Presidential Candidate 'Computer Dating'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Presidential Candidate 'Computer Dating'

Posted by timothy on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:16AM from the ooh-you're-so-specific dept.

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!"

13 of 122 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

For More Years by captnitro · 2004-10-12 02:19 · Score: 4, Funny

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!!!
a neat toy... nothing more by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 02:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:a neat toy... nothing more by TAGmclaren · 2004-10-12 02:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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?
  
  --
  Iran has endorsed
Everyone, post your results by finkployd · 2004-10-12 02:25 · Score: 3, Funny

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
1. Re:Everyone, post your results by Loacher · 2004-10-12 02:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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
BIASED RESULTS! by justanyone · 2004-10-12 02:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
1. Re:BIASED RESULTS! by AuMatar · 2004-10-12 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?
I got some weird results by kajoob · 2004-10-12 02:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Your Results:

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

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
not so biased -- only overly simple by Shakrai · 2004-10-12 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by cpt+kangarooski · 2004-10-12 02:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
2. Re:not so biased -- only overly simple by Lisandro · 2004-10-12 07:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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 by RealProgrammer · 2004-10-12 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

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%)

--
sigs, as if you care.
Seeking Presidential Candidate by node+3 · 2004-10-12 03:12 · Score: 4, Funny

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