< Media smackdown | Main | Psst! Want to buy some wheat? >

Select A Candidate explained

Posted at 11:51 AM on January 17, 2008 by Bob Collins (17 Comments)

I'll be on Talk of the Nation from National Public Radio this afternoon around 1:40 p.m. (Central Time), for a segment they're doing looking at the political quizzes that are out there.

Minnesota Public Radio started Select A Candidate many years ago and we've done it again this year. There's one version here and a recently souped-up version here.

I believe I'm on with a columnist out of Chicago who wrote a column this week~~(which, at the moment, I cannot find online)~~ after he took several online surveys and found he came up matched to a different candidate each time.

I can't speak for the other surveys -- some of which are well done and some of which are not -- but Select A Candidate is meant to be the beginning of the online fact-gathering for people interested in candidates, not the end. You don't -- or at least you shouldn't -- log on, see which candidate you match up with, and then log off.

Neither should you assume the quiz is "wrong" if you match up with a candidate for whom you do not intend to vote. Indeed, these quizzes reinforce that we make our decisions based on many factors; issues are just one of them.

In addition, there is Bob's Theory of Political Answers at play to explain why often marginal candidates end up as most often matched (Duncan Hunter and Tommy Tancredo occupied the top position at one point or another): Candidates are more interesting and direct in their answers if they're less likely to be elected. Since the options people are given as answers are often the actual words of the candidate, people find -- shall we say -- honest and direct answers to be the most reasonable.

I'll post a link to the Talk of the Nation audio and page later on today.

Update: 2 p.m. OK, well, that was interesting. And a little bit weird since the subtext of the segment seemed to be that there's something wrong with these quizzes because they're only about issues. Given the braying -- much of it deserved -- among columnists about horse race politics and the desire to have more discussion about issues, it was a strange juxtaposition in the criticism. Nobody believes that issues alone is what should dictate the next president. But it should be a piece of the pie.

Update 5:12 p.m. - Here's the link to the interview at npr.org.

Comments (17)

second time barack obama

Posted by c | January 17, 2008 1:19 PM

Contrary to what was said on TOTN today, these candidate surveys are too simplistic to turn anyone into an informed voter. In fact, I believe they contribute to the simplification of the democratic process. The only way a voter can be informed is through independent research and thoughtful deliberation -- not by taking what amounts to a Cosmo quiz for lazy voters.

Posted by NH | January 17, 2008 2:02 PM

You're right, they're too simplistic to turn anyone into an informed voter if -- as I said on TOTN, taking a quiz is the end of the process rather than the beginning. They are an important step to turn an uninformed voter into a less-uninformed voter.

Nor should anyone, frankly, be looking at any online tool to tell them who to vote for.

But the reality, NH, is that not everyone hangs on every word of a political campaign. Your version of political utopia is a nice one, just not a realistic one. We have the electorate we have. Some are smart and engaged. Some are unengaged until the last minute.

But the Constitution gives each of them the right to vote.

Yes, some voters are lazy and perhaps if they take the survey and end up inspired to do some research, they'll be less lazy.

99% of campaigns now are designed to get you to vote for their candidate because they cry, or they're a woman, or they're black, or they tell funny jokes on Daily Show.

Don't kid yourself. Just because you watch a stump speech, or just because you know the names of everyone running, you might not be any more informed than the people you deride.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 17, 2008 2:16 PM

I was very angry that there were no questions about the environment especially global warming which I believe is the most important issue facing the world. Bio fuels are supported by just about everyone so that question doesn't count. This is my number one issue and a candidate's stand on the issue is extremely important to me.

Posted by Barbara B. | January 17, 2008 2:17 PM

Don't be angry, Barbara. It's a question we've been working on putting together for a few weeks, now. Select A Candidate is not static. We add issues as they come up in a campaign.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 17, 2008 2:18 PM

I agree with Barbara above. The scope of issues is too narrow. Just because the moderators of the national debates don't ask a question, or just because the national media aren't obsessed with a particular issue, doesn't mean it isn't important to the voting public. The people who do vote often have no access to this public policy echo chamber.

And Bob, I said research and deliberation. That entails a great deal more than knowing the names of the players and watching speeches on YouTube, or using Select-a-Candidate. Those of us who are engaged and informed have every right to be disappointed in the state of democracy today.

Posted by NH | January 17, 2008 2:47 PM

To all the goodie- two- shoe-I--my- election-homework -did- you- voters: I am happy to know that there are people who vote. No it is not the end means but as Bob stated-it is intended to be a beginning. Unfortuneately for some, they do not have the time that NH has for research. I am probably not as good a voter as NH but I still vote. I actually took a similar pole several months back and came up with Obama. This was even before the Obama Youtube was made. But I think that if I want to vote for Obama because he likes ketchup on his french fries I should have the right to do so.

Posted by c | January 17, 2008 3:11 PM

I don't disagree with a word you say, NH. But the only way to change the situation is to try to engage the voters, not to dismiss them.

Look, they're going to vote. Let's do as much as we can -- starting somewhere -- to get them engaged in the issues.

And then if they decide they want to vote for someone because their last name is "Anderson" or something, then fine. But take the caller today who had never heard of Mike Gravel (who is running a terrible campaign, but at least he's running). Step #1 is for her to get informed that there's a Mike Gravel running.

Now, the difference -- so far -- in Select A Candidate vs. previous years is in the past, the links to the candidate on the RESULTS page went direcdtly to a page I built which was loaded with audio of the candidates talking specifically about the issues.

I'm not in charge of C2008 anymore but that aspect of it has not yet been built.

So, say someone says "oh, there's a Mike Gravel running," they'd click the link and go to a page with just about everything we could assemble on Mike Gravel. That's a good thing. And, yes, maybe an issue critical to someone isn't there at a particular moment, but it's still a good thing. A good thing that could get -- and will get -- better. But still a good thing.

I did have to laugh when the show host was lamenting that it was hard to read all the possible answers and it took some time... as if that's the fault of the quiz.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 17, 2008 4:08 PM

I found this tool very helpful and insightful. I may no longer vote for a candidate I was ready to caucus for. And yes, it is about the issues ONLY, but honest to god, isn't that what we SHOULD be basing our decision on? (and not whether one likes ketchup on their fries!!) You are, in fact, hiring the next President of the free world in a very volatile time, I might add. I hope people do their research. This provided me with enough information to see what I didn't know to do further research. Very good!

Posted by Amy | January 17, 2008 4:33 PM

I think this is the point the columnist from Chicago who was on with me was making, though. That, yes, it's about the issues, but there are other qualities in a leader, too.

Personally, I've always been a big fan of inspiration. Jimmy Carter, for example, was big on the issues, solid on human rights, and had no apparent ability to inspire.

Ronald Reagan was not a big detail guy on the issues, but "the great communicator" could inspire. The Morning in America TV commercial, for example, is EXACTLY the same voice, cadence, and message of A Prairie Home Companion's "ketchup" commercials (Sample here in the RealAudio format).

Those are two extremes, of course. But they highlight the flaws of one, without the other.

To the extent the columnist -- and today's show -- seemed to call the quizzes on the carpet because they dealt only in issues, I think they missed the point of the exercise.

I do want a candidate who knows the issues. But I also want one who'll make me want to get out of bed in the morning and make me want to do what I can for a better country, too.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 17, 2008 4:50 PM

You know Amy-
sometimes if I don't know the candidate at all (such as the voting for Judges) I go on my (GASP!!!!!) intuition.

Posted by c | January 17, 2008 5:00 PM

Hence why we have the George Bush's of this country's great presidencies, c.
Too bad you can't take a moment to do some research. A vote is a good vote only when it's an informed one.

And yes, Bob, there are other qualities of a candidate you might want to consider for president. And they come into play here, too. Since Select-A-Candidate basically rated the dems all the same for me, I'm going for my non-essential, but just because it's my history too quality-first woman ever to run!

Posted by Amy | January 17, 2008 5:32 PM

Heh heh. You know, if it works for you, Amy, I think that's great.

The other interesting aspect of this, that I didn't get to on TOTN today, is the notion of disagreeing with a candidate we support.

If you listen long enough to campaigns and people talking about campaigns, you'd think that the average person falls in lockstep with the candidate on all the issues, whereas I think one of the fascinating -- and very real -- aspects of political life is reconciling those areas in which you agree with a candidate and with those areas with which you disagree.

I think an awful lot of our decisions are made on the bias of the original label. So Democrats won't consider voting for a Republican and a Republican wouldn't consider voting for a Democrat. So much of the decision is already made based on party affiliation.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that; it's the lifeblood of the political parties. But I think we do need to recognize the extent to which our minds are made up by other factors besides our mind's decision-making process. (g)

BTW, I admit to sharing C's pain when it comes to judges and soil & water conservation board etc. I admit to not spending time researching those positions. Of course, in many cases I'm told to choose only one, and only one is running.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 17, 2008 5:46 PM

I totally agree with you Bob and you make two good points. We should be able to disagree with our candidate of choice and I do on some issues. I was totally ready to start disagreeing until it became apparent that my candidate of choice might not make it when she lost Iowa. And although I still disagree with some issues, I am MORE willing now to make concessions and I think that's what happens in races like this. We are already emotionally attached, even before realizing it. It is hard to concede defeat, so we start rallying behind everything they say because we don't want to lose what we initially supported and/or liked about the candidate. I was even ready to cross party lines because I felt that strongly about the other guy that I would vote Republican if she didn't make the nomination. But then, I used our nice trusty Select-A-Candidate here and discovered I could not compromise on one issue the Republican I'd vote for would have me compromise on, and now I am back to praying my candidate is a choice. All this in one day and because of...SELECT A CANDIDATE!! Love it! (btw, I never vote for those judges! How do I know what I'm voting in?! could be one that gives me a hard time one day!)

Posted by Amy | January 17, 2008 10:50 PM

You said it yourself Amy- The media slants the political campaign to whichever direction they want (or are getting paid to do) So then, you may ask yourself, "How much of this information I am getting is accurate" My answer is that your gut never lies. I have found it to be the best gauge ever in making some rather difficult decisions. I also believe that there are no wrong answers.ie People vote for George Bush because there is something about him that they find appealing whether it is his personality or his politics. Why do you like Hilary? j Your idea of the best candidate is going to be different than your neighbors even if you give them all the wonderful facts and facets you know about your candidate, someone else just may not see your art in the same way.

Posted by c | January 18, 2008 7:26 AM

Yes, the media slants it-you can almost read which candidate the writer supports by what's being reported-hence why I'm not paying attention anymore c. I agree with you too about going with your gut-AFTER you've seen both sides of the story and know your facts, yes, that's fine. What I disagree with is going on your intuition when you don't know the facts. You wouldn't want to vote a pro-choice person in when you're pro-life, etc. Or, you wouldn't want to regret your vote later on because you didn't really know the candidate that well. I have heard so many times, "I don't know why I voted for Bush", people regretting their decision that I just think it's that important to really vote for the issues you agree with the candidate on. I like Hillary because I buy the experience bit. Actually, it was seeing the movie "Sicko" that sold me on Hillary. Her response to a Senator was so bold that I saw all the leadership qualities I needed to see in her. I think it's important to have a good vision, which Barack does, but he lacks the experience, I think, to really get anything accomplished. And he's said things to give one the impression he doesn't think much of the first woman candidate ever to run for president, but every other chance he gets, he reminds people that he's first black candidate and in fact, he's not.....Jesse Jackson was! But, I only tell my side. And I won't be volunteering for any candidates because I know it is impossible to change a made-up mind. I might be able to influence an open one, but that's about it.

Posted by Amy | January 18, 2008 12:34 PM

basing a decision upon known facts is not intuition.

Intuition is based on a FEELING.

Politicians use words, objects such as surroundings environment inorder to create a facade. Media does the same thing.

Have you ever been in the presence of a wise person, or a spiritual person, or a dishonest person?

You can feel it. This IS using your intuition.

Posted by C | January 18, 2008 3:43 PM

January 2008
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Master Archive

MPR News
Radio

Listen Now

On Air

Midday

Schedule

Shortcuts
Hourly Newscast
Hosts
Station Map

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Classical MPR
Radio Heartland

Services

Become a Sponsor

In The Spotlight

Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web.
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.