Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidate 'Computer Dating'
engywook writes "On National Public Radio's Morning Edition this morning, there was a story that mentioned the SelectSmart Presidential Candidate Selector. This was described as a kind of 'computer dating service' for deciding which of the remaining presidential candidates match your views most closely. According to the story, it is not limited to just the Democratic and Republican candidates. Might be just the thing to help gel a decision in swinging undecideds!"
Your Results:
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Cobb, David - Green Party (88%)
3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (84%)
4. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (80%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%)
6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (72%)
7. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (72%)
8. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (71%)
9. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (70%)
Interesting to say the least. But it leaves out a few issues and the questions aren't clear enough. It would be nice to see issues like tort reform included -- I break with most people on the left with this issue and it would be interesting to see what it did to my score. It would also be neat if it split up the results based on issue -- on social issues I'm probably close to those results for the Green party guy -- but on foreign policy Kerry would probably have gotten a 90-95% with the input that I provided.
It would also be neat if it included the score for the candidates you don't like. There are a small handful of non-important issues that I agree with Bush on -- would he have broken 10% with my input?
A neat tool but it wouldn't have helped me to make my decision if I was still undecided. YMMV
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I took this test two weeks ago. IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH. The test is a push poll, a type of poll that askes biased questions in the hopes of directing people in one direction or another.
Well the questions are overly simplistic -- that's for sure. That's probably why they bias towards George W. and his black & white view of the world ;)
For example: "Do you support the idea of unilateral military action by the United States?" -- simple answer: Yes. Actual answer: Only if we are in immediate danger (I don't purpose going to the UN if the missiles are inbound) and have exhausted all diplomatic options. Henceforth the Cuban missile crisis would have met the test for unilateral action if the missiles become live (thank god they didn't) -- Iraq did not.
Same situation on taxes. Nobody in their right mind supports more taxes on the middle/lower classes. But it's not a black and white issue by any means.
Perhaps we should make our own website that deals in shades of gray?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I got the sense that the questions were written from a certain perspective, but they were at least orthogonal topically. That means that if you disagree with the perspective of the question you just answer according to your view and everybody's happy.
I think their "bias", if you can call it that, is to determine who you are actually going to vote for, not to change your mind. For instance:
Rather than state the question as: The latter form might get the unsuspecting to consider whether federal funding for specific businesses is a good thing. The "corporate welfare" tag would make almost anyone see it as bad.The poll worked pretty well for me, lining up with my own ranking fairly well:
sigs, as if you care.
Or what the same idea did when originally used by Coolidge andHoover in the 20s. The two times trickle dwn was used, it led to two large recessions/depressions and the two biggest stock market crashes in US history.
Hmmmmm. Maybe the concept isn't such good idea then?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Eh, that doesn't prove anything. Unless you think he illegally evaded his taxes, I'd assume that he, like every other honest person in the world, is paying the smallest amount of taxes he legally can. The fact that he pays less than 13% of his income does indeed go to show that there are too many loopholes for rich people. He's at least saying that he's going to raise taxes on the rich - and that's what I agree we need to do - whereas Bush is dead set against it.
Anyway, who's running for president who isn't filthy rich? Any politician that climbs that high is already rich so it's automatically against their interests to tax the rich. We're really screwed if even the ones who say they want to tax the rich aren't going to.