The voters then choose their answers they favor for each question, and they can choose multiple answers they agree with, and a point goes to the party for each answer.
The party that gets the most total points among all voters wins, they then decide the people to run that position.
We really have to focus on issues politics, instead of people politics.
We need to stop thinking about politics so statically. Positions on issues can and should change as new information becomes available. Your current preferred position on an issue is really just a rather poor proxy for your preferred method of problem-solving or thought process that reached the conclusion of your preferred position.
You want to elect the person that "thinks and learns in your preferred manner", so that when they are asked to reach a conclusion on a totally unexpected issue, they reach the "correct" conclusion.
I'd almost rather just have all candidates take an IQ test or something and then elect the top scorers.
It's hard for a committee to be dishonest.
If you think parties have a hard time being dishonest... would you like to buy a bridge?
People think politicians don't keep their promise, but they actually keep their promise far more than they don't: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-kee...
This sort of thing already happens to some extent with ballot initiatives in the US, and they are rife with misleading verbiage to trick people into voting a certain way when they would have voted differently if the proposal were honestly presented.
Put another way, there are various party platform bits where I may agree with what they _say_ but not what they _mean_. And vice versa.
On the other hand: a label like "democrat" or "republican" in many ways accomplishes what you suggest. Many people just vote the party line knowing what the party typically stands for.