What if the United States of America employed a more practical method of hiring a President? I support voting by the people, as the President of the U.S. ought to be a representative of the people. I don’t think that part should change, except maybe for the Electoral College (we just watched the School House Rock “documentary” on the Electoral College and I think I understand less about it now than before). Hiring processes in business and industry involve fair recruitment and detailed selection. I think we can maintain the free election while better incorporating this process.
First of all, why can we only have two choices for President? I know, sometimes there is a third choice, but when was the last time anyone other than one of the two main parties was elected? How come we seem to only get candidates who have previously held elected office? How many people in this country have held elected office? If those are the only people we can choose from, are we really getting a President who accurately represents the American population? The point is that we get the same people, just different suits and political party affiliation. Sometimes we get different last names, but that isn’t always the case. Why, out of the hundreds of millions of people in this country, do we only have two viable options for president?
We need a new recruitment process, by which I mean we need to eradicate the current recruitment process of political parties funded by wealthy individuals and groups that want to control the affairs of the country for personal gain. Yes, I’ve said it; the Republican and Democrat parties are corrupt and self-serving. Why else would they only select candidates from the same stagnant pool of options? Candidates for President need to be men and women who are Americans and desire to remain Americans according to the foundation of the Constitution. Candidates should have real American experiences and be legitimate representatives of the people. I have never seen a job description posted in the newspaper or one of the online job-listing websites for being President. Why is that?
Once the recruitment process is opened up and finds more representative candidates, the selection methods need to be improved. We can’t have any more of the propaganda we’ve been having. Television commercials, campaign speeches, and even the few debates just before voting day are all tainted. The campaign process ought to be similar to the selection process for any company. There is the resume, personal references, and assessments. We need to know who the candidate is, what they have done, and what they have the potential to do. I want to know what the Myers-Briggs typology is of the candidate and what careers the test indicates they might be good at. If nothing else it’d be fun to have this information. What we don’t need any more of is the approach the candidates often take of telling us what their opponent can’t do, instead of telling us what they, personally, are capable of doing.
Since the President is supposed to represent the people, it is good to have a free election, but when all the voters get is a scripted and choreographed look at the candidates then how do they make an informed decision? And one more time, why are there only two options? The American population is diverse and talented, far beyond the two options it always whittles down to every four years. Sure there are more candidates in the primaries, but why do we have to narrow it down? Why can’t we have eight legitimate candidates to choose from in November? I use legitimate loosely, they are all still the same political stock of Republican or Democrat branding. As we enter into the last leg of this election season, I propose we ask the question “what if the United States of America employed a more practical method of hiring a President?”