Last week Nathan and PJ introduced us to Americans Elect 2012 by asking the question: “Can we elect a ‘wikipedia’ president?” The idea is seemingly straightforward- define the broad categories you find most important (your “colors”), answer questions to determine the popular positions of most Americans, and find candidates that most closely resemble your opinions on the issues. The result is a “third party” candidate on the ballot in all 50 states with a platform that most people agree with.

I have reservations about this process, and they fall into three categories. 1)Poorly designed questions. These questions are confusing and might not elicit the responses people intend to give. 2) Leading questions. To be fair, the language that Americans use to talk about politics is full of pre-defined frames and evocative images that push people in certain directions. It is virtually impossible to create a set of questions that extracts the thoughts of individuals with total neutrality. Our thoughts are like electrons- the act of observation changes their behavior. 3) The reinforcement of ineffective partisan thinking. From the Americans Elect website:

Why are you doing this? The goal of Americans Elect is to nominate a presidential ticket that answers to the people-not the political system. Like millions of American voters, we simply want leadership that will work together to tackle the challenges facing our country. And we believe a direct nominating process will prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket.1)Poorly Designed Questions

Let’s take a look at a two foreign policy questions:

Both questions are too vague to illicit meaningful data. In the first question about troops abroad, is it referring to those stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about our intervention in Libya? Does this mean we should close up all of our overseas military bases in Germany, Japan, Panama, Belgium, Italy, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.? Does this imply that we still use unmanned drones? What about cyber warfare? It might sound like nit-picking, but does an effective question elicit the same answer from both a pacifist and a proponent of drone warfare? In the second question, the terms “significant investments” and “resources” are far too-vaugue to evoke a meaningful answer. Person A’s answer may imply humanitarian aid for injured parties, while person B may select the same choice but advocate the utilization of the federal government and the IMF to liberalize trade barriers. Both parties, each with very different intentions, will likely select the same answer.

2)Leading Questions

There are many of them. Leading questions frame the issue with a certain slant. For instance:

The term “tackling” is already confrontational, but even more problematic is the term “illegal immigrant.” This term carries strong negative connotations. One’s identity is not “illegal.” There are many complicated relationships and life events that bring an individual from their home country to the United States. To relegate them to a single illegal status is one particular viewpoint. These words are rhetorical tools, and embedded within them is the power to change minds and frame debates. While a plurality of respondents chose amnesty, the question’s wording makes it easier to argue for prosecution at a later time.

3)The Reinforcement of Ineffective Partisan Thinking

An organization based in the principle of nonpartisanship, should not ask this question. Can’t one have a principle that requires that they work with members of the other party?  We are already back into the partisan fray. Without much thinking we can figure out how a mainline Republican or a Democrat would answer the following:

You might be thinking- “Well, we need to stop assuming all Democrats are pro-choice and anti-gun, and Republicans want to ‘drill baby, drill.” But the problem is not the division into categories, but the categories themselves. These dichotomies have already been set up. The truly innovative thinking will come when we realize that the solution to our energy crises may come from also saving the environment.

Until Americans Elect radically changes the question system, we will end up with a candidate that may jump across the aisle a few times, (a social progressive with conservative economic stances, for example) but we will not come close to transcending partisanship. The candidate selection process might be novel, but the content of the issues are presented in the same dichotomies that Americans Elect identifies as the problem. Truly innovative (even radical) thinking will come from a politics that shatters these dichotomies and finds solutions in the rubble.