Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Baker Street Irregulars

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                 

RB-50 Political Values Indicator

Mandatory Survey for Political Candidates
  (+1)
(+1)
  [vote for,
against]

In any election year, candidates are required to fill out a survey approximately two pages in length, containing only multiple choice or Yes/No questions. The survey would contain questions such as:
Do you believe in a woman's right to choose: [Y] [N]
Would you privatize health care: [Y] [N]
What percent of the budget would you allocate towards (insert government branch here)
[0-5%] [6-10%]... etc.

Attached to each possible response is a numerical score, along with a color. A traditionally conservative response would receive a designation of "Blue," while a more Socialist response would receive a designation of "Red." In the above example, answering [Y] woman's right to choose question might get a score of 2-Red. After all scores are tallied, the value of the color with the lowest score is subtracted from the value of color with the highest score, and the overall result is given as Blue-10, or something. (This overall score might be achieved by finishing the survey with an aggregate of 30 Blue points and 20 red points.)

The scoring system is designed so that the maximum attainable value is either Blue-50 (Trent Lott), or Red-50 (Trudeau). And though this survey would have little value for voters ACTIVELY formulating opinions, it would (A): give Statistics Canada or the Census Bureau another useless project on which taxpayer money is wasted, (B): increase voter turnout by letting normally non-voting citizens to pick a candidate based on his score alone, regardless of actual policies, and (C): I could bet money on it.

WordUp, Jun 25 2004

Candidates on the issues http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
More data than you can shake a stick at; pick yer poison. [ConsultingDetective, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

Slate helps you pick your candidate http://slate.msn.com/id/2090855
You people need to get out more. [ConsultingDetective, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

How to judge a candidate http://www.smartvot...voter/judgecan.html
More than just issues makes a good leader. [ConsultingDetective, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

[link]






       This puts a lot of power in the hands of the people who write the questions. They get to frame the issues.   

       If you're looking for wagering opportunities, maybe you can get your bookie to take bets on buns and bones.
robinism, Jun 26 2004
  

       Ah, but I would make the questions pertain to current affairs and hot topics that the general public would be interested in. It wouldn't be anything obscure.
WordUp, Jun 27 2004
  

       //This puts a lot of power in the hands of the people who write the questions.//
As illustrated by the first question, "Do you believe in a woman's right to choose?" Let me guess, you are in favour of abortion rights. Someone who was against abortion would probably have changed that to "Do you believe in FOULLY and DESPICABLY MURDERING poor innocent lovely little un-born babies who never hurt anyone and have been given life by GOD so who do you think you are MURDERING them you VILLAIN?!!" Just as no-one would answer "No" to the original version, no-one would answer "Yes" to my version.

Disclaimer: this anno doesn't reflect my own views on abortion in any way, so don't anyone flame me and tell me I've got it all wrong - I probably agree with you already. :-)
spacemoggy, Jun 27 2004
  

       Putting all of the answers on a single scale would be completely pointless. The actuall answers might be worth seing though.   

       I think a small group of people could manage to frame the questions in a reasonably neutral way. You could also include a mechanism allowing candidates not to answer questions they feel are badly worded.
RobertKidney, Jun 27 2004
  

       [spacemoggy] - I was thinking something like that, but it could probably be fixed by Comittee, as [RK] points out. (The above question could be changed to "do you think abortion should be il/legal?")
Detly, Jun 28 2004
  

       I'd switch the colors around the other direction. Conservatives are typically red and liberals blue in media standard designation here.   

       I'm against using issue litmus tests to determine best-qualified candidates, for the most part.
RayfordSteele, Jun 28 2004
  

       //Conservatives are typically red and liberals blue in media standard designation here.//   

       So during the cold war you were all afraid of the very conservative menace?
RobertKidney, Jun 28 2004
  

       [l3lackEyedAngels] You could enter your answers and have them matched to the politician that most aligns with your viewpoint, thus telling you who it would be best for you to vote for.
reap, Jun 29 2004
  

       The name of the Liberal party over here is a source of confusion for some people, since it actually puts forward some of the most conservative policies this country has seen in decades. The Liberal refers purely to their "market"/economic policies (they're a follow on from whatever the opposite of the Protectionist party was).
Detly, Jun 30 2004
  

       In a fundamentally flawed system where you only have two choices, I suppose a survey verifying that the two are different would have some use. About as much as any information you get from a flight attendant about the dinner options on your cross country non-stop from LAX to BWI.   

       "Whose finger do you want on the button for the next four years? Chicken or Fish?"
contracts, Jul 01 2004
  

       There should also be a "No Comment" and a "Don't Understand" option for each question. Filling these in can make your score "Grey-50".
phundug, Jul 01 2004
  

       hahahah reminds me of an idea 'i' had a while back (i enclose the i in '''s cos probably 10 others will all jump up and shout the same) of actually enforcing all non-votes (ie peopel who dont vote) to go towards the 'apathy party', who as anyone who knows their futurama just dont really care. IE if you dont care, then the vote automatically goes to the party that doesnt care about anything - the grey party so to speak. This i thought would be excellent in making peopel vote due to 'recent' low voter turnout at elections - at least in the UK. Anyway i probably had something else to say as in a point, but never mind, ive forgotten it now
Simonus, Jul 01 2004
  

       a better idea would be to make the manifesto a legally binding document, after all the politician could have brilliant ideas pre election and post election just carry on with the status quo.
engineer1, Jul 02 2004
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle