502 replies to this topic

[gvg]

Yes. That's the point. =P

I know, just joking =) but I'm wondering, would they actually have to leave him as our president?

And I could see it now. Speaker of the house Goofy =)

Edited by gvg, 09 May 2011 - 11:39 PM.

[dawh]

I know, just joking =) but I'm wondering, would they actually have to leave him as our president?

And I could see it now. Speaker of the house Goofy =)

I'm thinking that there might be some eligibility problems. Actually, looking at the requirements, he might pass. According to this, the three requirements are:

• natural born citizen
• 35 years old
• resident for 14 years

Based on the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Mickey would be a natural born citizen, since he was "born" in the United State in 1928. So that's the first one. (Though it occurs to me, there could be some issues with the birth certificate... )

Having been born in 1928, he definitely meets the age requirement, so that's a go as well.

The most nebulous one is the requirement to be a resident for 14 years. This is the one where I think that there would be problems since I'm not sure where he's living at the moment. He would have to be able to show that he's been living in one state or another for at least the last 14 years, but considering that the 14 year residency requirement is rather vague in the Constitution, he might be able to get away with it anyway since anyone challenging him would have a hard time proving that he was living out of the country for most of his "life."

[Molly Mae]

I know, just joking =) but I'm wondering, would they actually have to leave him as our president?

And I could see it now. Speaker of the house Goofy =)

Yeah. I remember when I jumped on the Mickey bandwagon. I found it a few years ago by typing something along the lines of "This election is bullsh*t" into google. It was one of the first results.

Since then, I've always wondered what would happen if Mickey won. Further, I wonder what would happen as the results came in and political commentators reviewed the results.

"Uh...folks...really?"

The idea that Mickey is written in (and getting so many votes) goes to show that this whole election is b/s.

But imagine this: I could change my name to Mickey Mouse. Imagine an army trying to make a joke of an election and they end up inadvertently putting me into office.

[gvg]

Dawh: Well then. There we go =)

Molly: I should do that now. That would be epic. =)

[Thoreathole]

What about instead of selecting a candidate by name, voters would answer a series of political/ideological questions and would be matched to a candidate with the most closely matching views? This would take the political party aspect out of the equation, and a "vote" would be cast based on what people actually think.

This is just a thought, and I'm sure there are a lot of holes/exploits, so feel free to point them out!

[Molly Mae]

What about instead of selecting a candidate by name, voters would answer a series of political/ideological questions and would be matched to a candidate with the most closely matching views? This would take the political party aspect out of the equation, and a "vote" would be cast based on what people actually think.

This is just a thought, and I'm sure there are a lot of holes/exploits, so feel free to point them out!

Clever, but letting a system decide for you would cause problems. The system likely couldn't accurately gauge how much more one issue means to you than another issue.

[gvg]

Molly: What if they did those things you see on some political quizzes online and do a scale? It would go under each question: How important is this to you? With the choices being very, somewhat, nuetral, not really, andnot at all. There are still probably some holes in it but actually, I like the idea.

[maurice]

Molly: What if they did those things you see on some political quizzes online and do a scale? It would go under each question: How important is this to you? With the choices being very, somewhat, nuetral, not really, andnot at all. There are still probably some holes in it but actually, I like the idea.

So let's see...Candidate A and B answers questions regarding the economy, defense, education, etc.

I answer how important certain topics are to me. While that makes sense, what gets overlooked are things that can't easily be quantified. How good of a leader is each candidate? How do they work under pressure? How comforting are they as a speaker? How well are they able to work with people of different backgrounds (political & social here, all types for international diplomacy) To me, those things are at least as important.

[dawh]

Molly: What if they did those things you see on some political quizzes online and do a scale? It would go under each question: How important is this to you? With the choices being very, somewhat, nuetral, not really, andnot at all. There are still probably some holes in it but actually, I like the idea.

I agree with Molly. I like the idea in principle (and I've considered it in the past*), but without a direct brain interface, it would be nearly impossible to ideally match a candidate with voters' desires. Plus, a candidate would have to rate his views on each issue in the same fashion and what would prevent a candidate from lying about his views just to win the election?

It would also require asking the right questions. Around the 2008 election, some of my friends found a poll on some news site (might have been CNN), that asked a series of questions and then ranked your likely candidate matches based on how well your answers matched the candidate. They asked a question regarding whether you would prefer a candidate that was a governor, a senator or a representative. I said representative (I can't remember if they were mutually exclusive options) and it told me that I would most strongly support Dennis Kucinich. I might agree with some of his stated views and he was the only representative running, but I would never vote for him because he seems like a very ineffectual person (with some truly bizarre views to boot ). So, the reliability of such a system would be very hard to establish. This goes into what maurice just said: while I sometimes agree with the sentiment of what Kucinich says, I think he'd be a terrible president largely because of his personality, which can't be .

They say that some people voted for President Bush because he seemed like a guy you could have a beer with (never mind that he's a dry drunk ), which, in my opinion, seems like a horrible criterion for selecting a president.

* Actually, it was more of a thought experiment in my head, framed as, "How many people would wind up voting for a different candidate, if they chose the candidate purely on their stated intents, rather than on party (or other) affiliation?"

[Molly Mae]

They say that some people voted for President Bush because he seemed like a guy you could have a beer with (never mind that he's a dry drunk ), which, in my opinion, seems like a horrible criterion for selecting a president.

Or voting for a guy just because he's black. Or voting against him for the same reason. *Shrug* People do some dumb stuff, especially in politics (and especially during election time).