Unsurprisingly, Lieberman is 3rd from last, right
] above Cheney and Bush. ]-k

I had very similar results, which was no surprise either.

What I'd like to see is something like this, but with a preliminary issue weighting calibration. I would initially indicate whether there were some issues that should be more heavily weighted than others in my final calculation. If a candidate matches all of my economic preferences but is not pro-choice, there is no way that person is getting my vote.

Also, it would be tremendous to have a more in-depth and neutrally worded description of issues. If done well, this could be an invaluable tool to help voters, especially in a year when there are actual choices between candidates within the party primaries.

BridgetAG wrote:
] Unsurprisingly, Lieberman is 3rd from last, right
] ] above Cheney and Bush. ]-k
]
]
] I had very similar results, which was no surprise either.
]
] What I'd like to see is something like this, but with a
] preliminary issue weighting calibration. I would initially
] indicate whether there were some issues that should be more
] heavily weighted than others in my final calculation. If a
] candidate matches all of my economic preferences but is not
] pro-choice, there is no way that person is getting my vote.
]
] Also, it would be tremendous to have a more in-depth and
] neutrally worded description of issues. If done well, this
] could be an invaluable tool to help voters, especially in a
] year when there are actual choices between candidates within
] the party primaries.

I'm certain that I saw something like that during the 2000 election, where issues could be weighted as you describe. This particular site, ontheissues.org, I think was originally issues2000.org. So its surveys are somewhat dated, and it doesn't include a couple issues which are absolutely key in this current election. For example, in any current survey about the issues, items that should be included are things like: "Pre-emptive military force to remove WMD from questionable regimes is acceptable" (support/oppose/neutral), and "The Patriot Act is a good thing" (support/oppose/neutral)... Well, probably worded better than those, but you get the idea. :)

In any case, I feel that there must be something like you describe out there *somewhere* in web-election-land... It's just a matter of finding it, or bugging the sysops of sites that are close, to modify their surveys accordingly!

BridgetAG wrote:
] Also, it would be tremendous to have a more in-depth and
] neutrally worded description of issues. If done well, this
] could be an invaluable tool to help voters, especially in a
] year when there are actual choices between candidates within
] the party primaries.

You do. Each issue you decide on is a link to a page that discusses that issue in detail, along with what the various answers mean. It could be MORE detailed, but its pretty reasonable.