This is a portion of the article "Political Smarts" from Internet
World, November 1996 (pg. 53). I get consistently informative articles about
the Net from Internet World and I highly recommend that you subscribe to their
magazine.
Internet World
November 1996
POLITICAL SMARTS
By Jeff Ubios
Project Vote Smart (http://www.vote-smart.org),
a nonprofit, nonpartisan group founded by former presidents Gerald Ford and
Jimmy Carter, has developed the most comprehensive source of information about
elected officials in the United States, which is available via the World Wide
Web, telephone (800-622-SMART), and a printed directory.
The Vote Smart Web site includes information on about 20,000 candidates, ratings
of elected officials by more than 70 interest groups, and links to every important
political site on the Web. The site, which is the work of hundreds of volunteers,
gets more than 100,000 page views a week and comprises more than 40,000 Web
pages totaling more than 600 MB of data, according to Scott Langley, Vote Smart's
Webmaster.
Based in Corvallis, Ore., and funded through grants from the Carnegie and Ford
Foundations, its board includes Ron Dellums, Michael Dukakis, Geraldine Ferraro,
Newt Gingrich, Barry Goldwater, Richard Kleindienst, George McGovern, and William
Proxmire. This remarkable balance is quite deliberate: Joining the board requires
bringing a political "enemy" along with you.
Adelaide Elm is historian and founding board member of Project Vote Smart, and
her insights into the intersection of politics and the Internet are provocative.
Internet World : How did Vote Smart get started?
Adelaide Elm : Back in 1988 a group of private citizens- journalists,
teachers, architects, lawyers, and some people who were formerly in politics,
who had been candidates and elected officials, looked at why we're all so frustrated
and cynical about the political process. We identified the lack of relevant,
factual information about candidates who want to represent us as one of the
key components of voter apathy and cynicism. We all would get to the voting
booth and have no idea who these people were because all we knew about them
was some very brief coverage in media here and there- radio, TV, newspaper.
As voters, we knew we weren't getting straight information from the candidates
because they spent most of their time slinging mud at each other or evading
issue-oriented questions or making emotional, rhetorical appeals. Those members
of the founding board who'd formerly been in politics as candidates were well
aware of how manipulative their own campaigns had been.
The public and media, most of the time, didn't even know they were being manipulated.
For example through polling statistics and focus-group feedback, candidates
who can raise enough money can hire pollsters to tailor their image and message-
or tailor their opponents image- in such a way that they know the political
cost or benefit of every statement they make, before they make it. Now that's
what's going on. that's the way candidates run for office, and what we're left
with as voters is no affordable, accessible information source that we can get
to when we have a question, that we trust, that doesn't have a hidden agenda,
bias, or any kind of partisan slant or taint. That's where Project Vote Smart
comes from.
IW: So you provide the factual background.
ELM: It's an attempt to put together resumes for these candidates.
When they run for office they're essentially applying to the American public
for some very important jobs. Yet, when we examine the resumes they show us
and the job interviews they do, it's all spent trashing the other applicants
for the job.
Candidates generally don't like to be pinned down on issue-oriented questions,
so most of the information we put together consists of a resume for the candidates
independent of them and their campaigns. If they've held the job before, we
can look and see how well they've done it. They've got a record. We collect
that data, and there's a tremendous amount of it. We have voting records, campaign
finance data, PAC (political action committee) contributors, breakdowns by industry
of PAC contributors, and out-of-state contributions.
Then there are over 70 special interest groups that rate the voting records
of members of Congress- how often they vote with their interests. All of those
are in our database. We also provide general background, previous experience,
affiliations, that sort of information. The only area where we go directly to
the candidates and ask for their cooperation is on what we call the national
political awareness test.
IW: The one that President Clinton refuses to take?
ELM: That's the one, yes. The test is designed to give voters
a head-to-head comparison of all the candidates for a given office. Usually,
if voters get any information at all, it's apples from one candidate, and oranges
from another. So the questionnaire is broad-based and carefully crafted to address
the issues at the top of the public's agenda and the issues likely to come up
in the next session of Congress or the state legislature. We have different
versions for presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional candidates.
This year, for the first time, we're starting to cover state legislative races
in every state. That version of the political awareness test is much shorter
than the one for presidential candidates, but it focuses on issues that are
important on the state level. Between now and November we're surveying and testing
close to 20,000 candidates. That's 100 percent coverage, not just a sampling.
We call it a test because it not only gathers the issue positions, but also
tests the candidate's willingness to respond to a specific issue-oriented question
while running for office. That's a real important clue to voters. If you ask
these candidates how they are going to handle some tough issues already identified
as being top on the public's agenda and highly likely to come up in the Congress
or legislature, are they willing to tell you? If they're not, that gives you
a little more information about that candidate.
IW: How do the candidates like you?
ELM: The candidates? They probably don't like us very much
(laughter). First of all, they say their swamped with questionnaires. But more
important from our point of view, they often don't like the idea that we are
gathering information on them and making it available to the public and that
they don't control the process. They have all the tools and technology to run
for office and to tailor their message and their image. Up to now, voters haven't
had many of those tools, so what we've done with our information system is turn
that technology around and put those tools- those weapons- in the hands of the
voters. We call it a voter self-defense system.
That's why our manual that just came out is called the Voter's Self-Defense
Manual . It gives people tips. For instance, "How to be a smart
voter: Don't participate in polls during an election season." Polling data
is used by candidates to tailor their image, their message, to raise money.
You don't get any good out of that, so why would you want to participate?
IW: People are going to love you for saying that.
ELM: Well, some people probably won't love us
very much. But it's hard to point to a poll that's done a voter any good. Polling
has never done a voter any good; it tends to be very manipulative.
In fact, it's hard for polls not to be manipulative. Some questions
are asked; others aren't asked. The ones that are asked are asked in a particular
way- consciously or unconsciously they're looking for a particular response.
Especially when they're being conducted by special interests. Polls are worthless;
they're dangerous. Actually, I should say they're worthless. They're worth a
lot (laughter). They are worth a lot to the people who put them on.
(continues...)
-----------
If you'd like more information on Vote Smart, you can read "About
Project Vote Smart" or their "Letter
to the American People". Get involved!