'Electoral headhunter' claims we vote based on intuition, not on reason

[zeegerd]

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).

[Californian Tony]

Proving most people are idiots =/= proving idiocy is good.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

LMAO. It told me I should vote Libertarian. I'm not buying it.

[Hatman]

Seemed to describe me very well; told me to vote Green. Of course I tended to choose women, Ralph Nader and men with facial hair. If there were more minorities, I would've chosen them. I am less trustful of traditional political looks (ie clean cut middle aged white males)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd often get a mix between Constitutionalist and Republican. Fair enough.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

This has to be one of the dumbest sites I have ever seen.

[Yelnoc]

Both times I tried my clicks were completely "undeterminable".  Sounds about right.

[a Person]

To begin with, you are nearly neutral but just a bit against abortion restrictions. Something striking now: you feel somewhat positive about strengthening immigration laws, drug liberalization and legal same-sex marriage. Your clicks also point out that you are nearly neutral but just a bit against foreign interventionism and ending capital punishment. Something else, you are neither for nor against civilian gun control, more progressive taxation, public campaign finance and universal health care.

The advice: Democrats

No, not really.

[GM Griffin]

I think it's a fluke, but it got me spot on:

A strong conclusion is that you are a whole lot in favour of legal same-sex marriage. The fastest voting guide also reveals you get angry when others are in favour of abortion restrictions. Besides you would start a war in favour of drug liberalization.

All strong issues for me.

Then, you lightly believe in civilian gun control, more progressive taxation, public campaign finance and universal health care.

Yep.

Perhaps you already knew, but you should think once more about your viewpoint on foreign interventionism, ending capital punishment and strengthening immigration laws.

I'm not exactly sure what it meant by 'thinking once more', but these are issues on which I have weak concerns or no heavily-entrenched opinion.

[TJ in Wisco]

To begin with, you start smiling when it comes to strengthening immigration laws. The fastest voting guide also reveals you start grumbling when others are in favour of ending capital punishment. Even looking at your eyes would reveal that you frown at civilian gun control. Also, you shoulder drug liberalization. And we would think you are a bit against more progressive taxation, public campaign finance and abortion restrictions. Then, you feel somewhat positive about legal same-sex marriage. Besides you frown at universal health care. Finally, you are neither for nor against foreign interventionism.
 
The advice: Libertarians

However, reliability for the advice is weak. If you wish to have more certainty about Libertarians, perhaps try another run.

Oh my, this was wrong on almost every issue.

[Smid]

I love how someone "just stumbled" upon a website that impressed him so much that he just had to sign up for the Forum to tell us all about it as his very first post, and then doesn't make another post in the next two months.

Anyway, I took the test and I think it put me on the opposite side of every issue, it was quite funny really. In the end it told me I should vote Libertarian.

[Chaddyr23]

The results.

To start with, you would start a war in favour of legal same-sex marriage. Even looking at your eyes would reveal that you would put up a fight against abortion restrictions. And we would think you would start a war in favour of drug liberalization. Even looking at your eyes would reveal that you start smiling when it comes to civilian gun control, more progressive taxation, public campaign finance and universal health care. Something else, you are neutral about foreign interventionism, ending capital punishment and strengthening immigration laws.

The advice: Undeterminable.

Not completely clear! The advice is a tie between Democrats and Greens

lol, wow. This is too funny

[Chaddyr23]

Seemed to describe me very well; told me to vote Green. Of course I tended to choose women, Ralph Nader and men with facial hair. If there were more minorities, I would've chosen them. I am less trustful of traditional political looks (ie clean cut middle aged white males)

LMAO! Yeah that was my thought process too!!!