We really do, just a platform to explain in plain English what each candidate thinks about each issue. You need an objective platform ironically because the issues don't have objectively correct results. At some point you need to form an opinion about trade-offs and then just make an executive decision. This is what this whole election should be about.
The current thing with coal miners is a great example because you can't promote policy to protect climate change by promoting renewable energy AND save coal miners' jobs. You need to pick a side there.
Trump's stance: Climate change is a hoax, fossil fuels are fine - let's get those mines back up and running.
Bernie's stance: Climate change is real, let's move away from fossil fuels. Let's solve the jobs thing by creating programs that re-educate miners in cleaner energies.
There you go. In plain English. Two candidates with a concrete difference on a fundamental issue and who have offered solutions to a very real problem (towns/communities being destroyed because the industry they were built on is in decline).
As a voter, you take your opinion on this and then combine it with all the other policy points and make a decision who to vote for. It should be so simple! But what makes it complicated is candidates like Clinton.
Hilary's stance to middle class people who don't work in mines and worry about climate change: she will close mines to protect the environment!
Hilary's stance when campaigning in coal country: I was taken out of context. I will not close the mines! More jobs in coal!
There is a very clear difference between Bernie and Trump for voters to decide on, but there is an even bigger, more fundamental, difference between both of them and Hilary in that they at least have clear, concise and consistent policy. She is just pandering to fucking EVERYONE. So you have no idea what she really thinks or what she will really do. She will tell you whatever you want to hear and then the second she's in power, just go ahead and serve whatever agenda she has.
This would be so obvious if a platform just collected policy and compared all the candidates. There was one for the last general elections in the UK which was amazing. It presented policy points and then quoted directly from official policy manifestos, but removed the names of the political parties. You were asked to pick one which best represented your views. It was amazing (and the results shocked people - turns out you can be a left-leaning person who was Green Party on all things domestic, but then all UKIP when it comes to immigration and foreign policy! Turns out it's not black and white!).
But the main flaw in that is that the candidates themselves would often contradict their manifesto when they were on the campaign trail. So I've always imagined a system where you had something similar, but then factored in all the pandering and backtracking. Basically punish people who change their opinion in a very short time-frame due to polling or press feedback, etc.