Indian voters don't swing their vote for the money. They know it's a secret ballot, pocket the money, and tell the buyer they voted for them.

BTW I wrote this about US election

What are the chances election campaigns become a thing of the past?

I know zero about politics but... why don't citizens get presented a list of what each candidate supports, where there is overlap between candidates, and where there is disagreement?

Why do candidates need to "spread the message" and "go on tour" and "win people over" when we as citizens are supposed to, at the root, be voting on what policies they believe in (which seems concrete + fact, instead of something like leaving a wooing/lasting impression with a speech/appearance)

> I know zero about politics but... why don't citizens get presented a list of what each candidate supports, where there is overlap between candidates, and where there is disagreement?

Who compiles that list, and on what information is it based?

> when we as citizens are supposed to, at the root, be voting on what policies they believe in

Well, for one thing, that's not what a lot of people (including the founders) think/thought voters are supposed to be voting on; representative democracy is not just a hack around the logistical impracticality of direct voting on all issues, but a means of selecting people with the skill and character to find good answers to questions that the electorate may not anticipate and most members would lack either the time or the skill to find a good answer even if they did have a direct vote.

> Who compiles that list, and on what information is it based?

A neutral third party (kind of like the federal reserve isn't supposed to be affiliated with any political party... or is this wildly inaccurate)

I'm pretty sure modern day politics are composed of 10-20 hard problems.

1. Providing quality of life for the poor/sick/elderly 1. Protecting citizens via military/war 1. Stances on drugs/drug related crimes 1. Economy wellness (stimulation/QE) 1. Education 1. Transportation 1. Energy/environment/climate change 1. Rights (gender, sexual preference, etc.)

> Well, for one thing, that's not what a lot of people (including the founders) think/thought voters are supposed to be voting on

Is that what you vote for? A politician is a figurehead in my eyes, and it is their job to carry out what they said they were going to (aka not change their policy after winning votes).

> Why do candidates need to "spread the message" and "go on tour" and "win people over" when we as citizens are supposed to, at the root, be voting on what policies they believe in (which seems concrete + fact, instead of something like leaving a wooing/lasting impression with a speech/appearance)

That assumes that citizens are supposed to be voting on policies. In our representative democracy, we vote on the people we want, not policies. The specific policies will be unrecognizable after they get through the process of political compromise. What people are really voting for is the person whose hand they want on the wheel.

The person that writes your list of descriptions of the candidates is now in control of who gets elected.

Also, people vote for politicians based on how the politician makes the voter feel about themselves. Many many many people vote against their economic self interest with full understanding that they are doing so. There is a lot more to who someone votes for than their list of policy proposals.

> Many many many people vote against their economic self interest with full understanding that they are doing so.

Can you give me an example? Do you mean top earners voting for democrat because democrats are typically seen as more empathetic in society?

Well, there are questions like:

-will the candidate follow the policies they claim to support?

-How will the candidate vote on issues not explicitly mentioned in pre-election material?

-How well can the candidate advocate for their positions?

-Does the candidate have enough political clout to make a difference?

So you have to consider things like character, experience and party membership in addition to the talking points.

> -will the candidate follow the policies they claim to support?

Candidates today who don't do this only run the risk of not being re-elected as their punishment, correct? Candidates aren't really held liable to their claims. What percentage of candidates end up having to flip stances on their claims due to external circumstances? What percentage of those claim stances get flipped?

> -How will the candidate vote on issues not explicitly mentioned in pre-election material?

Could we argue that 95% of issues could fall into 10-20 pillars and could be fleshed out up front? If not 95%, what percentage? It's impossible to forecast economic/environmental circumstances obviously (along with other countries having free will to do whatever they want, in context of military actions/reactions)

> How well can the candidate advocate for their positions?

Does this mean "how beefy is their resume/how qualified is the candidate"?