Beliefs about who ought to run for office guide both voter preferences and elite recruitment, yet these beliefs often diverge. This study examines how both politicians and voters in Canada evaluate potential political candidates, identifying which personal and professional attributes most influence support. Using a conjoint experiment, participants assessed pairs of hypothetical candidates varying across nine traits: age, gender, health, marital status, presence of young children, political experience, occupation, minority status, and wealth. The study includes responses from 65 federal-level politicians (19% of sitting members) and over 2,000 Canadian voters. Results reveal both convergence and divergence in candidate preferences. Politicians favor women, candidates with one young child, while expressing less support for men, non-binary individuals, teachers, and those with depression. Voters similarly prefer women but also favor middle-aged, married, and experienced candidates, while penalizing non-binary individuals, those with ADHD or depression, and the very wealthy. Together, these findings highlight shared gender and mental health biases but differing elite and public norms in candidate evaluation.
