Comments: The Anonymous Campaign

I have another suggestion. Make Presidential candidacies a civic obligation, like jury duty. Once every four years, a random group of American citizens is drafted to the candidacy. They are then inspected by the media, and the public votes on which one gets the office. This would make the candidate slate a truly representative sample, in the statistical sense.

Posted by paradoctor at March 27, 2008 09:44 PM

Since most people vote based on the candidate's ability to act the way we want, I'm not sure your proposal would work. We'd have to guess how well they could act based on their proxy's performance - not an easy feat.

Posted by saurabh at March 27, 2008 10:32 PM

Would the candidates be allowed to, say, eat some of the pretzels?

Posted by Mike Meyer at March 27, 2008 10:48 PM

Also, would there be any beer( Budwiser) allowed?

Posted by Mike Meyer at March 27, 2008 10:50 PM

We've already got what you wish for, except they run the credits before the movie. A movie within a movie. As Neil Gabler figured out, the movie is real life.

Posted by donescobar at March 27, 2008 11:15 PM

I'm gonna vote for the pretzel, President Pretzel has a nice ring to it.

Posted by rob payne at March 27, 2008 11:44 PM

I, for one, hope that Bush starts eating pretzels again.

Posted by j at March 28, 2008 01:56 AM

Does that mean the winning candidate will say,

"You like me. You really like me. That means I can kill anybody I want."


Posted by Jonathan Versen at March 28, 2008 04:44 AM

I propose a different experiment. Put all of you jokers into a little camp with barbed wire and barking dogs. Side benefits: less annoying drivel on internet, deep sense of satisfaction watching you suffer. Scientific purpose: none really needed to justify "experiment."

Posted by xyz at March 28, 2008 08:40 AM
Most presidential candidates know they'll never win and yet they run. Why?

1. Because it allows the "outsiders" to bypass the consolidated media filtered message?

Courtesy of Kucinich and Gravel you have some surprisingly lucid moments (not many but some) where the mainstream choices had to answer uncomfortable questions. Conversely on the other side you get Ron Paul actually saying that, maybe, just maybe, there may be political reasons people don't care for us. Rudy took exception, and got to frothingly grandstand, but people thought: "Hmmm? Really?"

2. Because some people enjoy direct confrontation and believe that being "on" 24-hrs a day is a high risk activity with a neural rush payoff. You can call it ego, but people get their drugs from wherever they're conveniently available.

3. Because the trilaterals want to make it look like we have a choice.

Posted by angryman@24:10 at March 28, 2008 10:09 AM

angryman: Number 3 is not as tight as one might thiink. Just a theory, but what if one of the illuminated saw everything in a different light?

STUBBY: Didn't get none last night, huh. Hair trigger, as one might say.

Posted by Mike Meyer at March 28, 2008 11:43 AM

I have a much more boring proposal: why not vote for parties instead of individuals; you know, parties with clear platforms, parties that then will be proportionally represented in the parliament by faceless bureaucrats. And the president... He or she should be a purely ceremonial figurehead, like the president of the Swiss confederation. No fame, no ambition, just reading boring speeches no one is listening to.

Sorry about the unfunny comment.

Posted by abb1 at March 28, 2008 04:55 PM

Yeesh; pretzels. That'd keep me from running, all right.

Posted by Kip W at March 29, 2008 09:40 AM

xyz - wouldn't work. we would make friends with the dogs and have a grand old camping trip and even sing around the campfire

Posted by Susan - NC at March 29, 2008 06:08 PM