h a l f b a k e r y
Your journey of inspiration and perplexement provides a certain dark frisson.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Issue with elections, is that sometimes it takes lots of
money to be a candidate. This often force people to join
parties to get exposure and increase their chance of
What may help is if potential candidates have to go
a multi-stage interview, where the judges are
First round of selections will be via a resume, then later
a video, then in person interviews.
First round should be easy to pass, but later on will be
harder to get though. As the candidates go up a level,
number of judges increases, and each judge will review
content and comments from the judges at lower level.
The final short list will be presented for election, with
all the interviews they had being publicly accessible.
Since judges are normal citizens, at higher levels the
judges could have the option of hiring experts to provide
advise about a candidate.
You could also adopt other job interview techniques like
group interviews, or debates, or team building exercises.
And show that on TV too for fun.
pros: It's like a job interview
cons: It's like a job interview
Elo rating system
The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in competitor-versus-competitor games such as chess. It is named after its creator Arpad Elo, a Hungarian-born American physics professor. [mofosyne, Feb 05 2016]
Mock Job Interview for President with Donald Trump
[tatterdemalion, Feb 05 2016]
||I'd think more judges would be necessary at the earlier
levels. If each candidate is reviewed by only one or two
citizens, they could be prematurely rejected due to
differing political views.
||Yea sample size is important when dealing with this, but
at the same time it needs to be scalable. The initial stage
is just applicants videos and resume, with a lower
threshold to getting into second stage.
||Another sub idea, is that interviews could also have a
debate component, where you debate against another
person over multiple rounds. You are then ranked via the
"Elo rating system"
||These are comments from Aamorta and tetrismegistus in
some chatroom about this idea:
||aamorta say on the format:
||Critiquing the "American Idol" format for a moment....I
have had two close friends audition for one of those TV
talent shows. One of my friends is a good singer. He was
passed over for people that were not as talented, but had
more style and flamboyance. Style and flamboyance
doesn't run a country.
||What I would like to see: pit the candidates in televised
strategy and RPG games. D&D (one session mini game)
Axis and Allies, Chess, etc. and then have them field
questions about their strategy and approach. I'd also like
to see some candid camera video of how nice the
candidates would be to vulnerable members of society
(like the homeless).
||The strategy and RPG games? I'm not suggesting we
determine a candidate based on the winners of the
games, just that I think those things would be very
revealing about the candidates.
||tetrismegistus adds to previous commenter says:
I agree, seeing how a person competes in a strategic
game could tell you a lot about how they would handle
things in a real deal. Do they try to intimidate their
opponent with cross talk (any game)? Do they seem to
have memorized large numbers of openings (chess)?
||My only problem with this is it would be yet another field
for politics. D&D advisors recommending what kind of
game play will garner the most favor, etc
||Aamorta critique on issues with current interviews in
corporate job interviews:
||Yeah, but how many people pass job interviews with
flying colors because they are so fake?
||And would the questions be a template? Would each
judge be asking different things?
||When my friend does job interviews he asked crazy
bullshit questions (to programmers) like: if you were
trapped in a gym with 30 bloodthirsty first graders armed
with weapons, what would you do?
||tetrismegistus backs my ideas saying:
||the way I see it, this proposal seems to address the
participation of real people (actual citizens who don't
have a direct influence by special interests) in evaluating
the nature of the candidates that are selected. That is,
right now, a monstrous apparatus totally disconnected
from the wants and needs of its citizens selects the