Who would you rather vote for? Opposing candidate or Random guy?

[Lunar]

Would you prefer your opposing candidate or a randomly selected person?

[Franzl]

Naturally...I'd rather have McCain than a random person.....would simply be much too risky.

At least I know about what I'd get with McCain...not that I like it...but......

[Хahar 🤔]

Opposing candidate, of course.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Opposing candidate, of course.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A random person, since the odds are most likely that person is not a war criminal.

[dead0man]

Random person, easy.  If she/he is a loon, Congress can get rid of her/him.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Opposing candidate, of course.

[SPC]

Random person easily. While the electoral system ensures that the worst rise to the top, such as McCain, having a random person at least ensures that there is a fair chance that the random person will be decent. In fact, it might be better if political offices were decided by raffles than by voting.

[Dr. Cynic]

Opposing candidate, of course.

[Nutmeg]

Anyone selecting 'random person' is a huge hack or seriously overestimates the capabilities of the average person.

[dead0man]

Anyone selecting 'random person' is a huge hack or seriously overestimates the capabilities of the average person.

Or you're overestimating the capablities required to be a non-destructive President.

[perdedor]

With my luck, the random guy would turn out to be Joe the Plumber. Might as well just take McCain.

[SPC]

Anyone selecting 'random person' is a huge hack or seriously overestimates the capabilities of the average person.

You're aware that Article II doesn't delegate many powers to the president, right? Also, I'd rather have someone in the office that doesn't want the job than a carreer politician. The former will be apathetic, whereas the latter will do everything he/she can to increase executive power.

[Nutmeg]

Anyone selecting 'random person' is a huge hack or seriously overestimates the capabilities of the average person.

You're aware that Article II doesn't delegate many powers to the president, right? Also, I'd rather have someone in the office that doesn't want the job than a carreer politician. The former will be apathetic, whereas the latter will do everything he/she can to increase executive power.

The president has quite a large role, if you ask me, and I'm inclined to believe that power corrupts.

[Хahar 🤔]

Anyone selecting 'random person' is a huge hack or seriously overestimates the capabilities of the average person.

You're aware that Article II doesn't delegate many powers to the president, right? Also, I'd rather have someone in the office that doesn't want the job than a carreer politician. The former will be apathetic, whereas the latter will do everything he/she can to increase executive power.

The president has quite a large role, if you ask me, and I'm inclined to believe that power corrupts.

The President has power, yes, but it's legally not nearly as strong a position as it's been made.

[SPC]

Anyone selecting 'random person' is a huge hack or seriously overestimates the capabilities of the average person.

You're aware that Article II doesn't delegate many powers to the president, right? Also, I'd rather have someone in the office that doesn't want the job than a carreer politician. The former will be apathetic, whereas the latter will do everything he/she can to increase executive power.

The president has quite a large role, if you ask me, and I'm inclined to believe that power corrupts.

That large role is unconstitutional. If the constitution were strictly followed, I would think that any idiot can make pardons, appointments, and veto bills. They would probably be better than McCain or Obama, given that they would be more reluctant to sign bills they don't know about and make appointments to offices they don't know.