I was doing some reading on the web the other day, trying to figure out what kind of impact Stephen Colbert is having on the polls so far, which is an interesting topic in itself. But in my searching, I came across this tool from Select Smart, which allows you to respond to your views on many topics, and rate the importance of those topics, and then it will tell you who you should be voting for.
I found this intriguing because I'm not always sure we're committed to voting for the person who actually supports what we want to see. There's a lot of reasons that might be the case, some more and less sensible! I can tell you that I wasn't surprised by who this quiz said I most agreed with, but that I'll most likely be voting for the candidate who showed up 5th on my list. Why? Electability. The candidate with whom I'm most in sync I doubt could get elected.
How about you? Do your results match your actual voting intentions?
10 comments:
According to the quiz, I should support (1) Tom Tancredo and (2) Duncan Hunter.
Even though my ideal candidate, Ron Paul, does not have a great chance of winning the primary, much less the national election, I'm still voting for him because I feel that voting for the lesser of evils due to electability ultimately undermines my vote. I'll cast my ideological vote and hope for the best; none of the so-called mainstream Republican candidates line up with my views well, and because of inane election law in New York, even if I felt inclined to change parties, October 12 was the latest date for party changes to take place for the upcoming primary.
In any case, I feel that my primary vote is much more meaningful than my general election vote, particularly in a state like mine, New York which will be won by the Democrats, undoubtedly.
The candidate I'm leaning toward right now was in 2nd place behind "Theoretical Ideal Candidate" who managed to score a perfect 100%. Who knew?
How is that "Theoretical Ideal Candidate" can be anything but #1?
Not at all surprisingly, it gave me Dennis Kucinich as #1. What followed actually was kind of surpising. I knew I was no Hillary fan, but I was surprised by how low on the list she was, and how much higher on the list Biden was.
None of which will have much impact on my vote, sadly. I believed all that "vote your hope, not your fear" nonsense in 2000. I voted my hope and ended up with Bush. From that point on, I've voted out of blind terror. Electability and such.
"From that point on, I've voted out of blind terror. Electability and such."
Awesome.
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised that my "Theorhetical Ideal Candidate" was actually running!
Kucinich was my #1...not surprising!!
I'd like to vote for a person of questionable mental health and a propensity for violence; someone who will make the world think that America is crazy and dangerous. Then we will be safe(r).
Alas, no such person is running.
I'm thinking about voting for Glenn Reynolds as a write-in candidate, even though he's not running. I rarely find myself in disagreement with him.
Of course, why settle for the lesser evil?
Vote for Cthulhu in 2008.
John... someone's who campaign slogan might be "America: We're Nervous and We Have Guns?"
That is exactly what I would be looking for in a candidate.
Alas, people only run for president after being in politics for thirty years or so, and that process tends to eliminate any backbone that they have.
Post a Comment