I very much like Tim's comments here. Worth us thinking about them some (and possibly looking at some of the questions on sites like Political Compass for inspiration?)
On 8 December 2010 16:57, Tim Green <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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] >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
