Above is a chart that contains the two presidential candidates’ stands on different issues. Note that is does not contain the names of the candidates, or their political party, age, race, none of that. What rhetorical ideas are in this unusual display of information? Is it a good idea to have an election that the public only receives opinions and ideas of a candidate with out knowing who they actually are until the inauguration? Also, please do not give away who x and y really are.
8 comments:
I could not read the chart because it was to small, but I have an opinion on the idea of it. This would not be a good way to hold an election because although the candidates stands on the issues is important,it is not the only thing that counts.People want a leader they can trust.Someone who they believe will make good decisions and will bring our country to better things.That how ever can not all be decided by a chart. We need to see the presence of the candidate running,their speaking abilities and how they carry themselves.They could even be somebody who has already been in a political office and we know they cant be trusted but if we don't know it is them we could vote for them any way making the same mistake again.
To me, this highlights how close the candidates are in terms of philosophy. We often think of democrats and republicans as diametrically opposed, yet this diagram underscores the opposite. George Washington warned us all in his farewell address to not fall prey to partisan politics because it distracts from the real issues. This post proves it.
I believe with this chart and the idea relating to it. I believe that a true election occurs when everyone's votes are unbiased and if they knew the political party, age, race, sex, etc., their vote would be tainted with bias. They would then choose to vote for the race they like better, or the political party they want to be affiliated with, and not because they agree with the candidate's stands on the different issues. Yes, personality is a great key in deciding who is the better candidate, but I believe your words describe the person you are. It shouldn't matter if you are a man or a woman, an African-American or a Caucasion, if you're 45 or 60. The only thing that should matter when deciding who to vote for is the opinions and the ideas the candidate stands for because these ideas and opinions truly reflect on the person you are voting for.
well in my opinion, i wouldn't want it like this. because we couldn't actually actually see the characteristic when the two the candidates debate. also we couldn't discern if the info we are being true or not because we would be able to tell if it came out of the candidates mouth. also if they can't instigate trust, friendship, leadership in there own citizens then we really couldn't 100% believe they could do it to foreign leaders. while at the same time i can see how this would allow people not to judge on bias opinion because they fell affiliated to one party or another.
Although the chart shows how close each candidate's views on certain issues, the chart does not relay the major differences that each have. This method of blind voting takes away from American's ability to trust who they vote for, and would ultimately lead to an even smaller number of voting citizens. This chart goes on to prove what Mr. Nesbitt said about foregoing the political parties, but even when the country was forming each and every citizen knew the names of the candidates they were able to choose for Presidency.
The Thing is I agree to an extent of this. I am not necessarily sure if we should completely take away the knowledge of who our candidates are, However if there was a way we could show all these facts in a non-bias way I think it would help the people choose which they prefer. For instance how many people are voting for Obama because he's a democrat, how many are for McCain cause he's a republican? Although I understand these parties have differences, why have the parties when the candidate can just say what they are for or against!? I believe it would help people make the right decisions.
The alternative solution proposed by this article is for Americans to weigh their political candidates off merit without ever considering other intangibles. This would cause someone to vote based on logos (up to an extent). It allows the voter to remove personable variables from the democratic process in favor of sheer analysis. If one was interested in illegal immigration policy, they would not be swayed by lofty rhetoric but rather persauded by the presentation of facts. But,because issues are often so complex and intricate, it is often hard for the general populace to be completely educated about the candidate. However, such a basic system would let voters vote solely off the issues. These issues could then be dissected even further depending on the persons emotional and ethical underpinnings (pathos and ethos). For example, a citizen who is an immigrant himself may be more likely to support less stringent restrictions. The problem with personal inference off of a list of ideas could be a removal of the personality and intangibles of the candidate from the picture. Thus, this chart seems to become a paralipsis of sorts because while the list relies on objective reasoning, it still goes back to subjectivity. Key words or certain personal connections might trigger bias in the voter. Though many may argue that such an objective method were the framers original intentions, such a system would leave many Americans to wonder exactly what certain statements meant. Furthermore, certain diction could have negative connotations. For example, "compromise to save Social Security" could effect those who are in support of private retirement plans. The problem with such a list is that it could often lead to a hasty generalization on behalf of the voter because the voter would not be aware of the conditions and background about proposed solutions or policies. Furthermore, a list of track record would be unfair to candidates with the lesser amount of experience because they would have less to show for themselves while still being the more highly qualified candidate. However, this solution ignores that a democracy is an ad populum and people can vote off whatever they want to. Thus, I would personally disagree with such a policy because it removes the very power of the people from choosing who they want in office. If someone wants to vote off which candidate dresses better, they have been given that right.
Post a Comment