Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Government Politics

Presidential Candidate 'Computer Dating' 122

Posted by timothy from the ooh-you're-so-specific dept.
engywook writes "On National Public Radio's Morning Edition this morning, there was a story that mentioned the SelectSmart Presidential Candidate Selector. This was described as a kind of 'computer dating service' for deciding which of the remaining presidential candidates match your views most closely. According to the story, it is not limited to just the Democratic and Republican candidates. Might be just the thing to help gel a decision in swinging undecideds!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Presidential Candidate 'Computer Dating' More

Presidential Candidate 'Computer Dating'

Comments Filter:

  • For More Years (Score:5, Funny)

    by captnitro ( 160231 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:19AM (#10503056)
    It told me I should vote for the candidate that raises the upper limit on MySQL connections. Where do those other two Skull n' Bones boys stand on slashdotting?

    VOTE MYSQL_CONNECT IN 2004!!!! LET FREEDOM RING!!!

    • Re:For More Years (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33

      Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35

      Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

      Warning: mysql_db_query(): A link to the server could not be established in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/preside
    • At least Michael Badnarik http://badnarik.org/?sid=322118 [badnarik.org] is a geek. Your hopes may lie with him.

      PROFESSIONAL

      Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible).

      Moved to Monteb

  • a neat toy... nothing more (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:23AM (#10503086) Journal

    Your Results:

    1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
    2. Cobb, David - Green Party (88%)
    3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (84%)
    4. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (80%)
    5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%)
    6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (72%)
    7. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (72%)
    8. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (71%)
    9. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (70%)

    Interesting to say the least. But it leaves out a few issues and the questions aren't clear enough. It would be nice to see issues like tort reform included -- I break with most people on the left with this issue and it would be interesting to see what it did to my score. It would also be neat if it split up the results based on issue -- on social issues I'm probably close to those results for the Green party guy -- but on foreign policy Kerry would probably have gotten a 90-95% with the input that I provided.

    It would also be neat if it included the score for the candidates you don't like. There are a small handful of non-important issues that I agree with Bush on -- would he have broken 10% with my input?

    A neat tool but it wouldn't have helped me to make my decision if I was still undecided. YMMV

    • it is interesting as you say, but the biggest issue is how do you know that there's no inherent bias built into the system? the only way to decide who to vote for is to make up your own mind. This may be a tool to help you, but please, it's like telling your neighbor/newspaper columnist/random person on the street your views on everything and let them tell you who you should vote for. Fine if it works, but how do you know they don't have a vested interest?

      • but the biggest issue is how do you know that there's no inherent bias built into the system

        I never said there wasn't bias built into the system. In fact this comment [slashdot.org] and my reply [slashdot.org] seem to suggest that there is bias built into the system -- or that the system is inherently flawed. I lean towards "flawed" more then "biased" but I'm the overly optimistic person by nature.

        That's why I said it was a neat toy -- nothing more. I should have expanded on the thought a bit more but my boss walked by so I had t

      • "Come see the bias inherent in the system!"

        *ahem*
    • I got similar results with Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader in the top four. The first Republicrat on my list was Bush though, and he was at the bottom.

      I'll bet everyone's getting Badnarik, Cobb, or Nader higher up on the list than Bush or Kerry. It's why there's so much bizarre spin out there in the world, no one agrees with Bush or Kerry enough to not ignore a lot of the things they do.

      Does anyone actually get Bush or Kerry as one of the top candidates on their list?

    • Your Results:

      1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
      2. Cobb, David - Green Party (88%)
      3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (84%)
      4. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (80%)
      5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (72%)

      I removed candidates that are no longer running from your list of results. It's interesting that you have four candidates who match your views up to 70% or more according to this quiz. Let's check my results:

      1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
      2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (72%)
      3. Bush,

      • Its because the world isn't as conservative as the republicans like to believe. If you look at the number of people on the registered members of the different parties, there's a LOT more democrats out there than republicans. The problem is that most of them don't vote. This, combined with the large religious right who vote republican for pure religion only, is the only reason such a right wing government exists.

        Honestly, look at the rest of the democratic world- the US is the most far right democracy o
    • Noone seems to agree with me :)
      Your Results:

      1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
      2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (69%) Click here for info
      3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (61%) Click here for info
      4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (38%) Click here for info
      5. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (36%) Click here for info
      6. Cobb, David - Green Party (29%) Click here for info
      7. Nader, Ralph - Independent (29%) Click he
      • I'm even farther away from the Slashdot median than you:

        1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
        2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (91%)
        3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (44%)
        4. Cobb, David - Green Party (40%)
        5. Nader, Ralph - Independent (40%)
        6. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (36%)
        7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (31%)
        8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (31%)

        I find it interesting that for me, Bush just barely edges out the Green Party, and that Ker

    • I would say that it is a bit more than simply a toy. I looked at this site a few months ago. Unlike most of the major media outlets, they listed the majority of the candidate pool from which voters have to choose. This was a great service. No, I found a few questions that I didn't like the choices of answers. That is typical, but the answers weren't as slanted as many other polls and selectors that I have read. If you came down to a 90% match with a 3rd party candidate, and a 60% match with either the Democ
    • If you rule out non-participating candidates, you will get a list that will show candidates that you don't agree with.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:25AM (#10503111)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Choosing from my results, i will probably vote for: Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

      • Choosing from my results, i will probably vote for: Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

        All of these posts of SQL errors (that poor server was slashdotted about two minutes after the story went live -- and the story isn't even on the front page) and nobody has pointed out that they are using the root SQL account with no password on a website? I guess all of the security gurus are probably ove [slashdot.org]

        • The intention of my post was to point to exactly that. How long till someone hacks the site to always say: 1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) 2. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (99%) 3. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (98%) 4. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (97%) 5. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (96%)

          • The intention of my post was to point to exactly that. How long till someone hacks the site to always say: 1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) 2. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (99%) 3. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (98%) 4. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (97%) 5. Nader, Ralph - Independent. (96%)

            If your going to hack it at least have a sense of humor about it:

            1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
            2. Hitler, Adolf - National Socialist (99%)
            3. Stalin, Joesph - Communist (97%)
            4. Hussein, Saddam -

        • Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45

          ...root SQL account with no password
          Exactly what I was thinking... Their developer needs to do a little more homework I'd say.
        • I don't think Slashdot is entirley responsible for this test being slashdotted. I checked it a few hours ago, before it was linked on Slashdot, after listening to the story on NPR and it was having trouble then.

  • BIASED RESULTS! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:31AM (#10503154) Homepage Journal

    I took this test two weeks ago. IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH. The test is a push poll, a type of poll that askes biased questions in the hopes of directing people in one direction or another.

    Specifically, the test's first set of questions dealt with taxes. The question was something like "Are you in favor of more taxes or fewer taxes?" and gave the nod to Bush for being for lower taxes.

    This hides the true position of both candidates. Bush and the Republican congress have passed the tax cuts that gave most of the benefits to the richest 1 percent, and barely anything to the middle class or working-class poor.

    Kerry has proposed repealing the tax cut (also known as "raising taxes") on the richest 1% in order to pay for important social spending (medicare = healthcare so the very poor and children don't die). Do you want to pay less taxes so children die from not having immunizations, antibiotics when they're sick, fixed broken bones, etc.?

    SelectSmart has a good set of polls for other things, but I found this poll to be VERY VERY BIASED and would challenge anyone taking it to consider the way the questions are asked.

    • Disagree (Score:2, Interesting)

      by etymxris ( 121288 ) *
      It seemed like the questions were leading, but in the opposite direction. I ended up with 7% agreement with Bush.

      1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) (i.e., writing my own name on the ballot)
      2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (81%)
      3. Cobb, David - Green Party (78%)
      4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (78%)
      5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (75%)
      6. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (72%)
      7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (66%)
      8.
    • My results:

      Your Results:

      1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
      2. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
      3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (12%) Click here for info

      YMMV
      • It seems as though you have chosen to eliminate any third party candidates from your results. I wonder who you might have better matched up with if you hadn't done this?
        • It had me as "matching" the Green party candidate. But since that is a vote for Bush, I modified it to only show viable candidates. In both cases, Bush matched my concerns the least of any candidate.

          I'm surprised my preferences matched even 12% of the current administration's proposed platform. Apparently the survey bases the match on what the candidate *says* as opposed to past performance.

          ----

          This matching utility was actually quite amusing. The questions wording seemed to be derived from headlines

    • not so biased -- only overly simple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:39AM (#10503212) Journal

      I took this test two weeks ago. IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH. The test is a push poll, a type of poll that askes biased questions in the hopes of directing people in one direction or another.

      Well the questions are overly simplistic -- that's for sure. That's probably why they bias towards George W. and his black & white view of the world ;)

      For example: "Do you support the idea of unilateral military action by the United States?" -- simple answer: Yes. Actual answer: Only if we are in immediate danger (I don't purpose going to the UN if the missiles are inbound) and have exhausted all diplomatic options. Henceforth the Cuban missile crisis would have met the test for unilateral action if the missiles become live (thank god they didn't) -- Iraq did not.

      Same situation on taxes. Nobody in their right mind supports more taxes on the middle/lower classes. But it's not a black and white issue by any means.

      Perhaps we should make our own website that deals in shades of gray?

      • Actual answer: Only if we are in immediate danger (I don't purpose going to the UN if the missiles are inbound)

        Of course, it would be weird going to the UN in such a case, since the UN Treaty already allows for use of force in such cases.
    • I wish I could find the breakdown, but the riches 10% are actually paying a higher percent of total taxes than they would be if the tax break hadn't been put into effect. This was a treasury department study. You can find mentions of it searching on the web, but I can't find the actual study :(
    • IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH

      I don't think so; I would propose instead that you are heavily opposed to Bush, hence the poll SEEMS biased towards Bush.

      • To most Kerry supporters, anything that doesn't promise a slow painful death for the incumbent seems biased towards Bush.

        The poster probably took the test and discovered a 12% score with Bush. Instead of taking heart with a 92% Kerry score, he's panicking that his black-and-white world has some grays in it.
        • Any poll or questionnaire such as this is biased. If a question is "Is it OK for the US to take unilateral action against an enemy" and 'Y' goes for Bush while 'N' goes to Kerry, then it's a biased question since neither its premises nor conclusions are accurate. This kind of stuff serves to further the Republican image of Kerry. There are, I'm sure, other questionnaires in which the situation is reversed.

          Of course one could argue that it's up to the intelligence of the reader to select the 'right' option
    • Well, I won't give an opinion as to whether it's biased. (We all have biases, after all.) However, if you drill down and read the details on each candidate, they claim that they are basing their information on a variety of ratings by a variety of groups. Some of these include: Antional Taxpayers Union; Americans for Tax Reform; Concord Coalition; Children's Defense Fund; NRA; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Planned Parenthood; National Right to Life Committee; NAACP; and ACLU.

      They also quote from voting r

      • I didn't get my results but I thought it was moderately biased towards Bush in the phrasing of some questions. However this could just be to the current atmosphere where "liberal" is a curse word and Kerry has to spin his opinions as more conservative than they really are. Most of the questions are just too simplistic; of course I'm in favor of preemptive military action if we're actually in danger but I didn't agree that we were in danger from Iraq. (I wonder how they count Kerry's stance on that questi
    • I didn't think it was that bad. I'm pretty much anti-Bush but did not see too many problems with the questions. I guess you could say there was no "tax the rich more and the poor less" checkmark, just "raise taxes" and "lower taxes", that could be taken as eliminating a large number of popular viewpoints. But most of the rest seemed ok.

      Of course I only got SQL errors as my results. Guess I'll vote for that SQL guy.
    • I took this test two weeks ago. IT IS HEAVILY BIASED TOWARDS BUSH. The test is a push poll, a type of poll that askes biased questions in the hopes of directing people in one direction or another.
      ...
      Kerry has proposed repealing the tax cut (also known as "raising taxes") on the richest 1% in order to pay for important social spending (medicare = healthcare so the very poor and children don't die).

      The 80s called, they want "do it for the children" back.

      Everyone should know that raising taxes means the (r
    • Kerry pays less than 13% Income Tax. What makes you think it will go up under his plan? The reason the tax code is so long is so that rich people can leagly not pay much in taxes.

      He, like Bush, says one things but does the exact opposite.
      • Not to mention that in Massachusetts we have a state income tax as well. And due to a referendum that passed there is actually an option on our state income tax to pay at a higher percentage. This way those people who are in favor of a higher tax can pay it if they like.

        Guess which senator(s) from Massachusetts pay it? If you guessed "Neither", you'd be correct!

        FWIW less than 1% of 1% (roughtly) actually opted to pay higher. I think it works out to a few thousand people. So much for the bleeding he
        • Yes, the Dems call for higher taxes then don't pay them.

          Kind of like the GOPers who, while calling for 'Family Values', can keep their dicks in their pants. ;->

      • Re:BIASED RESULTS! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by snol ( 175626 )
        Eh, that doesn't prove anything. Unless you think he illegally evaded his taxes, I'd assume that he, like every other honest person in the world, is paying the smallest amount of taxes he legally can. The fact that he pays less than 13% of his income does indeed go to show that there are too many loopholes for rich people. He's at least saying that he's going to raise taxes on the rich - and that's what I agree we need to do - whereas Bush is dead set against it.

        Anyway, who's running for president who i
        • The fact that he pays less than 13% of his income does indeed go to show that there are too many loopholes for rich people.

          It goes to show that the man condeming people not paying their fair share goes out of his way not to pay his. WHats even more pathetic is his donations to charity (between 1992-1996 it was about 11$ a month). Only when he is going to be in the national view (in his runup to the 2000 and 2004 elections) has he donated any significant amount of money. He is high on talk and slow on acti

          • Yea cause the current 35% in federal taxes is just not enough. I mean who are they to think they are eneitled to more than 60 cents on the dollar they earn.

            And yet John Kerry can legally pay only 13 cents on the dollar. Those other rich people who are paying 35-40% must really hate him and wish that his loopholes were closed.
            • And yet John Kerry can legally pay only 13 cents on the dollar. Those other rich people who are paying 35-40% must really hate him and wish that his loopholes were closed.

              Than close the existing loopholes, how does raising the bracket do anything other than trick the middle and lower class into thinking kerry gives a damn.

              Your failing to see hte big picutre. George Bush says that the rich invest their money and create jobs, so what doesw he do? he gives a tax cut to all Americans (rich and poor) and bel

              • The fact that Kerry only pays 13% of his income says nothing about his willingness to close loopholes and tax the rich. Would you seriously pay twice the amount in taxes that you legally needed to, even if you believed that was what you should be required to pay?

                The big picture includes a lot more than what you said. It includes the fact that we're running up a monumental deficit mostly because of the Bush tax cuts. It includes the fact that the trickle-down "the rich invest their money and create jobs
                • The fact that Kerry only pays 13% of his income says nothing about his willingness to close loopholes and tax the rich.

                  It says he is so serious about helping others he avoides paying taxes..

                  . It includes the fact that we're running up a monumental deficit mostly because of the Bush tax cuts.

                  Do you honestly believe the tax cut is the main reason for the deficit? Wow you are the sheeple, lets look at the numbers (http://www.federalbudget.com/)..

                  2000 (Bill Clintons Policy) receipts were 2025 billion D

                  • I agree with you right up to this point: "So the fact the top 1% of wage earners pays 30% of the tax burden and the to 20% pay nearly 70% is not enough for you?"

                    I think by pointing to those numbers you're ignoring the elephant in the room. The real problem isn't the tax brackets or who pays what. The real problem lies with the distribution of wealth in our society.

                    By your presentation one would be left with the impression that an injustice were being done to the top 1% or 20%. Hardly. Our governmen

                    • I think by pointing to those numbers you're ignoring the elephant in the room. The real problem isn't the tax brackets or who pays what. The real problem lies with the distribution of wealth in our society.

                      I think the two are mutually exclusive. As weathy as the top 1% is the do not own 30% of the wealth in this nation so why do they not pay enough taxes? I do think there is an odd problem with the dirtribution of wealth (the Mean has continued to increase but the bell has become more flat over the years.

    • Sounds like somebody didn't get the results (s)he expected! :-)
    • This hides the true position of both candidates. Bush and the Republican congress have passed the tax cuts that gave most of the benefits to the richest 1 percent, and barely anything to the middle class or working-class poor.

      That would be because the rich pay more in taxes in teh first place. The top 20% of earners pay almost 80% of the federal tax burden, and the top 1% pays nearly 30% of the tax burden. and the bottom 20% pays a scant -2% (as in they get money back) of the tax burden. Source [google.com]

      So if yo

  • I'm 80% libertarian pure, must purge the remaining authoritarianism. Kind of a neat little tool, wish that it was more like Slate's whack-a-mole democratic primary selector.

  • I got some weird results (Score:5, Funny)

    by kajoob ( 62237 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:33AM (#10503166)
    Your Results:

    1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
    2. Kang - (88%)
    3. Kodos -(84%)
    4. 3rd Party Candidate - Go ahead, throw your vote away
  • Figures, just like normal computer dating, no one matches me. Maybe I should stop posting ads like:

    SWM ISO Polotician enjoys quiet evenings at home discussing tough intellectual issues. Hikes up in the mountains or on the beach at sunset. Must be non-partisan, pro space, pro environment. Light social porkbarreling ok.


    • MWMV (married white male voter) iso any mediocre-looking, charismatic uberbrain presidential candidates who understand my long term needs. Should have complex worldview, speak multiple languages, have deep policymaking experience and like kittens. No fearmongering alarmists need call. Should be pro-space but anti-NASA bureacracy; anti-shuttle and pro-X-prize. Should enjoy long hours, few vacations, and tolerate lack of privacy without being an exhibitionist. Ability to not vomit on Japanese prime minist
  • Top result: Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (74%)

    And that happens to be who I already planned on voting for. Sure, it's simplistic, but I don't think it was so simple to greatly affect accuracy for most people. It's definitely a nice tool to get an idea where to start looking.

    • Pretty unsurprising results really. I'd say it's as accurate as a short test can be.

      1. Your Results:
      2. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
      3. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (75%)
      4. Bush, President George W. - Republican (57%)
      5. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (42%)
      6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (38%)
      7. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (36%)
      8. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (35%)
      9. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (35%)
      10. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (35%)
      11. Kucinich, Rep.

  • Not really biased questions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @11:08AM (#10503463) Homepage Journal

    I got the sense that the questions were written from a certain perspective, but they were at least orthogonal topically. That means that if you disagree with the perspective of the question you just answer according to your view and everybody's happy.

    I think their "bias", if you can call it that, is to determine who you are actually going to vote for, not to change your mind. For instance:

    4. Federal funding of "corporate welfare", which has been defined as "special government subsidies or benefits that are targeted to specific industries or businesses":
    Rather than state the question as:
    4. Federal targeting of benefits to specific industries or businesses to encourage economic growth:
    The latter form might get the unsuspecting to consider whether federal funding for specific businesses is a good thing. The "corporate welfare" tag would make almost anyone see it as bad.

    The poll worked pretty well for me, lining up with my own ranking fairly well:

    1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
    2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (81%)
    3. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (64%)
    4. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (41%)
    5. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (34%)
    6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (32%)

  • Seeking Presidential Candidate (Score:5, Funny)

    by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @11:12AM (#10503484)
    Seeking Presidential Candidate who's not afraid to speak his mind, but afraid to change it. Must be willing to "break a few eggs" even when not making an omelet. Firm grasp of the English language not required. Aversion to science a plus. Must be staunchly pro-life before birth, but somewhat anti-life after birth.

    Would like to share beautiful sunsets with said candidate, and have heard that sunset through nuclear fallout is sublime. Into kinky sex involving hoods, restraints and more than a little rough handling.

    Popularity not required.

    Are you my candidate? Call off the election today and tell me for it's my own good, and I'll be yours forever.

    Signed,
    Ms. Informed

  • Hey, I've covered this. My slashdot journal "What Makes a Good President" summarizes attributes needed in a president. You decide if you like them.

    Slashdot Journal is here: Justanyone's journal [slashdot.org]
  • I like leaders who are grossly incompetent and lie to their country checkbox? Seriously, even if you agree with nominative republican values, many serious conservative groups are jumping ship this election. Think Andrew Sullivan, the Economist magazine, and the Cato institute (OK they're libertarian, but it's notable that they aren't supporting bush for reelection).
  • Your Results:
    • 1.Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
    • 2.Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (72%)
    • 3.Cobb, David - Green Party (68%)
    • 4.Nader, Ralph - Independent (68%)
    • 5.Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (48%)
    • 6.Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (46%)
    • 7.Bush, President George W. - Republican (25%)
    • 8.Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (19%)

    I'm not a Yank, and definitely not a Socialist... booo.

  • Oh, that's right, the Communist Party of America is supporting John Kerry!!

    Communist Party of America - www.cpusa.org [cpusa.org]
  • Presidential Selector kept giving me this even with multiple tries in different browsers. Anyone else have problems? Maybe it's a sign that I just should stay the hell away from the voting booths this election....

    Warning: mysql_connect(): Access denied for user: 'ssmart_3@216.92.131.111' (Using password: YES) in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33

    Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35
    • Hello,
      Site is being slashdotted and they know it.

      Warning: Due to recent national publicity about this site, your results may not be available. Please bookmark this page and visit us in a few hours when traffic is reduced to more normal levels. We apologize for any inconvenience.

  • Reverse Engineering (Score:3, Funny)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @12:21PM (#10504088) Homepage Journal

    This was described as a kind of 'computer dating service' for deciding which of the remaining presidential candidates match your views most closely.

    Easy - whichever presidential candidate has the most cute chicks as fans match my views the best.

  • HULK for President! (Score:3)

    by xmas2003 ( 739875 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @12:26PM (#10504139) Homepage
    The Hulk has entered the race as a late candidate and you can even vote for him (versus those Puny Human Bush and Kerry!) at his official campaign site [komar.org]
  • ...


    13. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (62%)
    14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (37%)
    15. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (29%)

    ...

    I would not vote for Badnarik, given the chance. However, it's him after Brown and LaRouche? Am I that much of a wacko? (Yes, I left the candidate filtering off)

  • All in all I'd say it does a pretty good job...at least for my views:

    1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
    2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (66%)
    3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (52%)
    4. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (44%)
    5. Cobb, David - Green Party (32%)
    6. Nader, Ralph - Independent (32%)
    7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (31%)
    8. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (18%)

    If I had been making that list myself, I would have ordered them: Badnarik, Peroutka, Nader, Cobb,

  • www.vote-smart.org [vote-smart.org]

    enter zip code = get all candidates you can vote on

    choose a candidate and you can find out:
    -a terse biography
    -their voting record
    -their publicly stated policy
    -their financial backing
    -how a rainbow of interest groups approve/disapprove of their voting record

    the site is simplistic and packed with unslanted info. just as i like 'em. it's by far the best resource i've come accross yet.

    to give credit, i came accross this site via one of my Senators' websites, Russ Feingold.
  • All is as it should be:

    1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
    2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (90%) Click here for info
    3. Cobb, David - Green Party (47%) Click here for info
    4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (47%) Click here for info
    5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (40%) Click here for info
    6. Bush, President George W. - Republican (37%) Click here for info
    7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (34%) Click here for info
    8. Peroutka, Mi
  • 1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
    2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (91%) Click here for info
    3. Cobb, David - Green Party (43%) Click here for info
    4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (43%) Click here for info
    5. Bush, President George W. - Republican (37%) Click here for info
    6. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (35%) Click here for info
    7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (32%) Click here for info
    8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democr


  • 1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
    2. Cobb, David - Green Party (86%) Click here for info
    3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (79%) Click here for info
    4. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (76%) Click here for info
    5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (73%) Click here for info
    6. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (70%) Click here for info
    7. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (67%) Click here for info
    8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH -
  • I found this page very interesting - http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/who.php [selectsmart.com]. They compiled a list based on everyone's responses what the idea candidate for everyone would be. I was surprised to see the results.

    Winners of the presidential selector race:
    36% Cobb, David - Green Party
    31% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
    18% Bush, President George W. - Republican
    6% Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian
    3% Brown, Walt - Socialist Party
    2% Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat
    2% Dean

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close