This is a rare treat for me, as someone has taken the Venn concept and applied it to personal decision-making.
Reader Brian Carpenter sent this in for thought and consideration. He does not claim it to be complete or universal, but found it an effective tool for rating those qualities voters would look for in elected officials.
He sorts out the three main divisions as a candidate’s Stance, Ability, and Character. His analysis follows the graph:
Selecting a President
- The intersection of Stance and Ability without Character is cunning.
- The intersection of Ability and Character without any stance is wishy-washy.
- The intersection of Character and Stance without Ability is ineffective.
Stance gets most of the attention. It is the political views of the candidate often labeled as democrat or republican.
Many may consider Jimmy Carter within the yellow zone. He represented their political stance and was thought to have good character, but was unable to get much done. Sarah Palin may be also in the yellow zone for those who agree with her stance.
Many may consider Bill Clinton to be where the magenta and cyan zone almost touch. He was broadly accused of being poll-driven and lacking character, but has tremendous abilities to discern political strategy and communicate.
What do you think? Any other examples of placement of historical candidates? Any alternate divisions you would use to replace the three main spheres of influence? Come up with your own, and either link them here or send them to me.
Well done, Brian!
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, election, decision making, Venn diagram, politics[/tags]