The King Arthur legend really had it figured out. The best way to choose our leaders is arbitrary feats of strength and will. At the end of the day, any leader at a given time is just going to be a figurehead for whatever shit their nation was going through at that point in history, so we might as well appoint people for something interesting and spectacular.
The only question is WHAT the criteria should be. Let’s say the President of the United States: the obvious choice seems to be to measure how many hamburgers they can eat in an hour. For Prime Minister of England it should be the Driest Wit, and have them make as many jokes as they can without smiling. Germans are known for their efficiency*, so their PM should be elected based on getting as close as possible to inventing a perpetual motion device. Spain would just be Messi with the exception of every fourth year.
See? Already our leaders are more interesting. In this perfect world, any proud citizen can say, “I may not agree with his or her policies, but man, they can eat a lot of burgers.”
wes
*Yes, that’s perpetuating a stereotype, and I sincerely apologies to all the wasteful Germans out there, heroically breaking stereotypes with every ounce of pointless energy and effort.
the prime minister of australia could be determined by how many spiders they are
It should be: Argentina would just be Messi with the exception of every fourth year, not Spain
Messi is an Argentine, but I’m pretty sure the Spaniards would make an exception in his case.
I always thought he was a bit of a jerkoff.
Burgers? Well hell, I thought it was babies! Is this going to hurt my reelection chances?
I think you mean “Prime Minister of the United Kingdom”, not “Prime Minister of England”. England doesn’t have it’s own Prime Minister.
The “probably” is key
Would have been better if he used only one hand! 🙂