I recently read a story that said that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker leads some stupid polls for becoming the next republican presidential nominee. This sounds good to me, but several commenters didn't like it because they don't get a presidential feeling about him (tingles?).
I found those comments to be irritating. Why is style more important than substance?
Why do people complain about having professional politicians, and then disregard non-politic ans when they run for office and make mistakes that professional politicians could cover up? Such as what happened to Herman Cain last season.
Why was Rick Perry disregarded becasue of poor public speaking skills? Shouldn't we have been comparing records?
It then occurred to me that the way that presidential elections work is closer to American Idol, then it is an assessment of which person would be a better president.
The primaries, campaigning, and debates require a whole lot of funding and good public speaking skills, etc.
We could eliminate much of that, and favor substance over style with a new president selection process.
I suggest having each party's convention be where the governors from every state (of the appropriate party) gather to compare the records in their states. Selecting the two candidates could be a result of comparing a state's unemployment rate, education rate, crime, GDP, etc. rather than about who's best at being a politician.
The presidential selection could be between the democratic governor who's state has improved the most under his tenure and the republican governor who's state has improved the most.
Isn't that a better idea than what we do now?
I, of course, recognize that such a system would be more boring to the uninformed and people will forever value style over substance.
No comments:
Post a Comment