When you vote in elections, what percent of your mind is affected by the person's appearance?

Question

do you think? Only 10%? Actually 50%? Would you vote for someone with fantastic ideas, but who physically was quite plain or unattractive, do you suppose?

Answer 1

0%

Answer 2

We'll see if the pretty boy gets anywhere. I'll be surprised if he does.

Answer 3

For me it's about 49% appearance.

I have this theory that people with good thoughts & actions end up looking the best they can, so if someone really looks quasimodo, their thoughts and acts often stink, too.

I don't know how true it is, but I'm pretty good at reading people by their appearance, language, and attitudes.

I woould vote for a heinous looking Democrat over any (R), but to help me in the primaries....49% looks, including speech, manners, facial expressions, etc.

Answer 4

It is a sad fact that  politicians have groupies just like the rock stars.  I have not voted for a few because they were so good looking and knew it.  I prefer Steve Tyler in my dreams and politicians who will shape our future to look average, and be self confidant, but not over-eager and too wealthy.

Answer 5

Zero.

I voted for Cheney, after all, when I voted for Bush.

Answer 6

Very little actually. The only time it would matter if the person running for office obviously did not take care of himself.

If you cast your vote for who is the prettiest, then go ahead and vote for John Edwards. He may not share his wealth to let you get a $400 haircut, but at least he looks pretty. His politics stink though.

Answer 7

I would hope, none.  I have noticed that among my local candidates, the scummiest ones are always the most tailored.  And this nonsense of an American flag lapel pin-blech.  If I were a subversive, I would delight in wearing such a pin to fool the idiots.

Answer 8

I do not vote at all by appearance.  I doubt many others do either or GW would not have been elected.  I try to find the person who most represents my values.

Answer 9

0%.  

Apperance in politics means nothing to me, nor should it matter to anyone else.  Elections should be about who can do the best job not who looks the best on TV.

Answer 10

I think since the Kennedy vs. Nixon election in 1960, when televised debates first began, there's been too much focus on which candidate looks the most "presidential", rather than focusing on who would be the best president.  

Clinton in 1992 continuously watched taped footage of John F. Kennedy, to imitate and form a visual association with voters of Kennedy and his "presidential" manner.  In the image-driven age of television, it no doubt contributed to his success.  

If most people were honest, they would admit it was a consideration.  It's the face you'll be looking at on the news every night for the next 4 or 8 years.  

But it shouldn't be a priority in who voters pick.  Even though it is.  

The emphasis should be on who would govern the best.  And sometimes, probably often,  the smartest and best political leader is not the one who looks the best or is the most charismatic in front of a TV camera.

Answer 11

0%  please name 1 attractive President lol   I want a President who can run this country and not s***w it up, I dont care if he/she looks like Howard Stern

I am a democrat

Answer 12

If you are a democrat then you definitely vote 100% looks, just ask John Edwards, also because liberals vote with their feelings and conservatives vote their wallets.