the job. A job interview if you will. Why don’t we examine each individual in a structured and detailed interview? Thoroughly review their Curriculum Vitæ and their detailed resume. We should know their accomplishments, education, and job experience particularly as it relates to our top presidential position. We should listen to those people close to them that the candidate may offer as references. We should also be able to hear from those individuals who have done business with that person in the past.  My neighbor recently retired from a police department position and decided to take a position with another department.  I was asked to complete a questionnaire and another p0lice sergeant contacted me for my thoughts and experience knowing my neighbor.  We should at least be that thorough with our president.  He should have a complete security background check in order to qualify for the position.  We shouldn’t have to wait until after they are elected to find out that we made a mistake.

Should we also listen to a candidate’s plans for top issues of the day, certainly? However, we should hear those goals and objectives only in the broadest of terms, as we all know that actual implementation will require compromise.
Candidates should be graded, perhaps by a group or panel conducting the interviews. They would be rated in terms of intelligence, knowledge of history, and all job experiences that might relate and be beneficial to the most important position in the world. School records would need to be provided. Tax returns would be released. An audit of the current and the preceding ten years of financial dealings would be reviewed and summarized by someone skilled in that area. Each candidate would get an equal amount of time for the interview in front of the panel. One or two people would ask a prepared list of questions along with any that would be predicated on the candidate’s response to an established line of inquiry. The interview would be taped and broadcast at various times on any station wanting to air the video and it would be available online.

At the end of each interview, the panel members would grade the candidate on the overall categories and then they would summarize their explanation of the scores they had given. The voting public will still make the final decision but at least it would be an informed decision for those willing to make the effort to know the candidates.  While this may sound like America’s Got Talent or some other reality show, perhaps that’s what we need.  The panel should be made up of respected and knowledgeable individuals, not necessarily newscasters for a host network.  They would be personable and smart and have a background where knowledge of our national politics and world events is part of their experience.  The questions would test a candidate’s knowledge of politics, history, world events, geography, and various problems facing America.

I would also submit that this process should be followed for the position of vice president. That position should not be appointed at the political whim of a particular candidate. The position of VP should be decided by the voters during the primaries. To date, nine vice presidents have ascended to the presidency by the death of the president or, in Gerald Ford’s case, by resignation.  We would elect both the president and the vice president.  We could even debate the merits of having the vice-presidential position filled by the VP with the highest popular vote, even if it is with the opposition party.  Wouldn’t that be an interesting dynamic?  I’m not proposing that as a solution but merely throwing it out as food for thought and debate.

Early in the political process, we would hear from all the eligible candidates who have managed to clear thresholds similar to criteria currently in place. We could hold a follow-up interview if that is deemed necessary. I would find such interviews far more educational than the chaotic situation and spectacle that is the current process. If Republicans had the knowledge of President Trump’s school and financial records, and interviews with those familiar with his business practices, he may not have been their candidate.

As for the meaning of life: Love yourself, Love one other person more than yourself, and Respect all others.

Now, back to my cave.

A Wise Man Can See More From the Bottom of a Well
Than A Fool Can See From a Mountaintop