It's inevitable because somebody decided to impose it. Death is natural and at this time no human intervention can do anything about it.

I don't understand what you mean when you say important issues are irrelevant. When forced to vote for a candidate their stance on important issues is pretty relevant to me. When all candidates disagree with me that leaves me with no criteria with which to seperate them and decide who is "the best" of those offered.

My feelings exactly. I guess I'll never understand how you choose the best of a set of equally bad candidates.

Then why did you continue to insist that one must pick "the best" candidate when I explained that for many people there is no "best"?

I understand what you're saying. I just don't understand your reasoning.

I understood that you were saying you vote for the "best" candidate, but I didn't and still don't understand how you pick a "best" when they are for all intents and purposes, the same. I don't recall you ever telling me how you can do that.

No 2 humans I have ever met/seen are the same.

Two political candidates who both disagree with any given voter on the issues that the voters uses as criteria to decide who to vote for are for all intents and purposes, the same.

Not for me...because I would then look into their personal attributes to deside which would do the job more effectively.

You explained that you "take what you're given", "pick the best cons" and "weight the pros and cons". You did not say how you could pick a "best" when weighing the pros and cons leaves all on an equal footing, which is what I've been asking in my past dozen or so posts.

Belial...did you read my post? That is how people decide when faced with candidates with similar views on the issues...we have primaries in the US and many of those candidates have exactly the same stand on the key issues. You start looking at their personalities,credibility and experiences.