In the sleek and largely image-driven world of politics, a candidate's groomed physical appearance (read: "hotness") would appear to make all the difference between an electoral dud and a rising star.
But are the days of women allegedly swooning over John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton and rotely checking their names on a ballot behind us? A new survey created by Weatherproof and published on Refinery29.com found that most American voters today are choosing, or at least claim they're choosing, substance over style at the ballot box.
When asked, "What matters more to you? A candidate's appearance and style or his/her experience and integrity?", 82 percent of voters chose "experience and integrity." 15 precent said "evenly tied," and only 2 percent 'fessed up to voting based on looks.
A full 80% of surveyors said a candidates's "demonstrated interest in fashion" wouldn't affect their vote, nor would a sexy mug: 70 percent said they weren't more inclined to vote for candidates they found physically attractive. (We are slightly suspicious and wonder if we should test the female voting pool by nominating Ryan Gosling for president.)
Pollers also appeared to not really give a f*** about other "externals," like whether or not the candidate attended an Ivy League school or wealth.
“It’s interesting to see a shift in thinking by the American people,” says Freddie Stollmack, president of Weatherproof. “As a country, we are looking for a leader who has ideas to get the economy back on track; this survey assures us that the trend is moving towards picking a candidate with more knowledge and experience rather than one that is better looking and well dressed."
So sorry, perfect tens: if you want to run for office someday, you'll have to snag an actual platform. In November, we'll just wait to see who votes for Mitt Romney because of his dad jeans, or Barack Obama for... his dad jeans.
Take a look at some fashion mavens who've spoken out about their political views below:
