Proposed: Which is most important in choosing a candidate?

I'm OK with the current wording, but we could also go with:  Which is the most important factor (or "consideration") when choosing a candidate?

I'm not sure about losing the word "party." Would "political affiliation" necessarily mean the same thing?

And I also like "electability" because it refers to a candidate's overall chances of being elected, which is an important factor: a lot of people don't want  to waste their vote on someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell no matter how much they may like the person's platform; others gotta vote with their heart/gut.

This is definitely an interesting issue, but I feel like we might have some trouble finding solid evidence other than users' personal opinions. It seems public figures would be quicker to list 2 or 3 important aspects in picking a candidate.

Which brings me to the next point... I think it should read as follows: "Which is the most important aspect when choosing a candidate?"

Also, I'd rather the last choice be "Political affiliation"... is it me or does listing "electability" make the question somewhat redundant since the whole issue has to do with electing a candidate? Keeping it there could become confusing later on and limit opinions to mostly primaries. Just my opinion, of course.

This certainly varies depending on the situation but I still like it.  Public figure evidence will be hard to find though, right?

Should we say "when" instead of "in?"

As esperanto noted, it should be changed to "Most important" because there are more than two choices. I think this is otherwise fine as is.

I've always found this a bit awkward but I don't know if it can be improved.  I'm fine with it.

PS, I prefer this issue to the other in this topic about "what should be most important in a candidate." They're redundant and this is clearly more relevant.

We have to say "most important" if there are more than two choices.

Proposed answers:
- Electability
- Policies
- Character
- Party affiliation
- Background and identity

The last one is for the vote-for-a-woman-or-a-black-guy-or-whoever-no-matter-what set.

Great. Do it!

issue prior to revisions:

It sounds like we're targeting citizens when asking them what's more important in choosing a candidate (as opposed to a pol. party choosing one for the primary). Since this is the case, shouldn't we include political affiliation to the stands? Way too many people choose their candidate based on what party they represent because they've been voting that party all their lives.

 Not saying its logical...just prevalent.

Of the two very similar formulations, I prefer this one.

issue prior to revisions:

Nice plug.  :-)

I think this is a good place for the "character" question, I'm for this.

For answer choices:

Where candidate stands on the issues (that was a plug)
Character
Electabilty

For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate's character.

A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.

Can we sneak this by the "the issue and positions are worded such that it is reasonable to find evidence of where public figures stand" clause?  I think sometimes these issues are good to have on the site even if finding evidence is going to be rare. 

boom.  second that emotion!

Just find anybody who supported Kerry in '04 and you have your evidence … I think this is a great issue.

I've recently heard two people say electability is going to be more important this election.  I'm for it, although evidence is going to be skimpy I would still think.

When looking at "more important" I think that's key because if electability is 51% of your decision and issue positions are 49% than we can say that electability is more important, so it requires some thought but I think it's doable.

issue prior to revisions:

I like the idea, I don't know how I would answer, though.  For me, it's a complex algorithm that takes both into account.  I like Feingold's issue positions better than Obama's, but Obama is more electable.  McCain may be more electable than Obama (debatable, but let's say for the purposes of this point that he is) but I have significant problems with his issue positions.  I understand that it's not zero-sum -- it's just which is MORE important, not one or the other -- but still seems like it would be hard to answer and thus hard to get stands.

Which is more important in choosing a candidate? 

This is interesting and it will be extremely relevant in the prez race.  Will enough people say "electability?"

I think the question is good as is, narrow and defined. My only thought is whether "to vote for" is necessary. Does it sound better to ask, "What is more important in choosing a candidate?" and then the defined answer set also clarifies the question.

issue prior to revisions: