How Do You Vote: Personality or Platform?

[Ryan O'Dine]

I’m probably 70% platform, and here’s why.

One can expect little accuracy in either parameter. Just running for office changes a person: I’ve heard repeatedly how people wish the McCain of 2000 were running today. And a platform is like a battle plan -- pretty much guano at first sight of the enemy.

But -- at least a platform can be investigated in a way a person cannot be. A platform presents hard data, can be analyzed, and tells you something about what’s going on inside the candidate’s head.

In contrast, a personality is something that can generally only be divined from history, and from the marketing juggernaught that presents it. It’s a thing crafted for effect, often meant to disguise rather than reveal. One’s conclusions about it are usually based on gut feelings and the weakest tools in the skeptical toolbox.

I think most undecideds are probably personality voters, which is why I'm somewhat frustrated by them. But I'm interested in counterarguments.

 

[Damien Evans]

Depends on the level of government.

The higher the level, the more platform.

 

[joobz]

I personally perfer to place my pick on the predictive performance of the plateform, with personality providing the push of this point....pickled peppers.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Depends on the level of government.

The higher the level, the more platform.

Also depends on the plank in question. On some points, the lower the level, the more platform. For instance, if the guy with the winning personality is running for the school board on a Teach the Controversy! plank, I'm definitely voting for the social retard running on the How 'Bout We Teach Science Instead? counter-plank.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

Do you honestly think that anyone on this forum, with its reputation for independent thinking, skepticism and the like, is going to say they'll choose their candidate on style over substance?

*PS I'm choosing the cuter one...



What?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you honestly think that anyone on this forum, with its reputation for independent thinking, skepticism and the like, is going to say they'll choose their candidate on style over substance?

Except that wasn't the choice he was presenting. "Personality" may not be the right word. "Character" is better, but it's till not quite right. But personal qualities (intelligence, experience, honesty, values, etc) matter. A lot. And they matter because the most important decisions a president may face may not be on anyone's radar during the election. Nobody was really asking how we should respond to a major terrorist attack during the 2000 election, and yet that's what Bush's presidency has ended up revolving around. Platform tells you very little about how a president will respond to the unexpected. Personal qualities, despite the difficulty in guaging them, are much more relevant to that question.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

Except that wasn't the choice he was presenting. "Personality" may not be the right word. "Character" is better, but it's till not quite right. But personal qualities (intelligence, experience, honesty, values, etc) matter. A lot. And they matter because the most important decisions a president may face may not be on anyone's radar during the election. Nobody was really asking how we should respond to a major terrorist attack during the 2000 election, and yet that's what Bush's presidency has ended up revolving around. Platform tells you very little about how a president will respond to the unexpected. Personal qualities, despite the difficulty in guaging them, are much more relevant to that question.

While I understand and agree (somewhat) with what YOU are saying, the OP mentioned "Personality", which to many people means "Does he show up well on TV? Does he appear to be friendly and accessible? Do I like how he looks vs the other guy?"

There are people in my own family who cheerfully vote for candidates b/c "He shook my hand once and gave me the warmest, most down-to-earth smile. I feel I can trust a man like that." So I tend to get a little flippant when the "P" word is thrown around

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Except that wasn't the choice he was presenting. "Personality" may not be the right word. "Character" is better, but it's till not quite right. But personal qualities (intelligence, experience, honesty, values, etc) matter. A lot.

Your clarifications are on target. Thank you. (Apologies to Nursefoxfire. I suppose I was being unfairly pejorative.)

And they matter because the most important decisions a president may face may not be on anyone's radar during the election. Nobody was really asking how we should respond to a major terrorist attack during the 2000 election, and yet that's what Bush's presidency has ended up revolving around. Platform tells you very little about how a president will respond to the unexpected. Personal qualities, despite the difficulty in guaging them, are much more relevant to that question.

This is the kind of counter argument I’m interested in. My main problem with it is this: how possible is it to judge a candidate’s character accurately? Many are judging McCain based on his long history in the public eye, which should make sense. However, as I’ve mentioned, people will point out that the McCain of 2008 is different in no small degree from the McCain of 2000. Which is the real McCain?

I think our current president has shown himself to be incompetent and dishonest in any number of ways. You can disagree with me and that’s fine, but the bigger point is that many who voted for him now have a similar opinion. Why couldn’t they see that in him earlier?

We’re almost never presented with a clearcut choice between a gallant knight and a stumbling fool. That’s why I argue that biasing your vote toward the platform is the more logical approach.

 

[Madalch]

Coming from a multi-party system, I tend to vote for whomever has the best chance of beating the representative of the party I hate the most (who almost always seems to win anyway). The choice of party is based on platform (which is usually a simple left-vs.-right decision).

 

[leonAzul]

The party platform that a candidate subscribes to is a good indication of the the of the direction in which s/he wants to take the office and company s/he likes to keep. This is reasonably verifiable and a good starting point for making a decision. Yet character is also a very important issue. How does the candidate apply platform positions to real world problems? This is where character comes in, and for better or worse, the stress of a major political campaign can be very revealing. There are those who bluff their way through it, those who get so serious that they lose themselves in endless research and inquiries, those who react with bluster, and those who know how to acquire the information they need to make a timely decision and act on it responsibly. There are those who joke, those who rant, and those who respond in a dignified manner.

So IMHO, both count. An acceptable platform is worthless without the character to execute it.

As a thought experiment, during the next 4 years a direct confrontation with Russia is inevitable, there are just too many conflicts emerging that need to be resolved. Who do you want sitting across the table from Vladimir Putin?

 

[Lanzy]

coin flip just like always.

 

[jj]

Platform, ability to handle questions, and overall appearance of awareness.

 

[gdnp]

This is akin to asking whether environment or genetics is most important. It depends on the situation. If the genetics are similar then the environment will determine the outcome; if the environments are similar than the superior genetics will rule.

With two candidates that had similar platforms, like Obama and Clinton, I voted for the candidate I thought most likely to get that platform adopted, which was Obama. Here the decision comes down to ethics, intelligence, leadership, temperament, judgment, etc. Differences in health plans where the final product will bear little resemblance to what was initially proposed once congress puts it through the grinder don't really matter much.

With two candidates with widely different platforms, I would most likely vote based on platform, if necessary holding my nose. I don't want a great leader (Reagan comes to mind) who leads the country in a disastrous direction.

 

[Dragoonster]

I suppose I vote 60% platform, 30% personality, 10% political party/ideology the candidate belongs to. With personality=temperament, willingness to admit mistakes, clear thinking abilities, adaptability to change, whether divisive/inclusive, ability to motivate the masses, expected global credibility, intelligence, tolerance, etc.

For the party/ideology thing--it's free-flowing. Currently the democrats suck a tad more in Congress than the GOP imo, but the GOP sucks a LOT more in the executive office. I don't vote by party, but by which party sucks less at the moment, or which is actually implementing its ideology vs. lip service, etc.

I think most undecideds are probably personality voters, which is why I'm somewhat frustrated by them. But I'm interested in counterarguments.

It's possible that's all some undecideds have left to weigh. As they're not party ideologues they may agree with both candidates on many particular issues, and are wrestling with which issues are more important, or which candidate they agree with most. Could be a legitimate toss-up in their minds, and personality could be the tie-breaker.

 

[leftysergeant]

Personality matters more in the primaries than the general election. Who is going to best deliver the message you want to send to the capital is important. If a candidate is left of center and talks intelligently, I'll vote for him.

There are a few issues which could be deal-breakers. If a candidate that I otherwise like wants a gun ban, I go with second-best.

I think the GOP cares more about personality than the Dems do. But, if there is no candidate with the proper personality, they manufacture one. McCain is largely a party creation. I got to know Randy Tate pretty well when he represented my district. We even had some lengthy phone calls to discuss letters I wrote to him on the issues. Charming, friendly guy.

I never did vote for him.

Dumb as a post.

 

[billydkid]

I always vote Libertarian. That being said - platforms are essentially meaningless so the choice is really between character and integrity and intelligence versus stated positions. If I could only choose between Obama and McCain I would have to go with Obama, even if it were true that McCain's stated positions more closely represented my views.

In as much as the only difference between the two parties is emphasis I am again given only the choice between two people I disagree with fundamentally. I do think that it could be argued that if the election of McCain would result in more gridlock - say the kind of gridlock that should have prevented the illegal and unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation - that would be a good thing. In as much as the Dems are sychophantic cowards I think this is more than could be hoped for. As we always are we are faced with a false choice any change Obama talks about it superficial.

We are faced massive insolvency in our entitlement programs and we have extended out military over the entire world at astronomical cost. Neither of the candidates are even talking about that. The government prints money which devalues all the money out there - it is an invisible tax. Inflation is an invisible tax that hurts only the poor and the middle class. People take it forgranted that their money loses value incessantly and accept it as normal. One 1940 dollar is equivalent to 15 dollars today. This bailout/give away of hundreds of billions of dollar will only delay the inevitable so that when it does happen it's going to be much worse.

Eventually we are going to be forced to live within our mean as a society and it's going to be more painful than people can begin to imagine. And anyone who talks about it on the national stage is dismissed as a kook. This even though these same people predicted exactly what is happening now long ago. But, no, the strategy is to keep doing what we have been doing in the hopes that eventually it will magically work.

 

[maxfrost]

I was going to say "magic 8-ball," but then billydkid said he always voted Libertarian and I think that's funnier.

 

[jberryhill]

Do you honestly think that anyone on this forum, with its reputation for independent thinking, skepticism and the like, is going to say they'll choose their candidate on style over substance?

"Personality" is hardly insubstantial.

Nixon was an effective and intelligent president. He opened diplomatic relations with China, began arms limitation talks with the Soviets, negotiated effectively with the North Vietnamese, and so on.

His personality disorders did him in.

There is a reason why the classic Greek tragedy is durable.

It's not as if we are electing a dictator who will sit in isolation and make all of the governing decisions of the country. Any president will surround him or herself with bright people who offer a range of reasoned options.

The problem with electing a president with personality problems is that they may not know a bright person when they see one, and may make choices among proposed options on other than rational bases.

Similarly, I can't understand the criticism of Obama as being "popular", "charismatic", or a "good orator". Ummm.... these are not bad qualities. In particular, his popularity abroad is a huge plus. Can you imagine being the leader of country X, negotiating with the US, while knowing that your own people like the other guy better than they like you?

The prime minister of Germany cannot turn out a crowd as large as Barack Obama can. I think she'll know that when she sits down with him.

 

[jberryhill]

Do you honestly think that anyone on this forum, with its reputation for independent thinking, skepticism and the like, is going to say they'll choose their candidate on style over substance?

"Personality" is hardly insubstantial.

Nixon was an effective and intelligent president. He opened diplomatic relations with China, began arms limitation talks with the Soviets, negotiated effectively with the North Vietnamese, and so on.

His personality disorders did him in.

There is a reason why the classic Greek tragedy is durable.

It's not as if we are electing a dictator who will sit in isolation and make all of the governing decisions of the country. Any president will surround him or herself with bright people who offer a range of reasoned options.

The problem with electing a president with personality problems is that they may not know a bright person when they see one, and may make choices among proposed options on other than rational bases.

Similarly, I can't understand the criticism of Obama as being "popular", "charismatic", or a "good orator". Ummm.... these are not bad qualities. In particular, his popularity abroad is a huge plus. Can you imagine being the leader of country X, negotiating with the US, while knowing that your own people like the other guy better than they like you?

The prime minister of Germany cannot turn out a crowd as large as Barack Obama can. I think she'll know that when she sits down with him.

 

[leonAzul]

"Personality" is hardly insubstantial.

Nixon was an effective and intelligent president. He opened diplomatic relations with China, began arms limitation talks with the Soviets, negotiated effectively with the North Vietnamese, and so on.

His personality disorders did him in.

There is a reason why the classic Greek tragedy is durable.

It's not as if we are electing a dictator who will sit in isolation and make all of the governing decisions of the country. Any president will surround him or herself with bright people who offer a range of reasoned options.

The problem with electing a president with personality problems is that they may not know a bright person when they see one, and may make choices among proposed options on other than rational bases.

Similarly, I can't understand the criticism of Obama as being "popular", "charismatic", or a "good orator". Ummm.... these are not bad qualities. In particular, his popularity abroad is a huge plus. Can you imagine being the leader of country X, negotiating with the US, while knowing that your own people like the other guy better than they like you?

The prime minister of Germany cannot turn out a crowd as large as Barack Obama can. I think she'll know that when she sits down with him.

Excepting the overwhelming success that Germany has enjoyed concerning its trade relations with China
(get a fing clue, W!),
there are few significant conflicts between the USA and the BRD.

The real moment of truth will occur when the next POTUS sits across the table from the likes of Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il, and Ahmajenidad.

Note well that I emphatically do not consider these persons equivalent. What they have in common is that they represent both ongoing conflicts and potential conflicts with the USA that are important, urgent and need to be resolved.