• blackbrook@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    We already have some reasonable tests you can apply now, like how many lies do they tell each day (I’d like to use a longer time unit, but well, the bar has moved). Or how do they stand with decent human values or policy positions. People don’t seem too good at applying those tests, I’m not sure how some other tests would help matters.

    Maybe if candidates magically turned some bright color to show how much a peice of shit they were, people could learn to use that, that seems simple enough for even the really dim, but I expect they’d fail to use that too.

  • We don’t have “Presidents” here but rather Prime Ministers. but:

    Proper background checks. too many cases of people in power putting on a friendly face to get elected only to reveal their true nature right after being elected. if they are actively supporting people with anti trans (ie JK Rowling) or pro Zionist/genocidal views while saying “I’m a trans ally” that’s a red flag you’ve got a candidate who isn’t honest

  • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Any politician who can hold their breath under lava for more than 60 seconds can then submit the proper paperwork to begin collecting signatures to get their names added to the primary ballots.

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    Can we just do a basic background check?

    But I guess as long as they can remember: person, man, woman, TV, camera. That should be fine.

  • blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    They’d have to be able to run a sub 21 minute 5K. For no other reason than it’d remove a lot of politicians from the running (DYSWIDT).

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    I would give him some arranged test on cameras about what they would do if they were out fishing and saw a fishing accident; something random.

    Then I would shake their hand and let them walk back to a parking garage with no bodyguards, lying that the test is over. On the way, an ugly person is crying in pain on the ground, looking very homeless.

    If they do nothing to help, they do not have my vote. Most likely wouldn’t.

  • froh42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I probably wouldn’t bother. Here the president’s job mostly is a representative job, the only thing he can do is refusing to sign laws into effect.

    While the system here isn’t perfect either, it does divide powers a lot more than in other countries.

  • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t vote for the president. What’s the use of “testing” him (whatever that is).

      • breecher@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I think Americans ought to realise that the role of president in most countries is not similar to the US presidential role. In many countries they are inconsequential figureheads, heck, a lot of countries don’t even have presidents.

      • ClusterBomb@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I thought rise of fascism was mainly reponsibility of people who vote for fascists and candidates who have nothing to suggest to fight fascism and make people lives better but I guess I was wrong.

        • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Political extremists are more likely to consistently vote. When fewer people vote overall due to apathy, that makes it far easier for extremists to take control