Should Governmental Candidates Run on Their Opinions?

Among democracies, candidates seeking elected positions universally run on issue-based platforms – Candidate X believes in Y, and therefore should be elected to a given position. The assumption is that if enough of the voting public subscribes to position Y, Candidate X will be elected and will follow through on the promises that embody the Y position. This issue-driven and opinionated orientation among candidates is increasingly yielding disappointment and alienation among voter populations in democracies worldwide – as candidates regularly miss delivery on the solutions prom


What if a different formula could be implemented? What if a candidate did not take a position or hold an opinion at all?



This may seem like a foreign idea – as the voting populace currently has a need to select a candidate through an understanding of where he or she stands on a key issue. But candidates are asked to provide their positions on multiple issues – and invariably the sum of those positions will not align with the identity of the individual voter. At some point in this process, the voter is going to have to dismiss certain issues voiced by their candidate as less important than others. This whittling away of different issues leads voters to settle for a more vanilla choice – or worse, to select the lesser of two evils.



Candidates should desire to service the will of the people – as documented in the U.S. constitution. There is no need for a candidate to voice an opinion or to take a certain posture – other than to express how they will implement the needs of the people, what logistical hurdles they will overcome to institute the wishes of the constituency. As societies become more wired, and technological infrastructures become more advanced, the desires of an entire population can be transmitted to the appropriate government offices. This is no longer the stuff of science fiction. This is a tangible way forward for modern democracy.


Too often, elected government officials take dismissive authoritative positions that creep toward a polite and tolerable totalitarianism. It is easy to draw supportive examples from the current Bush administration – but all U.S. presidencies have had their autocratic moments. In these instances, the elected authority chooses to be a supreme executive authority, and the people are just the ambiguous people – vague and anonymous masses that need only be respected and understood during election cycles.



This totalitarian behavior flourishes in an apathetic public. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 36% of the eligible American public did not vote in the 2004 presidential election. This inactivity is especially notable given the wartime polarity that was circulating throughout the United States during the period.



This behavior is born also from a general misunderstanding on the part of the elected appointee. It arises from a certain brand of arrogance that comes from having the “right” opinion – and if opinion can be removed from the equation, a more humble and service-based nature can be bred into future candidates.



Imagine how the public would respond to a candidate that did not have a preordained position on anything. Such a candidate would be a populist hero and a true civil servant. When asked about issue Y, candidate X would defer to the choices of the national or regional population. In this scenario, the president would not lead through subjectivity – but would act as a liaison between the people and the subject put before the people.



Implementation of the demands of a government’s population should be the core objective of a democratically elected body. With proper understanding of the population’s responsibility and accountability in the decisions of a nation, and with more coordination on the technologies that allow the communal voice to be heard, democracies can get there.