In order to ensure that elections reflect the true beliefs and priorities of the American people rather than being influenced by candidate popularity or media bias, I propose the implementation of a blind voting system. Under this policy, voters would complete a multiple-choice questionnaire at the polling place (or online, for mail-in ballots) that covers key policy issues and belief systems. Based on the voters’ responses, their vote would be automatically aligned with the candidate whose platform and policy positions best match their stated beliefs. This method would shift the focus of elections away from personality-driven politics and instead prioritize substantive policy alignment, providing a clearer, more authentic representation of public opinion.
This approach would aim to:
1. Reduce the influence of personality and media-driven narratives in elections.
2. Promote a more informed and issue-focused voting process.
3. Ensure that elected officials more accurately represent the policy preferences of the electorate.
This system could be developed with strong privacy protections and transparency to maintain trust in the electoral process while enhancing the integrity and alignment of democratic outcomes.
@Lindsay_Stewart A problem that arises with this is what if a candidate has a history of saying one thing and then doing another? The policy says the candidate is for X but upon listening to the candidate speak and observing what they do, the voter is convinced they are lying and fully supports and intends to do the opposite. Such a blind system, would cast a vote for what the candidate says, and NOT for what the voter believes the candidate will actually DO, if elected.
Also, what if multiple candidates have similar proposals? In 2024 both RFK, Jr and Trump were in favor of creating a crypto reserve. It was first proposed by RFK, Jr and Trump “stole” it from him. Trump proposed an increase to the child Tax Credit and then a few days later, Harris added the same thing to her platform stealing it from Trump. In previous elections, I have seen one candidate propose something and having a very good understanding of the economic effects involved, then another candidate stole the idea but did not understand the economics involved and their proposal would have totally F-ed things up! But it sounded like they were both proposing essentially the same thing. I could tell the difference because I recognized and understood the economic fallacy the second candidate was relying upon. Neither got elected so it ultimately didn’t matter, but it could have. These are just a few examples where a simple questionnaire of issues would not necessarily provide an outcome desired by the voter.
How would your proposal, avoid those pitfalls and address this issue?
The concerns you’ve raised highlight key limitations in simplifying the complexities of voter decision-making into a system that matches candidates to voters based solely on stated policy positions. Here’s how such pitfalls could be addressed or mitigated in a system designed to align voters with candidates:
Actions vs. Words
• Transparency Mechanism: Incorporate a component that evaluates a candidate’s consistency between past statements, voting records, and actions. This could be done using historical analysis tools or AI algorithms that highlight discrepancies or patterns in behavior.
• Trustworthiness Score: Introduce a “trustworthiness index” based on an aggregation of independent fact-checking, third-party audits, and public records. This score would reflect whether a candidate’s actions align with their promises.
Policy Overlap Between Candidates
• Detailed Comparisons: Provide voters with nuanced breakdowns of overlapping policies. This could include historical context (who proposed it first), differences in implementation plans, and economic or social implications of each candidate’s version.
• Expert Insights: Integrate nonpartisan expert analyses that compare and contrast candidates’ policies to highlight potential flaws or strengths.
Understanding the Candidate’s Expertise
• Policy Depth Score: Rate candidates based on the depth of their proposals, including how well they explain economic or technical implications. For example, a candidate who proposes a policy but fails to address underlying complexities or potential consequences would score lower.
• Voter Education Tools: Offer interactive tools or simulations that show likely outcomes of a candidate’s proposal, helping voters distinguish between superficial similarities and substantive differences.
Adaptable Questionnaires
• Dynamic Design: Instead of a rigid questionnaire, use a dynamic, adaptive system that takes into account factors like the voter’s trust in a candidate’s integrity, historical performance, and ability to implement their proposals effectively.
• Weighted Preferences: Allow voters to weigh factors differently (e.g., prioritizing honesty or proven expertise over policy positions).
Voter Engagement Beyond the System
• Encourage voters to research beyond the questionnaire by providing them with easy access to debates, interviews, and third-party analyses.
• Highlight historical case studies where similar policy overlaps occurred, showcasing outcomes or failures.
The ultimate goal of any voter assistance system should not be to replace critical thinking but to complement it. A tool like this should provide a foundation for understanding but leave room for voters to apply their judgment, intuition, and deeper knowledge of issues.