All the years I followed the news and compared tables with political viewpoints of parties, weighing them, then finding the best party to vote for. That seems a pretty good thing to do, right?
I just stumbled upon a site (called Electoral Headhunter -> with a - in the middle and dot com at the end) which claims it doesn't work like that.
At all. On the contrary. Time is spent in vain comparing. Stop watching the debates. Etc.
It states that we make a decision very quickly, intuitively, based on what we perceive, even (or mostly, or only?) by seeing the faces of the candidates. At least, the best choices are made that way.
To prove (or check) their point, they will give you a voting advice based on how much you like a couple of faces. This firstly seems to be meant in a fun way, but they cite some scientific findings (I copy/paste):
* Children (even from age 5) asked to predict whom will win presidential elections in (even) a different country, predict correctly in majority. By the way, don't worry: also adults will do this correctly.
* However, when asked to 'think carefully' about the probable winner before picking one, your predictive power diminishes.
* These 'predictive powers' are mainly unlinked to candidate characteristics such as gender, age, fame, beauty, etc.
I could also cite the links they use to more info about these findings, but that's yet impossible (too few posts), at least they come from articles in The Scientific American.
What do you guys reckon? Are we tricked by reality into believing that it's good to rationally weigh viewpoints -- or on the contrary, by the claims of this site?
BTW the voting advice for me was the right party, although the complete advice was really not 100% correct (seems impossible: quite some viewpoints are listed too).