Billionaire and oversized oompa loompa Donald Trump swept almost every electoral contest this past Tuesday, gaining a large swath of the delegates he needs to secure the Republican nomination for president. His biggest win of the day came in Florida, where he won 99 delegates and dealt a finishing blow to Marco Rubio's already terminal ill campaign. Rubio's campaign officially flatlined on March 16th and will be buried alongside Tim Tebow's pro-football career, amongst other underperforming, Floridian disappointments.

Trump's success has baffled experts and Facebook users who think they are experts alike (Yeah John, I am talking about you. Where is your boy Jeb now, huh?). None of his xenophobic, misogynistic or kindergarten bully style rhetoric has done anything to slow his momentum. Nor have any of his flip-flops and incoherent stances on issues most thought Republicans held dear. To us non-Trump supporters, it seems almost like (by which I mean it is abundantly clear) that those backing the reality star are not are not being rational. Trump has presented hardly any substantive solutions to the the problems America is facing. He does not even have any discernible ideology (beyond his deep belief that he is the best) that signals how he might approach those problems.

However, in defense of Trump supporters (I never thought I would write those words in that sequence), none of us pick a candidate rationally. We would all like to think that we impartially evaluate each option and, based on evidence, choose the person who would be best for the job, but that's bull honkey. We all suck at picking candidates.

In January, journalist Emma Roller wrote an article for the New York Times discussing a number of studies that focused on irrational factors affecting voters' decisions. One study, conducted by a political scientist and a biologist at the University of Miami, demonstrated that people prefer candidates who have deeper voices. Apparently people with deeper voices are perceived as stronger, having greater physical prowess, more competent, and having greater integrity. Another study found that voters tend to pick taller candidates and that presidents tend to be taller on average. Historically, the taller of the two candidates has won about two-thirds of the time in general elections (there go my White House dreams).

Further, in 2005 study showed that candidates who look more "competent," according to voters, tend to win. The study's test subjects were shown the two congressional candidates' faces and asked to decide which one looked more competent. The candidate the subjects selected, two-thirds of the time, was the one who won the congressional race.

If that's not enough to destroy your faith in the democracy, here's one last one: Several studies suggest that people who have suffered from natural disasters tend to punish incumbent politicians. It seems that anytime someone's welfare dips below their "normal standard" their support for whoever is in office drops, regardless of whether the cause is government-related or not.

I could go on, but you get the point: we are all bad at choosing our leaders. But, we do not have to be that bad. There are steps we can take to ensure that we do not just vote for the tall, "competent" looking, politician with a deep voice, who happened not be in office when the sharknado hit.

For starters we should start thinking of elections as just a lengthy hiring process, with the goal of filling the position of President of the United States. If we did, our massive pep rallies and colorful bumper stickers would seem ridiculous. Would you trust a guy with "Monica for Assistant Secretary!" on the back of his Toyota? No, so why is it different when the job applicant is applying to be leader of the free world? Getting that excited about a candidate, for any job, can blind you to negative information about them that threatens to kill your vibe.

Instead of getting caught up in the emotional energy of a campaign, we should try to dispassionately seek answers to basic questions about each candidate: What relevant experience do they have? What have they accomplished in the past? Where do they stand on the important issues? And are their policy ideas realistic and tailored to the problems they would face on the job? This hiring manager mentality can help us make much healthier political choices.

Many of us criticize Trump supporters for how they chose their candidate, and we have good reason to, but we also need to be recognize the flaws in the way every single one of us chooses our candidates. We all need to ask ourselves if we are supporting our person for rational reasons, or because we are being suckered by there square jaw and James Earl Jones-level voice? If we want the best possible leaders running our government, we need to make sure it is the former.