Questa volta abbiamo cercato: How would you feel if the only thing we knew about presidential candidates was their stance on issues…no information on party, name, gender, race, or religious beliefs (or lack thereof)?
How would you feel if the only thing we knew about presidential candidates was their stance on issues…no information on party, name, gender, race, or religious beliefs (or lack thereof)?
Ed ecco le risposte:
Would it be based on their actual stance, or what they claim is their stance?
This exact question (exact same wording and everything) was asked 7 months ago, and is one of the top upvoted posts of all time on the sub.
And just like every other “How would you feel” question, it’s a terrible hypothetical that falls apart with 2 seconds of analysis.
It would be even harder to trust what we hear since we would have no direct communication with them. I’m not saying gender, race, or the other things should influence how you vote, but I think physically seeing and hearing a candidate makes it easier to trust that they’re true to what they’re saying. Rather than just believing this anonymous stream of information that could be coming from any source.
In that fantasy land, it’d be great.
Here we vote for the party based on where the party stands on issues. Technically we’re voting for an individual, but when counting the votes to see how many seats each party gets it doesn’t matter if the one you voted for got enough votes to get a seat or not, the party gets the vote. How the seats the party received is determined by order and number of specific votes for an individual within that party.
So anyway, I’d say that sounds great, why limit it to only the president? But where do you list the huge long list of where they stand on each and every issue? Isn’t it easier to list their party? Or is this how you get rid of the two party system? Because you still have to get yourself on the ballot in the first place.