The Voterizer
October 21, 2004 10:35 AM   Subscribe

The Voterizer
Are you unsure of who to vote for amid all of the rhetoric and misdirection in this election season? Perhaps you'd like to get to the meat of each candidate's stance on the issues with the bias of knowing who said what? (don't worry, you'll get the full scoop later)

The Voterizer (my name for it since they have no name attached) can help you determine which of the two candidates most closely aligns with your beliefs.
via Captain Normal
posted by fenriq (18 comments total)
Doh! That should be "withOUT" the bias of knowing....".
posted by fenriq at 10:54 AM on October 21, 2004

Wow. What choices:

Children should be beaten daily
Women should be beaten daily

Triple government spending
Quadruple government spending

Create ineffectual new laws
Reform existing laws to make them ineffectual
posted by Kwantsar at 10:58 AM on October 21, 2004

This won't help much with the rhetoric since "All statements are copy and pasted directly from the offical Bush and Kerry websites. " I'm afraid there's no "meat" here.
posted by muckster at 10:59 AM on October 21, 2004

Unless you haven't paid any attention to the race, it's easy to figure out who said what.
posted by sexymofo at 11:04 AM on October 21, 2004

I think the concept is to read the statements without trying to figure out who said what and make your choice of the two based on which is closer to your beliefs.

Yes, its easy to figure out if you try.

sexymofo, the reason they put it together was precisely for those people that haven't been following the election closely.

Kwantsar, funny, the options I had were a little more detailed and alot less polarized than the one's you got. But they are put up randomly. So did you go with children or women getting beaten daily?
posted by fenriq at 11:07 AM on October 21, 2004

I'm voting for Coke. ...No, wait -- Pepsi!

Which is my snarky way of saying that the the "Voterizer" only serves to expose the Republocrat hegemony over the American political process.
posted by oncogenesis at 11:14 AM on October 21, 2004

It's a little late to make "issues" the focus of this election, don't you think?
posted by eatitlive at 11:15 AM on October 21, 2004

By copying and pasting from the candidate's site, not to mention using fairly out-of-context quotes, this is really a bunch of meaningless dribble that really dumbs down, blurs, and simplifies the concepts at hand. No offense to the FPP, of course.

AOL's president match, if I recall correctly, was a bit more of a detailed take on the same concept.
posted by rafter at 11:16 AM on October 21, 2004

100% Kerry match. No surprise there. The talking points were trivially easy to recognize. I guess I've been programmed well.
posted by AstroGuy at 11:24 AM on October 21, 2004

93% Kerry match on rafter's link.
posted by AstroGuy at 11:30 AM on October 21, 2004

...make your choice of the two based on which is closer to your beliefs.

This is what I don't understand about this election. Everyone seems to be looking for a candidate who mirrors their beliefs. I personally am very liberal. But I certainly don't want someone like me in charge of the executive branch of the federal government. I know what a disaster that would be. I want a good, solid, square, middle-aged man who would more or less disapprove of someone like me, a president who knows his own mind and who would hold opinions like mine in the contempt which they so richly deserve.
posted by Faze at 11:36 AM on October 21, 2004

I took a blind online test of the Democratic primary candidates (I don't remember where), and I ended up picking Al Sharpton! If this survey was done as well as that one, it might make people consider their own values a bit more.
posted by letitrain at 11:38 AM on October 21, 2004

Here's the test I took.
posted by letitrain at 11:44 AM on October 21, 2004

We need a Babelfish translator of politicianspeak to English before this sort of thing will be useful.

- "Compassionate conservative."
- "Moderate."

- "Hardline hawk who wants to starve the government through high spending and tax cuts."
- "Dove in hawk's clothing who wants to return the tax structure to previous, progressive structure."

- "I'm for an anti-gay marriage amendment."
- "I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I don't think we need an amendment."

- "I know this amendment has no chance, but I need to kowtow to the religious right. Who gives a shit about fags, anyway?"

- "I need to say this 'between a man and a woman' line, but I'll try to get as close as I can to legal gay marriage albeit with a different name."

*hopes his beliefs about Kerry aren't wishful thinking*
posted by callmejay at 12:09 PM on October 21, 2004

I want a good, solid, square, middle-aged man

And Faze, I'm sure that somewhere out there, there's a good, solid, square, middle-aged man who wants you.

My result was that I should vote for Kerry - though apparently I only agreed with him 67% of the time.
posted by orange swan at 12:11 PM on October 21, 2004


That line alone demonstrates the Orwellian mangling of the language that Bush has accomplished.
posted by solistrato at 12:22 PM on October 21, 2004

What's all this crap about voting for a candidate on the issues? ;-)
I thought we were supposed to vote on "character" and who we wanted to drink a beer with.

Unless you're one of that ephemerous group called "security moms" and then I suppose you should consider if you have a son you don't want drafted real soon now.

Ever notice how a particular party creates these demographic groups that are so detached from reality?
Did it start with Nixon and his "silent majority?"
I mean, don't we have enough real demographic groups without creating new cutesy ones?
Is there no party appeal to the real groups that creates the necessity of creating new ephemeral ones?

How about it "soccer moms?"
posted by nofundy at 12:42 PM on October 21, 2004

« Older Potty training time for pundit   |   Simtastic GWB vs. JFK Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments