Lets just say you have A that has a very sound budget policy while B has a budget policy was raising the tax. But A has a bad personality and doest look as good as B. Would the people just vote for B?
Does the looks and personality of a politician always beats his/her conviction ot serve the public?
Depends on the kind of political discourse that's present at times of voting sessions. A few years ago I read somewhere that with today's need for ultimate media portrayal of candidates in US elections, Franklin D. Roosevelt probably would not have had a chance of getting elected as his physical disability would be really difficult to sell on TV.
If God/other deity gave me a big red button that said "press to remove usage of TV in election campaigns and use newspapers instead", I would probably do it.
I firmly believe that papers are better, smarter and will make their readers smarter than TV watchers too. A more "human" candidate will always get votes just for being handsome/sociable/whatever, but the effect would be weaker, and being human is actually to some extent an asset even in political office, even if it doesn't balance the budget.
To answer the original question: I think looks and other "chrome" certainly affects the results in a great deal, especially when TV is used extensively. I absolutely refuse to agree that it "always wins" though.
Also,
>Lets just say you have A that has a very sound budget policy while B has a budget policy was raising the tax.
Higher taxes can be very sound. I think every large western economy has lots of debt currently, and paying interest to someone else indefinitely can be A LOT more stupid than having a bit higher taxes. So can cutting away tax money from society-improving projects just to give people a short-term consumption party.
Reducing spending will always be a more sound economic policy than raising taxes. Otherwise, I agree with >>4.
If by "sound" you mean "one where less money is spent", sure. Reducing spending will reduce spending.
Some of that money being spent is actually doing people good, though, you know?
you cant relly reduce spending and keep the country working soundly...taxes are what keeps the goverment going. not to mention the fact that people get there money back in one way or another.
for example: i now live in texas where the taxes(to the state) are relativly higher, but because of that texas schools are so much better than anywhere else i have been (AKA hawaiian public school districs, tucson public schools, omaha united school district). but this is only one example of how taxes can help people rather than be a berdon that you have to pay every year.
Okay, then we reduce spending for stupid crap that we don't need and divert that money to good things like schools and stuff. Life is better, taxes aren't raised. (Of course, private schools with or without a voucher system would still be better, but now we're going even further off topic.
> good things
It's a good thing people will never agree on what ultimately makes something good.
its better than the alternatives...