Chris Golis,
A very interesting piece, In my mind it ranks as the best of the week.
However,the problem I have with Westen's theory, *all* theories (that try to articulate a definition of the whole) they seem to work in a statistical or cumulative sense but don't define individuals(a case of one size fits no one ). Consequently there are significant minorities that it doesn't fit. These minorities then become potential 'wild cards' and when combined with 'which' emotion the candidate appeals to (often unintended) there is considerable variability in results.

Notwithstanding, we tend to have a culture amongst voters (aka "great unwashed") who gives Westen's theory credibility. Although I have read several other explanations for this emotionally based decision making.

Ranging from extrapolations/interpretation of our biological instincts to the more complex that factors in several different psychological and other factors of circumstance.

One therefore must be careful not to over interpret what the theory *suggests* and becomes 'self referential' dogma.
The problem is then the opportunities lost and people hurt and we lurch painfully to the next theory 'de jure'.
It is interesting to consider why human seem to have a predilection for limitation ( psychological control?) via 'Grand United Theories of everything' no matter how flawed.

An interesting article.

However, Abbot - like his Non Broadband Network - appears to be suddenly experiencing some serious connectivity issues.

Good point Examinator.

I reckon we are influenced by our emotions more than we'd like to think. But not all the time John Howard was not an appealing personality both in his party and as a public person, yet he was seen as a leader. Which might tie in with our instinctive views of what a leader is - emotion again, huh?

Anyways, Abbott's tendency to run off at the mouth has been kept in check, but his lack of science and technical understanding is not good for a leader. He is more your manager type.
Have always admired Gillard, been disappointed with her run in this election, but I am sure she is across science and has more of a vision for the future. She doesn't easily get confused either, has better control of her emotions than Abbott.

Johnny Rotten,

Tony a good manager? not in my opinion. IMO as a ex senior manager I hold the strong opinion that all managers should have an in principal knowledge of important issues under their control in addition to 'management' skills.

I have no doubt that Julia's technical knowledge on the NBN is relatively thin but at least she is engaged.
It is arguable that Kevin Rudd was too much into the nuts and bolts of government and lost the bigger picture or was unable to communicate it to his colleagues and the public. Hence he became an overworked, ineffective one man band.

I also doubt that Julia's understanding of the N&B of economics is any deeper than on any other area of govt.

Conversely Tony is clearly uninformed on economics too. In my opinion he is a second string manager.
In essence a great salesperson doesn't necessarily mean they will be a great Sales manager and vise versa.

I also believe that the party system and the way governments are chosen is dysfunctional.

My views on Abbot are irrelevant in that our seat is a Liberal one ( and this IS outer urban Qld). Regardless of what I vote I am still going to have the same effectively cardboard cut out of a local representative.

Compared to Gillard, Abbott has it easy. A perfect family - a supporting obedient wife (virtually all wives of the religious are), 3 nice female children (that temper his aggressiveness). He has the support of those who think they are righteous (the religious and the wealthy or wantabe wealthy).
Abbott has a massive ego - just the fact he wanted to be a priest and he is now leader of the Libs, shows he wants to rule others, his way (or his gods way) - but in my view this is the result of a kind of sickness of spirit at the very deepest level that is typical of virtually all politicians.

Gillard however came up through the union ranks. Unlike Abbott this is about helping the masses, not ruling them. A life fighting for workers could sour many people, particularly if they are female, but it has not done this to Gillard. In rejecting her religion, this shows she has a high EQ - she relies on her own mind, not what others say, and has courage and conviction not to just go along with the flow. Being unmarried also carries its own pains, which she has learnt to cope with.

I suspect in times of personal upheaval, say perhaps the US goes into depression, or a very close loved one dies, I think Gillard's experience in dealing with the resulting pain would be superior. In my view she wins hands down.

I must add the comment that today (30 August 2010) in the Australian Financial Review there was an extensive post election analysis by John Black using SPSS. Black said that the switch from pro-family, pro-Christian Kevin to atheist Julia led to an average anti Labor swing of 7.2% in the top 4 Pentacostal seats in Australia compared to a national average of 2.1%. On the other hand in the top 4 atheist seats Julia had a pro-Labor swing of 3.3%. On balance Black concluded the impact of Christian and family factors cost the ALP more seats than it gained.

Always nice to get independent support. :-)