> It's almost like people are complicated and when you are forced to choose between two parties you almost always go for the stronger male person

That seems like an unfair conclusion not rooted in empirical evidence. How do you explain the numerous democratically elected female heads of state? What does "strong" mean here? Do you think that current US leadership is "strong" or merely "loud"?

I'm not sure that observations match this hypothesis, actually. But this

> the stronger male person

raises an interesting point (ignoring the "male" part) -- there isn't any real consensus on what attributes indicate "strength" (for instance, there are a lot of people who consider Trump strong, and a lot of people who equally consider him weak).

So the hypothesis could be true, but not terribly enlightening.

People are complicated and their behavior can be predicted by a single variable?

I thought the GP comment was interesting. The hypothesis that if the decision becomes too complicated you just give up and fallback to the strong male.

Like the reptile brain gets enabled if you loose the overview.

This is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

Behaviour in a closed system choosing between the alpha, sound familiar to any animal behaviour? Oh, but we are so much more than that. We aren't animals, we are developed people. Fascinating behaviour isn't it, Muppet.

People are complicated.....they vote for the strongman. You realize how those two things you said are diametrically opposed???? Stupid.

That does not explain vote for Trump who is basically anti-masculine. He is basically walking stereotype of hysterical mind changing woman ... except in male shape.

No, it still explains it. Society does not treat men and women doing or saying the same things the same way. Men are “assertive”, women are “bossy”.

Speaking for yourself buddy.