Marginal Revolution: So You Think You Can Be President?

July
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

« Department of Yikes | Main | The market for lemmas »

So You Think You Can Be President?

Our system for choosing presidents doesn't work very well. Voters are woefully uninformed on the most basic of issues and many end up voting on whim. I don't think restricting the franchise is a good solution, however. A better idea is to create procedures that encourage voters to become better informed. Our current institutions for providing information are lousy. Debates, for example, are boring, the politicians don't answer the questions and most importantly the voters don't know what a good answer is.

(If the voters, for example, don't know the difference between Sunni and Shia then how can they distinguish foolish and uninformed approaches to foreign policy from intelligent and informed approaches? And if the voters can't tell who is uninformed from who is informed then politicians have little incentive to become informed.)

Thus what we need is a way of conveying information to uninformed, unsophisticated voters in a way that is entertaining yet produces information about politicians that is correlated with real skills.

I suggest a game show, So You Think You Can Be President? SYTYCBP would have at least three segments.

Coase it Out: Presidential candidates have 12 hours to get a bitterly divorcing couple to divide their assets in a mutually agreeable manner. (Bonus points are awarded if the candidate convinces the couple to stay together.)

Game Theory: Candidates compete in a game of Diplomacy. I would also include several ringers - say Robin Hanson, Bryan Caplan and Salma Hayek. Why these three? Robin is cold, calculating and merciless - make a logical mistake and he will make you pay. Bryan is crafty and experienced. And Salma? I couldn't refuse her anything but presidents should be made of stronger stuff so we need a test.

Spot the Fraud: Presidential candidates are provided with an economic scenario (mortgage defaults are up, hedge funds are crashing, liquidity is tight). Three experts propose plans. The candidate must choose one of the plans. After the candidate chooses, the true identities of the "experts" are revealed. One is a trucker, another a scuba diver instructor and the last a distinguished economist. Which did the candidate choose?

Entertaining? Check. Correlated with important skills for governing? Check. Can the voters tell who the winner is? Check.

What segments for So You Think You Can Be President do you suggest?

Addendum: Yes, I am serious.

Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 22, 2007 at 07:21 AM in Economics, Political Science | Permalink

Comments

That would certainly be entertaining, but I see two major problems with the idea:
* I'm not convinced that a well-informed electorate will produce a better outcome than the current system.
* What incentive would there be for candidates to participate? Debate formats are generally agreed upon by all participants, so efforts by skilled debaters to make the debates more interesting are always stymied by the lesser skilled candidates.

I would definitely watch this if it was on TV, though.

Posted by: Brien at Aug 22, 2007 7:37:25 AM

Brien,

"What incentive would there be for candidates to participate?"

"I would definitely watch this if it was on TV, though."

Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 22, 2007 7:51:43 AM

I am not so sure that what appears as individual irrationality at the individual level translates into irrationality at the macro level. There are many studies that seem to indicate that (excuse the phrase) macro polity acts quite rationally. For example when members of congress get to far out of step with their district they are defeated (Canes-Wrone, Brady, Cogan APSR 2004). Now how this exactly happens is still unsettled I think Erikson, Mackuen, and Stimson's "Macro Polity" lays out the puzzle of micro irrationality v/s macro rationality well, but ultimately I find their explanation unsatisfying.

So I think it is an open question as to whether the system really "doesn't work well".

Besides with all we know about the median voters level of knowledge on the major policy areas (economics, foreign policy etc). Do you REALLY want them paying more attention to politics or less?

Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Aug 22, 2007 7:54:32 AM

Alex, you're right, there would be increased visibility for candidates who participate. But those candidates would also run the risk of losing a board game to Salma Hayek. I think most candidates are so averse to embarrassment that they would decline to participate.

Posted by: Brien at Aug 22, 2007 8:00:50 AM

The only real solution is to reduce to an absolute minimum the role of a government in anyone's life. There is no good way to select rulers, but there is a need for an authority perceived by the masses to be legitimate, to keep the evil fearful. Any truly wise philosopher-king would know he is not just fallible but powerless to do good in any but the most limited sphere.

Posted by: Robert Speirs at Aug 22, 2007 8:06:27 AM

Two questions, or rather, one question and one comment.

Q1: Why the bonus points if the candidate convinces the couple to remain together? (I fear that might entice facile populisms of the kind one wouldn't want in a ruler).

Q2 (or C1 really): There is no evidence that errors cancel out in the aggregate as Stimson et al. assume. In fact, there's evidence that the errors of the "know nothings" are systematic (as the psych literature suggests).

Posted by: 2Qs at Aug 22, 2007 8:10:56 AM

Speaking as an economist, were I to poll three distinguished macroeconomists on solutions to our current mortgage problem, they would likely give three distinctly different answers. How can we claim that a presidential candidate should choose the advice of one of them?

Posted by: craig at Aug 22, 2007 8:12:53 AM

my boyfriend had this idea a few weeks ago! he wants to make the current debates more of a game show where the audience votes on who gave the best answer to each question and candidates are eliminated from the debate until there are only two left and they have a one-on-one session. i think we would see more of the people we don't usually hear from, and less of the ones who are plastered to the insides of our eyes (ahem, clinton, obama, edwards, ahem)

Posted by: susie at Aug 22, 2007 8:17:24 AM

Worse, a candidate who chooses the truck driver's plan may get credit in the eyes of voters, particularly if that plan involves distributed costs and concentrated benefits, no matter how harmful it might ultimately be. There's also American anti-intellectualism to consider. Agreeing with the egghead makes you an egghead and we all know that nerds get picked last for dodgeball. And that's basically how this is approached in the broader electorate.

Posted by: Sandy at Aug 22, 2007 8:22:01 AM

Wouldn't the show become the focus for lobbying by rent-seekers?

I'm sure everything would be fine while Alex Tabarrok is in charge, but once he retires I can imagine the producers being bribed to ensure that the economist explains why his plan to raise import tarriffs or farm subsidies is a splendid idea that every right-thinking person should vote for.

Posted by: Andy Wood at Aug 22, 2007 8:28:46 AM

I think this is a great idea. American Idol style shows work best when they are choosing someone for a job for which superficial qualities traditionally determine success. (For singers, style and looks; for politicians, fund raising and popularity). The show is actually able to find very talented people and give them the superficial stuff to make them popular.

And you wouldn't have to convince candidates to join the show. In fact it would be best to ignore the normal candidates. I am sure there are many people in many different fields who could do a better job at being president than someone who best skills are at schmoozing and fund raising like a lifelong politician. The show's winner could compete against the Democratic and republican nominee, and probably win. Another benefit would be the winner's lack of ties to donors or a political party. The politicians we've had historically who were famous or rich from some endeavor besides politics have turned out very well: Reagan,Schwarzenegger, Bloomberg + all the founding fathers.

The only problem I see is hat as our campaign laws are now, it might be illegal for a TV network to run the show since it would be giving extra airtime to one specific candidate.

Posted by: Will Perkins at Aug 22, 2007 8:29:34 AM

Game Theory: Candidates compete in a game of Diplomacy

Spring 09: Fleet Afghanistan CONVOY Army Iraq->Pakistan.

Posted by: Barack Obama at Aug 22, 2007 8:35:10 AM

"Spot the Fraud" doesn't work. Too many "distinguished economists" are frauds and would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan than that proposed by your average trucker. Present company excepted.

Posted by: Tom Kelly at Aug 22, 2007 8:38:48 AM

In addition to the disagreement among economists craig
reminds us of, there are some cases where the answer of a
truck driver may be better for us than the answers of the
economists. This is particularly true of issues where non-
economic effects are involved. Immigration being the
current commonly debated example.

If we ignore the effects on crime. culture, schools, and
welfare, then open borders are the most economy improving
answer.

But taking them into account it is not clear that open borders
are economically optimal.

And it is also possible that more people who are now citizens
would prefer the lower per citizen GDP and greater domestic
tranquility that might come from closed borders.

John

Posted by: Shakespeare's Fool at Aug 22, 2007 8:42:50 AM

The game show idea is good: but expecting the candidates to play is wrong. The purpose of the game show would be to educate the public about the issues.

For example, the show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" has the section where three putative news stories are brought up, but two are fictitious. The idea is to guess which is the real one. For sufficiently non-ideological issues (ie. fact based), this could be beneficial. For example, did Al Gore say he invented the internet?

You three contests all are too lengthy. They would necessitate a "Survivor" kind of presentation after the fact. In addition, candidates would need to function with their teams, else it would be unrealistic. And Survivor-like series work by manipulating the audience emotionally, rather than encouraging rational decision making.

So instead we should have games like "where does the propaganda come from?", "who's funding the propaganda?", "who benefits?", "spot the corporate connection", "what false assumption is the economist making?", "why should we believe that crap?", etc.

Posted by: Mike Huben at Aug 22, 2007 8:45:00 AM

How about this: Unbeknownst to contestants, anyone who signs up to be a contestant is disqualified from ever holding public office.

Posted by: lardlad at Aug 22, 2007 8:48:54 AM

I know that I will get verbally shot for saying this on this website, but one real world idea that seem to work is well financed public service TV.

From my comparative experience between virtually no-public service, public service in decline, and well financed and established public service, I have found that understanding of political issues is clearly higher in the later context. And the quality of public debate is much much higher. Admittedly my experience is only from wealthy and stable democracies.

Fire away! But please no knee jerk defenses of pure free market in the media from those Americans who have no perspective on which to build an opinion. Thats is anybody whose idea of media diversity is the difference between Fox and CNN.

Posted by: aaron_m at Aug 22, 2007 8:53:07 AM

Forget the AC/DC experiment on bargaining efficiency, how can we get Salma Hayek to participate in an experiment to determine the impact she has on bargaining efficiency?

Posted by: AZ at Aug 22, 2007 8:54:11 AM

I agree that this is an excellent idea.

Posted by: Zach at Aug 22, 2007 9:02:45 AM

...I didn't think anyone in the world but my gaming group still played Diplomacy. Of course, such a game would likely be a multi-day affair, which would ruin it for television.

I'd like to see a segment where unknown to the candidate, professionals conspire to ruin their life for a day - let air out of their tires, splash with puddles, etc. Just to see how they'd react.

Posted by: Andrew at Aug 22, 2007 9:05:08 AM

How about having them compete head-to-head in a game of Civilization IV? Start them with approximately equal civilizations and see who comes out on top. Plenty of opportunity for diplomacy, economic policy, military campaigns plus lots of treachery - just like the real world! Seems like a much better system than the current one, not to mention cheaper. The whole thing could be broadcast over the Internet.

Posted by: Ned at Aug 22, 2007 9:11:30 AM

I have always been impressed by the focus of US media on candidates' opinions about important issues. It's SO refresing to open an American newspaper and see a detailed analysis instead of the infotainment that media in my country are full of. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the US blogosphere is unparalleled. Wouldn't it be a viable solution to stop encouraging the politically lethargic part of the population to vote? I'd assume that exactly these voters are rather fickle and impressionable. With a turnout around 50 %, wouldn't a large part of "undesirable voters" be excluded? Am I naive or, God forbid, élitist?

Posted by: J. at Aug 22, 2007 9:12:19 AM

Spot the fraud is not necessarily about choosing the better plan it's about spotting the fraud. A candidate who can't tell the difference between a distinguished economist/scientist/country expert and a non-expert isn't a good candidate since Presidents must use this skill all the time.

Remember also that we need the results to be correlated with good skills they don't have to be perfectly correlated.

Finally, I want to see more suggestsions for segments! (Kudos to Andrew for his suggestion). What skills do Presidents need and how do we test for those in a way that is entertaining and that there is a clear winner that voters can recognize.

Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 22, 2007 9:14:59 AM

Addendum: Yes, I am serious.

For certain values of serious, at any rate. I'm glad to see you've taken to heart my recent advice for you to post more.

Posted by: eddie at Aug 22, 2007 9:24:18 AM

I would like a Jeopardy segment...but replace Trebek with Walter Williams.

Posted by: Eli at Aug 22, 2007 9:24:25 AM

All of the commenters (and Alex himself) seem to think that they have a good handle on what exactly makes a good president. I submit that we have a very poor idea, not having served as President or Vice President. Having run for office myself (at a very local level), I have been in fairly close contact with a number of them. I have a very different set of criteria to mention.

1) From 0500 to 2200, the president is a manager. I estimate his direct reports at twenty. (Many or most members of the cabinet in fact report to the chief of staff). A president better be able to directly manage that many people at once.

2) Of our multi-trillion dollar budget, better than 99% is spent by the executive branch. The federal government is easily our largest employer. A president had better be able to manage an organization of this size.

3) Despite our wealth and attendant military power, the president has about twenty world leaders that he needs to treat as if they were almost equals to avoid a Lilliputian tyranny. The president had better be a smooth talker.

4) Despite the apparent publicity of the office, much of his actual power will be exercised via little-noted presidential directives or private one-on-one or -few meetings. The president had better have a great deal of integrity.

5) And of course, it is critical that he advance good policy--as defined by me.

In case you did not notice, 1-3 are directly tested by a national campaign as few other things can. 5 is also relatively easy to judge, and if it is not, then that itself becomes reason to look elsewhere.

Are the debates as set silly? Of course. I would much rather go Lincoln- Douglas. Let these jokers go on for an hour at a time with no break. That will give us something to analyze.

Is the primary system a tragedy of the commons? Of course. Though I am from Texas, I would much prefer a small-states-first-in-groups-of-four plan (with some tweaking at the beginning and end).

But these are relatively small matters, almost tweaks.

Posted by: Nathan Zook at Aug 22, 2007 9:26:54 AM

Plus, now we see evidence of what we've all long suspected: Alex Tabarrok is the academic pseudonym of Alex Trebek.

Posted by: eddie at Aug 22, 2007 9:28:41 AM

I do like the idea of these games, but I would make an addition: the candidate is allowed to (must?) select a proxy for at least one game. The intelligent selection of one's staff is often more important than one's own abilities. I mean, would it really be fair to put Richard Nixon through this test without allowing him to bring in Henry Kissinger as a pinch-hitter for Diplomacy? Otherwise it's not an effective indicator of future performance.

Really, though, our system of choosing presidents works reasonably well. Fundamentally, a presidential candidate wins by organizing well, intelligently recruiting a campaign staff, and attracting the support of successful people as donors or endorsements. They duke it out in the primaries based primarily on these aspects, and the result is a general election choice between two candidates who are both reasonable choices for most of the electorate.

Oh, and I think another test should be a presented as a baby-kissing contest, where the candidate kisses as many babies as possible in ten minutes. Then, with the camera trained on him, he is told that he just contracted oral herpes from one of them. And... action!

Posted by: Dolohov at Aug 22, 2007 9:38:57 AM

Anything that increases the voters' confidence is a bad idea. I want a game show that shatters the myth of knowledge. At the end of the show, the voters should feel ignorant, the politicians should look stupid, and the thought on everyone's mind will be "I don't want to give these guys too much power!"

Posted by: 8 at Aug 22, 2007 9:52:24 AM

Improv comedy sketches. Like in that Who's Line is it Anyway show. Our leader needs to think on his/her feet and be able to entertain others in pressure situations.

Plus, everyone likes to see clips from that annual Correspondents Dinner when the president make a few well-rehearsed mildly funny jokes. Imagine if it were spontaneous.

There might be some surprises in who "wins" this round...

Posted by: Nate at Aug 22, 2007 10:03:10 AM

Why is everyone so down on the trucker? Since when are truckers just a bunch of nitwits? Can't a trucker be an educated man? I mean just because a man is a trucker doesn't mean he can't be educated in economic policy. There is a lot of time for truckers to read while they are on their mandatory down time.

Posted by: KevinLin at Aug 22, 2007 10:37:22 AM

The show must go on!

I say we allow a panel of policy-making gods to rank the participants, offering progressively larger (and I mean LARGER) campaign contributions to the winners.

Secondly, if these contributions are government funded, I say we make this the ONLY method of raising $$$$$ for campaigns. Let the Gov't endorse its own champion.

Posted by: at Aug 22, 2007 10:50:47 AM

While I'd watch this show, esp. if mud-wrestling were added to the suite of required skills, I think it suffers from the same faulty premise that the Caplan book does, namely that populace's "ignorance" translates to bad policy. Yeah, Americans despise free trade when asked about it on surveys, but we still manage to have one of the most open economies in the world. I won't pretend that I know why that is, but maybe, as the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."

The other prob is that a politician isn't a "good" like an iPod with an easily identifiable set of ideal features. Alex might care about whether he (or she) can distinguish between Sunnis and Shiites, but I might care about his positions on farm policy or--and I know this is an unpolite topic to bring up around university types--religion, know a great deal about that and vote accordingly. I suspect that, if we trolled the internet, we could find a blog where the commenters are ruing the the public's ignorance of farming or its ungodliness and equally heartfelt (and well-intentioned) intimations of doomsday for the republic.

I also wonder if much of the sophistication that the well-educated congratulate themselves for doesn't really just boil down to trivia taken from reading the NYT, WSJ etc. Does the fact that you read a weekend info-graphic in the paper about the Sunni Triangle really make you any better than a trucker at sorting through our problems in Iraq or does it just allow for better showing off at faculty parties?

Posted by: Tim Gray at Aug 22, 2007 10:57:26 AM

- A geography test

- Rapid fire Q&A session on tough issues. They need to be able to talk in public. Maybe tethered to some electric shokc things when they say "like" or "um."

- I also think the panel should have 2 experts and one fraud. If not too hard, bc you would probably just have three frauds. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205crbo_books1

- Something such as: spin 10 times around a bat and run to the edge of the stage and recite the pledge of allegiance.

- A karaoke contest or a dance-off. A dance-off should def be the sudden-death tie breaker. That, or a 2 minute summary of the last book they read and liked, highlight what they liked, why they chose it, and what they learned from it.

- Why a bonus to get them to stay together? Sometimes a breakup is better and preferred.

- Give them some sort of puzzle that cannot be solved and 30 minutes to solve it – though it can be solved if rules are broken. See how they handle it.

Posted by: PH at Aug 22, 2007 11:05:52 AM

Ned: Optimal Civ IV strategy involves invading weaker opponents, destroying their cities, and setting up your own cities in their place. Not such a good idea.

Good point Dolohov.

Better point 8.

Posted by: michael vassar at Aug 22, 2007 11:22:04 AM

"Coase it out" reminds me of the beginning of Wedding Crashers.

PH: Nice suggestions, I like the idea of candidates reciting the Pledge of Allegiance; I wonder if many of them actually remember it. Also, I'd opt for the dance-off over karaoke (two words: mute button). The puzzle is a great idea too.

P.S. I'd watch this on television too. Two words: Salma Hayek.

Posted by: Brian at Aug 22, 2007 11:45:23 AM

Very good point 8.

Posted by: Brian at Aug 22, 2007 11:46:48 AM

Sorry, I have to disagree with the premise that more information will lead to better results.

First, there are some issues that are so complex that the average voter is not going to be able to make an informed judgment regardless of how much information is provided.

Second, there are issues where there is no clear best course of action, so even knowing a person's position doesn't help.

Third, there will be things that will arise that are unforeseen and for those the candidate's positions on this are not determinable in advance.

Candidates know all this which is why they spend the bulk of their time on emotional appeals. Voters know this as well which is why many openly state that they pick someone they can "trust" or who they have a "gut feeling about".

Now if you are trying to get politicians to actually explain their true feelings about issues instead of obfuscating them that is an admirable goal, but doomed to fail. The goal of a candidate is not to alienate anyone. Those who are ideologically attached to the candidate or his party are in the bag and can be mostly ignored. Those on the other side will never cross over and also can be ignored.

So all the effort goes to the unaffiliated or uninterested and they don't have the interest or patience for wonkery. Hence all the platitudes and emotional appeals.

I think if you read the history of Rome you will find much the same dynamic. Nothing changes.

Posted by: robertdfeinman at Aug 22, 2007 11:54:36 AM

Dolohov posted my thought, the ability to choose qualified subordinates is crucial (and this is obviously related to the Coase it Out test as well). I would structure an event where you tell the canidate what the challenge will be, he gets say 7 resumes to review, he can interview 2 finalists for 5 minutes and then has to choose the proxy for the job

Posted by: GF at Aug 22, 2007 12:04:19 PM

Lead a class of third graders across the street.

Posted by: MattF at Aug 22, 2007 12:32:44 PM

Alex, My only issue with Game Theory is you assume all presidential candidates to be male.

Although I would certainly be prone to giving into the temptation of Selma Hayek, I don't know how Hilary Clinton may affected by steaminess.

Nothing wrong with your proposal, but I scoff at your inherent gender bias.

Posted by: Alan at Aug 22, 2007 12:40:20 PM

I'm with Mike above in thinking that there's no way a candidate would agree to play in such a game. They know they're judged very harshly for small mistakes, and given little credit for getting the general approach right. But getting fake candidates to play might be an excellent idea.

My pet idea on this (perhaps not for presidents though) is to restrict the franchise on any given issue: divide people, randomly and permanently, into say 10 categories, who have votes on different issues. They might then find the time to find out a little about their issue... the downside is that they can't discuss it with their friends so easily. Has anywhere ever tried this?

Posted by: improbable at Aug 22, 2007 1:10:08 PM

Since Celebrity Jeopardy routinely humiliates its participants by exposing their ignorance on basic knowledge, I think a kind of Presidential Jeopardy would be equally useful.

"Name all the current members of the UN Security Council."

"How many Federalist Papers are there and who wrote them?"

"What does the 10th Amendment say?"

"What is a movement along the demand curve in response to a change in price called?"

"Name all the territories in the United States."

Posted by: Christina at Aug 22, 2007 1:31:45 PM

A virtual war game. Make them play-out one of those Pentagon war game scenario games in front of the public, and then be questioned on their decisions.

Maybe Matthew Broderick could provide some occasional voice-over play-by-play from the a room in the back - like in Celebrity Poker. Each week you could have a guest co-host: Schwarzkopf, Powell and Berger etc...

Posted by: PH at Aug 22, 2007 1:36:51 PM

I don't buy the first or third.

To the first: Not sure how mediating a divorcing couple's asset division is particularly relevant to the presidency. I am quite sure that Jimmy Carter would have won that against most presidents of the last 100 years, but I don't think it speaks to his foreign policy prowess or his domestic policy.

To the third: All three economic policies are likely to be too interventionist and potentially unconstitutional. What we need is to reign in the powers of the president and congress with the constitution, not pick a president who can spot the modern economist's ~~drivel~~ justification for stepping outside those bounds.

Posted by: liberty at Aug 22, 2007 1:53:08 PM

I like the way you're thinking.
This reinforces, in my opinion, the view that governors are the best group from which to select Presidents. But unlike the OP I'm a big fan of threshold competency requirements for voters.

Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Aug 22, 2007 2:12:57 PM

I think something similar to your idea might make a good addition to the current debate and get-to-know-the-candidate venues out there. I don't think candidates are provided with enough what-if scenarios. They're only asked to speak on vague platform topics or are forced to discuss fixing current problems. We need to ask them how they would handle wild, unexpected situations, like 9-11 would have been to the candidates in 2000.

Posted by: econ2econ at Aug 22, 2007 2:30:36 PM

Another segment would be "kill a program(s)" - each candidate is forced to behave like average americans and prioritize due to scarce resources. Each candidate would have to choose a government program or programs (or agency, etc...) to eliminate with a minimum savings threshold they have to meet. There is only so much revenue and they all propose new programs - make a tough choice on TV and justify it. (no equivocating or taking 10% off of a laundry list - you have to kill an entire program or agency)

Posted by: Mike at Aug 22, 2007 4:06:29 PM

They could have a round, similar to the new "Power of Ten" gameshow in which they guess the percentage of Americans that agree with certain stances on current political "hot topics". The president is supposed to represent the people so I would hope that knowing what the people want would go along with this.

Posted by: Katherine Richardson at Aug 22, 2007 4:09:19 PM

Just thought I would mention that the most recent World Champion of Diplomacy is a campaign manager from the D.C. area. Also with Diplomacy what would be the goal? to win or get the game to a draw? That kind of matters in how you view the candidates.

Posted by: Andrew at Aug 22, 2007 4:18:12 PM

My mental experiments with electoral systems often revolve around banning political parties.

Political discourse always seems to degrade to pro-wresting/sports talk radio levels due to arbitrary factionism.

I've often wondered if its possible. Parties always seem to form spontaneously and quickly weed out to two factions.

Pass a constitutional amendment so money is no longer considered speech. Pass a constitutional amendment requiring non-partisan districting procedures.

The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. Make the electoral process essentially funded by whoever gets the frequencies. Have enough mandated political content that additional advertising is unnecessary.

Have some sort of regional run-off system where governors vie for presidency. Make them work their way up.

Have a foreign language requirement. (And an English language requirement...)

Make more cabinet-level positions elected offices (*cough* Attorney General *cough*).

Have instant runoffs and "none of the above."

See "Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich."

Posted by: efp at Aug 22, 2007 4:40:11 PM

First, wow, what a way to up voter turn-out, right?
We could do one better and make it a call-in show where fans can vote unlimited times for their favorite candidate as long as they're willing to pay per call--we could use the money for education (I don't know why I find that ironic, but I do).

As for my segment, I say we add a public background search to the show. Something like the illegitimate child of "This is Your Life" and "PUNK'D." Air all the candidates' dirty laundry out on air before the election, so we can't all be surprised when it comes out later. Then there wouldn't be all this non-sense about wasting campaign funds on smear campaigns, the show would do all the dirty work for you--and probably better. Anything for ratings.

Posted by: Newbie at Aug 22, 2007 5:38:09 PM

That would be such a great show, if it could get off the ground (Maybe if you got Jon Stewart on board, he seems to have pull with at least some candidates).

I like the war games idea, but I'd change it to a real-time reaction (with fake new reports, and cool video -- it's TV after all) to say... A North Korean splinter group sets off a small nuclear explosion in Chicago Harbor.

I'd also like to see Democrats paired with Libertarians, Republicans with Greens to see how well they can work with people of opposing view points. (it should be easier to get 3rd party candidates to sign on)

Posted by: Dave at Aug 22, 2007 6:00:03 PM

Trying to think of some games...
I'd like to have one that measures how well candidates know which government programs have worked the best in past. Unfortunately that's hard for anybody to tell. If you had the right numbers, it would be instructive to the audience and it would force the eventual president to acknowledge which programs are worth keeping.

Name that agency: Contestants are given cards with ten small government agencies and have 45 seconds to match the cards to a department of the executive branch. (ex. the Secret Service is part of the treasury dept.) I've worded that strangely, but I hope the idea is apparent anyway. ensure the candidate knows something about the structure of the executive branch.

Convince me: A room of 100 people is polled on a certain issue. The candidate is then brought in and has 5 minutes to convince the room to change their stance to his/hers. The poll may be a little hard to formulate in a way conducive to the challenge. There's also the problem of people giving false answers in the beginning so they can move to their true position which agrees with the candidate. Not sure how to solve that problem.

Posted by: Patrick at Aug 22, 2007 9:49:47 PM

Two word solution---Parliamentary Democracy. Radical, but does produce leaders who can think on their feet and speak knowledgeably--i.e. no cue cards, no scripted speeches. Could Bush or Hillary handle a question period such as our cousines in U.k. Doubt it. However, in a Constitutional Republic you cannot but help having sub par presidents. In fact up to the Lincoln Administration is was considered an outrage if a president made a public speech.

Posted by: Robert at Aug 23, 2007 12:58:18 AM

Can we have a segment entitled something like "Reality Check" or "Checkbooks and Balances?" Several possible ways to do it- as a simple quiz, asking each candidate to define "middle class" in both dollar income and percentiles for example. Or, my own preference, put each candidate in an isolation booth for one hour and have them develop a household budget for a family of four, income of $50,000/yr. Points awarded if they manage to include things like health insurance, food, eyeglasses and dental (since they are not covered by most health insurance) clothing, and savings for retirement and college costs (and, to be really interesting, taxes). This would have the double advantage of exposing priorities (car versus food versus whatever) and serving as a "learning experience" for the candidates themselves.

Posted by: John at Aug 23, 2007 8:59:48 AM

Great post. Especially suited to Argentina, my country, now that we're roughly two months from presidential elections.

Only the educated segment of the population cares about public debates. The rest would rather turn the TV off than watch a debate.

And, of course, whoever the polls say is winning has absolutely no incentive to attend.

In the end, we all end up voting for the one who, for some reason, is considered the "least worse" candidate.

And then we start over again.

Posted by: Ignacio at Aug 23, 2007 9:16:07 AM

Michael Vassar -

Ned: Optimal Civ IV strategy involves invading weaker opponents, destroying their cities, and setting up your own cities in their place. Not such a good idea.

What's wrong with that?

Posted by: Ned at Aug 23, 2007 9:34:24 AM

You are missing the fact that we have already evolved a reality show to pick the president.

Posted by: mickslam at Aug 23, 2007 10:26:43 AM

In response to Nathan's comment about the managerial demands of the presidency -

Have them manage a busy 3-star restaurant which has had all of its managers removed (no lead chef, no head waiter etc) over a weekend with little to no preparation. They will be hopeless if they can't rapidly evaluate which of the staff can assist them best, which can be trusted, which are merely skilled but not responsible etc.

Posted by: Njorl at Aug 23, 2007 10:28:09 AM

I'm thinking a game show more like something Nickelodeon puts on would be more apt. Having Clinton and Giuliani playing Foreign Policy Whack-a-Mole at pains of having gallons of green slime dumped on their heads would both be entertaining and give us a feel for how they react to stress and for their humility.

Posted by: rvman at Aug 23, 2007 12:38:38 PM

As you can see, most comments want to change, alter, or reject your rules. I would flip it upside down, make the voters play the game. I don't see how anyone, witnessing the last half dozen Presidential elections, or most Congressional elections for that matter, could conclude, as a previous commenter did, "macro polity acts quite rationally." The test wouldn't be an aptitude test as commonly perceived, but a test using your algorithm of weeding out those whose decision making probabilities would result in poor government. Those that scored 51% or better would be permitted to vote.

Posted by: Paul at Aug 23, 2007 1:04:11 PM

(Disclaimer - Canadian talking) The basic flaw in this idea is the notion that better Presidents would result in better governance. Think - who could do a good job in 2007 America?

Ghandi would be ridiculed and marginalized as weak. Congress would bully him around, and his Iraq policy would probably be a disaster.

Jesus would upset the gun lobby, the major banks and neo-cons. Without a strong grassroots fund raising effort, he would definitely be short-stacked in the fund raising department. He would probably be forced to ban same sex marriages and abortion to win compromises from right-wing Christians on social issues.

Winston Churchill would probably "hold the course" in Iraq and Afghanistan, prolonging the slaughter.

The problem isn't the people, it's the very way your government is structured. A centuries old system, designed to create a weak state on the eastern seaboard of North America is not suitable for a modern empire.

Posted by: Chris at Aug 23, 2007 2:01:47 PM

(Disclaimer - Canadian talking) The basic flaw in this idea is the notion that better Presidents would result in better governance. Think - who could do a good job in 2007 America?

Ghandi would be ridiculed and marginalized as weak. Congress would bully him around, and his Iraq policy would probably be a disaster.

Winston Churchill would probably "hold the course" in Iraq and Afghanistan, prolonging the slaughter.

Posted by: Chris at Aug 23, 2007 2:05:09 PM

Brian? I think he's easy. I'd just tickle him.
Robin is trickier. Deflection *m i g h t* work.
Salma, I'd just let her roll. And she's not even my type.

Posted by: Kathleen Fasanella at Aug 23, 2007 5:00:27 PM

This idea is brilliant. I have been pitching a similar "popularization of information" effort to my friends for a couple years. It would emulate March Madness: 16 candidates would playoff in head to head matches where they would have to answer questions regarding topics that would expose their understanding of various subjects, including the legal system, economy, and international relations. The electorate would vote on the winner of each match until a final victor emerged.

Posted by: John at Aug 23, 2007 6:03:50 PM

Game Theory: Candidates compete in a game of Diplomacy

Spring 09: Fleet Afghanistan CONVOY Army Iraq->Pakistan.

Spring 04: Army Iraq->WMD

"WMD not found. Army stays in place."

"Shit."

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans at Aug 23, 2007 9:56:47 PM

Well, boardgames would be great, but I'm not sure they make for good TV. Especially not Diplomacy, which takes ages. No, then it's better with the german games - rather than making huge, pseudo-simulation wargames so common in the US, they cut the games down to a couple of interesting mechanisms, and sacrifice "realism" for entertainment value and modest playing time.

I suggest Settlers of Catan instead of Diplomacy.

By the way, you have made a similar post before, I think. I think I wrote something there as well. Whatever it was, it probably applies here as well (I'm too lazy to look it up).

Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at Aug 24, 2007 5:02:42 AM

Patrick's "Convince Me" game is a really good idea. A game that sees which candidates do the best job of convincing 100 citizens to support an option which rationally/empirically seems best even if it runs counter to popular biases. If nothing else, a "rational policy" lobby could invite candidates to participate in such a game, and the best performers could get endorsements and financial donations from that lobby.

Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Aug 24, 2007 10:50:07 AM

Not sure if anyone has already pointed this out, but the electoral process already incorporates game/negotiation elements. Candidates must convince lots of people to essentially bet cold hard cash on a belief that firstly said candidate can get a nomination, and secondly get elected. Campaign finance is often criticized as a corrupting influence on democracy (and fair enough), but isn't it also the most apt task for a potential American President to prove themselves good at? I think there's a certain poetry to it.

Posted by: Brendan at Aug 26, 2007 10:25:51 PM

I would like to see prospective candidates put into a Boy's State-like program for one week and for this to be filmed and shown in installments a la "Survivor". Would be interesting to see who emerges as top dog.

Posted by: fustercluck at Aug 27, 2007 10:08:00 PM

I dig the idea in general, but have a few questions and reservations. I'm with Will as far as wondering if it's cool to give so much airtime to a select few candidates. But, at the same time, 80% or so of debate participants are ignored by the general electorate, if not more. So, maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Something else I was wondering, Alex, what does the winner get, besides political capital? Surely you don't mean for this to supplant the election process entirely, or do you? I was thinking that the winner could receive some campaign funds, which would spur participation.

I love the content of the show, they all three seem relevant as well as fun. No offense to Tom, but I would say that an economist would be hard to one-up concerning economic strategy. Still, some candidates would likely pick one of the other two. Of course, the public would pick something with concentrated costs and distributed benefits, regardless of economic efficiency, which is very original.

I like Njorl's scenario with the busy weekend at the restaurant, as well as Dolohov's comments regarding the importance of character and competency recognition when it comes to being a successful President. I mean really, do we truly elect an INDIVIDUAL when we elect a President? Not quite. We put one person in office, but anyone even slightly informed as to their political history and the appointments they have made in the past will be able to, with a fair amount of accuracy, predict who the new President will appoint to their cabinet, the Supreme Court, etc. The personnel they select add to or subtract from their legitimacy and credibility on both a national and global scale, as well as altering the relations between the two major parties in the U.S., for better or worse. Thus, it is incredibly important that a prospective President be competent in personnel matters. The show is, thus far, lacking in that requirement.

The only other thing I would wonder about with regard to SYTYCBP is how long a time slot should be alotted for the show. What were you figuring, Alex? An hour per week? The attention span of the American Public seems to be shrinking every day, I'm not sure what would be the best bet in terms of scheduling.

Posted by: Go Heels at Aug 28, 2007 2:59:30 PM

Canada's CBC had a show with a related concept called "Canada's Next Great Prime Minister". I only saw a little of it, which was mostly candidates responding to questions from previous Prime Ministers. I think it's meant as more of a tool for inspiring young people to get involved politically. (It looks like they're doing it again this year: http://www.cbc.ca/nextprimeminister/)

I like the idea of hands-on problem solving situations, and seeing how candidates deal with the situations.

Posted by: Lisa at Sep 11, 2007 1:12:32 PM

With the 2008 Presidential elections looming on the horizon, this is the kind of comment that I hope will make the people of my generation stop and think. However, I do not believe this idea would, in any way, work because it is simply a way to make the election into a reality show (as if there aren't enough already). Although people ages 18-25 are known to watch these types of shows, I strongly believe that none of these same people would be drawn to a political reality show. The real way to get the public more informed is to force the Presidential candidates to be more direct with their stance on current issues. A realistic way to enact this would be the Percentage Plan. Under the current form of electing the President the winner of the popular vote in each state automatically gets all of the electors for their state, who will then go on to vote in the electoral college. With the Percentage Plan the candidates would get the same percentage of electors as the percentage of popular votes that they won (i.e. if the Republicans won 25% of the popular vote they would get 25% of the electors in that state). This plan would force the candidates to campaign harder and be more open with their political views, which is the most important issue facing America in our upcoming election.

Posted by: 9747 at Nov 5, 2007 11:59:09 PM

H i B e s t w i s h e s。Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.x i c a o l o v e s-流水线娱乐博客常年提供高、中、低压锅炉钢管、流体钢管、结构钢管、化肥专用钢管、石油裂化钢管、地质钢管、液压支柱钢管及合金钢管-无缝管-无缝钢管等论文发表资讯/刊物信息，协助客户制定论文发表方案

Posted by: 无缝管 at Nov 13, 2007 8:05:06 PM

China Tours and Yangtze Cruises A professional China travel agency offering private & group package tours, tailor-made vacations for families, couples and individual travelers, Yangtze cruises, hotel & ticket booking services.

China Travel and Tours One-stop China travel service delivering China package tours, discount Yangtze River cruises and best rate hotels.

Tibet Train Travel A reliable tour operator specializing in Tibet tour packages, adventures, hotel and train ticket booking.

China Maps A free web-based source for China travel and tour map users

Voyage Chine, Tour de Chine, Circuit Chine - Un agence spécialiste voyage en Chine

Great Wall of China A website for the Great Wall of China.

Posted by: China tour at Nov 27, 2007 2:29:20 AM

介绍一家翻译公司|地区优秀专业深圳翻译|

Posted by: 深圳翻译公司 at Feb 13, 2008 5:58:23 AM

深圳翻译|
深圳翻译公司|提供深圳同声传译 |
同声传译|和

Posted by: 深圳翻译公司 at Feb 13, 2008 6:00:37 AM

徵信社
 徵信
 徵信社

Posted by: 鑽石 at Apr 2, 2008 9:59:12 PM

China Tour Select is a China travel agency providing China tours、Beijing Tours, Tibet Tours, Great Wall Tour and Yangtze river cruises. We specialize in "Tailor-Made" and "Customized" private and group tours to China. We'll try our best to offer you China tours with super value and most considerate service.

Posted by: Beijing Tours at Apr 9, 2008 12:37:31 AM

RXwanted.com has collaborated with confidence and reliable online phar-macy shops, providing brand and generic pre-scription medications at a huge savings for thousands of customers worldwide. http://www.rxwanted.com

Browse online pharmacy store to find drugs from foreign you needed, and order them for discount price. Delivered to the USA! http://www.pharmacyforeign.com

Posted by: discount medicines at May 11, 2008 10:27:25 AM

Republicans won 25% of the popular vote they would get 25% of the electors in that state). This plan would force the candidates to campaign

Posted by: Beijing Guide, facts at Jun 9, 2008 11:52:27 PM

Republicans won 25% of the popular vote they would get 25% of the electors in that state). This plan would force the candidates to campaign

Posted by: Beijing Guide, facts at Jun 9, 2008 11:52:56 PM

adobe photoshop cs3

Paltalk

Norton AntiVirus 2008

ESET NOD32 Antivirus

Kaspersky Internet Security

Kaspersky Anti-Virus

Avira AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic

McAfee VirusScan 2007

AIM
Fix

AVG Free Edition

Trojan Remover

Hide IP Platinum

Update AVG

Kaspersky Anti-Virus Update

McAfee Updates

Panda Antivirus 2008

BitDefender Free Edition

BitDefender Antivirus

Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool

Kaspersky Virus Removal Tool

Microsoft Office 2007

Media Player Classic

Nokia Multimedia Player

VLC media
player

Nero Media Player

Winamp

Windows Media Player 11

3GP Player

Sony Sound Forge

RealPlayer 11

QuickTime برنامج المسنجر
برنامج النيرو
برنامج بلوتوث
برنامج تحويل الصوتيات

sony
vegas pro

YoutubeGrabber

Video Edit Magic
Nero 7

Nero 8

Internet Explorer 8

Internet Explorer 7

Vista Transformation Pack

Internet Download Manager

Download Accelerator Plus

Free Download Manager
FlashGet

YouTUBE downloader

Windows Live Messenger

Yahoo! Messenger

Y! Multi Messenger

Messenger Plus! Live
DirectX

LimeWire Pro
BitTorrent

BearShare Acceleration Patch

µTorrent
Kazaa

Ares Galaxy Turbo Booster

Adobe Flash Player
Adobe Reader
Anonymail Pro
Deep Freeze
برنامج تحميل
برامج الكمبيوتر

برنامج ares
برنامج mp3
برنامج التحميل
برنامج الفلاش
برنامج الفوتوشوب

برنامج الماسنجر
برنامج الياهو
برنامج تسجيل
برنامج تصميم
برنامج فلاش

برنامج فوتوشوب
برنامج كاسبر
برنامج للتحميل
برنامج ماسنجر
برنامج نوكيا

برامج التحميل
برامج تحويل
برامج كمبيوتر
برامج للكمبيوتر
برامج للماسنجر

برنامج cproxy
برنامج dvd
برنامج ftp
برنامج البالتوك

برنامج موجود