Clearly you are not hearing me.
I am talking about breaking the voting down into sections and voting for those in charge of certain areas of government NOT simply a choice between chump A and chump B, but a whole load of chumps with whom the public can engage with on a particular level.
Are you from the US? Using the US system as an example is probably not so easy because the campaigns over there don't require any kind of manifesto or plan, it is merely a campaign of sound bites.
I am talking about an example where the voter can choose who will run, for example, the education department and have several candidates vying for the job NOT some "presidential figure" lording over who should or should not have the job. Let the public appoint who they want in the job. Move the voting system to entail voters choosing to place their votes toward areas they are more concerned with but have to spread their votes (each person having more than ONE vote) over different areas. Maybe you are concerned about agriculture or technology, education or foreign policy, housing or healthcare? There are countless issues and it seems obvious enough to me that voting for A or B whilst accepting several other things you don't want is plainly a stupid system.
I remember hearing a woman in Scotland saying she wanted to vote for party A but couldn't bring herself to do so because of ONE policy. Instead she was forced to make drastic compromises and vote against many things she believed in. I don't see how her vote really represents how she felt.
Practically speaking I am not sure how such an idea could be introduced. I am talking about a drastic change in political system here and more democratic power.
Of course even if the voter had more choices and could make several votes that would effect several political decisions they'd have to make compromises with their votes and apply themselves more fully to some areas rather than others. What I am sure of is such an idea as this (admittedly as vaguely as I have presented its form) would reduce the need for the voter to compromise say healthcare over education. Imagine a scenario where one party wants to place emphasis on healthcare and foreign policy, and the other wants to ignore both of these and focus on education and housing? Imagine if their policies are exactly opposite on these things and you care about all four items but what you want is spilt across two parties? How can you weigh the importance of say education against housing, or health against industry?
A lot of people I speak to seem caught in this very situation over MULTIPLE policies. I am simply saying if the voter is given the choice to balance their votes across certain social issues rather than across two or three admixtures of views on ALL the social issues that concern them they would be able to vote according to their views rather than be forced to vote essentially for the party that makes them feel less "dirty". Why not let people vote for what they want rather than leave them gambling against their own better judgements? It makes no sense other than being "EASY". The system seems overly simplistic to me.
There is a reason a huge number of people in the UK turned up to vote for referendum. They knew their say meant something SPECIFIC. It was not a case of vote for these guys or these guys and see what happens. It was a case of remain or exit. Simple and to the point ... although ironically I would call it a little irresponsible of the government to shirk this decision and throw it into the public arena. At least people really felt that their vote meant something for change.