I recently tried one of those online surveys that tries to tell you which candidate is actually most in line with your policy beliefs. These are fun, but subject to bias.
In keeping with my New Democracy category, I started wondering if there was a way to make this process official, and unbiased. It's an interesting process because often these surveys surprise the voter, who, based on campaign ads or peer pressure don't realize they are highly in agreement with a smaller-party platform.
Here's one suggestion for a way to make it non-biased. Each registered candidate could submit a policy statement that they think differentiates themselves from the other candidates. After all are submitted, they would be revealed and the other candidates would decide how they themselves want to be scored by the proposition. (The submitting candidate would be classed as strongly agreeing.) You don't want to put in a motherhood proposition that everybody agrees with as it won't differentiate you from others.
After this we go another round, candidates can submit entries which either continue to differentiate them, or refine or rebut earlier proposals. You can go several rounds, though you don't want the survey to be super-long.
Then voters can take this survey and it will tell them how close they are to each candidate, on the whole and issue-by-issue.Other methods are possible of course. One could have an impartial party try to arbitrate what the questions will be until they get buy-in from each campaign. This would result in a shorter survey with greater chance of bias from the "impartial" party.
Ideally, this could even replace the ballot. You could have an election where rather than naming people, you answer policy preference questions, and your vote ends up going for the candidate who most closely matches you. Of course in this event candidates would attempt to game the system, telling their supporters exactly how to answer the questions to get them. However, it would provide a very strong measurement of public opinion on a variety of issues that would guide even candidates who didn't match the public on that particular issue (but still won.) A marriage of representative and participatory democracy features.