Alicorn comments on Vote Qualifications, Not Issues - Less Wrong

10 Post author: jimrandomh 26 September 2010 08:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (185)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 27 September 2010 05:02:22PM *  18 points [-]

I believe OP is correct that voting on issues leads to affective death spirals. But the idea that we can vote on character presupposes a population composed soley of rational, non-party-affiliated politicians; and it furthermore presupposes that rational politicians will agree on value issues, which I believe is not at all the case.

Would you vote for Sarah Palin if you thought she had a good character? Would you be more likely to vote for her if you thought she was extremely competent at getting things done?

I would prefer, in decreasing order of preference:

  • a competent politician with values similar to mine
  • an incompetent politician with values similar to mine
  • a rock
  • an incompetent politician with values different from mine
  • worst case: a very competent politician with values different from mine
Comment author: Alicorn 27 September 2010 07:05:43PM 4 points [-]

I would prefer an ornamental cabbage to a rock, personally.

Comment author: kodos96 27 September 2010 09:56:52PM 1 point [-]

But would you be willing to vote for a rock if it put the ornamantal cabbage on the ticket in the VP slot?

Comment author: Alicorn 27 September 2010 10:18:31PM 3 points [-]

Yeah, I take the long view about ornamental cabbage politics. VP experience will make it easier to elect next time.