Random political thought. - Voting based on issues questions rather than political parties.

[silveradept]

I wonder what campaigns in the United States would be like if, instead of picking people, when one went to the ballot box, one was presented with a questionnaire asking about political beliefs. Through the use of a branching tree of questions, many of them likely with multiple paths or statements attached, the voter built a profile of themselves and their views. At the end of the questions, there would be a display that says, "Based on your answers, the candidate(s) that aligns with your views the closest is X (Y, Zed). Press YES to cast your ballot for your selected candidate. Press START OVER to start the question process again." Candidates could still campaign and talk about all of their issues, but it would theoretically be less of a popularity contest, as the questions would be based on the candidates stated or written positions.

How close is this to the ideal of the parliamentary systems in place where one votes for parties rather than candidates?

Comments

[mischiefpeace]

You mean personality wouldn't matter? *facepalm* Can't have that.

Seriously, though... maybe we need a check-box for "plays well with others."

But yes, I think this is an interesting idea. Might be better than our current system.

[southernmyst.livejournal.com]

Here, the political parties publish ... shoot, the word escapes me right now because I've just woken up, but manifestos of everything they say they believe / will do, etc. Thing is, they routinely ignore those once they get into office and do whatever they feel like then - across myriad individuals, at all different levels of government.

Your suggestion's a good one, IF the populace actually has and uses the power to keep the politicians to what they say they'll do.

[silveradept]

So even after they publish their platforms, they then go do whatever they want. Lovely. There shoukd be a nonpartisan office in the Government that checks legislation against platforms and then demands explanations as to why a party is off-message, with the power to veto/refuse Royal Assent if the explanation isn't good enough. If for no other reason than to force the parties to stick to their promises and to make them say what they really want to do with the country