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!"

Comments

For More Years

[captnitro]

It told me I should vote for the candidate that raises the upper limit on MySQL connections. Where do those other two Skull n' Bones boys stand on slashdotting?

VOTE MYSQL_CONNECT IN 2004!!!! LET FREEDOM RING!!!

Re:For More Years

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33

Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35

Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

Warning: mysql_db_query(): A link to the server could not be established in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 46

Your Results:

Warning: sort() expects parameter 1 to be array, null given in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 168

Re:For More Years

[SandiConoverJones]

At least Michael Badnarik http://badnarik.org/?sid=322118 is a geek. Your hopes may lie with him.

PROFESSIONAL

Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible).

Moved to Montebello, CA, and held a "secret security" clearance at Northrop to work on the Stealth Bomber simulator, '85-'87.

Relocated to San Luis Obispo, CA, in 1987 as a System Administrator and computer trainer at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant; spent 10 years as a member of the Applied Technology Services Team writing software and traveling the state installing real-time data-collection servers to their remote power stations; was an instructor for hundreds of employees teaching state-of-the-art systems being installed.

Moved to Austin, TX, in 1997 where he was a programmer and a trainer for Evolutionary Technologies International. He quickly became the Senior Trainer and began traveling across the U.S., and to Canada, England and Australia, as instructor, consultant and "high-tech diplomat."

Became an independent computer consultant in 2001, but began to turn his attention (and talents as an instructor and communicator) to teaching his 8-hour "Introduction to the Constitution" class.

But, his background is not as illustriously geeky as Al Gore, whom we all know invented the internet.

a neat toy... nothing more

[Shakrai]

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

Re:a neat toy... nothing more

[TAGmclaren]

it is interesting as you say, but the biggest issue is how do you know that there's no inherent bias built into the system? the only way to decide who to vote for is to make up your own mind. This may be a tool to help you, but please, it's like telling your neighbor/newspaper columnist/random person on the street your views on everything and let them tell you who you should vote for. Fine if it works, but how do you know they don't have a vested interest?

Re:a neat toy... nothing more

[Shakrai]

but the biggest issue is how do you know that there's no inherent bias built into the system

I never said there wasn't bias built into the system. In fact this comment and my reply seem to suggest that there is bias built into the system -- or that the system is inherently flawed. I lean towards "flawed" more then "biased" but I'm the overly optimistic person by nature.

That's why I said it was a neat toy -- nothing more. I should have expanded on the thought a bit more but my boss walked by so I had to bail out of /. ;)

Re:a neat toy... nothing more

[kenneth_martens]

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. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (72%)

I removed candidates that are no longer running from your list of results. It's interesting that you have four candidates who match your views up to 70% or more according to this quiz. Let's check my results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (72%)
3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (60%)
4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (38%)
5. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (36%)
6. Cobb, David - Green Party (26%)
7. Nader, Ralph - Independent (26%)
8. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (22%)

I only get one candidate--Badnarik--who breaks the 70% threshhold. And only two candidates break 50%. That suggests to me that the candidates are not evenly distributed along ideological lines. That is, there are more candidates who hold liberal views (and thus your four candidates with 70% a or higher rating) than there are candidates who hold conservative values (as seen in my results.) This suggests several questions: why are candidates not evenly distributed throughout the ideological spectrum? Is this a bad thing for America? If so, how can we change it?

As an aside, I'm not surprised at all at my results on this quiz. I had already decided to vote for Badnarik, and I know that I support Bush over Kerry slightly. And of course all the other candidates are out of the question for me, as they support few or none of the policies I find important.

Everyone, post your results

[finkployd]

Here are the results of my answers:

Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33

Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35

Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

Warning: mysql_db_query(): A link to the server could not be established in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 46

Your Results:

Warning: sort() expects parameter 1 to be array, null given in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 1

Re:Everyone, post your results

[Loacher]

Choosing from my results, i will probably vote for: Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

Re:Everyone, post your results

[Shakrai]

Choosing from my results, i will probably vote for: Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

All of these posts of SQL errors (that poor server was slashdotted about two minutes after the story went live -- and the story isn't even on the front page) and nobody has pointed out that they are using the root SQL account with no password on a website? I guess all of the security gurus are probably over here this morning.

In any case I hope their SQL server is behind some sort of firewall. Not that anybody could manage to get into it while it's slashdotted... but still.

BIASED RESULTS!

[justanyone]

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.

Specifically, the test's first set of questions dealt with taxes. The question was something like "Are you in favor of more taxes or fewer taxes?" and gave the nod to Bush for being for lower taxes.

This hides the true position of both candidates. Bush and the Republican congress have passed the tax cuts that gave most of the benefits to the richest 1 percent, and barely anything to the middle class or working-class poor.

Kerry has proposed repealing the tax cut (also known as "raising taxes") on the richest 1% in order to pay for important social spending (medicare = healthcare so the very poor and children don't die). Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?

SelectSmart has a good set of polls for other things, but I found this poll to be VERY VERY BIASED and would challenge anyone taking it to consider the way the questions are asked.

Re:BIASED RESULTS!

[meta-monkey]

Of course corporations don't pay taxes. I own a small business, which is set-up as a sub-chapter S-corporation. Last year the corporation reported a profit of $38 on the corporate tax returns. So were no taxes paid? Of course we paid taxes. The actual profit from the corporation came to my wife and myself and our employees as salary and dividends, and we paid personal income taxes on those.

If the corporation had saved money for itself, and thereby been required to pay taxes on it, sure, money would have been paid to the federal government, but where would it have come from? It would have come from customers of the business. Taxes are just another business expense, and would be included in the price of goods and services. For example, if a corporation sells a widget that cost $90, and needs to make a $10 profit on it, it can expect to pay $1 in taxes (10% corporate tax rate). So do you think the corporation charges $100 for the widget and then just eats the $1 in taxes? Of course not. The corporation charges about $101 (fine, $101.11) for it and passes the taxes on to the government. Customers (citizens) still pay the tax, they're just unaware of it...the corporation is a tax collector for the government.

Corporate taxes are simply another way congressmen hide the tax burdens with which people are really saddled.

Re:BIASED RESULTS!

[AuMatar]

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?

Re:BIASED RESULTS!

[snol]

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.

I got some weird results

[kajoob]

Your Results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Kang - (88%)
3. Kodos -(84%)
4. 3rd Party Candidate - Go ahead, throw your vote away

Disagree

[etymxris]

It seemed like the questions were leading, but in the opposite direction. I ended up with 7% agreement with Bush.

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) (i.e., writing my own name on the ballot)
2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (81%)
3. Cobb, David - Green Party (78%)
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (78%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%)
6. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (72%)
7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (66%)
8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (65%)
9. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (64%)
10. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (58%)
11. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (56%)
12. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (56%)
13. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (52%)
14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (43%)
15. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (37%)
16. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (22%)
17. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (19%)
18. Bush, President George W. - Republican (7%)

not so biased -- only overly simple

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:not so biased -- only overly simple

[cpt kangarooski]

Actual answer: Only if we are in immediate danger (I don't purpose going to the UN if the missiles are inbound)

Of course, it would be weird going to the UN in such a case, since the UN Treaty already allows for use of force in such cases.

Re:not so biased -- only overly simple

[Kick the Donkey]

And which one of those was planned by the Iraqi government?

Re:not so biased -- only overly simple

[Kick the Donkey]

Okay... Then why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? Syria? Lebennon? Iran? To some level, they've all supported terrorisim. Why was Iraq so damned important?

Re:not so biased -- only overly simple

[Lisandro]

I missed the last debate, but something i caught reading a transcript and sounded alarms in my head was Bush saying (and i quote):

"...So I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs.
We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there. That's why he called him a grave threat.

I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why.

But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without him in power.
And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous."

So, in few words, first it was about terrorists, then about WMD, since there were no terorrists there, and now there's no WMD, it's all about Sadaam being an evil, dangerous man. Which is not something i disagree with, but it begs the question: why the fuck did the Bush administration was so eager to rush into war with Iraq - so much that they bypassed the UN completely? To this day, just like you, i have no idea.
Oil? I thought it was far fetched back then. Now i don't know.

What scares me is that so many people over the USA not only accept this, but embraces and defends this actions.

Not really biased questions

[RealProgrammer]

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:

4. Federal funding of "corporate welfare", which has been defined as "special government subsidies or benefits that are targeted to specific industries or businesses":

Rather than state the question as:

4. Federal targeting of benefits to specific industries or businesses to encourage economic growth:

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:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (81%)
3. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (64%)
4. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (41%)
5. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (34%)
6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (32%)

Seeking Presidential Candidate

[node 3]

Seeking Presidential Candidate who's not afraid to speak his mind, but afraid to change it. Must be willing to "break a few eggs" even when not making an omelet. Firm grasp of the English language not required. Aversion to science a plus. Must be staunchly pro-life before birth, but somewhat anti-life after birth.

Would like to share beautiful sunsets with said candidate, and have heard that sunset through nuclear fallout is sublime. Into kinky sex involving hoods, restraints and more than a little rough handling.

Popularity not required.

Are you my candidate? Call off the election today and tell me for it's my own good, and I'll be yours forever.

Signed,
Ms. Informed

Reverse Engineering

[4of12]

This was described as a kind of 'computer dating service' for deciding which of the remaining presidential candidates match your views most closely.

Easy - whichever presidential candidate has the most cute chicks as fans match my views the best.

HULK for President!

[xmas2003]

The Hulk has entered the race as a late candidate and you can even vote for him (versus those Puny Human Bush and Kerry!) at his official campaign site

thie article's website is a toy. here's the tool:

[evilmousse]

www.vote-smart.org

enter zip code = get all candidates you can vote on

choose a candidate and you can find out:
-a terse biography
-their voting record
-their publicly stated policy
-their financial backing
-how a rainbow of interest groups approve/disapprove of their voting record

the site is simplistic and packed with unslanted info. just as i like 'em. it's by far the best resource i've come accross yet.

to give credit, i came accross this site via one of my Senators' websites, Russ Feingold. He was cosponsor along with John McCain for campaign finance reform, and I couldn't be more pleased with him.

David Cobb for Everyone

[Caseyscrib]

I found this page very interesting - http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/who.php. They compiled a list based on everyone's responses what the idea candidate for everyone would be. I was surprised to see the results.

Winners of the presidential selector race:
36% Cobb, David - Green Party
31% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
18% Bush, President George W. - Republican
6% Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian
3% Brown, Walt - Socialist Party
2% Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat
2% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
1% Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat
1% Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat
0% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat
0% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
0% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat
0% Nader, Ralph - Independent
0% Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party
0% Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat
0% LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat
0% ideal theoretical candidate.

According to this, it would be in America's best interest if David Cobb were president. We are being shafted, because I can't honestly say I've heard his name once on TV. I was also intersted to find that he got a 68% on my matchup, ranking in at #2 behind Badnarik (who got 69%). Nobody passed the 70% mark. After reading Cobb's positions, I want to vote for this guy, but I live in NH and its going to be a damned close battle. Kerry got a 46%, which I guess is close enough. If this was not a vote for my country's future, I'd vote Green. Unfortunatly, I have to vote for the viable candidate, Kerry. In 2008 I'll vote my heart.

This page was also interesting. 63% of Americans feel we must have a balanced budget, 80% support universal health care, 58% agree with the ACLU, and 54% agree with the League of Conservation Voters. I rarely *ever* hear CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC talk about these issues, yet they are of high importance to most Americans. That goes to show you just how poor quality broadcast journalism has become in this country.