Here's an interesting presidential survey website.

You choose a few topics, and you're presented with several dozen statements on each topic - they claim 2-4 statements from each candidate per topic.

After checking the statements you agree with on each topic (without knowing who made them), they show you the candidates, from those you agreed with the most to the least.

So far I picked 2nd Amendment/gun control, drug war, taxes/spending/fiscal policy, and WOT/homeland security. And it turns out I agree with Mike Huckabee ((gasp) one of the creationists!) the most at 13 statements, followed by Duncan Hunter (another creo) & John McCain at 10.



I gotta go back & add more topics...

Next in line was Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Rudy, Obama, Tom Tancredo, & Fred Thompson with 7 - basically the middle of the pack. I can only assume that my low Fred score is because they don't have as many statements from him than the other Republicans. I put in a question to them about whether they account for different numbers of statements available from each candidate when they weigh the answers.

It doesn't include Giuliani, Gingrich or Fred Thompson as possible candidates.

Giuliani and Fred Thompson are there, at least they show up as having statements I agree with. I don't see any from Gingrich, though.

My top matches, based on Church/State, Drug War, WOT, and Taxes/Finance are:

Ron Paul (no surprise)
Mike Huckabee (big surprise... apparently when he's not discussing creationism, he's not so obviously insane... either that or I'm nuts...)
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani

I got Mike Huckabee as number one too. I'm amused to see I agreed with some of the loonie liberals' tamer statements.

I found myself agreeing with Bill Richardson and Joe Biden

I do wish you could subtract points for statements you vehemently disagree with. Also wish you could rank the topics in order of importance to you.

Only did two topics, and found I agreed with two Hillary Clinton statements!



But I don't think this should count, as I don't think Hillary Clinton agrees with Hillary Clinton statements!

I agreed with one Hillary statement, which didn't surprise me all that much. Blind hogs and acorns, you know.

You need to do a serious soul searching, preferably in 86 proof or higher.

Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to respond quickly to a few questions:

1a) We struggle with the Fred Thompson issue on a daily basis. On one hand, he is perceived as a front runner. On the other hand, he hasn't declared. So, it's a slippery slope if we expand too far into including "potential" candidates. For now, we decided we would include Senator Thompson, but not Congressman Gingrich or Mayor Bloomberg. The problem is, since he hasn't declared, Senator Thompson hasn't had to stake out positions on many issues. That makes it hard to find statements so that people can agree with him. That probably explains your lower than expected score.

1b) The natural follow up question is, "What about Libertarian and Green Party Candidates?" Again, a slippery slope because it can get pretty unwieldy pretty quickly. I think after the conventions, we might include some smaller parties, especially if we see prominent Independents join the race. It will depend on the feedback we get.

2) We are working on the "Strongly Disagree" piece of the puzzle. The more feedback we get, the more apparent it is that we need to include that feature.

Above all, the site is supposed to be useful for voters, so we aren't going to argue with people who have good ideas. Please feel free to send them to us at comments [at] MyElectionChoices [dot] com.

Thanks for the feedback and the link.

- Andy
MyElectionChoices.com

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were already a lurker here or something!

Regarding your 1a & 1b, I think it's inevitable that you'll always have more statements from some candidates than others on any given issue. I was hoping that you were scoring a statement from an under-represented candidate more than one for whom you are presenting more statements.

For example, if you have one statement on a topic by candidate A & for everyone else you were able to find 4 statements to show, then checking that one statement should count for 4. Presumably if candidate B said similar things in his four statements, I'd be checking those four as well - but it doesn't mean I support candidate B four times as much.

AFAIK this kind of thing is done in polling all the time to compensate for the fact that the respondents of the poll don't match up with the voting population. For example, if women answer poll questions vs. men to a greater degree than they vote vs. men, then each man's answers are scored a bit higher to compensate, etc.

Of course it also matters whether you trust the statements the candidates make. Candidates usually say a lot of things they a) don't believe b) have no intention of ever following through on.

I just finished the poll. My top 3 candidates were Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Giuliani. My top 8 candidates were all Republicans. I looked over the quotes I checked and noticed that many were not really indicative of the politician's position. For instance, I checked off Obama's statement that homeowers should have access to firearms to protect themselves. I don't agree with his overall position on gun-control though. The statements are quite often out of context and don't really reflect the complete position of the candidate in question.


I am not impressed with this poll at all.

Statements by politicians are meaningless, particularly if they are not given in context. They are more pandering quote mining than anything else. If they backed voting records with statements, then I'd give it credibility. And don't get me started on how the statements were selected and which ones were ignored.

Excellent point. The candidate that came up as my #1 choice, was not someone I'd vote for, for just that reason.

I marked WAY too many interests and the process started to feel like sitting for final exams!

I'll do it again with fewer points.

I went through all of the topics. Unsurprisingly, I agreed with far more Ron Paul statements than any other candidate. I was surprised, however, that Mike Huckabee was #2 and the candidate who I agreed with the least was Tommy Thompson.

In addition to the "lying candidate" and "quote mining" factors, another big weakness of this site is that an empty platitude like "we need the best teachers in the world" is given as much weight as a detailed policy proposal. I'm not sure anything can be done about that, since some candidates offer nothing but empty platitudes.

Mine was also a surprise with Huckabee #1. then Mc(Crazy)Cain, Hillary, Rudy, and Joe Biden.

I choose a whole slew of Topics: Immigration, Iraq, Drug War, Education, Environment & Energy, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Higher Education, Taxes, Trade & Globalization, & War on Terror.

Really cool website. Thanks for sharing, but who is MyElectionChoices and how did he know about DC?

If so many of us came up with Huckabee for #1 or #2, I wonder if the website is promoting him or something?

MyElectionChoices is apparently affiliated with the website. His only purpose here is to promote the MyElectionChoices.com website. I don't see him ever posting on any other threads.


He probably found us by doing a search of who was talking about the website, or else someone here may have emailed them with a question or two?

As for the apparent tilt towards Huckabee, it's probably a just a reflection on our similar political views here and the wording of the selected Huckabee quotes. I don't know if they are really reflective of what he has actually done or are just nice words he likes to say to potential voters. That could of course go for all the quotes from all the candidates.

Problem with the first question:

How exactly do you disentangle the War on Terror from Iraq and Iran or just plain Foreign Policy? And isn't it then disingenuous to lump together taxes, spending and fiscal policy?

And I have to wonder how many people know what LGBT rights are.

And now the education page:

We must change the fundamental way we educate our children. There's two things everyone knows: the smaller the class size, the better the outcome; and the better the teacher, the better the outcome.

The first sentence should be disconnected from the rest. The rest is nonsense - "everyone knows" is not an argument; its not even true.

And this one:

I support vouchers that would allow students to attend public or private school, including religious schools. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is "valid" but students should be "exposed to every point of view."

And this:

Federal involvement (in education) should be limited. Educational control is best left in the hands of parents.

And this:

I support means-tested vouchers, in which households below a particular income receive vouchers that fund attendance at public or private schools, including religious schools. And I support abstinence education programs in public schools.

And that's enough. If the survey's creators don't have enough intelligence to properly separate different ideas (even if the candidates said them sequentially), there is no reason to give this even a modicum of respect.

If children should be exposed to every point of view, then Bible believers should be requiring their kids to read His Dark Materials. Even Milton thought Satan was more interesting than God.

Teach the controversy.