Some moderate Democratic politiciansâespecially men and especially in rural districtsâcan be particularly worse for animal welfare compared to leftists [...]Female Republican politicians also seem to be better than male Republicans for animal welfare.
Why is it worth adding analysis of whether male or female politicians tend to be better on certain issues? If youâre only voting on a few races at a time, shouldnât you just look directly at candidatesâ policies, rather than trying to guess at their views based on other characteristics?
The explanation that comes to mind for me is that a voter who doesnât have time to look at policy can make a better guess about which candidate to vote for based on gender. But it still seems like a weak signal at best, and a poor way to go about voting if you do expect your vote to be âimpactful in expectationâ. Was that what you had in mind?
New candidates have never served in Congress and therefore do not have legislative track records on animal welfare, and itâs such a minor issue to most voters that candidates almost never express their views on it while running for office.
Why is it worth adding analysis of whether male or female politicians tend to be better on certain issues? If youâre only voting on a few races at a time, shouldnât you just look directly at candidatesâ policies, rather than trying to guess at their views based on other characteristics?
The explanation that comes to mind for me is that a voter who doesnât have time to look at policy can make a better guess about which candidate to vote for based on gender. But it still seems like a weak signal at best, and a poor way to go about voting if you do expect your vote to be âimpactful in expectationâ. Was that what you had in mind?
New candidates have never served in Congress and therefore do not have legislative track records on animal welfare, and itâs such a minor issue to most voters that candidates almost never express their views on it while running for office.