Perhaps a good strategy for approaching the Selection Sessions is to take all your answers in the questionaiire, and figure out what principle guided your answering of those questions.  Then you will be able to succinctly explain your positions on a 100 questions with a short number of principles.

Clarence: Thanks for the post (and the others). We agree that some explanation is needed, but we found yes/no answers works exceptionally well in helping participants determine which of the other nine people in their pool can best represent them. When you have to compare your position against nine others on 100 issues, it simply is not possible to study the nuances of each answe for all candidates. The yes or no answers will allow each particpant to understand the voting profile of the others.

Here's what we learned in our study building this system. If, for example, you are opposed to touching the Constitution, you will answer no on all or almost all questions that propose such, even if you agree with the sentiment of the question. If you are opposed to "government funding" in general, you will answer no on all or almost all questions that propose such. You will quickly learn where candidates stand and how they would vote when you compare your answer to theirs, and simple yes or no answers do in fact work very well.

Regarding the accountabilty part of the answer, the members of the district will ultimately determine if they believe a GOOOH representative has violated his commitment. There are, of course, so many variations possible on every question that we simply want each candidate to declare their position.

The process is not perfect, and together we will refine it as we advance. The objective is not to run someone out of office because of a technicality, it is simply to try to force candidates to do what they say. If nothing else, candidates who consistently answer one way and then vote the other will have a VERY hard time getting re-elected.

-- 2/27/2008 9:15:49 PM.

Yes, that's correct.  The Candidate Selection Sessions will give you ample time to express the nuances of your questionnaire answers.  We've found in our focus groups that people do not ask you to explain your position on issues they aren't interested in, whereas they will drill-down deeply on those they are passionate about.  This works well for everyone, because if you spend a lot of time explaining your position on an issue they're not focused on they often will not advance you because you'll come across as "not in synch" with them. 

Therefore, the up-front yes/no answers add efficiency to the process and allows you to use your selection session interview time more effectively.

So now that I have read the forums more I see that this is actually a common thread.  I will vote no on things that I don’t agree with and then clarify why for those that need clarifying, like the nuclear question. 

This site is great and I am all for it but I have to say yes or no don’t quite cut it sometimes on these answers.  Making it seam you are against something when actually you are just against the Government being in control of that item.  Take this one: 106  Will you vote to fund nuclear power plants to help address our energy needs?

I firmly believe that nuclear power plants are a great thing and this country needs more.  I would welcome with open arms the development of more of these plants!  But I would not be happy with a government controlled and paid for plant.  This is not the area the government should be involved in, federal OR state.  If there is legislation blocking the building of it, I would vote for that legislation to be removed.  This is the area venture capitalists and power companies should be involved in.

There are a few more like this, but that is the one that comes to mind right off the bat.  Now to google some more.