What are we electing if we ask them their positions, and then vote based on them? We are electing a person who will take into each issue and each situation, a pre-committed plan of action, not based on what is right, but on simply on the fact he or she already determined to go that direction. If the candidate's stand were always the result of having thought it out to the end, it would be good. And, often that is the case. But, perhaps more often, the candidate determines his position without thorough thought, and commits to a line of action in the heat of the campaign. Not every situation that comes up is going to fit into such a box, anyway. If you decide you are against gay marriage, but the weight of public opinion rises to favor it, you will need to be wise enough to factor that in. That does not need to be a matter of swaying to the political wind, but of realizing the people's will should be considered. Global warming? What if you determine it is fake, but as time goes on, the evidence continues to mount that it is a real threat? If you are stuck on a pre-commited path, you might not pull up and change your policy in time.
We decry politicians who waffle on the issues, but it is often among them that we are most likely to uncover the statesman. For it is not the person who barrels hades-bent after something, not willing to give up, but rather, it is the man or woman who thoughtfully and thoroughly weighs each situation in the grass it arrives in who makes the wisest and best decisions.
So, why do I say, character is the truest determinant of a good candidate? The person who is honest is the person who will weigh things evenly and thoroughly. If abortion is wrong, he or she will surely come to that conclusion. So, as I said, what you should want is a person who will take each situation and weigh it even-handily. The person who is honest and fair is the person who is more likely to look at things honestly and fairly. Find this in your candidate, and you will find your Solomon.