h a l f b a k e r yFaster than a stationary bullet.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
People who find party politics too simplistic may want to cast their vote for a representative who matches them on as many opinions as possible. However, they may not have the time to review all candidates on all relevant issues.
Enter the web-based Election Compass. A set of multiple choice questions
spans a broad spectrum of policy issues. Electoral candidates answer the questions, and rank each question in terms of importance in their view (high/medium/low).
Voters fill out the exact same questionnaire, and get a list of the closest matching politicians.
Pick Your Candidate
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php
[tatterdemalion, Mar 19 2009]
Candidate Calculator
http://www.allmilit...ate_calculator.html
[tatterdemalion, Mar 19 2009]
VoteMatch Quiz
http://www.speakout...e2006.asp?quiz=2008
[tatterdemalion, Mar 19 2009]
Glassbooth.org
http://glassbooth.org/
[tatterdemalion, Mar 19 2009]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
"won't anyone think of the child terrorists who took our jobs that the previous government has been wasting tax money on?" |
|
| |
I like this and would use it. + |
|
| |
Thanks for the link rcarty, but that's what I consider to be "party" politics. The Election Compass would find matches at a finer grain than a position on two rather generic and simplistic axes. |
|
| |
There is a natural incentive for candidates to take the test: if they don't, they lose the entire potential electorate that bases its vote on the compass. |
|
| |
I saw quite a few of these sorts of polls online last year during the primaries. Exactly like this - you responded to a series of questions about issues and it came back with the name of the candidate that most closely matched your choices. |
|
| |
The candidates' positions are based on public statements, campaign platforms, and in some cases, voting records. There's no need to have the candidates take the same tests, their positions are easily discoverable on most issues, and they wouldn't take it anyway. |
|
| |
Nice links tatterdemalion, that's exactly what I was thinking of. Except that here it is used in a rather useless way: U.S. presidential candidates. There's only a handful of them, and if you don't know their positions on each and every last issue after two years of campaigning, then don't bother voting ;) |
|
| |
I think this should be used for legislative elections, i.e. for members of the legislative body rather than the executive. For one thing, they are typically many, and little-known. Also, in the executive, the "getting things done" history of the candidate is almost as relevant as their positions, whereas the issues should be (in my view) the main consideration when electing legislators. |
|
| |