As everyone knows, informed voters are the best kind. That’s why it’s disappointing to see so many candidates ducking questions posed by an organization like Project Vote Smart.

According to a story in Tuesday’s Journal-World, about two thirds of Kansas candidates seeking seats in the U.S. Congress or Kansas Legislature declined to answer a Project Vote Smart questionnaire. Political consultants, a representative of the organization said, are advising candidates not to respond to the questions because their answers can be attacked or distorted by their opponents.

More and more, it seems, candidates are trying to tailor their message so they commit to very little during an election campaign. The tactic makes them hard to attack but also hard to pin down during a campaign or hold accountable after election. How can voters intelligently choose candidates without really knowing where they stand on key issues?

Admittedly, the multiple-choice format of the questionnaire has some problems, especially if none of the choices adequately reflects a candidate’s stand, but Project Vote Smart also gave candidates a “none-of-the-above” option in which they could say whatever they wanted about an issue. A few local candidates (their names were listed on page 4A of Tuesday’s J-W) did answer the questionnaire, and their willingness to do so might be a factor voters should consider when considering who to support.

Why not get your view on the record? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is all too obvious. Candidates don’t want to say anything that will offend voters, and taking a hard stand on just about any issue almost certainly will anger someone. So instead of standing for something, candidates try to stand for everything — or nothing.

There has been considerable discussion about how American political parties no longer serve much ideological purpose. Because they want to provide a “big tent” for supporters, they often don’t take hard stands on issues. By bypassing questionnaires, candidates seem to be following that example.

In a representative democracy, voters are charged with electing people they believe represent their point of view, but that’s tough to do if candidates won’t address issues directly. Everyone urges voters to be well-informed, but, if candidates won’t respond to questions posed by nonpartisan voter groups, where is that information supposed to come from? Political advertising?

Wouldn’t it be much better for candidates to state their stands on key issues and let the voters decide? A candidate who is elected after taking well-defined positions could be relatively confident of the positions his or her constituents support.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have candidates really standing for something rather than trying so hard to craft a message that offends no one but says almost nothing? People get into politics to win, but it seems it would be more honorable to stand for something and lose than to win by refusing to take well-defined positions on issues.