Typical review process
Prior to retirement, I interviewed a lot of people. While the job varied, the process never really did: review the resume, select candidates, and then interview them. It took me longer than it should have to realize just how often people lie—on resumes and in interviews. HR was always clear about what I could ask, but I was allowed to dig into what they actually knew.
Lately, I’ve found myself paying much closer attention to politicians—and it’s been maddening. You know what? American voters are being completely shortchanged when it comes to choosing who represents us. We get slick ads from their party, hit pieces on their opponent, and maybe—if we’re lucky—a single debate filled with canned, rehearsed soundbites. Beyond that? We know next to nothing about these people.
And yet, this broken process is exactly how we end up electing individuals who have absolutely no business making decisions that affect our lives. Look around—there’s no shortage of examples.
A prison offense?
Take Pennsylvanian Republican State Senator Scott Wagner, who said global warming was caused by the Earth getting closer to the sun—and by body heat from humans. Seriously.
Or consider Texas Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), who introduced a bill that would classify several native plants and fungi—yes, including the cherished mountain laurel (Sophora secundiflora) and morning glory (Ipomoea violacea)—as controlled substances. So now you could end up in prison… because of your landscaping.
Weapon of mass destruction?
Still not rock bottom? Try this: seven—seven—Minnesota state senators introduced HF 3219, the “mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act.” It labels COVID vaccines as weapons of mass destruction. I wish I were making this up.
Authors: Shane Mekeland, Krista Knudsen, Walter Hudson, Jeff Dotseth, Tom Murphy, Pam Altendorf, Isaac Schultz.
Did anyone voting for them realize these people were proudly anti-science? I’ve already nominated RFK Jr. for “mass murderer of the decade,” but these folks are clearly gunning for honorable mention.
This is the core problem. When we vote, we have no idea whether a candidate understands basic science or math. We don’t know if they believe the Earth is flat or if they’re just the RFK Jr. variety of conspiracy crank. And to make it worse, everything they say has been engineered to sound good—to manipulate. It’s the exact same frustration I faced when interviewing candidates who had all the right words but none of the right thinking.
Can’t even cheat
What if we flipped the script? Imagine a test—not one that’s scored like the SAT, but one where we just see the answers. No grading, no filters—just the raw responses. No chance to hide behind polished talking points. Just a glimpse into what they actually think and whether they can think at all.
Yes, I know—they’d still try to study for it and say what they think we want to hear. But we could randomize questions using AI, keep them unpredictable, and remove bias. And hey, if they accidentally learn something while prepping? Even better.
What kind of questions? Basic math. Basic science. Empathy. Financial literacy. A working understanding of the Constitution. We don’t need them to be experts—we just need them to prove they’re not completely out of their depth.
You’ll notice I left out politics and religion. Political answers would just parrot the party line. Religious ones would be suspect in today’s climate. No value there.
And yes, politicians would hate this. It would expose their inability to rely solely on attacking their opponents or repeating their party’s script. I’m not pretending this would fix everything, but it would give us a far better window into their mindset. Maybe—just maybe—we’d spot a sociopath before giving them the keys to the kingdom. That’s my dream, anyway.
Sample questions:
- What’s your ideal pet?
- What is DEI?
- How should AI training be legislated?
- Do you believe in freedom of religion?
- What’s the cube root of 81?
- Should the imports from penguins on Heard and McDonald Islands be subjected to even higher tariffs?
Feel free to suggest more questions of your own. This kind of test would be a lifeline for the dwindling number of voters who still care enough to fact-check their candidates. Sadly, as we’re seeing more and more, that number is depressingly low.
© 2025, Byron Seastrunk. All rights reserved.
