About that SelectSmart survey

[Mz Pip]

Many of us have taken it and are using it to justify who we do or do not support. I took it too and found the results somewhat odd. I came out more pro Bush than pro Wesley Clark. WTF? I agrre with Bush on nothing, absolutly nothing. I have read plenty about Clark and am alligned with him on most issues - yet I come up with a -7% for Clark. All I can say is NO WAY is that right. I think I am pretty solidly aware of my political leanings and don't need some silly survey to tell me what I think or who I agree with.

Still I find it odd that I would get a better agreement with BushCo than with Clark. Where did this survey come from? Who are these people? I'm no tin foil hat person but I am starting to beleive that this is some group trying to take attention off Clark and divert people to the Green Party. I came out 100% Green and I find that pretty unbelievable. It will be a cold day in Hell before I vote for Nader.

So I just thought I'd put this out there and question the credibility of this SelectSmart survey.

MzPip
:dem:

[absolutezero]

1. I dont trust it

It says I'm 100% kucinich
99% green
98% dean (my actual candidate)
and the rest are always mixed up....i retook the survey ten times and those three where always the top with different numbers (but denis at 100% and the greens at 99% always)

I tried the repuke answers and it gave me dubya everytime... no change

[gottaB]

2. selectsmart is biased

I have made the argument in other threads. I'll reiterate and cite examples.

I feel that I am reasonably informed about the Democratic candidates. Moseley-Braun represents my views on most issues, but Kucinich and Kerry also represent many of my views. Selectsmart will not show me that I support Moseley Braun above the others.

Here are some areas of bias. First is the choice of issues, obviously. For example, it is extremely important to me that the President is neither arrogant nor self-righteous, that s/he is intelligent and civil and capable of listening, and that s/he sees the value in open, civil discourse. Those qualities, which were not asked about, are indeed a part of this campaign. All of the Dems would be favored over Dubya by their inclusion. Moseley Braun's civility and diplomatic skills stand out.

A second are of bias concerns how issues are framed. On anything that matters to us, we tend to know the ins and outs of the issues, and we are sensitive to nuances in the candidates' statements. For example, on taxes and spending, selectsmart tells us that Moseley Bruan "Opposes the positions of the National Taxpayers Union. Supported 19% of the Concord Coalition's pro-balanced budget positions. However, she voted for a Balanced Budget amendment." The reason that appears to be a contradiction to them is that they haven't investigated the candidate's own positions, but instead rely on politically biased interest groups. In fact Moseley Braun supports balanced budgets. However, unlike Republican and Libertarian extremists, she does not want to arrive at balanced budgets by slashing social services while allowing the wealthy to escape taxation. There is nothing contradictory in her position. She simply approaches it with a different set of priorities than some groups that happen to also be in favor of balanced budgets.

A third area of bias is incomplete data. "Compiling data" is the response given. For example, Selectsmart reports "compiling data" for Moseley Braun's position on voting rights for released felons. In fact, Moseley Braun has spoken very directly to this issue, for instance at the Rainbow/PUSH Presidential forum in Chicago. She has stated that convicted felons should not be denied the right to vote once they are released from prison. We all know, after Florida 2000, that this is an important civil liberties issue for African Americans, as it should be for all Americans. Moseley Braun has been campaigning for African American votes, and she has made this an issue. There's no good excuse for votesmart not to know about her position on disenfranchisement.

A final area of bias concerns the use of outdated "scorecards." Issues change, in their importance and in the way they are debated. Candidates positions evolve, and during the campaign they may rapidly evolve as candidates come to grips with concerns expressed by attentive voters, other candidates, or the media. For example, John Kerry it is said has a 100% NAACP rating, although recently he has chosen to violate the NAACP boycott of South Carolina. Edwards has honored that boycott. To cite another example, Moseley Braun isn't given an aclu rating, although she is raising issues of civil liberties and constitutional law that are in line with the ACLU's current positions, and in fact reflect the issues they are currently most concerned with. The data are simply not up to date.

[Mairead]

3. You should mail them if you think they're biased

I did, and they say they strongly want the survey to reflect candidate's real positions. Curt (the creator) says he mailed all the campaigns and that Dean's staff specifically said that Dean's positions are characterised fairly. (He only mentioned Dean because that was the context of my mail...i'm sure if you asked about CMB he'd tell you whether her staff also responded.)

One of the ...well, it's either a feature or a bug, but I can't quite decide which... 'things' about the survey, according to Curt, is that it only uses verified positions. It doesn't use blue-smoke-and-mirrors stuff. So if some candidate is the only one to have a position on the issue, and you go for that issue, then you're marked down as going for that candidate, too. Which is in part why so many people are shown as preferring Kucinich as their first choice: he has the most completely articulated set of policies, so, if you like those policies, you must like Kucinich! CMB, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a lot of policies articulated (not that I could find on her site, when I went looking--I like her too, and was disappointed to see so little) so the only way you'll get her as your first choice is if you ignore all the questions on which she has taken no verifiable position!

Hope that helps dispel some suspicions.