Last year, I argued that instead of debates presidentidal candidates should have to compete in a series of games. The problem with debates is that most of the time voters don’t know what a good answer is. 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 suggested a game show, So You Think You Can be President?, which with different segments would test the candidates ability to solve real problems.
The idea seems to be catching on, as this piece in the NYTimes illustrates. Frankly, the segments I suggested plus the many excellent comments from MR readers were quite a bit better than those in the Times but it’s good to see that the idea is going mainstream.
Scott Adams made a similar suggestion last year, only he suggested games of chance, since the difference bewteen “great” presidents and “mediocre” presidents is mainly luck. Therefore, you really want to vote for the luckiest candidate.
This “Mr. Trebek” they mention is not a merciless butchering of your name, is it?
So how come they didnt´t give you credit for the idea?
I think this is an outstanding idea. But what specific games would you propose?
I’ve had a similar idea… which is to give every candidate something like a consulting interview. Describe situations to them (i.e. international incidents, financial events, natural disasters) and ask them to develop a response. The people administering the interview should be the top subject matter experts on some of the topics discussed. Perhaps even allow the candidates to bring a couple advisors along. Then we’d get to see their managerial style and problem solving skills in action. Or, alternately, allow the candidate to spend some time “in the tank” with a couple advisors discussing the situation in advance. And another thing. I would ask both (all?) candidates the same questions, but I would not allow each candidate to hear the other candidate’s responses in real time. That way, the candidates are responding to the hypothetical situation–not each other.
Debates are almost completely worthless. Something more like this is desperately needed to restore some kind of substance to our political process.
The Apprentice would translate very well to a presidential competition.
Actually I think the best bit from that NY Times piece was the Family Feud suggestion, for during primary season. That would be fun!
You boomers just never get your fill of irreverence, do you. “Hahahaha, lets clap our hands and make these whores dance for us — they’d do it I tell you, hooray. Oh we are so very clever,” and “It’s broken I tell you, it’s been broken forever, but no one has ever had the courage to call the emperor naked before me (yes Me!); not only am I going to call him naked, I have a very clever idea that you’ll really like because I am very clever”
I’m not denying that politics can devolve into this if its what the audience is looking for. I think my generation (gen Y/X fringe) is just sick of the performance-lust and the lack of regard for dignity and history of institutions.
Suggestions for games:
Tests for cognitive bias, specifically overconfidence effect: Candidate is asked to estimate certain numbers – eg. how much would it cost to provide fererally funded healthcore for each child living in povery? How much does the government receive anually in income tax receipts? What’s the GDP per capita of Belarus? They are then asked how confident they are in their answer; what are their 90% 95% 99% confidence intervals. The test is not so much their general knowledge as to ensure that they have some idea of how little they know. A similar test could be a candidate doing an IQ or general knowledge multiple choice test, then estimating their score, then their confidence in their estimation. I suspect most will be absurdly overconfident. Wikipedia reports that in certain tests, those who are “99% certain” are wrong 40% of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect
Spot the crank: Candidate interviews 3 people from a particular profession about an issue in their area of expertise. 2 of them are mainstream and will give similar answers, one is quite mad and will respond with inanities. For example, 2 mainstream historians and a historical revisionist, 2 leaders of mainstream churches and the leader of a small, dangerous cult, 2 sensible economists and an unreconstructed Keynesian. Candidate has to spot the nutter in each instance.
Job interview test: politician is given background briefings on three candidates for a porfessional job eg. a lawyer wanting to make partner, a military or police officer applying for promotion etc. Has to ask each applicant relevant questions, speak to their referees and then decide to whom to give the job, giving their reasons.
Russian Roulette: unbeknown to the candidate, all chambers are loaded. Anyone willing to risk a 1 in 6 chance of death in order to become president is dangerously deluded and needs to be eliminated.
FreeMeals, I would appreciate it if you did not speak on our behalf. Thanks.
FreeMeals, I would appreciate it if you did not speak on our behalf. Thanks.
Comments on this entry are closed.