Might be the correct answer because your smart! Then again is it RIGHT?

The better test would be critical thinking.  There are many people who are very intelligent according to SATs but do not know how to read and analyze a bill or to understand that all bills will be followed by unintentional consequences.

Cheryl

That is what the focus groups have shown. You must be articulate and knowlegeable if you want your peers to vote for you. As you advance, the bar will be raised higher and higher. Only superb candidates will bubble to the top of the system.

But remember, we want EVERYONE to participate, even if they someone does not want to win, we want them to choose the person that will best represent their views. This is true representative government. EVERY candidate will be considered equally. How little money someone has, who someone knows, or where someone lives will not matter. What your views are, how well you communicate, and how well you can interact with others will determine who is selected.  

Sounds like the selection process would flush that out; just like it would flush out my own shortcomings.  A perfect example is (my own opinion) my thoughts come more fluid and coherent from my written words than my spoken words.  Maybe not an indication of intelligence, but it would certainly differentiate my written communication from how well I articulate those same thoughts while having to speak off the cuff.  Did that come out right?  

Basically, if a candidate is unable to explain why they take a certain position coherently during the selection process, it would definitely bubble to the surface.  I think all an intelligence test would accomplish is it would be another form of exclusion from the process.  This initiative, being so early in the process, I believe, would not benefit from exclusion.  In order to succeed, maximum participation is required.

Should there be a test to consider the mental ability of the candidates to interprate the issues and act on them in an educated manner?