Visit “Vote Chooser” at www.votechooser.com.
It is the creation of Bryant Lee, 23-year old Computer Science Ph.D. candidate at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the chief cook and bottle washer of this operation, an enterprise envisioned, developed, implemented, and maintained by a staff of one: Bryant.
I spoke with one of our country’s soon-to-be computer technology successes yesterday, Friday, February 8, about how he designed this interesting and simple 10-question test to inform voters which presidential candidate most closely shares their views about Iraq, the economy, abortion, health care, and other issues important to Americans.
He launched the site one month ago (January 8, 2008) and has already received 1.5 million visitors, which is about 1.499 million more than mine. Does that sound like I am jealous? Well, yes, I am just a tad jealous.
But back to his 10 questions. The site explains how he picked the topics and, after the visitor completes the survey, he shows you how all the candidates answered, based on material from their websites, statements made in interviews, etc. Candidate answers, therefore, form the basis for the multiple choice answers he proffers.
Once you take the quiz (test, survey, electorate guidance) or whatever you wish to call this activity, you may quibble with how certain questions and answers are phrased. Asking if invading Iraq was a mistake (Yes or No), is stated simply enough; however, a better-framed question would have been “Was the action taken in Iraq necessary at that time based on the information available at that time?” Those opposing the war from Day 1 would still easily respond “No.” Others who find the term “mistake” a bit too normative (and could be influenced by how difficult post-invasion progress has been) would be better able to answer “Yes” (because Saddam was chronically defying U.N. resolutions) or “No” (because Hussein could have been safely ‘contained’ with a continued cat-and-mouse inspection regime or other international sanctions imposed by the U.N.).
You will note several other examples of how questions and answers are stated that seem to restrict respondents’ ability to accurately portray their true positions. For example, possible Iraq withdrawal options are now, within one to two years, or stay as long as necessary. The latter is well-phrased because that could mean tomorrow, two months, two years, or two centuries. However, when is now? Tomorrow? Within 60 days (as candidate Clinton is now propounding)? No later than one year? Again, I am nitpicking, but for a reason. I wish to manage your expectations of the utility of this tool.
Another question I especially like (because of its inherent flaws) is “The government should offer affordable health care to all Americans.” The answers, of course, are simple and predictable: Yes or No. Although the word “all” is controlling, I believe current discussions on health care overlook that our country for years has been offering its version of affordable health care through Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (so-called SCHIP), which the President and Congress have been fighting over recently. The real question about health care is how much should be covered and how quickly it should evolve. Should this country continue its present course of providing incremental support of health care expenses or should it take one or two big steps to underwrite some or all of the medical expenses of every person of any age of any immigration status from cradle to grave?
The manner in which some of these questions and answers are written directs people to choose closer to one extreme or the other on the political spectrum. My analysis of political data over the decades, as well as my life experience, informs me that a plurality of Americans, if not a majority, are inherently reasonable and practical in expectations of political, economic, and social solutions for our society. Few reside on either edge of the debate, but those folks are the most vocal and play a disproportionate role in articulating the issues facing us and the manner in which we should resolve them. Worse, their positions usually fractionalize the polity and guarantee enduring political tensions. That is the state in which our country lies today.
Mr. Lee has crafted a device certainly no worse than others of its ilk. In fact, I believe it is marginally better and fairer than most.
Go to Vote Chooser. It only takes about two minutes to complete. You will enjoy its ease and clarity, but watch out! You may not like the answers it provides. You may learn that the candidate who most closely parallels your political views is one for whom you would never vote.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 780 words.
© February 9, 2008
+++
YETMO: “You’re Entitled To My Opinion,” A Balanced Point of View
"To stimulate thought, debate, and introspection”