Voting on the Issues
What if your presidential candidate was determined entirely by the issues. Not on how they looked or whether you thought they had an honest chance. What if your vote was determined entirely on which candidate most agreed with you on the issues? Who do you think would get your vote?
Here’s a simple way to find out. Go to Pick Your Candidate, answer a few basic questions, and get an answer. It might surprise you.
Now given my liberal and intellectual afflictions, you won’t be surprised that my top candidate happens to be on the left. Right now, Clinton appears to be the strongest Democratic candidate, so you might figure she’s the one who most agrees with me.
Nope. She happens to be fifth.
Edwards? Nope, he’s fourth. Obama only rates third on my list.
The person at the top of my list happens to be Kucinich.
Does that mean I’m a radical nutcase lefty? Very possibly. But what is interesting is that of the more than 150,000 surveys submitted Kucinich tops the list. I suspect that one important factor here is that the type of people who take such online surveys tend to be more left-leaning, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the democrats lead the pack on the survey. It is also obviously true that a single survey will never be entirely reliable. You could probably also argue that the survey is biased, based on the type of questions it asks, and how it asks them.
Still, for me Kucinich is a surpise. I would have figured myself more along the lines of Edwards or Obama. I actually haven’t given Kucinich serious consideration, because I don’t honestly think he has a chance.
What do other Brave Humans find from the survey? Who might be in the running if we picked the candidates?
October 19th, 2007 22:29
OK, I got Kucinich too, by a 20+ point margin. Next was Gravel, who I haven’t even heard of. The site suggests it is less than perfect. So too is politics, and perhaps the choices we make are more ideal, while the records of politicians may be more pragmatic. Kucinich, being less pragmatic (and less successful) may be closer to idealized choices and yet, is he ready to bargain, settle and compromise, a trait we might want after eight years of “the Decider”?
Nick
October 20th, 2007 21:43
I did one of these surveys earlier this year, and I came out with Ron Paul. The problem I have, knowing how technology works, is you have no idea what they are doing to weight the questions and answers to make one candidate more appealing than another.
This is actually my overall concern with the electronic voting process, where no paper ticket is provided. The president of the company that makes the majority of these machines is a republican supporter and promised to help W win in 2000 and 2004. Now, how easy would it be to write a slight alteration deep into the code of one of these poling machines that automatically registers an extra vote or actually change a ballot, wihtout anyone ever noticing. Answer, Very Easy.
October 23rd, 2007 02:08
My Results by point totals - both Positive and Negative
Even though several of us seem to prefer the more ideological candidate in this contrived and very arbitrary survey, this seeming choice represents what we would prefer in an ideal world where we get all of our own first choices.
What it leaves out in the real world is our intuitive assessment of a candidate and his character, traits, strengths, weaknesses, and other measures we see fit to apply in judgement. One’s stated positions are merely a starting point for someone who will have to interact in the real world where compromises are the bedrock of our political system
Hunter 94
Tancredo 93
Romney 90
Huckabee 57
Cox 56
Brownback 53
Giuliani 37
Thompson 36
McCain 33
Paul 1
===================
Biden -46
Richardson -47
Obama -50
Dodd -51
Edwards -56
Clinton -56
Gravel -85
Kucinich -104
October 23rd, 2007 16:29
I got Kucinich too, but a margin of about 30 points. Interesting.
October 29th, 2007 14:02
I got Kucinich and Ron Paul. Changing the level of importance on the version I took changed them around.
We place too much merit on image instead of action. This is true of all human race. I recently saw a report, found here, http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071015/sc_livescience/studygossiptrumpstruth , that demonstrates how most people will believe negative gossip even when documented proof is in front of them.
The science of forming policy is a deep and complex. The people capable of solving these complex issues are not going to look like “normal people”. You don’t want your homework done by the captain of the football team. It is that strange looking smelly little captain of the chess team in the corner who often asks the most off the wall question of the teacher. If it is political change you are looking for, it is going to require you to accept policies that are counter intuitive to your common sense.
We have had a few football captains over the last couple of decades. We are now set to elect the head cheerleader next. However in the end it will be the same old game.
I would love to see a debate format conducted over a few weeks via a blog format. It would require the candidates to answer the questions thoroughly and completely. They would have to use research and sources to demonstrate their points and counter points. I went into more detail a href=”http://logicandpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-about-this-as-debate-format.html”>here
October 30th, 2007 22:22
Fun test. I got Kuchinich then Gravel, etc.
Yes, beliefs/values are important, but so is competence.
Being Australian, I don’t know most of these people. There’s a Catch 22 in that it is hard to pay attention to someone who you think doesn’t have a chance. We attend more to the front-runners - and that pushes them even further in front.
I find the prospect of a female President awfully damn attractive. Just for once. This makes me apt to gloss over the fact that she apparently approves of the Death Penalty and Assault weapons!!
Here in Oz we have a National election on 24th November, and we’re in full election mode. Looks like a landslide expulsion of the incumbent, a conservative.
New leadership. We seem to be ready for it.
November 1st, 2007 07:33
Thanks for visiting my site…hope you’ll return and comment soon.
I found you post and questions posed as refreshing asthey were frustrating.
On the one hand, ideologically speaking, I too would gladly give my vote to Kucinich or even Paul but then I ponder if i would be wasting my vote on somebody that most likely would not be embraced by voters nationally. An extreme example of this is the Ralph Nader conundrum when a vote for Nader was a vote taken away from a more electable candidate.
It always boils down to staying true to one own principles with the decision between pragmatic or ideological thinking.
Thanks for the early morning stimulation.
Mike lang
The Lang Report