Personally, I'd suggest organizing what you want.  If, for example, you lived in a world where there were only 4 political issues... I'd suggest you set up a list of priorities for your ideal stances, based on a mix of how important the issue is to you and how likely the vote is to exact a favorable change (for example, I would suggest prioritizing stances which only required a simple majority to pass into law over something requiring a much greater consensus.  The importance of this second portion is extremely region-dependent... this will probably be more important in closer, more contested elections).

Essentially, my suggestion is to play politics.  Would you, for example, be willing to accept someone with an unfavorable stance on international trade in order to get a favorable stance on domestic taxes?  Would you trade immigration reform for drug rights?  In this way, you won't find a fully compatible candidate... but you best advance the political agenda for which you hope to achieve.

In most jurisdictions, prospects for jury duty are selected from the voter register. So by not registering, I greatly improve my chances of avoiding a possible life interruption.

Dr NO confidence! HJe's your man! In any election there should always be an option for people to say they do not like any options presented, i..e that they have no confidence in any of the candidates and/or position.

Traditionally that's done by making your voting ballot void, by either selecting all or selecting none of the options, You_Fool