Working on a new project. A component of it is voter education. Could use your help insofar as a completely unscientific poll. Call it brainstorming.

What is it you wished you knew about a candidate before voting? What, to you, is the most important consideration when deciding who to vote for?

I've recently made a decision to not vote for any candidate who airs or approves commercials that do nothing but attack their opponents.

of course, voting for the ones that don't still require them to meet my weird ass political standards (stance on free speech, gun rights and other constitutional issues, along with gay rights and immigration)

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I doubt that the responses you get here will help at all because most of us who dive into politics on the forum know when we type that everything we post will be questioned and need to be defended. That said, I would want to know a candidate's stances on the level-appropriate questions from the following list (ie: asking a State Senatorial Candidate about the National debt is silly):

1~ our National debt.
2~ privacy issues (including same sex marriage, religious preference, wire-tapping, etc.).
3~ federal aid allowing states to circumvent their state constitutions.
4~ separation of church & state.
5~ simplification of the tax code.
6~ the balance of power and how it is currently implemented.
7~ OH's SC ruling about officer's estimation of speed.
8~ high speed rails that only travel 29 mph.

So this is going to sound like snark, but it's an honest to God serious answer. I would not have voted for Obama had I known it would create the legion of Glenn Beck.

_________________

Are we talking about some sort of magical "what they *REALLY* think" or what they are just gonna tell us to get elected?

Frankly at this point, I don't believe shit any of them say.

_________________

Ahh, but as an interesting counter-point I think many of us agree with the principle factors above (tho it may vary in terms of importance). But you didn't include your stance on these, and by not doing so, you've answered his question correctly I think. Well stated.

To me there isn't a "magic question" that you can ask a candidate. I have to look at all their actions and stances on various issues. I will ask them why they voted/acted on a certain item and see if their answer is a political cya answer or if it is an actual this is what I believe answer.

of the generic questions you could ask:
Which is more important fairness or equality of enforcing laws?
Where does government's money come from?

(and a pointed question)
Why are the Democrats and Republicans making it so difficult for other parties to have access to ballots? Shouldn't any person that meets the qualifications to hold the office be able to have their name on the ballot?

I'm not looking for a magic question to ask a candidate. To be honest, I don't care about the candidates at this point.

There are a lot of websites out there that have information about candidates. They shouldn't be the focus. Instead, this new site is going to be all about you, the voter. And the way I'm picturing it so far, campaigns and elections will only be a small part of it. I'm hoping the site's meat will be used after the campaigns are over. The idea isn't to change campaigns, but to change the way government operates. If campaigns are changed, it'll only be a side effect.

Kula: That's a good list. Can you give me more info about #3? The rest, I think I can more or less understand.

If there is a Kmart on one side of the street, do you think it is ok for a Target to build on the other side of the street.

Hm...it's just so hard to really believe or even care about anything that comes out of politics now. Even if you can manage to get a straight answer from someone, there's so many other factors that can interfere.

If I could know one thing for 100% sure - say if a magic genie gave me the wish or whatever - I would want to know if the candidate really had the best interests of the nation at heart.

Not the best interests of his own party, religion, personal values, whatever...just the best interests of everyone, even if it conflicted with something he might personally believe.

I know, I know. It sounds as cliche as "World Peace"...but oh well.

Good answer Bov, if I had a truthful answer about one thing that's a good one to pick.

For Leo's question, I would like the major policy plans to be explained in more detail. Not the nuts and bolts, but the the reasoning behind why they think it would work and how they envision it playing out in the near and long term. Most importantly I would like responses that acknowledge critics that say why they are bad policy ideas and why they disagree. I know this is done to some degree, but in too broad of brush strokes imo. I think they dumb everything down for the public because too detailed of information makes them easier targets for political opponents to attack.

For myself lately i have been looking for politicians that most closely follow the "none of my business" idea as there is plenty of other stuff that they need to work on that is everyones business.

Examples

Gay Marriage - None of my business what 2 people do
Abortion - again none of my business
Islamic Center in NYC - none of my business i live in TN

HealthCare - our business because we pay for the uninsured either via taxes or higher prices for medical services.
Economy - our business
War - our business
National Debt - our business since we own the gov, we own the debt.

Grandstanding on issues that are none of their business is the quickest way for a politician to lose my vote. Politicians should be servents not rock stars.

Well, what I'm referring to is that most (if not all) states require budgets to be balanced. There can be no borrowing on the state level to run the state. Capital improvements can be financed but not basics. We are now at the point where, through grants, the Federal Government is borrowing money to give to the states so the process pretty much circumvents the state constitutions.

I've been trying to think of an honest answer to this question, but the honest answer is this.

There's nothing you can tell me about a candidate that I'll believe at this point. It's all a song and dance, a pony show, catering to what they think the people want and then doing whatever the hell benefits politicians the most in the end. The one time I voted, believing that someone GOT IT, rather than a lesser of two evils....well, we see how that has turned out. Even on civil rights issues that he clearly should know better about, both from experience and his experience with constitutional law, he's turned out to be at least as worse as Clinton in the amount of damage he's doing...possibly worse before he's done. I'm beyond disillusioned at this point and because there's nowhere to channel the angry part of it, it is mostly turning into apathy. They're gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of what I vote or why I vote.

_________________

Y'know, Rugen, that's exactly why I'm working on this project. I feel the same way: disillusioned and troubled that little progress has been made.

So I've shifted my attention away from getting people elected and am trying to creating a tool to help them govern effectively and help the rest of us play a larger role in that.

Don't be surprised if you run into a lot of skepticism there.

Uninformed voters don't care and just do whatever the cheerleaders for their team tell them to do.

Informed voters like Rugen just find themselves falling into apathy because they realize that - no matter how informed they are - none of the choices are what they thought they were.

It's hard to have much faith in the system right now. Sometimes it seems like it only exists to prop itself up.

Oh, I fully expect it. Hell, I get enough of it from myself.

But I've got to do something. And what I've been trying up to now hasn't had much of an effect (some, maybe).

It's that apathy and lack of faith that enables the people we elect to stray.

I think it's great that you're doing this, Leo.

But, do you really believe that it's apathy of voters and lack of faith?

I tend to be pathetically naive enough to still believe that many of the freshman congressmen still run for office to 'do the right thing' and then get sucked into a system where there's no time to actually read legislation, forget taking the time to consider the repercussions. Where you have to rely on people who know each subject more thoroughly than you, regardless of their biases. Where the pressure from the party leadership is such that they either toe the party line on most issues and maybe pick the 2-3 they are most passionate about to stand firm on or give up and return to private life. Where if they are deluded enough to believe they can still accomplish something important if they siomply stay longer they must start raising money for re-election immediately.

I don't know that there is any solution to the mess that has become the Washington system.

Yeah, what Kula said, too.

I often wonder if we haven't outgrown the current system of government that we use. Or if it's outgrown us, as big as its become. =O

Forgot this part I wanted to comment on.

Our current campaigning system is probably a huge part of the problem. Campaigns are so long now and so reliant on money that the joke about starting your next campaign once you get elected is probably not far from the truth.

Not to mention that - since you're reliant on all that money and backing for such a long, expensive campaign - that candidates do end up having to bow to the party rather than be the individuals that we voted for.

I'm seriously thinking that a much shorter campaign season with a limit or even removal of all these commercials, flyers, mailings, signs, etc and with a greater focus on just a series of debates and/or addresses before the election might be a far better system for everyone.

I wouldn't say we've outgrown it, but we do have to adapt it. I doubt 300 million people were in the framers' minds.

To restate what you're saying, as I see it, the problem is that campaigns have too much control over the media (and/or through it). Perhaps one way to re-balance that power is instead of restricting content (which certainly has its merits, but is mired in constitutional protection), but by delivering more and creating reliable sources from which to find it. Lord knows, newspapers aren't filling that role; there's too little investigative journalism. And neither are blogs; they're almost always too biased (and who can blame them, they're usually volunteers writing because they care about a subject).

Well, in a grand sense, yes -- I believe (perhaps also naively) that if you care enough about something, you act on it. That's oversimplifying, sure, but it's definitely part of the problem. How many good people don't run or even take part in the process just because they feel disenfranchised.

Like you, I also believe that the system has a habit of twisting the people we elect. Though not likely the only factor, I'm damn confident in the belief. I don't think that's naive. It's true of anyone, elected or not. The position you're in, your daily dealings with life shape who you become and how you see the world. It's inevitable.

For lack of a better metaphor (and just for the record, this one kind of stinks), the system eventually breaks their legs. We typically respond to that by getting angry when they can't walk the line they promised (or the one we think they should). Often, we'll pity them and accept meager results thinking it's the best they can do. Eventually, we replace most with a less damaged version. Instead, what we need to do is give them a crutch.

And no, that's not what PACs and other political action groups do. They shove. And politicians shove back, not to mention whatever opposing groups exist. That's all been done before and not what I want to do here.

I think it's time to bridge the gap between representative democracy and the people being governed. Not a direct democracy, but a superdemocracy, where decisions are still made by the people we elect to represent us, but a larger chunk of the work leading up to a vote is in the hands of the citizenry. I'm calling it People Powered Policy. The concept isn't ready yet, but I'm working on it and I hope you'll help me work out the kinks.

The majority of the American public have virtually no understanding of policy or its impact. Go ask 20 people what their marginal tax rate is. I would guess less than 3 people could answer that on average. I would guess most people don't even know what "marginal" means.

How then, can you expect these people to have any reasonably intelligent input on policy.

We have a representative government because the expectation is that smarter, motivated people will lead. That simply doesn't happen because only the very poor and very rich can afford to be in politics. Rob Blagojevich... need I say more? The guy can't turn on a computer, but married into money and was propped up as one of the most powerful people in the country.

I want some people who actually have a clue, and frankly - most politicians are dumb as dogshit. I mean, George Bush? They guy barely made it through college. I don't want a bunch of academics running the country (read psuedo-intellectuals like Obama).

I would like to see a bi-partisan committee of 15-30 PhDs constuct an overall leadership evaluation. The docs would be from across a variety of fields and each candidate would be evaluated and scored publicly.

For example:
George Bush scored this (100 scale):
Science: 45%
Basic Math: 63%
Algebra: 23%
Advance Math (Calc/Geo/Etc): 1%
Economics: 15%

I would also like each candidate to state a formal position on 10 different issues that is more than 1 sentence and less than 4.


Something like that.

At least if you had some sort of formal score, people might pay a 1/4 of a second attention to it... but doubtful.

That's why direct democracy is flawed. The larger the population, the more uninformed of a decision is likely to be made.

The key difference is that I'm not looking for 100% participation, the inclusion of uninformed beliefs, or a large chunk of everybody's time. There has to be an element of education, where you can say what's important to you and get meaningful information about where politicians stand on the issue and what they've done about it. Much of that is out there already, but gathering all the data in one place and presenting it in a simpler, easier to relate to method is still needed.

Funny enough, I had a similar thought about some kind of leadership rating system earlier today, though that may be beyond the purview of this project. The conclusions that would inevitably be drawn by that kind of analysis could be nitpicked into oblivion.

What I might attempt is a rating system that compares their stated beliefs/positions/promises to their actions, gauging their hypocriticalness and effectiveness. Can you believe what they say and could they get something done about it?

Both pieces have to be available: the easy and the complex, the summary and the report, the blurb and the bill -- and a layer in between explaining the complex in simple language.

I've always felt it would be useful to the country if politicians had 'sounding boards' of informed people of divergent views who gave them individual feedback weekly and prior to major votes to combat the 'Washington Effect'.

The problem as I have considered how it could work is defining 'informed' and 'divergent' and making the selection and serving process nonpublic. If it were public I believe the wrong people would be drawn to participate and the right people would be kept out.

Another idea that has popped around my head for the last few years is to split up representation. Replace each individual Senator and US Representative with a committee of 5 seperately elected individiuals, each with seperate areas of responsibility. The purpose of this would be twofold: to remove the excuses for using biased lobbyists as 'expert advisers' and to complicate the voting process both for the voter and for the parties.

If you were to do the above and additionally remove the party designators on ballots many uninformed people would stay away from the polls on election day and that would be a good thing in my mind.

The unwashed masses have taken over the political process and the political discourse is both shaped for and aimed at them.

While the hypocrisy ranking sounds hilarious, I think it risks coming off as way too negative. This may just be my own cynicism talking, but I suspect most politicians would score dismally low on the hypocrisy index -- and I don't want to vote for the "least hypocritical" candidate. Effectiveness is probably the more useful metric, but how do you disentangle the two? What's observably different between a situation where a politician didn't even try to accomplish a campaign promise, and one in which she tried and failed?

Anyway, cool idea Leo. I'll give this some thought and try to come up with some constructive answers to your original question.

Commercials do it for me sadly I fit into the Stupid American Category, also what is posted in the news about said Candidate.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

You're right, and it obviously would never happen.

There are studies that already do this, right? They itemize campaign promises and then show voting / action history. The problem somewhat goes back to my original position - even if people uphold their promises, so what? Maybe they're stupid promises. Bush promised to privatize social security. Thank god that failed. Obama promised to publicize health care... jury is still out on that one.

My problem is that "promises" are vague and non-descript. Their implementation may or may not be beneficial.

I do totally get what you're talking about. Basically list what people promise and then somehow link that to their legislative action. Unfortunately, I just don't see it as possible. For example, right now Obama is proclaiming he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts... except not for "the rich". Republicans are stone walling tax cuts. Kinda funny.

Let's say the Republicans pass the cuts as OBama proposed. Did they fulfill a promise and keep taxes low? Or did they bow to the Dems and raise taxes on the rich?

Again - the Congressional Budget Office sorta rates congress. Sorta. But, almost none of the electorate gives a crap because their analysis cannot be summarized into a 1 sentence catch phrase.

We are in such colossal deep shit right now. The parties have gotten so good at spinning their message, the federal governemnt has tons of power, and our attention span continues to shrink.

So... I feel like I'm trying to argue against what you're attempting - and I'm not. I guess what I am pointing out is that while rating their commitment to their promises is good, I think you also need to rate the effectiveness of their policy (which is obviously difficult).

You could have a commission that forces each politician to state his 2-4 key performance indicators for a given initiative. So for Obamacare, they calimed it would increase health coverage by 25%, decrease health care costs by 10%, and actually save 900 million tax dollars. Well, did he? I honestly don't know (and I like to think I'm more informed than most people).

If you rated Obama, you would have to say he was successful in getting health care. Again - you can only get the real score several years after the fact. But, some sort of large bipartisan collection of experts would analyze the bill and give a project score card. That is - are they really accomplishing the things they're claiming they want to accomplish.

This would be similar to various "fact finder" sites and services.

I ramble and I'm not sure I wrote anything productive

Yeah, a lot of that info is already out there. The last thing I want to do is reinvent the wheel, but I'd consider consolidating that information.

One point you made I want to revisit. Effectiveness of their policy even more important than effectiveness of their rhetoric, and yeah, so much of it can't be judged until way down the line. That part's going to be tough, but that's really the key here. The point of the whole project is to develop more effective policy.

We'll see how it works out. I need to refine my project plan much more because it keeps growing by the day. I also need to find some more knowledgeable people than myself to reach out to for input. I know a few people who may be able to help, if they're even interested, but want to have more of a working model ready first. The whole thing may be a little difficult to conceptualize otherwise.

It would be nice to see a non-biased site that does evaluate the candidates. Leo, you would need someone that "balances" your beliefs. I am not saying that you are wrong, but your personal biases would show if you are the one person compiling the data (as would mine if I were the one person compiling the data)

I think I could make a fairly, uhh, fair presentation, but you're still right.

Long term, the idea is to bring on a multi-partisan board to oversee things. That goes back to my previous post and finding "some more knowledgeable people."