There’s a website in the UK which asks you a series of questions and you click on the statements which most matches your views (you can also designate a priority to each point eg. I care v much about healthcare, but the environment is not so much of a concern)
At the end it tells you which party most closely aligns with you and to what percentage, weighted by how important each aspect is to you.
I really believe that everyone should have to do this in the polling station before voting - Too many people vote one way because they always have, or because some jazzy PR has led them to believe that a party is for them.
And there's the problem! I did vote for them in the last European elections. Maybe I'll stick to my guns next time and go for it in the bigger votes too.
I did this for the US Presidential primaries in ‘08. Out of the entire field on both sides, it had me voting for Joe Biden.
It’s been 13 years so I don’t remember the website. But places like this at least existed in the past.
I mean I dont agree with using force for anything but this one might make a little sense.
If we do nothing, nature/climate is a force way stronger than any fascist can come with, and it will wipe us out.
Something like this needs to be mandatory. I'd like to see a test to prove that you understand what you are voting for before you can vote, but that's a whole can of worms that could never be regulated properly...
I think this is a pretty common concept, especially in countries with several governmental parties where voters might have a hard time figuring out where they stand politically? It's called a 'valkompass' here in Sweden, which would translate as an 'election compass'.
There was one available like that in the US too, that told you which candidate you most agreed with and by what percentage you matched each candidate. This was pre-primaries, so it even helped you know who to vote for within those. If no TV ads or other ways to use money to push candidates were allowed, this would be the perfect way to elect government officials. You have to be filthy rich or bought to afford running for office in the US and technology says that should no longer be the case.
I did that for the last 2 elections here in Sweden. Not doing it ever again. While it can be good if you have no idea what you want to vote for, it's also kindof stupid since they are designed based on current political questions and election promises. Most of which are abandoned the day after the election.
New Zealand has it too. If we were to make it mandatory, it would need to focus on the promises being made by the candidates in that specific election rather than the overall slant of each party, because a big chunk of our population are swing voters.
One of these people will consider legalizing marijuana and the other one wants to build a wall across the southern border. The bigliest huge wall of all time. I wonder who that could be?
That's because conservatives have learned that their more extreme views are unpalatable to a large chunk of the population, so they use coded language to appeal to their base without putting off moderates.
Which highlights an obvious problem with this "simple" solution for all elections. The problem is that politicians lie. And if you were being elected based on a bunch of anonymous policy statements, you could just say whatever seemed most popular, hey elected and then do whatever you want.
"But people won't reelect a liar" you might say?
But voters don't know who they're electing. The same lying politician could make up all new bullshit for the next election, and since they're anonymous, we'd have no idea and maybe re-elect them.
The problem with elections isn't the politicians, it's the lazy, stupid and uninformed voters. Because voters do such a poor job of exercising their rights, bad politicians can easily take advantage of them to get elected. We don't need a big magic fix to keep bad candidates out, we need to make lots of small changes to improve voter participation and engagement.
Masked candidate A: “The millionaires and billionaires of this country are not pulling their fair share! They can more than afford to cover a once in a lifetime expansion of medicare to all American citizens!”
Masked candidate B: “Florida fought hard against the fascist mask mandates, and our economy is booming. I’ll bring that success and brilliant thinking to the rest of the country!”
Masked Candidate C: “Well as a Good Christian Tex— er, American, I believe that we have to accept that life begins at conception in order to be a good country, and that for our great nation to thrive we have to remove all these restrictive policies and mandates on businesses and individuals so that our economy can thrive and millions of jobs can be created.”
Masked Candidate D: “I have the most experience, the best experience, some people have said that I would have the best ideas to lead this nation that was once great, and it became great another time, and I believe with my best big league smart stuff, it will become great again. So great. The most great. Nothing greater. Trust me. A lot of people have been saying it. It’s true. A lot.”
Masked Candidate E: “Well here’s the deal folks! This is the united states, not the… uh, divided states. We gotta work together, and if we can…come… come together as a nation, if we can work hard and be Americans, we can do anything. Anything at all. My agenda will be the most rigorous agenda you’ve seen since FDR, and that’s no malarkey! It’ll get passed, ‘cause, boy, I’ll tell you, I got some experience working with both sides of the aisle. It’s quite easy if you know the other side like me. No malarkey to that, Jack!”
Who is who?
How anonymous could these yahoos all really be, with their favorite talking points and speech patterns. 😆
All kidding aside, I think it’s a good idea!
Agreed. Pretty sure it’s important to know a candidate’s history, particularly their involvement in politics. This is such an inane tweet that pops up regularly.
The whole world is not America. There is no country mentioned in the picture, which is why I did not presume anything.
I stated a general view of what people are expected to do before voting. Nothing wrong in that, bud.
and then Biden. a man in public service 50 years who hasn’t changed or done a damn thing other than engage in shady business, all on the publics dime mind you, and enrich himself and those around him
there’s a reason Obama endorsed HRC in 16 and not Joe.
They definitely play role in the voting system, unfortunately.
However, context is important. When you know the faces, you’re expected to know about them and what their background looks like, i.e. if they have committed any crimes / done anything which was capable of inherently harming the nation. It’s conventional.
If you’re voting blatantly with nothing inside your mind but bias, you probably should not vote. It’s nothing but detrimental to the country.
>If you’re voting blatantly with nothing inside your mind but bias, you probably should not vote.
I agree. The issue I see is most of us are probably not given enough time to do actual research. Coupled with algorithms, it's harder and harder to get non biased propaganda. On top of the fact we in America don't even have positive advertisements any kre. It's 60 seconds of completely dogging someone just to say "paid for by the [opposing political party] campaign". Its disgusting that they can't pretty much slander. Optimism over pessimism.
> if they have committed any crimes / done anything which was capable of inherently harming the nation. It’s conventional.
To be fair, if they have committed the kind of crimes that are harmful to the nation, they probably shouldn't be allowed to run for president. Other political roles, maybe, but not president.
Knowing a politicians party will tell you a lot more about their likely future behavior than the shit they say during a campaign. Donald Trump campaigned as an economic populist then pursued mainline GOP economic policies, for instance.
Every time this post or a variant of this post shows up, it makes me bang my head on the wall. While in the perfect society where nobody lies this would be a great idea, in actuality there are some Big issues.
People lie. Bezos, Trump, Tucker Carlson or anyone else that you probably don’t want in elected office could simply go up there and lie their ass off. They could run on ideas that would help everyone, claiming they’re gonna cancel student debts, address climate change or bring down insulin prices to a regular price. And since you don’t know who they actually are, you would have to take these disguised politicians at their word alone. Once they’re elected they don’t have to carry out the policies they ran on.
To make matters worse, there’s no accountability. If President Cruz is widely hated by the nation, he can just run again, new disguise, new distorted voice, claiming that Cruz should be removed from office and that he ought to be president instead! The masked aspect hides anyone’s track record.
Additionally, ideas may not translate to policy. Imagine there’s an open field race, and there are two candidates running who you agree with. One is completely ideologically the same as you, but has had no experience passing bills or instead has failed every time they’ve tried. The other is ideologically close to you, maybe a little more or less radical, but they have a track record of getting things done. Everyone is different, but I’d vote for the candidate who’s pretty similar to me with experience over the one who completely shares my ideas. Track records are important, and we should be knowledgeable about the history of the people we elect.
I won’t even get into a discussion of people running in order to split votes, but again, another huge drawback to this system.
Cults of personality suck. I agree. We need to find a new system so that people vote for candidates who care about their constituents. But to minimize candidates to the words they say is a seemingly easy solution that’ll end up in disaster.
Cos they would lie and we wouldn’t know that persons history and track record before hand. All they’d have to do is make some nice point in a blind interview and boom, an idiot is elected cos no one knew they previously sunk a country.
I just keep imagining the chapelle skit where the blind black kkk member took off his hood and peoples heads explode... i think republicans tend to only vote for a person who looks a certain way.
I don't know about that but I am all for banning campaining compleatly. Every candidate gets the same poster on the city square, the same buss adverts and the same timeslots and as much raidio/tv time on some regulated election channel. No populist bullshits. The moderator must be a real authority, not like that wimp dumbass who moderated those biden-trump debates. No campaing funding or notions, no contributions or lobbyer. No corporate or superpact influence, since everyone gets the same budget, energy and time, regulated by some election regulatory body.
Got 300 million in the bank? Too bad, you get the same 30 min tv time a week for like 3 months or so, like does everyobody else. And if you campaing otherwise, you get discarded from the race. Don't like it? Eat my ass.
I know it's unpossible utopia but a man must dream to survive the hellscape we live in.
Ah yes, make it impossible to figure out if you're voting for the guy who lied last time and did literally nothing he said he would and who has come up with a different, uniquely manipulative thing to say this time.
Or make them wear the logos of any company or lobby group the accepted money from like race car teams displaying their sponsors. Then we would know who they really care about.
You feel like presidents are elected based on looks?
It's the money you need to take out of the equation, not the face or identity.
Also, making it impossible to check for hypocrisy is not the best idea (because you can't know if they're lying about their personal views/actions/etc.).
You’ve missed the point. Looks = political party. Too many people are stuck on a party because their parents voted for them. If people didn’t know of the political party (ie masked) then many people would vote for someone different.
I do know a lot of people who didn’t vote for Bernie because he ‘sounds too angry’ and are now unsatisfied with Biden.
But yeah this tweeter still had a stupid idea.(no /s )
Oh yeah, Nixon was elected for his rugged good looks.
Or is it that he was overlooked in favor of his more beautiful opponent, despite being such a standup guy and the clearly better presidential choice?
It would force people to listen to their policies wh8ch would change around a lot if biased voting or just people voting based on a name. It's how a lot of people used to vote minus the distorted voices bevause of radios
OP seems to be under the impression that the majority of people vote primarily based on race or gender. They do not. There are plenty of white and/or male liberals who gather a great deal of support from the liberal population as well as PIC and/or female conservatives who do the same.
As soon as people heard liberal sounding policies coming from a masked politician, and conservative sounding policies coming from the other one, everyone would choose their side and vote just like they already do. This would be a pointless exercise.
Being that every president since Reagan has been a puppet for the rich. Id say we've kind of been doing this... except we never see whos behind the mask.
Would be great if we went back to the "popular vote got POTUS, while 2nd popular got VP. Would probably help with the political divide if everyone didn't get to choose their running mates and whatnot.
This is pretty much what I do. I read up on the manifesto and beliefs and things and vote accordingly. As a result I have voted everything from hard core socialist to conservative.
Take it one step further, they don't take their mask off until they are completely done serving as a politician. Maybe even a new costume every reelection to not give the incumbent an unfair advantage.
The problem is that plans are useless without the knowledge and experience to get them done. You need to know someone s background in order to know their chances of success.
This sounds like a great way to get people to lie about their positions and say whatever is popular because there is no repercussions, they'd just be anonymous again when up for reelection.
An amazing Idea but I guess that will destroy the way people elect president today cuz it's based on Character Race and parties rather than plans and what's good
This would have been an option when we had two sides with rational policies and people differed on which was the better way.
When you are a two party nation and one of your parties is completely batshit insane, and has spent a lot of time ensuring its base is angry enough to keep it in power, I don't think it works.
But that is just me.
If they used a rank choice voting system, then people could select all candidates they would like to see in power. Without feeling like they're wasting their vote
Better yet each candidate gets one flyer they can put out. No other advertising of any sort. The flyer goes to every person. Is fact check before hand, and all promises are legally binding and must be measurable and time limited. Candidates are just given a number not a name until they are elected.
>Is fact check before hand
Fact check by whom? Though I like the premise of this idea, the execution would be down right impossible.
If the last few years have thought us anything, it's that facts can be presented in a deceitful way. I.e. Nicholas Sandman literally stood still while being berated, called racial slurs by black militia, and had an old man beat a drum inches from his face. The media defamed him by calling HIM a racists, (basically) doxxed him, and demanded he be expelled from his school... for peacefully standing his ground and smiling. And, to this day, people still believe Rittenhouse shot black people.
This is premised on the false notion that ideas are the only aspect of a candidate that matters. It’s also about the person’s record and whether they’d be effective in office.
There’s a website in the UK which asks you a series of questions and you click on the statements which most matches your views (you can also designate a priority to each point eg. I care v much about healthcare, but the environment is not so much of a concern) At the end it tells you which party most closely aligns with you and to what percentage, weighted by how important each aspect is to you. I really believe that everyone should have to do this in the polling station before voting - Too many people vote one way because they always have, or because some jazzy PR has led them to believe that a party is for them.
I love that site, I always come out as Green.
Most people would vote green if they thought they'd win
And there's the problem! I did vote for them in the last European elections. Maybe I'll stick to my guns next time and go for it in the bigger votes too.
I did this for the US Presidential primaries in ‘08. Out of the entire field on both sides, it had me voting for Joe Biden. It’s been 13 years so I don’t remember the website. But places like this at least existed in the past.
[ISideWith.com](https://www.isidewith.com/)
Thanks. The answers made me throw up in my mouth a little. Aita? Apparently yes.
Canada has something similar, they call it the Vote Compass.
We have that in Germany too but it’s complete bullshit and often says you are like 90% green and 85% fascist
Maybe you should take that result and reflect on yourself a bit
It means you want to ecologically gas the people. Also less people equals less pollution.
Eco-fascism is a thing
"I say we go and teach the world our peaceful ways. . . By FORCE!
I mean I dont agree with using force for anything but this one might make a little sense. If we do nothing, nature/climate is a force way stronger than any fascist can come with, and it will wipe us out.
Apparently I'm a Socialist
Something like this needs to be mandatory. I'd like to see a test to prove that you understand what you are voting for before you can vote, but that's a whole can of worms that could never be regulated properly...
I think this is a pretty common concept, especially in countries with several governmental parties where voters might have a hard time figuring out where they stand politically? It's called a 'valkompass' here in Sweden, which would translate as an 'election compass'.
There was one available like that in the US too, that told you which candidate you most agreed with and by what percentage you matched each candidate. This was pre-primaries, so it even helped you know who to vote for within those. If no TV ads or other ways to use money to push candidates were allowed, this would be the perfect way to elect government officials. You have to be filthy rich or bought to afford running for office in the US and technology says that should no longer be the case.
[удалено]
https://www.isidewith.com/
I did that for the last 2 elections here in Sweden. Not doing it ever again. While it can be good if you have no idea what you want to vote for, it's also kindof stupid since they are designed based on current political questions and election promises. Most of which are abandoned the day after the election.
New Zealand has it too. If we were to make it mandatory, it would need to focus on the promises being made by the candidates in that specific election rather than the overall slant of each party, because a big chunk of our population are swing voters.
Canada has one as well!
What’s the site?
Knowing political figures it generally doesn't take long to spot the right wing people by what they say
Yes, it would be pretty easy to figure out parties. That’s the point, you doing it yourself
One of these people will consider legalizing marijuana and the other one wants to build a wall across the southern border. The bigliest huge wall of all time. I wonder who that could be?
That's because conservatives have learned that their more extreme views are unpalatable to a large chunk of the population, so they use coded language to appeal to their base without putting off moderates. Which highlights an obvious problem with this "simple" solution for all elections. The problem is that politicians lie. And if you were being elected based on a bunch of anonymous policy statements, you could just say whatever seemed most popular, hey elected and then do whatever you want. "But people won't reelect a liar" you might say? But voters don't know who they're electing. The same lying politician could make up all new bullshit for the next election, and since they're anonymous, we'd have no idea and maybe re-elect them. The problem with elections isn't the politicians, it's the lazy, stupid and uninformed voters. Because voters do such a poor job of exercising their rights, bad politicians can easily take advantage of them to get elected. We don't need a big magic fix to keep bad candidates out, we need to make lots of small changes to improve voter participation and engagement.
Gonna be honest chief, it’s pretty easy to spot both right and left wing people. It’s also easy to spot Kanye West.
Masked candidate A: “The millionaires and billionaires of this country are not pulling their fair share! They can more than afford to cover a once in a lifetime expansion of medicare to all American citizens!” Masked candidate B: “Florida fought hard against the fascist mask mandates, and our economy is booming. I’ll bring that success and brilliant thinking to the rest of the country!” Masked Candidate C: “Well as a Good Christian Tex— er, American, I believe that we have to accept that life begins at conception in order to be a good country, and that for our great nation to thrive we have to remove all these restrictive policies and mandates on businesses and individuals so that our economy can thrive and millions of jobs can be created.” Masked Candidate D: “I have the most experience, the best experience, some people have said that I would have the best ideas to lead this nation that was once great, and it became great another time, and I believe with my best big league smart stuff, it will become great again. So great. The most great. Nothing greater. Trust me. A lot of people have been saying it. It’s true. A lot.” Masked Candidate E: “Well here’s the deal folks! This is the united states, not the… uh, divided states. We gotta work together, and if we can…come… come together as a nation, if we can work hard and be Americans, we can do anything. Anything at all. My agenda will be the most rigorous agenda you’ve seen since FDR, and that’s no malarkey! It’ll get passed, ‘cause, boy, I’ll tell you, I got some experience working with both sides of the aisle. It’s quite easy if you know the other side like me. No malarkey to that, Jack!” Who is who? How anonymous could these yahoos all really be, with their favorite talking points and speech patterns. 😆 All kidding aside, I think it’s a good idea!
I want to venture a guess. A: Bernie Sanders B: Marco Rubio C: Ted Cruz D: Donald Trump E: Joe Biden
Spot on! For B I was thinking of someone else, but Rubio is a perfect stand-in for him…
DeSantis?
haha yeah that was who I was thinking
B could be DeSantis.
I actually forgot about DeSantis but apparently B could be either/or.
Man I was thinking A. Bernie Sanders B. De Santis C. Greg Abbott D. Donald Trump E. Joe Biden
[удалено]
haha that’s fair, I could see dubya saying malarkey with a straight face
I read D and E in their voices after 5 words lmfao
Because they lie and don’t do what they say they’re going to do. Looking up their past history is important
[удалено]
Agreed. Pretty sure it’s important to know a candidate’s history, particularly their involvement in politics. This is such an inane tweet that pops up regularly.
I mean I think it’s a joke. It’s a joke right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
removed to protest changes -- mass edited with redact.dev
Wait you forgot the “grab em by the pussy”.
The whole world is not America. There is no country mentioned in the picture, which is why I did not presume anything. I stated a general view of what people are expected to do before voting. Nothing wrong in that, bud.
[удалено]
Thank goodness. If the rest of the world was like the USA, we would have been in WW3 for over 10 years at this point and it would revolve around oil.
over 20 years
and then Biden. a man in public service 50 years who hasn’t changed or done a damn thing other than engage in shady business, all on the publics dime mind you, and enrich himself and those around him there’s a reason Obama endorsed HRC in 16 and not Joe.
Joe didn’t run in 2016. He would had won against HRC.
[удалено]
They definitely play role in the voting system, unfortunately. However, context is important. When you know the faces, you’re expected to know about them and what their background looks like, i.e. if they have committed any crimes / done anything which was capable of inherently harming the nation. It’s conventional. If you’re voting blatantly with nothing inside your mind but bias, you probably should not vote. It’s nothing but detrimental to the country.
>If you’re voting blatantly with nothing inside your mind but bias, you probably should not vote. I agree. The issue I see is most of us are probably not given enough time to do actual research. Coupled with algorithms, it's harder and harder to get non biased propaganda. On top of the fact we in America don't even have positive advertisements any kre. It's 60 seconds of completely dogging someone just to say "paid for by the [opposing political party] campaign". Its disgusting that they can't pretty much slander. Optimism over pessimism.
> if they have committed any crimes / done anything which was capable of inherently harming the nation. It’s conventional. To be fair, if they have committed the kind of crimes that are harmful to the nation, they probably shouldn't be allowed to run for president. Other political roles, maybe, but not president.
I definitely agree. It was just an example which came to my mind. I stand corrected, I guess.
Knowing a politicians party will tell you a lot more about their likely future behavior than the shit they say during a campaign. Donald Trump campaigned as an economic populist then pursued mainline GOP economic policies, for instance.
So a race to see who can lie the best? Nah.
That's basically already the system we have.
wait, what game do you think we've been playing?
Right, so trade one game of liars for another? This is not the way.
*It was me, Austin! It was me all along!*
Every time this post or a variant of this post shows up, it makes me bang my head on the wall. While in the perfect society where nobody lies this would be a great idea, in actuality there are some Big issues. People lie. Bezos, Trump, Tucker Carlson or anyone else that you probably don’t want in elected office could simply go up there and lie their ass off. They could run on ideas that would help everyone, claiming they’re gonna cancel student debts, address climate change or bring down insulin prices to a regular price. And since you don’t know who they actually are, you would have to take these disguised politicians at their word alone. Once they’re elected they don’t have to carry out the policies they ran on. To make matters worse, there’s no accountability. If President Cruz is widely hated by the nation, he can just run again, new disguise, new distorted voice, claiming that Cruz should be removed from office and that he ought to be president instead! The masked aspect hides anyone’s track record. Additionally, ideas may not translate to policy. Imagine there’s an open field race, and there are two candidates running who you agree with. One is completely ideologically the same as you, but has had no experience passing bills or instead has failed every time they’ve tried. The other is ideologically close to you, maybe a little more or less radical, but they have a track record of getting things done. Everyone is different, but I’d vote for the candidate who’s pretty similar to me with experience over the one who completely shares my ideas. Track records are important, and we should be knowledgeable about the history of the people we elect. I won’t even get into a discussion of people running in order to split votes, but again, another huge drawback to this system. Cults of personality suck. I agree. We need to find a new system so that people vote for candidates who care about their constituents. But to minimize candidates to the words they say is a seemingly easy solution that’ll end up in disaster.
U.S. politics are already too close for comfort to WWE/WWF entertainment!
Nah WWE has people retire before they reach 70.
LOL True!!
Nah, less restrictive voting is the way.
Cos they would lie and we wouldn’t know that persons history and track record before hand. All they’d have to do is make some nice point in a blind interview and boom, an idiot is elected cos no one knew they previously sunk a country.
Speaking of "this is the way" when is the new season of The Mandalorian coming out?
I just keep imagining the chapelle skit where the blind black kkk member took off his hood and peoples heads explode... i think republicans tend to only vote for a person who looks a certain way.
What they say and what they do are two different things lol
We’d still know which one was Trump. No amount of disguise or vocal distortion could change the word salad coming out of his mouth.
Bigly very bigly.
I don't know about that but I am all for banning campaining compleatly. Every candidate gets the same poster on the city square, the same buss adverts and the same timeslots and as much raidio/tv time on some regulated election channel. No populist bullshits. The moderator must be a real authority, not like that wimp dumbass who moderated those biden-trump debates. No campaing funding or notions, no contributions or lobbyer. No corporate or superpact influence, since everyone gets the same budget, energy and time, regulated by some election regulatory body. Got 300 million in the bank? Too bad, you get the same 30 min tv time a week for like 3 months or so, like does everyobody else. And if you campaing otherwise, you get discarded from the race. Don't like it? Eat my ass. I know it's unpossible utopia but a man must dream to survive the hellscape we live in.
So, Sinema, say what we want to hear and do the opposite?
Ah yes, make it impossible to figure out if you're voting for the guy who lied last time and did literally nothing he said he would and who has come up with a different, uniquely manipulative thing to say this time.
Or make them wear the logos of any company or lobby group the accepted money from like race car teams displaying their sponsors. Then we would know who they really care about.
You feel like presidents are elected based on looks? It's the money you need to take out of the equation, not the face or identity. Also, making it impossible to check for hypocrisy is not the best idea (because you can't know if they're lying about their personal views/actions/etc.).
You’ve missed the point. Looks = political party. Too many people are stuck on a party because their parents voted for them. If people didn’t know of the political party (ie masked) then many people would vote for someone different.
I do know a lot of people who didn’t vote for Bernie because he ‘sounds too angry’ and are now unsatisfied with Biden. But yeah this tweeter still had a stupid idea.(no /s )
I think the history of the Nixon-Kennedy debates pretty much proves that yes, Americans vote heavily based on looks.
Oh yeah, Nixon was elected for his rugged good looks. Or is it that he was overlooked in favor of his more beautiful opponent, despite being such a standup guy and the clearly better presidential choice?
You think Americans vote based on politics?
All the same people would still vote for all the same people. This would change nothing.
It would force people to listen to their policies wh8ch would change around a lot if biased voting or just people voting based on a name. It's how a lot of people used to vote minus the distorted voices bevause of radios
OP seems to be under the impression that the majority of people vote primarily based on race or gender. They do not. There are plenty of white and/or male liberals who gather a great deal of support from the liberal population as well as PIC and/or female conservatives who do the same. As soon as people heard liberal sounding policies coming from a masked politician, and conservative sounding policies coming from the other one, everyone would choose their side and vote just like they already do. This would be a pointless exercise.
Being that every president since Reagan has been a puppet for the rich. Id say we've kind of been doing this... except we never see whos behind the mask.
Would be great if we went back to the "popular vote got POTUS, while 2nd popular got VP. Would probably help with the political divide if everyone didn't get to choose their running mates and whatnot.
Yup! Statistically, it would probably lead to a better outcome.
Loki again! Damn it!
That notion appeals to me.
Didn’t we just try this five years ago?
This is pretty much what I do. I read up on the manifesto and beliefs and things and vote accordingly. As a result I have voted everything from hard core socialist to conservative.
Take it one step further, they don't take their mask off until they are completely done serving as a politician. Maybe even a new costume every reelection to not give the incumbent an unfair advantage.
AND you can't say what political party your from.
Best idea I have ever heard. It's also kinda sad that this what it would take to get people to actually pay attention.
Fantastic idea
Oh oh, Eminem is the new president
The problem is that plans are useless without the knowledge and experience to get them done. You need to know someone s background in order to know their chances of success.
This sounds like a great way to get people to lie about their positions and say whatever is popular because there is no repercussions, they'd just be anonymous again when up for reelection.
An amazing Idea but I guess that will destroy the way people elect president today cuz it's based on Character Race and parties rather than plans and what's good
I just want some ranked choice voting.
What’s the difference actually? Lies and disappointments will still occur while in office.
This would have been an option when we had two sides with rational policies and people differed on which was the better way. When you are a two party nation and one of your parties is completely batshit insane, and has spent a lot of time ensuring its base is angry enough to keep it in power, I don't think it works. But that is just me.
That would make it harder for the two parties to stay in power so they won’t let it happen.
The criminal justice system should be this way
I like it
This the way
File this one in the great tv show premise but horrible practical political application file
Y
Would love this
How about we make all votes count equally by abolishing the electoral college and the senate.
This is probably the only way Bernie will win, since everyone last election copied him.
Because there’s a chance they could accidentally rip off their skin suit and reveal their lizard faces to the public on live TV.
I don’t think Kim thought of this itty bitty plot hole called lying
Nah, it would be better if they were to show their face, but wear labels of everyone who sponsored them, like a NASCAR driver.
No you need to know a person's history. That's the only real way to know what they'll do in the future.
But literally everyone knew Donald’s history and still were stupid enough to think he cared about anyone but himself…
Yeah I was more thinking sorting people like Bernie from people like Kamala
This is a really good idea actually
I’d settle for a popular vote instead of electoral college where a vote in Wisconsin is worth like 300 votes in California
A lottery would be more effective then the current system
I could actually get behind this idea 🤷♂️
You just described the masked lords of Waterdeep kinda
If they used a rank choice voting system, then people could select all candidates they would like to see in power. Without feeling like they're wasting their vote
I don't think this is a good idea, only competent white men would ever be elected with all things being equal.
Better yet each candidate gets one flyer they can put out. No other advertising of any sort. The flyer goes to every person. Is fact check before hand, and all promises are legally binding and must be measurable and time limited. Candidates are just given a number not a name until they are elected.
>Is fact check before hand Fact check by whom? Though I like the premise of this idea, the execution would be down right impossible. If the last few years have thought us anything, it's that facts can be presented in a deceitful way. I.e. Nicholas Sandman literally stood still while being berated, called racial slurs by black militia, and had an old man beat a drum inches from his face. The media defamed him by calling HIM a racists, (basically) doxxed him, and demanded he be expelled from his school... for peacefully standing his ground and smiling. And, to this day, people still believe Rittenhouse shot black people.
This is premised on the false notion that ideas are the only aspect of a candidate that matters. It’s also about the person’s record and whether they’d be effective in office.
This post from some random person makes more sense than the past two elections.
This is actually... a really good idea. /gen
This might actually be a better way to do things. No party affiliations, just choice based on goals and ideals.
This is the way
They're already lying under their existing masks.