4 ms·

That's a good idea in theory but most people have dozens of issues that are important to them and there's rarely a candidate for office who is aligned with them

That's a good idea in theory but most people have dozens of issues that are important to them and there's rarely a candidate for office who is aligned with them on everything, so they have to pick which issues are their most important. And of course their position on every possible issue isn't know when evaluating candidates. Some change their position after being elected. Sometimes issues come up that weren't really considered to be an issue at the time of the election.

KptMarchewa 2y ago
That's the problem with FPTP systems. In true multi-party proportional systems, people can align with the candidate on much more than few extremely polarizing points. Also gets rid of most effect of gerrymandering. On the other hand, later coalition building often results in significant compromises too.
bravetraveler 2y ago
I dare say we've collectively done that math/valuation very poorly. That's not a judgement. It's actively weaponized against us. So you say a small number of key issues aren't a good indicator, right? I agree. Stop. Wargames comes to mind - don't play. Vote, but not on things you think are important. Things that actually are important. Achievements, not tales. Someone who has a career of making decisions that benefit the public will get my vote. Ask no questions and you'll hear no lies. I don't want the convincing story rep, I want the one shaping our society for the better - even if it costs me. We're somewhat poorly served by 'the system', as a peer mentions too. There's only so much we can do. We've made a fun false dichotomy for ourselves with two parties and FPTP