Htydjtk

We are all aware voting is largely biased. Of course, it would be attractive to reduce that bias as much as possible because greater policy-based voting allows laws and regulations to better reflect the interests of society.

So is it potentially practical to make the identity of political candidates completely anonymous? In such a way that, we would not know their gender, race, age, religious affiliation, and other physical characteristics or irrelevant characteristics. Hell, part of hiding some of these characteristics require cloaking their voice, their name (because most names are gendered and have some racial/ethnic connotation), et cetera.

I understand this doesn't prevent much party-voting (voting purely for party and not for the stature of a candidates policies), and I am aware one can guess ones race/gender based on their platform - but it would be silly to expect any deterrent to be 100% effective. It seems the only question here is practicality, and that includes the legality of this.

edit: This does not mean we hide the political history of candidates, or any other genuinely relevant piece of information for that matter

No, this isn't at all practical. You're removing virtually everything a voter could possibly use to decide who to support. If you don't know a candidate's identity, all you're left with is what policies they claim to support. But you can't even trust those, because you don't have any way to compare it with things they've previously done. There'd be no reason to even attempt to do what your constituents wanted, because it's not like anyone could hold it against you in a future election.

Candidates partially compete through their networks. Hillary Clinton spent years developing the support that carried her past Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump's path was different, but he too relied on his established brand. It seems unlikely that the existing candidates, who are accustomed to competing in this way, will give way to this new system that works differently. And by definition, these are the candidates with established networks.

Another issue is whether it is practical to hide identity this way. Look at the show The Masked Singer. In that show, contestants hide their identity, as you suggest. But people speculate, often correctly, on who they are. For example, I know that the Alien was correctly identified before her identity was revealed. As was the Raven before her. How do I know? I read those predictions before the shows and saw them proved right in the after-show reports. Why would it be more successful in politics than in a reality show?

What happens if someone simply reveals that they are running? What happens if a supporter does? An opponent? I can easily see a court case that establishes that it is a candidate's right to reveal identity, overturning any rule against it.

How would this work with the existing ballot system? Currently candidates ask to be on the ballot (in the United States). But under this system, you couldn't ask that. You couldn't go to voters and tell them who they are and ask for signatures.

What happens to experience? Successful presidents were often successful governors or senators or generals. But under this system, we wouldn't know the candidate's experience. And we can't check the candidate's past positions or truthfulness or, well, anything. You aren't just hiding gender and race. You're hiding their past identity.

If you don't hide that identity, then you're not hiding their race or gender either. E.g. in 1980, a retired actor who was formerly the head of the screen actors guild is running for president after almost winning the nomination in 1976 and being governor of California for eight years. How would people not recognize Ronald Reagan? And of course, he was known to be a white male.

More examples:

In 2016, a billionaire businessperson who has also appeared on reality television is running. Against a former first spouse.

In 2012, a multi-millionaire financier who had been governor of Massachusetts is running.

In 2008, a former community organizer from Chicago who is now Senator from Illinois. Is running against a former Marine famous for being tortured while held as a prisoner of war, who is also a current Senator.

In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who had previously been a decorated military officer is running.

Does anyone seriously think that these people would win their first office without these aspects of their biography? Not to mention that politicians have been known to exaggerate their biographies. How would you check?

If it worked, it might remove bias. But it would also remove discernment. Unless everyone did this, all the time, candidates couldn't give enough of their background to be considered. And I don't think it is really feasible for everyone to do this to eliminate bias. How would people date?

An easier way to achieve the same objective would be sortition. Just draft the right proportions of each group. It's a mechanical process, so it can only be biased if the process is. And it would save the problem of anonymity. You still lose discernment, but you gain representativeness.

Its possible when the basis of approval is something that can be demonstrated separately from personal information.

For example, some orchestras interview candidates who are behind a curtain, to judge them only by their musical competence. They found that without it, unconscious bias does happen a lot.

Similar might work for objects or documents people create, or problems they solve,or factual data that doesn't identify them.

If probably doesn't work in politics generally, because the skill you want include .matters that are inherently unable to be tested other than by linking with the person and their history - how honest they've been, how well they executed past roles, positive and negative features in their background, possible past controversies, personality, and so on.

It probably would be practical, since if we look at it in a certain way it's not so far from the system we have in the US now.

In a sense our candidates are all anonymous. Which is to say that the carefully groomed personas and cleanly scrubbed backgrounds of US candidates are virtual plastic masks designed to agree with public sentiment -- the masks often look nice enough, but God only knows what's really under those masks... and if ever the public learns, it's often too late.

Similarly, candidates have good names and say good things, but the public doesn't know if they mean what they say, nor if those names shouldn't eventually become infamous.

Perhaps the really good candidates are not anonymous, and are who they appear to be. But the worst ones are never who they seem to be and are always, (in that sense), anonymous, or struggling to remain so. And since we mix up those two sets, so that everyone has the face of, or wears the mask of, a good candidate, it's difficult for the public to tell them apart, just as if they were a group wearing Guy Fawkes masks...

Note: I'm not saying candidates masks are secret to everyone, it's more of a partial sufficient anonymity that exists so long as most of the general public can't quite figure it out.