Debates are certainly one kind of cruzible (sic) on the way to the nomination, and they highlight certain kinds of skills. Delivering a speech highlights another kind of skill. And of course, life experience does as well -- and voters can choose based on the combination of all of the above, including looks (which has been shown to be a top vote driver).

Debates also test candidate knowledge -- but unevenly.

The proposal here is for the debate commissions to authorize a set of games that set the candidates against each other in skills that are actually relevant for the Presidency (or similar office). Poker of course is the quintessential American game, Risk, Monopoly, chess would all be quite interesting.
-- theircompetitor, Jan 16 2016

Hopscotch, mumbly peg (many pols and a single knife), jump rope, bocce ball (mafia dons), free climbing, dancing, rock, paper and scissors , race walking.

Certainly some of the photos would drive somebody out of the race.+
-- popbottle, Jan 16 2016


Russian roulette ?
-- 8th of 7, Jan 17 2016


Note the more candidates the more fun. For example, consider 8 Republican candidates all playing simultaneous chess with each other. If someone isn't smart enough to keep track of 7 simultaneous games (and win at least 4), how can he or she possibly qualify for the Presidency?
-- Vernon, Jan 17 2016


Also games of pure chance would be fun, like snakes & ladders.
-- pocmloc, Jan 17 2016


... or "Balance the U.S. Federal Budget" ...
-- 8th of 7, Jan 17 2016


//Russian roulette ?//

Five out of six doctors find Russian Roulette to be perfectly safe.
-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jan 17 2016


"Ask your physician if Smith & Wesson .38 Special 130-grain FMJ is right for you ..."
-- 8th of 7, Jan 17 2016



random, halfbakery