In most cases I liked the yes/no, and several questions on the same theme allowed more understanding of my degree of support and enthusiasm for the topic.

However, I did not understand the intended meaning of a couple questions, even with a dictionary.  There should be a "with qualifications" option and a one sentence allowance for clarification or exceptions.

During the meetings and discussions the "clarifications or exceptions" could be documented so there would still be a contract the candidate must abide by.  Also new questions that may be more important for different geographical areas could be added.

Flexibility should be part of the platform process but only before the election, then it should be written in stone.

The points of concern made in these post are mine exactly so I can't add a great deal that has not already been said better than I could have said it.  I can only add that in my opinion we need the highest degree of clarity we can attain especially in the candidate/candidate choosing process. If we are to pick and choose candidates based upon the answers to the yes/no questionnaire, it seems to me our choices will be flawed to the same corresponding degree as the candidates attempting to answer many of the problematic questions with a yes/no answer. The yes/no questions are great for questions that frame a yes or no answer.  However, some questions such as {Would you vote for yes or no in support of a Flat Tax as opposed to the current taxing system?} leaves me no truthful way to answer since I believe all income taxes are unconstitutional.  Although it is a straight forward yes/no question, it is framed in such a way that it restricts my truthful answer. Therefore any answer I gave for this question would not reflect my view as a candidate to those interpreting my responses.  To choose the lesser of the two evils of course my choice would be to support the Flat Tax but does that not give any interpreter a completely erroneous image of my view of taxes generally?   As others have suggested, the ability to comment to clarify each question would be very helpful for all concerned in this process.     

The "line in sand" on each question is drawn intentionally, you simply have to answer on which side you stand. They work very well in the Candidate Selection Sessions. We will be releasing the process so that everyone can experience first hand very soon. We suggest you give it a try and then tell us what you think.

If you have specific suggestions for how the questions should be worded, please post them in the forum.

Re adding text, the final 50 candidates in each district will have that opportunity. For the first few rounds, you'll have to defend your positions in the Candidate Selection Sessions. We've tested the process numerous times, and it absolutely works.

Finally, remember that every vote comes down to a yes or no vote. There will always be gray, but as our representative, we want you to take a stand in advance.

I strongly agree that the Yes/No limitation is problematic. I think it could be resolved by alowing a limited free text space for clarification, when needed. I've answered all the questions, but I noted that there were about a half-dozen or so that were impossible to answer with any degree of honesty.

For example, there was a series of questions about abortion. I would have said yes to the most restrictive one--except that it included making the pill illegal. So I was forced to say no, even though I agree with everything else. The second question asked about supporting a bill that would disallow abortions after a certain point. If I say YES to this question, it makes it sound as if I'm much more pro-choice than I am, because I don't support abortion. Similarly, if I say NO, it could appear as if the reason is because I support more pro-choice legislation.

Similarly, there is a question about making pills available to all girls for free. I was tempted to answer YES, but suppose I did, then If I  answered YES to the first question I mentioned. My position appears to be inconsistent, because I support passing out birth control pills but also support making them illegal.

Part of the problem is that the questions I had problems with tended to be either too specific or they were compound questions that included things I agree with and things I disagree with. A free test space would allow the respondent to explain such gray areas. And make it possible to answer accurately.

As it stands there is absolutely no way that I can answer honestly. No matter what I answer it leads logically to a necessary lie.

Another problem is when the questions are too specific. Will you vote for a 20% reduction in x? Maybe I think 20% is a little to much, but 10% is great. Or maybe I think 20% isn't enough, and it should be more like 30%. In both cases, if I say No to 20% it is misleading, but so is saying YES.

Many of these specific questions are not problematic because they include a phrase like [at least]. But this still leaves the other side unaccounted for, you you agree but think the percentage is too much.

Again, the free text space would allow this fact to be clarified when needed.

Locking in a Candidate during the selection process is a good idea, however, these questions do not support the type of decisions we will be making for the people in the future, so locking these questions in without seeing all the possible information has it's disadvantage. 

   If you do not vote consisitent with your survey there is an easy way to fix this ...do not vote for the representative the second time.  After all this is the American Way...

     By having a "lock in" process you leave the GOOOH group open to alot of scrutiny regarding teh type of poeple you are supporting;  i.e. don't you think your candidates can thnk for themselves on critcial issues and support their constitiuents?  I would make hte lock in for the selection process only and if elected montiro the actual votes and make sure they are in line with their previous position.  If it is the funds you are concerned with then have the candidate agree to pay back a portion of the advertising should they not support what they campaigned on...This will keep the process more representative of the foundig fathers recommendations.

The questions cover a broad range of topics, some of which are complicated and have far reaching affects on much of the population. That said, for a short and to the point questionaire, not a bad array of questions, the format is fine for what it is, so it is difficult to find too much fault with it. It is true that a yes or no answer to some of  these question just doesn't answer the question, nor does it give  a reader enough information to decide what a candidate is actually thinking about that topic. It is because of the complications of some of the topics and the far reaching affects. One example, (not specific), is whenever there is a question about the judicial system, sentencing, crime vs time , these are very complicated and to think that minimum sentencing does anything at all to obstruct crime just isn't real world thinking, yet in some cases in makes perfect sense. Not a yes or no answer. Idealology can be discovered with enough questions of this type. Not sure if there actually are enough there to accomplish that.

Over all I think it's ok to get an idea of what someone is thinking, just not specific enough at this point to make a voting decision based on the questionaire. But a good start. Cudos !!

We have changed from yes or no answers to for or against. The reason for this change is that some of the yes or no questions were biased, and we felt it was a valid argument. A 'yes' has become a 'for' and a 'no' has become an against.

Again, there are no right or wrong answers. Take another look and then let us know what you think.

I received the email that said the Candidate Questionnaire was changed and clicked on the link to see the changes, but it only took me to my completed questionnaire. What exactly are the changes?

Locking candidates into a yes or no answer without reference to a specific piece of legislation is dangerous - especially on some of the more technical issues. Of course we may skip questions, but if my position changes to "not sure" before I lock my answers I am unable to select that option. There should be a way at least prior to locking answers to clear existing answers or else choose undecided.

I'm sure all of the candidates will have the opportunity to explain their more controversial answers during the selection process.  I intend to use my blog to explain my answer to each question and take feedback from there.