Election Selection Assistance

For those who are still "undecided" or even "uncommitted" or possibly waveringOr even for those who think they know who their best choice is ....This was on the radio todaySmartSelect Presidential Candidate Selection Assistance (click)My results (note I unchecked the boxes on the last question to make as many candidates as possible eligible for my evaluation — similar to my Voters Rights position): The percentages given are your ratings of the individuals, hence they total more than 100%. From the website: Some may be surprised by this compared to other postings I have made on evaluating candidates (like Nader). Put the difference down to practicality of politics at this point. If there were a more just method of voting I have a feeling that my consideration of other candidates would rise in proportion to the amount my disapproval of some candidates could be registered.I did notice that there were no other republicans on the list — no McCain, etcetera: let me know if he\they show up on other results?Note who is dead last, with half the rating of second to last: no personal quandary there — and that should not be a surprise.Heh.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10-12-2004 06:36 PMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 20:02 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Seeing as no others had tried this, I put in what I felt a "stereotypical male fundie" would answer and got: Doesn't look like they consider Buchanen or any other republicans as possible candidates.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10-12-2004 06:33 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thought this topic deserves more attention.I did the questions back when this topic was first posted. But when I went to get the results tabulated, all I could get was a list of error codes. Maybe the site doesn't get along with Mozella?Judging from the lack of response, maybe a lot of people are having problems getting things to work right.May get back and try again later, even if I have to use IE.MooseThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-17-2004 12:37 PM

Here is my list... Notice who doesn't even show up on my list?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Ross Perot?actually I don't think they have anyone right of center other than the shrublet ... kind of biases the end result for all but especially for those who want a real conservative.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

actually I don't think they have anyone right of center other than the shrublet

---

(*ahem*)Lyndon LaRouche. He may be a Democrat, but he is most definitely not a liberal.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I found that some of the questions couldn't be answered. For example: Take a look at the first option. I think it is appropriate for the US to take unilateral military action against enemy nations...but Iraq wasn't one of them. We have the right to defend ourselves and we should be ready, willing, and able to go it alone if necessary, but an "enemy nation" is not one that looked at you funny.And I seriously question the results. It claims I'd love Nader and I loathe him. The man is a boob, has very dangerous ideas about how to run a government, and is incapable of seeing past his own self-importance.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

you can leave them all blank.and LaRouche should not be classed as a democrat, you are correct. But why not have McCain and Buchanan if not Perot on the expanded lists? David Duke?they have such an overwhelming list of liberals there should be more conservatives for balance, certainly they should have more in the middle types.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

you can leave them all blank.

---

But that doesn't help. How can a selector help you select when you have to leave the questions blank because none of the answers fit your opinion? Some of them had that option, but Question 6 did not.And thus, I end up supposedly like Nader when, if they had actually polled what I really thought, they would have figured out was a complete mistake.

quote:

---

and LaRouche should not be classed as a democrat

---

But he is a Democrat. The only criterion required for being a Democrat (or any other political party in this country) is simply checking the box on your voter registration form. LaRouche is a Democrat. O'Reilly got burned by this when he claimed he's an independent when his voter registration form clearly lists him as a Republican.LaRouche is not a liberal."Democrat" and "liberal" are not synonyms.

quote:

---

But why not have McCain and Buchanan if not Perot on the expanded lists?

---

Because they did not run for president in this cycle.

quote:

---

they have such an overwhelming list of liberals there should be more conservatives for balance

---

What is this fascination with "balance"? Since when did that become the smart way of doing things? When you are investigating something, you don't strive to be "balanced." You don't strive to be "fair." You strive to be "accurate."None of the people you mentioned ran for president this time around. Why on earth include them in survey to determine who you ought to vote for president?I left all questions blank and got the following list, all scoring 0% (which, I assume, is everybody they're ranking):1. Bush, President George W. - Republican
2. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
3. Your ideal theoretical candidate.
4. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian
5. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party
6. Cobb, David - Green Party
7. Nader, Ralph - Independent
8. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party
9. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat
10. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
11. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
12. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat
13. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat
14. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat
15. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat
16. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat
17. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat
18. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural LawNow, the Natural Law Party and the Constitution Party as well as the Libertarians can hardly be called "liberal." And given the amount of financial backing Nader has received from the Republicans (including legal advice from the RNC committee about how to get on the ballot in Florida), I find it hard to claim that Nader is "liberal" (let's not forget his comment disdaining equal rights for gay people as "genital politics.") And while it is true that the political spectrum is much more complicated than a simple liberal/conservative dichotomy, I do not see their list as being heavily weighted with "liberals."I see it as a list of people who actually ran for president this time around. Since a Republican is in office, no other Republican ran against him.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Excuse me for thinking that the second one could include Buchanan and Perot if not McCain ... and for thinking that it could be used to measure more than just simplistic political lines.Hmmm ... interesting that "your ideal candidate" came in third??? No bias there?My point is that, like the California Governor election, a mass of candidates on one side versus one on the other will always show higher approval\favoritism of those for the one candidate. I don't really think that "helps" those with conservative values to pick a valid candidate in this case. Put fiscally conservative Perot in the mix and the fiscal conservative scoring for Bush will go down; put religious conservative Buchanan in the mix and the religious conservative scoring for Bush will go down. Put patriotic conservative McCain in the mix and the patriotic conservative scoring for Bush will go down. Allowing Bush to score high in these areas gives a false sense that he matches the values. True, and republican and conservative aren't either. Certainly a Massachusetts Republican is more liberal than a Mississippi Democrat.Imagine what it would be like if we were free of the political parties and could concentrate on the political values instead?QUESTION: what happens to the election if some gross {impeachable} error by Bush comes to light in the time between now and the election that renders him unsuitable to continue even to the GOP faithful? After Nov 2nd but before the Electoral College?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Cobb, David - Green Party (86%) Click here for info
3. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (86%) Click here for info
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (81%) Click here for info
5. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (78%) Click here for info
6. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (72%) Click here for info
7. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (69%) Click here for info
8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (69%) Click here for info
9. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (68%) Click here for info
10. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (61%) Click here for info
11. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (59%) Click here for info
12. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (55%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (43%) Click here for info
14. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (38%) Click here for info
15. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (32%) Click here for info
16. Bush, President George W. - Republican (16%) Click here for info
17. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (13%) Click here for info
18. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (12%) Click here for info

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

Excuse me for thinking that the second one could include Buchanan and Perot if not McCain

---

Perot? Perot didn't run! He didn't even run last time! Why on earth would Perot show up on a survey about who you might want to vote for in 2004?And Buchanan isn't a legitimate candidate because the Reform Party collapsed during his attempted coup (as of August 11, there was only $18.18 in the treasury and it was over $300,000 in debt.) When it collapsed, he didn't go on in attempt to be an Independent. He didn't simply "withdraw from the race." He was kicked out by his own constituents.Neither person is an "unannounced" candidate. They are decidedly not in the running.

quote:

---

Hmmm ... interesting that "your ideal candidate" came in third??? No bias there?

---

Nope. It's most likely the order in which the items were entered into the list. If you want to find some sort of bias in putting the two most viable candidates before a hypothetical one, then go right ahead.

quote:

---

My point is that, like the California Governor election, a mass of candidates on one side versus one on the other will always show higher approval\favoritism of those for the one candidate. I don't really think that "helps" those with conservative values to pick a valid candidate in this case.

---

For the third time, there is not only one conservative on this list. Lyndon LaRouche is conservative. The Constitution, Libertarian, and Natural Law parties are conservative. I would put Nader in the conservative camp, too (assuming I don't get a "lunatic" category).And for umpteenth flipping time: NO OTHER REPUBLICAN IS RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE. The reason you have umpteen Democrats on the ballot is because there is no Democrat in the White House. The same thing happened in reverse when Clinton was the incumbent in 1996: No Democratic opposition (of any seriousness) and 10 Republican contenders.While technically, there were 14 other Republicans that ran for president in this cycle against Bush, you've never heard of any of them and they received practically no response during the entire primary season (nobody managed to scrape together more than just over 1% of the Republican vote in any of the primaries.) The last time there was ever a serious challenge for an incumbent was 1980 when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter.

quote:

---

Put fiscally conservative Perot in the mix and the fiscal conservative scoring for Bush will go down

---

But Perot isn't running. Why on earth would you even consider him?And with the other conservatives on the list, what are you whining about?

quote:

---

put religious conservative Buchanan in the mix and the religious conservative scoring for Bush will go down.

---

But Buchanan isn't running. Why on earth would you even consider him?And with the other conservatives on the list, what are you whining about?

quote:

---

Put patriotic conservative McCain in the mix and the patriotic conservative scoring for Bush will go down.

---

But McCain isn't running. Why on earth would you even consider him?And with the other conservatives on the list, what are you whining about?

quote:

---

Allowing Bush to score high in these areas gives a false sense that he matches the values.

---

Incorrect. Bush will only score as well as your answers match his positions. You seem to think this is a zero-sum game. As you will recall, the direct statement of the site says that the percentages add up to more than 100%.In other words, it makes absolutely no difference how many other candidates are on the list. If your responses to the questions match up 76% with Bush's positions, then you will receive a 76% rating for Bush. It doesn't matter if you would match up 100% with McCain. You'll still get a 76% with regard to Bush.

quote:

---

QUESTION: what happens to the election if some gross {impeachable} error by Bush comes to light in the time between now and the election that renders him unsuitable to continue even to the GOP faithful? After Nov 2nd but before the Electoral College?

---

That'd depend upon if he won or not. There's nothing that says a president who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors needs to be impeached (ahem...Reagan). If Bush wins the election, then there will be the question of Bush resigning before he can be thrown out (a la Nixon) or if he'll force the issue. In either case, Cheney would become president.If he didn't win, I doubt anybody would try to do anything about it since he'll be gone in just over two months. Again, he might be pressured to step down and Cheney would then become president, but that'd require a huge travesty on Bush's part such that it would be clear that he would be incapable of governing in the interim.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

But that is my point: because a republican conservative taking the test would only see bushes rating they would feel very comfortable with their choice instead of questioning why they can't vote for the candidate that scores higher according to thier personal values.I also think that the valuation of bush's answers are subject to drift in evaluation due to the absence of competition. It depends on the actual coding for the site, and I am not (nor are you) privy to them.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if you would match up 100% with McCain. You'll still get a 76% with regard to Bush.

---

​

But that is my point: because a republican conservative taking the test would only see bushes rating they would feel very comfortable with their choice instead of questioning why they can't vote for the candidate that scores higher according to thier personal values.

---

How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in?MCCAIN ISN'T A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.This test was to determine who in this current election cycle would most closely match your political positions. It only pulled from candidates that were actually around in this current election cycle. McCain was not a candidate in this election cycle, therefore he is not available as a potential result. The fact that he might be your perfect candidate is irrelevant: [I][B]HE WASN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.[/i][/b]

quote:

---

I also think that the valuation of bush's answers are subject to drift in evaluation due to the absence of competition.

---

Incorrect. Bush's answers are Bush's answers. It doesn't matter how many other conservative candidates are out there (and as I pointed out, there are at least three others on that list.) If your political views and Bush's match 76%, then that's the answer you get no matter how many others are on the list.The only way another candidate's positions have any effect is in the overall ranking of candidates. But that has nothing to do with their political party...only their positions.

quote:

---

It depends on the actual coding for the site, and I am not (nor are you) privy to them.

---

As I said, I input a blank survey and received the full list of candidates, all getting 0%. Therefore, I know who they were looking at. If I had the time, I would run through the gamut of possible responses and by looking at what the results were, I could determine how each question was weighted and what the positions of each candidate were.I don't need to see the coding directly.Methinks what you were trying to say is that Bush would change his political stance if McCain were in the race. That may be, but that has nothing to do with the survey. The survey will use whatever Bush's positions happen to be and compare your responses to those positions.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truly, how many times before it sinks in ... this does not show the weighting given to each question by the candidates, and in particular it doesn't show how {high} bushes "published" responses (which have little real validity in determining what he actually believes the way actual actions do) are weighted in the ABSENCE of anyone FURTHER on the conservative spectrum than bush.they give out 10's when they know who is left in competition, but leave room for 10's when there are others that could do better.on the liberal side you have a bunch of people vying for the 10's in their target issueson the conservative the field is sadly lacking (in more ways than one)there are also issues that would be raised IF McCain and Buchanan and Perot were included in the mix that are MISSING because they aren't, and THAT biases the results.I conclude that this bias favors bush. you can conclude whatever you want.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}