I wouldn't vote for:
1. mormon - personally, I think it would be harder for them to be a credible candidate to me, whereas Jewish and Catholic are more mainstream.
2. 72 yo - people of retirement age should retire, not start running countries
3. 3 times married - I think if you've fucked this up three times, you probably shouldn't be running a country.

I think this kind of poll is hard because you don't have an actual candidate to vote for - you have no idea of their political leanings/policies/histories.

I think the poll just shows that people are likely to vote for people similar to themselves.

edit - I wonder why those specific religions where chosen? It would be interesting to throw a muslim and a protestant in there...

She was Mormon when we met, and a year and a half later when we started dating, she had grown up and left the church. :)

Side-note: Some of you are reading WAY too much into this poll. No, you don't need to know anything else about the person, and no you don't have to weigh anything against what the other party might have offered up-

This is simply, easily, if you otherwise think this person is qualified, which of those attributes would ultimately affect or not affect your decision to vote for them.

Example: They have all the ideals you like, they're qualified, "BUT", they're x religion, or x ethinicity, or x years old. It's whether or not those singular items would, in and of themselves alone, cause you to not vote for that person. :)

Great turnout so far, hopefully even more will join the discussion. :)

I clicked on on all of them.

Lets start with sex, ethnicity, and orientation. These are indicative of a person's status, not their behavior, so they're entirely irrelevant.

Next, there's belief systems. This isn't quite so obvious, as these are indicative of a chosen pattern of thought and behavior, and it's possible that the belief system would impact the candidate's view of what makes good public policy. As a lapsed Catholic, I know the mindset of the devout Catholic and this did make me pause a bit. However, one of the conditions listed in the hypothetical is qualified, and I would not consider a candidate who makes public policy to reflect his or her religious beliefs to be well qualified. I'd look for whether the candidate respected separation of church and state, religious freedom, and a secular government, not at something as simplistic as the label given their religious beliefs.

Married three times. Why should I care?

72 years old gave me pause, but only for a bit. What would be the objection here? Surely it isn't the number. Obviously there would be concerns regarding health and mental ability, but that's shifting the concern from age to other factors. Any candidate with impaired mental abilities would be unqualified, and the hypothetical specifies that the candidate is qualified, so that's eliminated. With health, I'd have to consider whether it's a health problem that would prevent the person from being able to do her job. Is it a disabled hand? No problem. Being in a wheelchair? Still no problem. It would have to be something that disables the person's ability to perform the duties of office, and even then, it would be the medical problem, not the age that would be the disqualifying factor. Given that the question specified "qualified", I'm assuming that there is no age-related disqualifying condition, so this one gets a pass.

I'd vote for anybody who was qualified and with whose political ideals I agreed. Certain of those categories listed above would make that unlikely, but assuming that the candidate did meet those requirements, I'd think it foolish not to support that candidate.

IMO this in simple english means which ones would you DISCRIMINATE against because of "they're x religion, or x ethinicity, or x years old" et. al.

Right.

However, some of these can be explained through rational thought and not because you just don't like x religion, etc.

Example: x religion has y moral beliefs about spreading their religion through everything they do, specifically having provisions for merging the church and the state. Opting not to vote for person of x religion for that reason is hardly discriminatory, it's a rational pro/con balance of what that person would likely do in office.

Not all of them can be explained with reason, however, so yes- some of them are just going to strictly be a measure of everyone's discriminatory viewpoints.

And heterosexual.

The point is that the choice is nearly always between two straight, white, married, protestant males, with only three exceptions I can think of right now.

It would be interesting to see what the results would have been if "single" had been included; I suspect a single man would have a very difficult time getting elected.

I'd vote for anyone as long as they were tolerant of other cultures and as long as they weren't Dutch...

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of NY when the twin towers went down, has been married 3 times; he was seeing this current wife while still, in the public eye at least, with his second wife, Donna Hanover.
I think the key word in the poll is 'qualified'. Giuliani's marital woes didn't interfere with his job-one he'd done so well it had been considered dropping the two-term mayoral law. It is, though, becoming his thorn as he investigates the possibility of running for President. As much as we would like to think that, as a collective, this country is enlightened enough to look past personal faux pas, that ain't gonna happen.

John McCain, should he run and win, will be the oldest president at 72 in the history of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

I don't get it. I really don't. Why not Dutch (not that non-naturalized citizens can run or anything)?

It's a referrence to the last Austin Powers movie.

Oh.



.....

http://www.stupiditytracker.com/wp-c...0191653865.jpg

She's probably one of the ones who wouldn't vote for an atheist. :)

None of those categories necessarily imply a particular set of political beliefs.

All of the above. Case-by-case.

analog:

I'm not sure you're going to get 100% honest opinions here, because everyone wants to jump on the "I love everyone! I don't discriminate based on these things!" bandwagon.

In reality, they'd probably discriminate against a lot of these things (and more). Especially since discrimination is largely an unconscious process.

If you guys will allow me to insert myself into your conversation here, I think that you've got a good point to a certain extent. However, I think that it's simply one more hurdle for candidates to overcome in voters' minds along with the issues. For instance, I'd vote for a pro-choice, pro-gun control guy/gal that was a fiscal moderate to conservative that at least acknowledged that global warming is a potential cause for concern who happened to be a Mormon. Obviously Mormons of that ilk are few and far between, so the likelyhood of me ever getting a chance to cast that vote is slim at best.

An arguable point, for sure, and even if it were true (for everyone) voting is or rather should be a conscious act. I don't vote based on party, gender, etc. I make a conscious effort to study each candidate and what s/he proposes to do and the effectiveness of their proposal and whether their proposals coincide with my values. I think it is rather anti-intellectual to vote based on labels. As Chris Rock once said, anyone who decides who they going to vote for before they even hear the issues (or know a person's position on the issues) is pretty sad. (Not verbatim, but something to that effect.) I know people do it, but it's just not me. I don't assume that every 72 year old person, for instance, is going to be incompetent or behind the times. I have met 27 year old people who are incompetent and behind the times. If a 72 year old person was running and s/he was clearly incompetent and behind the times, then I would not vote for her/him, but not because s/he is 72, rather because they are incompetent and behind the times. I think it is more important to see where a person is rather than to assume where they are or will be. If that is a bandwagon, then I'm riding shotgun.

I think a more important point to the poll is not whether or not you can suppose a person unqualified based on these characteristics, but in how you think the world views these groups. I will admit to being one of the three who did not choose women.

This is in NO WAY because I feel there is something wrong with a woman leading or because I imagine a woman to be somehow less qualified to lead for no other reason than that she is a woman. It is because I think the rest of the world(certain groups, not all) doesn't feel the same way I do. I think they would view a woman president so much differently than I do that it would complicate international relations with these people and we should be trying to make our relationsihps with them less complicated, not more.

^...women have been presidents, just not of this country.

Great find there, JinnKai.

Margaret Thatcher didn't seem to have the problems you describe here. Nor did Golda Meir. At least, it didn't seem to have a seriously negative effect on their ability to govern.

what he said....

What do you mean by everyone? Many people have plainly said which options they would not vote for. Do you suppose it's possible that everyone is expressing themselves honestly?

And I would say that discrimination is a somewhat unconscious process. Not largely.

I think if it's stated they are qualified, it would mean I support their views on the issues. Therefore, I didn't exclude any religions.

If I felt a Mormon, for instance, was more diligent in working towards bettering the nation than turning the country into the world's biggest temple, and the candidate showed his religion was second to his work for the people, I'd have no problem offering my vote.

However, I would not give my vote to the 72 year old. I don't want to be in the backseat when the old man decides this ride is his last hurrah.