Originally Posted by Molly

> All of which means that getting a constitutional amendment added is next to impossible, no politician would allow the one you propose.

Ah, but being politicians, SOMEONE will respond to an obvious ground surge of opinion in order to get elected. You are very naive that would hurt their own bank account and no politician would do that. Besides elections are all fixed. If enough people express a desire for this amendment, it WILL be put on the agenda. It should not and it will not If not by current legislators, then by whoever replaces them. You mean the next puppet who doesn't give a fuck

> Its the responsibility of the voter to elect the qualified people. If they fail to take note of the candidates, THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE.

On that, we agree entirely. The problem is the OTHER citizens who voted against said unqualified candidates. None of the candidates are qualifed They get what they do NOT deserve. As things stand in the current election, it seems given that a president will be elected despite his / her anti-constitutional position. What did _I_ do to deserve such poor leadership? Nothing u were just naive, I hope u gotta gun

> If you are going to limit candidacy to those passing a test, lets just do away with the voting. We'll test everyone, interested in serving in the government, then appoint them to specific offices based on the results of that test. The one with the highest score becomes president, next highest VP, etc.

I'm disapointed. You strike me as smarter than that. I did not propose limiting candidacy to those passing a test. I proposed educating successful candidates before turning over the reins of government to them. Like I said

Molly