Monday, February 28, 2005


These are posts that affected the Candidate Scoreboard. Candidate Scoreboard has undergone an overhaul. The new system is described at the bottom of this page.

These posts were written under the original system. Posts with boldface are affecting the scoreboard under the new system

5/13/06 Still a good idea even as a political stunt
4/27/06 Vote them out
4/10/06 Scoreboard bias updated
4/10/06 Kennedy personally invited acts annoyed
4/8/06 Bachmann the Coward
3/31/06 Immigration Reform and educators failures
3/30/06 Bachmann--her career at the cost of her party
3/30/06 Lourey engages in personal destruction
3/28/06 Bachmann's mentality--just another politician
3/19/06 6th CD Update--Bachmann and Knoblach
3/9/06 Pawlenty's State of the State
2/28/06 Hutchinson give Pawlenty advice
2/25/06 Good politicians gone bad
2/22/06 How to stop a government shut down
2/21/06 Coronations of candidates
1/31/06 Ethical decision making means blame goes elsewhere
1/28/06 Kiffmeyer's Platform (Sec of State)
1/25/06 Mary Kiffmeyer (Secretary of State)
1/22/06 Mark Ritchie (Secretary of State)
1/22/06 Christian Sande (Secretary of State)
1/22/06 Bruce Kennedy (Secretary of State)
1/20/06 Kelly Doran's platform analysis
1/20/06 Becky Lourey's platform
1/19/06 Sue Jeffers to enter Governor's race
1/19/06 Time to review Steve Kelley's website positions
1/17/06 Pawlenty the fiscal liberal
1/17/06 Features of the blog--The Election Scoreboard
1/6/06 Bachmann's campaign newsletter
11/29/05 Additions to the Candidate Scoreboard
11/29/05 No shame from Rowley's campaign
11/29/05 Rowley tries to mislead public
11/21/05 New Scorecard
11/19/05 6th CD Forum Scorecard
11/19/05 Kennedy in a tough spot?

When I first started this I did not realize how subjective the system was. I have been thinking about how to make this as objective as possible (which in rating politicians' positions is a difficult process).

There are core positions which I will rate upon. The positions can be found on the Scoreboard Positions page. They are rated from +5 to -5. On those positions the range is basically from the best (my utopian position) to the complete opposite.

There are also subjective criteria such as character. These will range base on severity. Broken campaign promises are a big detractor. Ethical issues are also very big. Holding to a campaign position at risk to one's career gains big. In the campaign there are many disingenuous campaign ploys which will also be deducted here.

I wish I could watch every vote but I cannot. So when I hear/read of a vote that applies to one of my positions I will rate accordingly.

You might have noticed a built in disadvantage to an incumbent. That is intentional as I believe that all things being equal a challenger is the better selection in an election...truer to a citizen legislature.

********** UPDATE ********** 8/8/06
I realized that I had to find some way of dealing with candidates that have nothing relating to some of my platforms. Any suggestions are welcomed. What I have decided to do is take the average score from answered planks and apply those to the unanswered. I don't like it, but it is the best way I can think of to handle the unfilled blanks. Otherwise candidates who say very little about their positions (or very little on topics I care about) would have a huge advantage over candidates with a lot of explanation of their positions.