The new election process.

[Cerveza]

We've become obsessed with image. Easy data access has changed the way we think and it's a shame to have to say it, but it's making us dumber.

There are a lot of Americans out there who have no idea about the issues. All they know is what the media feeds them, which they regurgitate amongst friends in a kind of doltish buffet.

Please don't post anything political here, just whether or not the following process would be a good one.

Put down a list of issues. Then put down choices for each issue. Voters select the choice they most agree with. When completely filled out the candidate who most closely meets the choices made is voted for.

Example:

1) Abortion
a - Free Choice
b - Right to Life
c - State Choice

You mark the stance that most closely represents your opinion and move on.

Perhaps the candidate voted for isn't even shown :O , instead of so much focus on the person, place the focus where it belongs - on the issues.

[Paulonius]

I like it, but think that framing the issues without dropping in bias is really hard. Your example illustrates this point a bit. If I were to frame abortion as an issue based question I might have options that looked more like this:

A. Abortion Allowed 100% Woman's choice
B. No Abortions Allowed
C. No Abortions Allowed; exception for rape and incest
D. Abortion allowed 100% Woman's Choice in first trimester, thereafter disallowed (This is essentially Roe v. Wade)
E. Abortion allowed for people who are ugly or have low IQ

[MeWonUo]

At first read, my initial response was "Yes, without a doubt. What an awesome idea!".   

But after thinking about this for a few, I think it could be a little dangerous.  Considering that candidates have access to polling and the general feel that the masses have for specific issues.  It would be extremely easy for someone to simply choose the most popular answers to the questions when they decided to run for office.  In effect, we could have multiple candidates that met the exact criteria for most peoples ideals. 

All the while, their hidden agendas would not come to full fruition until after they were put into office.  I know everyone has hidden agendas in government, but I believe this concept might really backfire. 

[Masscre]

Also there needs to be a scale of 1 to 10 on each item of importance. For example I might weigh a president elect that was against abortion higher as an ideal than one that was going to make sure traffic laws where followed, but yes the idea is genuine and doable but would have to have alot more specifics built in like paul was saying.

[Cerveza]

There would have to be as many positions as there are differences amongst the candidates.

I just chose the simple three for abortion as an easy example. If there are 8 candidates there could be 8 different selections for each agenda item. And having a rating of 1 to 10 or something would also be a good idea.

[freddy]

This is what I think about politics
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154582/debate-2004

[Oracle]

We are allowed to talk about Politics?  I thought that was a no-no?  Anytime you mention Poilitics, even just as an innocent observation, it will come back and "slap you in da face".  It doesn't really matter who you vote for...it all ends up the same...

All I have to say is, "Quit trying to fix the World!  Please fix the U.S.A. first...we have more problems here, but many just choose to ignore them.  When we can house all the homeless and feed all whom are hungry, and then give a Job to those that want one -- Then, we can go fix the World...!"

[TrailMyx]

If we feed the homeless to the hungry, that might be a two birds with one stone kind of thing!  JK, that was the first think that popped in my mind.  *bad TrailMyx*

[Endless Night]

I'm staying out of this one ... 

[Paulonius]

Pretty much any conversation about politics since in the last five years doesn't go well unless the people involved all start with the same opinions. I don't think it was always this bad. Relatively interesting article about the phenomenon on CNN yesterday that I can't seem to find right now. Essence of the article was that the more passionate and informed people were, the less it mattered to them when they were presented with facts that contradicted thier position. Some evidence showed that when confronted with such evidence they became more entrenched.

I view myself as a moderate and try to take a critical judgement to every side of an issue. I am sure I don't always succeed. While this remains for me the right way to participate in the process, in the current environment it generally means that any conversation about politics ends poorly.

[TrailMyx]

Yeh, Cerveza likes to see my surface aneurysm throb after he posts the political stuff.  He's evil that way....

[Cerveza]

I even mentioned to keep the issues out of this post, just to discuss if the process would work.

[TrailMyx]

I even mentioned to keep the issues out of this post, just to discuss if the process would work.

My aneurysm thanks you. 

[TrailMyx]

The main problem with this is when a candidate "says" he has a specific ideology or opinion, but ends up having a totally different opinion or hidden agenda.  This has never happened in recent history.... :p

[Endless Night]

The main problem with this is when a candidate "says" he has a specific ideology or opinion, but ends up having a totally different opinion or hidden agenda.  This has never happened in recent history.... :p

LOL  you think.