First of all I realize that for so many of us “gut feeling” counts for a great deal, but I find it an interesting exercise to try to quantify such things. And I think it’s easy to forget things (for instance, I’m not about to vote for someone clinging to life) that we take for granted. I just think it would be interesting to see how people arrive at their decisions.
Anyway, this is what I was able to come up with:
| Previous decisions in elected gov’t | 36 pts |
| Stated campaign platform | 21 |
| Political Party | 10 |
| Professional decisions outside gov’t | 8 |
| Electability | 5 |
| Personal bkgd outside office (family, childhood, etc.) | 5 |
| Amount of elected experience | 4 |
| Demos/minority representation | 4 |
| Speaking style/charisma/”hope” | 4 |
| Current economic status | 3 |
| Total | 100 points |
Traditional Bush v Gore-inspired note: This rubric applies to this moment only. If you want to convince me that I’m supporting the “wrong” candidate in a given race, please do not refer to this. This is an intellectual exercise for a lazy weekend, not a roadmap to life.
Please share widely!
Previous decisions in elected gov’t 0 pts
Stated campaign platform 20
Political Party 40
Professional decisions outside gov’t 10
Electability 5
Personal bkgd outside office (family, childhood, etc.) 0
Amount of elected experience 0
Demos/minority representation 5
Speaking style/charisma/”hope” 20
Current economic status 0
Total 100 points
<
p>
My point: Apply a rubric if you want, but its not the guy who has the best scores, but the guy who does the best with the scores he’s given.
some of those things are prerequisites to be a credible candidate of any persuasion, and then among candidates that have the prereqs, i further winnow it down based on their message, which i receive from speeches and background and demos, and among those who send a good message, I look at their proposals, previous decisions, and stated campaign platform. Hopefully there’s at least one candidate left when i get done.
Almost no one votes that way, nor do I think it’s a particularly good way to vote. Laundry lists of issues just aren’t appealing to most voters.
<
p>
Some voters vote based on likeablility, some on single-issues, some on two or three issues, some on eloquence, some on experience… but rarely a rubric.
Stephen Colbert, for example…
I hope that when you write “minority representation,” you are not implicitly including women as a minority. Women and Blacks are sociological minorities, because historically we were legally able to hold virtually no elective offices in spite of together being a majority of Americans. But, women and minorities are 65% of America. We are the numerical majority.
<
p>
How many points do you give in your scale for “majority representation”?
<
p>
More importantly still, how many points do you give in your scale for social justice? Many of us who fought to end South African Apartheid because a 25% white majority ruled over a 75% Black majority there. We should equally be able to perceive the manifest injustice of a 35% minority of white men in America holding a perpetual monopoly of the presidency in a country where 65% of citizens are women and minorities. If that doesn’t bother us then we are hypocrites unable to apply to ourselves the same standards that we apply to others.
<
p>
The white male supremacy paradigm will be on the ballot in 2008, and Americans will decide whether white men, in spite of their status as a numerical minority, must nonetheless hold the American presidency in perpetuity to the absolute exclusion of all others. Those who vote for the white male supremacy paradigm are actually voting to perpetuate the relative poverty and low status of those women and minorities (“the poor”) whom they claim to desire to help. And so I say to them, “Don’t do us any favors”.
<
p>
We in the American majority are not asking for a hand-out, but just a fair shake.
1. Intelligence
2. Honesty
3. Grace under pressure
Sabutai – I would place Intelligence (NOT education, INTELLIGENCE) as the #1 quality overall!
Since I don’t know a candidate personally, how am I to evaluate their intelligence? Sure, if you like a candidate well enough, you can get a minute to talk to him/her, but that doesn’t tell you much.
<
p>
The best method I have for evaluating candidates’ intelligence is their platform, and past decisions.
does bkgd stand for “Baked Goods”?
<
p>
Bill Clinton did quite well on this front. Fdgds too.
I like the idea, but I’ve got to add a Part II: Big Negatives.
<
p>
In the classroom, these might include: * get caught cheating * hand in assignment late * violate some requirement (done in pencil, overly sloppy, wrong file format, etc)
<
p>
In politics, these might include: * wrong religion * actively endorsed/supported by groups/individuals I despise
etc.
For me, a scientologist gets a (-infinity). I’d vote for anyone over a scientologist. Frankly, I think each and every scientologist is either a nut or in need of some serious help.
<
p>
Actively endorsed/supported by groups/individuals? I’d worry that they know something I don’t — so for example if Deval Patrick was endorsed by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc… I’d have held it against DP.
Just playing along with the mental exercise — none of this is anything more than spitballing for me.