Political Questions to Ask Someone
57 questions that get at how someone reasons about politics rather than which side they land on: where their views came from, what would change their mind, where they draw the line on government, how they decide who to believe, and what their own side gets wrong. Some are political questions to ask your friends when you have never been sure how they vote, and some are for the person who backs a candidate you would not, whether that is a Trump supporter in the family or a coworker who cannot stand him.
Want questions from the whole vault instead? Try the random question generator.
The questions
Each question, and why to ask it
Which issue do you actually follow closely, and which do you mostly ignore?
Why ask it
A safer opener than asking what matters most, because admitting what you ignore is easy and honest. It also tells you where the conversation can go deep and where you would both be repeating headlines.
Where did your politics come from: family, work, something that happened to you?
Why ask it
People argue about conclusions and agree about experiences. A view traceable to a job loss, a hospital bill or a military posting is much easier to understand than the same view stated as a principle.
Have you ever changed your mind about a political issue, and what did it?
Why ask it
The mechanism is the useful part: a person, an event, or an argument. Anyone who has never changed their mind on anything is telling you that new information does not reach them, which is worth knowing early.
What does the side you lean toward get wrong?
Why ask it
This is the question that separates a thinking position from team membership. Most people have an answer and rarely get asked for it, and giving it usually makes them more candid for the rest of the conversation.
What is the strongest argument on the other side that you cannot easily answer?
Why ask it
Note whether they can state it in a form the other side would recognize. An opponent's argument described as obviously stupid means they have only encountered the version their own side repeats.
Where do you draw the line on what government should do, and what should it stay out of?
Why ask it
Asking for the line rather than the principle gets a specific answer. Most people are not consistent here, and hearing where they are inconsistent is more informative than any label they would accept.
When personal freedom and public safety collide, how do you decide?
Why ask it
Almost every contested issue reduces to this trade-off. Ask for a case they found genuinely hard, since the easy cases only tell you which side they start from.
Which worries you more: a government that does too much, or one that does too little?
Why ask it
A forced choice, which is why it works. The answer usually predicts their position on issues you have not discussed yet, and it puts a name to the fear underneath their politics.
What should be decided locally, and what nationally?
Why ask it
One of the few political questions that rarely maps onto party lines, so it produces real thought instead of a scripted answer. Watch for whether the answer changes depending on who is currently in power.
How do you decide who to believe when two sources disagree?
Why ask it
You are asking about method rather than conclusions. Answers that name a check, looking at the primary document, seeing who reported it first, are different from answers that name a trusted outlet and stop.
Where do you get your news, and is there anyone you read who you usually disagree with?
Why ask it
The second half is the real question. Someone who can name a writer they respect and disagree with is in a different conversation from someone who only encounters the other side through their own side's summary.
What would have to happen for you to vote against the party you usually support?
Why ask it
This finds out whether their vote is a judgment or an identity. A concrete condition, even a demanding one, is a different answer from never, and both are worth hearing plainly.
Do you think politicians are mostly corrupt, or mostly constrained?
Why ask it
It distinguishes cynicism about people from criticism of systems, and those lead to opposite conclusions about what reform would even mean. Ask what they think a well-intentioned politician actually cannot do.
What do you make of money in campaigns, and what would you actually change?
Why ask it
Almost everyone dislikes the current arrangement, so the interesting part is the proposed fix. Vague answers here are common and honest; a specific one tells you they have thought past the complaint.
What should courts do when they overturn something a majority voted for?
Why ask it
It gets at whether they think of democracy as majority rule or as rules that bind majorities. Many people answer differently depending on the ruling, and asking directly makes that tension visible.
Is there a political view you hold that you would not say out loud at work?
Why ask it
It surfaces the gap between what people believe and what is sayable in their circle, which is often the most interesting thing they will tell you. Do not push if the answer is that they would rather not say.
Have politics ever cost you a friendship, or strained things with family?
Why ask it
This moves from opinion to consequence, and it is where most people become noticeably more careful and more honest. The story usually explains why they hold certain conversations at arm's length.
Do you know how most of your close friends vote, or have you never asked?
Why ask it
Plenty of friendships run for years on not knowing. The answer shows whether this friend keeps politics out of friendships on purpose or has simply never had a reason to bring it up.
When a group of friends starts talking politics, do you join in, go quiet or change the subject?
Why ask it
A role in a group chat or at a dinner is easier to admit than an opinion. The friend who goes quiet often has plenty to say and has decided the room is the wrong place, which is a reason to ask them one to one.
Which of us do you think is more stubborn about politics?
Why ask it
A light one that gives a friend permission to tease you, and that lowers the stakes for whatever you ask next. If they say it is you, ask for the example and take it without defending yourself.
Is there something political we disagree on that you have been avoiding with me?
Why ask it
Only for a friend you trust, and only if you can hear the answer without arguing it. Naming the avoided subject is often enough for one evening; you do not have to open it as well.
Could you stay close to a friend whose politics you thought did real harm, and where would that stop?
Why ask it
Friends tend to assume they share an answer to this and then find they do not. Ask about a real person or a real falling-out, because the abstract version gets you a principle and the concrete one gets you what they actually did.
If we voted differently next time, what would you want me to understand about your choice?
Why ask it
Put as a request, it lets a friend give the reason they would stand behind instead of a defence. Asking it is also a quiet way of saying the friendship does not depend on the answer.
How do you tell the difference between a compromise worth taking and a surrender?
Why ask it
Answers reveal whether they think in terms of outcomes or of positions. If the line is drawn only around their own side's concessions, that is worth noticing rather than pointing out.
What do you think this country genuinely does well?
Why ask it
Useful late in a conversation that has been mostly about problems, and people are often unprepared for it. Cooling the temperature before you finish tends to be what makes a second conversation possible.
What would you want to ask me before we stop?
Why ask it
Handing over the questions is the clearest signal that this was not an interrogation. What they choose to ask also tells you what they assumed about you for the previous hour.
What did the place you grew up teach you about who gets looked after?
Why ask it
Class and place shape politics more than most people credit. Asking who was looked after avoids the abstraction of asking about class directly.
What do people get wrong about what you believe?
Why ask it
Lets somebody correct a caricature instead of defending one, which calms a conversation faster than agreeing with them would.
What would have to be true for you to be wrong about your biggest issue?
Why ask it
Falsifiability applied to politics. Some people answer immediately, others discover they cannot, and both reactions tell you a lot.
Which politician do you respect and still not vote for?
Why ask it
Separates respect from allegiance. If nobody on the other side qualifies, the conversation is about identity rather than policy.
Is there a trade you would accept: something you want for something they want?
Why ask it
Turns positions into negotiation. What somebody will trade, and what they refuse, is a clearer map of priorities than any list of issues.
What do you think is genuinely getting better?
Why ask it
Improvement is harder to name than decline, and the question breaks the reflex of pure complaint.
What do you think is getting worse regardless of who wins?
Why ask it
Moves the conversation off the scoreboard, and it is often where two opponents find they agree.
What would make you get involved beyond voting?
Why ask it
Involvement is where belief meets time and money. The threshold somebody names shows how much of their politics is identity and how much is action.
What do you think is the biggest problem facing the country right now?
Why ask it
Deliberately unattached to any party, so the answer comes before the defences go up. Listen for whether the problem they name is one they experience or one they have read about, because the two produce very different arguments.
Which issue do you think gets far more attention than it deserves?
Why ask it
Answers often cut across party lines, which is useful early on. People also tend to be more candid about what they find overblown than about what they support, since there is less to defend.
Which political issue do you wish you understood better?
Why ask it
This is one of the few political questions that reliably lowers defences, because it invites an admission rather than a claim. It also gives you something to talk about that neither of you has to win.
Which political decision in your lifetime has affected you most directly?
Why ask it
This pulls the conversation from opinion to experience. Expect a war, a recession, a health system change, a school closure. If someone cannot name anything, that in itself explains why politics feels like a spectator sport to them.
What do you think people misunderstand about those who vote differently from you?
Why ask it
Asking them to explain the other side sympathetically is harder than asking them to criticise their own. The quality of the attempt tells you whether they have ever really talked to anyone on that side.
How much do you think one vote actually changes?
Why ask it
Answers range from a civic duty argument to open fatalism, and the fatalism is worth following. People who say voting is pointless often still vote, and the contradiction is more interesting than either position alone.
What would you want a candidate asked in a debate that they never get asked?
Why ask it
Turning them into the interviewer surfaces what they think is being dodged. The question they invent usually reveals their real priority more clearly than a direct question about priorities does.
If nothing about the system changed for the next twenty years, what would your life look like?
Why ask it
Placed last because it needs the trust built by everything before it. The answer separates people who expect politics to touch their life from people who see it as a distant argument, and that difference explains most of the intensity gap between voters.
Do you think most people who vote differently from you are misinformed, or do they want something different from what you want?
Why ask it
The choice between those two explanations is where contempt lives. Answering out loud usually softens it, because most people notice they do not really believe half the country is stupid once they have to say it plainly.
Has social media made you better informed or just more certain?
Why ask it
The wording lets people admit something uncomfortable without conceding an argument. Answers often turn into the most candid part of the conversation, because almost everyone recognises the second condition in themselves.
Which problem do you think government is genuinely good at solving, and which is it bad at?
Why ask it
Forcing both halves gets past the reflex that government is always the answer or never is. The pairing often reveals someone's real political instinct more precisely than any label they would accept for themselves.
How much of what happens in a country do you think a president or prime minister actually controls?
Why ask it
Answers spread widely and predict a lot: someone who credits leaders with most outcomes will judge politics by personalities, while someone who points to courts, markets and legislatures will judge it by structures.
What quality do you look for in a politician that has nothing to do with their positions?
Why ask it
Ruling out positions forces something more interesting: competence, temperament, willingness to lose gracefully, ability to admit error. Compare it against who they actually vote for and you learn where they compromise.
What first drew you to the candidate you support?
Why ask it
It works for a Trump supporter, for someone who has voted against him every time, and for anyone whose choice puzzles you. Starting with the attraction and not the latest controversy gets you a story about the person you are talking to.
What has your candidate said or done that you disagreed with?
Why ask it
Many supporters keep a private list and are seldom asked for it kindly. Hearing it tells you their support is a judgment with the costs counted, and it is often the answer you expected least.
Is your vote more for your candidate or more against the alternative?
Why ask it
Both get counted the same and they are not the same position. Someone voting against is telling you what they fear, and that fear is usually the better thing to ask about next.
When your candidate is criticised, which criticisms seem fair to you and which feel like attacks?
Why ask it
The sorting is what you are after. A supporter who can name one fair criticism is someone you can talk with, and the ones they call attacks show where they feel their own judgment is being insulted.
Do you ever feel looked down on because of who you vote for, and by whom?
Why ask it
A good deal of political heat comes from feeling sneered at and has little to do with policy. If the answer is yes, hear the story out before you go back to issues, since it explains the tone of much else they say.
What do you hope changes in your own life if your candidate wins?
Why ask it
Bringing it down to their own street, job or bills replaces slogans with stakes you can picture. An answer of not much is worth hearing too, because it means the vote is about something other than self-interest.
Is there a change to how elections or government work that you would support even if it cost your own side seats?
Why ask it
This tests process commitments against self interest, which is where such commitments usually break. It also tends to surface concrete reforms, ranked ballots, term limits, redistricting, rather than general complaints about corruption.
Do you think the gap between rich and poor is mainly about wages, taxes, housing, or something else?
Why ask it
Making them pick a mechanism moves the talk from feelings about fairness to a claim about causes, which can actually be discussed. The choice also tends to predict which policies they will find persuasive.
Which trade-off in climate policy do you find genuinely hard?
Why ask it
Asking for the hard part filters out both slogans and denial. Real answers name specifics: energy prices, jobs in one region, nuclear power, who pays first. Someone who finds nothing hard here has not looked at the details.
How do you decide when a country should get involved in a conflict abroad?
Why ask it
Most people have strong reactions to individual wars and no general rule. Watching someone try to build the rule from their reactions is revealing, and it usually exposes cases they have not reconciled.
Having the Conversation Without a Fight
Practical guidance for the conversation itself
Choosing the Moment
One to one, and not at a table with an audience
People defend positions in front of others and explore them in private. The same person who will not concede a point at a family dinner will think out loud in a car or on a walk, because nobody is keeping score.
Say what you are doing
Opening with something like I am not trying to change your mind, I want to understand how you got here changes what follows. Without that, most people reasonably assume the questions are the opening move in an argument.
Decide in advance what you will not raise
If there is one issue where you cannot stay curious, leave it out of this conversation. Trying it and losing your temper costs you the goodwill you would need to ever discuss it well.
With friends, protect the friendship first
A friend has more to lose than a stranger does, which is why friends so often never ask. Say that nothing you hear changes where you stand with them, begin with the lighter ones about group chats and who is more stubborn, and leave the vote itself until they bring it up.
Questions to ask Trump supporters, or his critics, without baiting them
The questions about the candidate someone backs name nobody, so they work whichever way the gap runs. Ask what drew them and what they have had to overlook before you raise any single controversy, and ask it the way you would want to be asked about your own vote. If you only want the answer so that you can rebut it, wait for another day.
While You Are Talking
- Ask for the story behind the position rather than the evidence for it. Evidence invites counter-evidence; a story invites elaboration.
- Repeat their view back before you respond to it. If they correct you, you had it wrong, and you have just avoided an argument about something they never said.
- Distinguish what they believe from what they think should be law. People often agree on the first and disagree entirely on the second, and conflating the two produces false conflict.
- When they cite a fact you doubt, ask where they saw it rather than telling them it is wrong. Sourcing a claim does more than contradicting it, and it keeps the exchange out of scorekeeping.
- Notice when you have stopped listening and started drafting. That is the point at which the conversation becomes a debate, and it is usually visible to the other person before it is to you.
- Let a bad argument go by. You do not have to answer everything, and picking one thread rather than five is what keeps a conversation going.
- Say when something they said landed. It is rare in political conversation and it changes how the next twenty minutes go.
When to Stop
- Wind it up when either of you starts repeating a point louder. Nothing after that is new information.
- Change the subject if it turns to the other person's character rather than their view. Once it is personal it will be remembered as personal, whatever gets said afterwards.
- Close it out before you are tired, or if either of you has been drinking. Most political fights between people who like each other happen at the end of long evenings.
- Leave a topic open rather than forcing a conclusion. I want to think about that is a better ending than a stalemate, and it makes the follow-up possible.
- If it is family, agree on the rule rather than the topic: no politics at the table, or fine one to one but not in front of the children. Rules hold better than resolutions.
- Accept that some views are not going to move. Understanding how someone reached one is a separate goal from changing it, and only the first is within your control.