The problem is, "How many voters would recognise waffle, double-talk evasion and lying?

eg.

examine the following:

are candidates reasonably educated in basic science?

"Yes! I went to a good (Christian) school."

are candidates well informed about current understanding of various aspects of the world?

"Oh yes! My campaign (PR) literature covers a host of (vague/invented) important world-wide topics."

to what extent will candidates apply scientific knowledge and advice by scientists in shaping policy, as opposed to interest groups that may or may not adhere to empirical knowledge in their agendas?

There are several (Liberty) University scientifically qualified people on my campaign team who have pin-pointed key issues - more will be appointed on taking up office put these into effect.

to what extent will candidate’s style of governing resemble scientific method: observing and studying the world as it really is (as opposed to what one wishes it to be), collecting and analyzing data, and applying best available remedies to the problems?

"I am a great supporter and believer in science and its methods!" The world (aka my mates' & sponsors' interests) needs clear leadership to deal with these world problems in an effective constructive manner (which ensures they live a luxury life-style).

THESE 20 (HIRED-IN CELEBRITIES AND PR ADVERTISERS ERR) LEADING CITIZENS, WILL TESTIFY [I'M NOT LYING (much)], AND CONFIRM MY (FAKE) TRACK RECORD ON THESE ISSUES.

Note to printers:- The bracketed sections will be omitted from the published version of the answers.