However, when I then add two other columns for each of the two parties here in the US, and then further break those into sub-columns to represent the reported views of each candidate within those parties I find that the ability to meaningfully map an answer to a question becomes very difficult. Furthermore, even if magically truthful answers appeared in each column, finding an overlap for any particular candidate or party becomes very difficult. I now have to weight each topic with relevance and importance to me in order to derive any sort of meaningful metrics from the exercise.

To complicate the matter even further there is the question of scope in terms of the presidents power. I still don’t fully understand the exact scope each branch of government has on certain issues. I get it from the high level “I’m just a bill on capital hill” perspective, but when I drill deeper into the issues I find a quite complicated web of intricacies that I have yet to straighten out.

When it comes to providing answers as to:
* What I believe on issues – EASY

When it comes to answering:
* Which party I should align with?
* Which candidate I should support?
* Which congress/senate candidates I should vote for?
* How my choices will actually affect the issues I care about?

Those answers I find very hard indeed, and it’s not for lack of trying. I have researched, taken notes, watched, listened, and debated a variety of topics on these questions and I still don’t have a clear tactical path, for example, to supporting people who would legalize same-sex marriage. I understand my objectives and some of the strategy, but the tactical layout of how to effect that strategy eludes. That makes the voting process very haphazard.

Confused.

+1

Perhaps I nit but I would rather have had those two audio clips separate. I don’t think the second one was about beauty.

Jtf