If there are 2% of the population more electable “all else equal” to the sitting president (and this is a pretty wild guess), then I think you’d need a pretty good selection procedure to produce candidates who are, on average, better than the current procedure.
Really? I feel like there are loads of selection procedures that reliably discern much smaller populations than that.
For example, I would guess that if you were an elite university and you wanted a selection process such that the people you admit are each probably within the top 0.1% of the nation by academic ability, you can do that. (SAT tests, GPA, etc.)
I would also guess that athletes in the Olympics are in the top 0.1% of the world, plausibly top 0.001% or more.
If there are 2% of the population more electable “all else equal” to the sitting president (and this is a pretty wild guess), then I think you’d need a pretty good selection procedure to produce candidates who are, on average, better than the current procedure.
Really? I feel like there are loads of selection procedures that reliably discern much smaller populations than that.
For example, I would guess that if you were an elite university and you wanted a selection process such that the people you admit are each probably within the top 0.1% of the nation by academic ability, you can do that. (SAT tests, GPA, etc.)
I would also guess that athletes in the Olympics are in the top 0.1% of the world, plausibly top 0.001% or more.