Maybe ask people to rank a bunch of more abstract sentences, such as "We should always give someone another chance" or "We can't help everyone". I'm finding it hard to think of balanced examples, but it might get to the core of the emotional motivation that candidates have, rather than concentrating on policy.
As for pledges, I think people are going to always expect some level of commitment from candidates, and those that don't are open to attack from candidates who are. I had a site idea that I never developed very far - to collate together all promises (leaflet promises, petitions, pledges, videos of candidates) made by candidates (parties are easier to find out about, I know the guardian has a subsite following manifesto commitments) and categorise them, provide different views on the data, etc., which in retrorespect would have been productive as a reference linking point for campaigns involving the libdem tuition fees U-turn etc. -t On 08/12/10 16:33, Leigh Caldwell wrote: > You might find that rankings could work. > > "Please rank the following issues in order of importance: crime, > health, education, the economy, ..." > > You could possibly have two or more separate questions: for instance > one on the urgency of legislation (or repealing legislation) in that > area, and another on the priorities for public spending. > > It's hard to give a weasel answer to this kind of question, though of > course they could still refuse to answer at all. However the > incentives not to answer are lower than with a pledge, because there > is no specific promise to hold them to. But it still lets you > distinguish between the candidates you'd rather vote for. > > Then again, it also wouldn't be much of a constraint on their actual > voting behaviour in Parliament. But that's inevitable - there is a > direct conflict between answering questions that constrain your > behaviour, versus the desire not to have your behaviour constrained. > > Leigh. > > On 8 December 2010 16:20, Mark Goodge <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 08/12/2010 16:15, 'Dragon' Dave McKee wrote: > > Numerical questions could be quite interesting: > > * How much should a student pay for an undergraduate degree? > > Obviously this question is fundamentally flawed (3 or 4 year? > Science > or Arts? Who's paying tuition?) but it means that wishy-washy > answers > simply won't work. > > > No-one can, or will, answer that in numeric terms, because - for > the reasons you give - it's unanswerable in that form. Instead, > you'll just get a load of identikit answers along the lines of > "They should pay as much as is fair". > > Mark > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > > -- > Leigh Caldwell (t) +44 20 7064 6556 (m) +44 7747 062906 > Chief executive, Inon http://www.inon.com/ > Blog: http://www.knowingandmaking.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
