The representatives taking a stance on something is no different then the party taking a stance on something.
No it isn't. It is called a vote of conscience. There are times when a party will not ask its members to hold a particular line, and each representative may choose their personal view. It is RARE between the Democrats and Republicans with their polar approach to nearly every topic. But it is certainly an option, especially so if you go in with a very focused agenda.
Okay.
1: Who is this party you speak of as a separate entity?
2: How can that be the majority of views in a party. I don't understand how a party that is mostly that will not tear itself apart.
So because they don't take a stance on something, they take a stance on nothing?
No. Just if they do not take a stance on
most things they wont have a stance on most things.
Or if they do take a stance on most things they will have a stance on most things.
You can't have they not take a stance on most things and still have a stance on most things.
Oh, I'm sorry, does every candidate need a stance on every issue under the sun? Is that it? Because yeah, I know I certainly want to know where my candidate stands on chocolate vs vanilla and mac vs pc... oh wait, I don't give a shit, and, most likely, neither do they, and that fact doesn't mean they are going to "just abstain on everything."
No. Only the important things. Try that paragraph with with Choice VS Life and War Vs Peace and come back to me.
The representatives taking a stance on something is no different then the party taking a stance on something.
How do you figure? By letting the candidates take stands rather than the party, you can get candidates from each area with popular support that still support, primarily, what the party finds important.
I feel that would just be ripe for inter party conflicts. I mean. If you agree with a guy on one thing, but find every other view of his repugnant, you are not going to support him. It is a simple as that.