As previously established, we live in a world where individuals are forced to compromise their own personal values in a systematic manner in order to justify/come to terms with voting for their desired candidate. That being said, it doesn't mean that there aren't those who do make informed decisions. And although individuals do have some solid reasoning for favoring a select political figure. We are solely trying to suggest that there isn't a single person who agrees completely with a candidate at hand. And because of this, like was said before, we habitually place more significance on the issues with which we agree with our candidate.

That being said, somehow, more foolish individuals exist. Those who base their preference off objective decisions that hardly pertain to the issues at hand. These individuals like to make their choices based off who they see as being the better speaker, parental influence, and the candidate their personally feel is socially correct to vote for. To demonstrate this, we'll take a look at the 1992 election between Clinton and Bush. In a random study that took place during the election, over 86 percent of the voters somehow knew that the Bush's family dog's name was Millie and that Bush's VP, Dan Quayle, publicly criticized a notable TV character at the time, Murphy Brown. While only a meager 15 percent knew Bush and Clinton both favored the death penalty, and an even smaller five percent knew that both candidates favored tax cuts within the capital gains tax. Therefore, in order to take a systematic approach towards voting, it's important to facilitate an unbiased informed discussion with yourself...