I have rated the candidates for President with a percentage rating. I’ll explain my methodology but I wanted to put the ratings right up front. I suppose you could call this the “Varrin Rating”. Here are the ratings expressed as percentage of a perfect score:
| Paul (R): Tancredo (R): McCain (R): Cox (R): Thompson (R): Gravel (D): Hunter (R): Kucinich (D): Huckabee (R): Romney (R): Giuliani (R): Richardson (D): Dodd (D): Obama (D): Biden (D): Edwards (D): Clinton (D): |
97 57 54 49 47 45 42 38 38 33 31 28 27 27 23 22 21 |
So how did I come up with all that? I made a spreadsheet, of course! I started out with some great data here: 2008 Presidential Election Candidates on the Issues
Because the above spreadsheet lacks meaningful tax and spending data, I added to it. I looked up the National Taxpayers Union’s ratings for the candidates, and added both the most recent session percentage and the percent of A’s. Unfortunately, they don’t have rankings for Romney, Giuliani, Cox, Huckabee or Gravel. I gave Gravel a score of 35 (out of 100) on each NTU rating, and Giuliani, Romney, Cox, and Huckabee scores of 65 on each ratings. I based those numbers solely on party affiliation. I don’t know how Gravel would score, and I think Huckabee would score measurably lower than Romney or Giuliani, but without data I thought a moderate score for each of them would be fair.
I then took a quick tour through all the candidates websites looking for one thing: anything about spending. If they indicated a desire to cut spending the got more points. If they talk about balanced budgets, that helped. If they talk about eliminating programs, and pork more points. On the other hand, talk about universal healthcare, more military spending, more education spending, ag subsidies, only ‘mild’ reforms of social programs, and so on were all negatives. Needless to say, the Democrats all got low scores and the Republicans mostly got high scores (McCain and Paul led the pack there). I didn’t really do this scientifically, so this element is subject to error and is more a generalization.
After doing all that, I recorded my position on each issue with higher scores on the NTU ratings and my spending ratings being better. Agreements would score fully, unknowns and mixed opinions would get 1/4 credit, position changes towards agreement (along with timed withdrawal from Iraq) get half credit. On the issue of same sex marriage, and civil union, I gave the states rights people full credit (including McCain on civil unions) and all of the supports and opposes zeros.
Then I assigned a 1-10 weight to each issue (6 mentions of Iran and Iraq v.s. 3 on economics isn’t satisfactory, for example). Then I averaged the scores and got the results above. For what it’s worth, eliminating the NTU ratings and my spending rating doesn’t change the top three positions nor the disparity between Paul and the other contenders. It moves Thompson down a bit and Kucinich up some with a few other minor changes along the way.
So what, then are my positions and weightings? And more importantly, why? I’ll run down all of them briefly:
Roe v. Wade – Oppose, weighted 10. It was a bad decision primarily because it usurped states rights, and secondarily because it reduces human rights (I’m pro-life, obviously).
Death Penalty – Oppose, weighted 3. I’m generally opposed to the death penalty, both for principled reasons and practical ones, however there are few federal death penalty cases so it weights low for a Presidential race.
No Child Left Behind – Oppose, weighted 8. This is a bad law and is fairly important. Sates could still opt out by not accepting the money, though, so it gets an 8.
Stem Cell – Oppose, weighted 8. Less important than Roe v. Wade.
Energy, ANWR – Support, weighted 7 – that land really should be privatized. Allowing drilling on public land would be a legitimate decision of government, and I would support it in that case.
Energy, Kyoto – Oppose, weighted 6 – I don’t think the government should subject itself to treaties which require significant legislation affecting citizens, business, etc.
Assault weapons ban – Oppose, weighted 8 – the 2nd Amendment is clear.
Guns background checks – Oppose, weighted 5 – The 2nd Amendment is clear, but this isn’t an outright ban per se.
Patriot act – Oppose, weighted 10 – Grossly unconstitutional and affects many Americans.
Guantanamo – Oppose, weighted 3 – Its mere existence isn’t as important as other factors
Torture – Oppose, weighted 5 – I’m sure I’ll take some flak for this, but I’m not an expert on waterboarding or other forms of torture. This debate is way too charged for me to rate any higher. If Guantanamo is to exist, though, there certainly shouldn’t be torture going on there.
Wiretapping – Oppose, weighted 9 – Grossly unconstitutional and affects many Americans.
Citizenship path for illegals – Oppose, weighted 5 – They should get citizenship legally and not be rewarded for coming illegally. This is not the most important immigration issue, though.
Border Fence – Oppose, weighted 3 – This is the wrong solution to the immigration problem.
Internet Neutrality – Oppose, weighted 10 – Would affect most Americans negatively and is outside the legitimate scope of the Federal government. Could also be construed as unconstitutional under the first amendment.
Iran Sanctions – Oppose, weighted 5 – Not yet. Maybe later.
Iran Military action option – Oppose, weighted 6 – Not yet and not unless they attack or realistically threaten to. Then I would favor with a fairly high weight. Lower rating due to lots of Iran / Iraq content.
Iraq war support – Oppose, weighted 8 – Bad idea that got worse as time went on.
Iraq war troop surge – Oppose, weighted 6 – making a bad idea worse. Weighted less because there’s a lot of Iran / Iraq content. Also, if we’re going to stay (we shouldn’t), having enough troops to protect themselves and others would be better.
Iraq War Withdrawal – Support, weighted 8 – Leaving is a good idea. I gave half credit for measured withdrawal, however I’m skeptical as to whether that’s another way of saying “stay.”
Minimum Wage Increase – Oppose, weighted 8 – Unconstitutional (with some exceptions, like government contractors), and bad economic policy.
Same-Sex Marriage – States issue, weighted 7 – Unconstitutional for the Federal government to deal with. A case could even be made for marriage licensing itself being unconstitutional. Supports got zero due to the meaning of support being force its legal status on all the states. Opposes got zero due to the meaning of oppose being force its illegal status on all the sates. Both positions are unconstitutional.
Same-sex civil union – States issue, weighted 7 – see above.
Same-sex constitutional ban – Oppose, weighted 10 – While this would be legal (constitutionally speaking), I think it’s bad policy for the Federal government to get involved. Government should reduce, not increase, involvement in marriage.
Universal Healthcare – Oppose, weighted 10 – Not only is this unconstitutional, it’s a huge spending (hence tax) issue.
NTU ratings and spending rating – weighted 10’s – this gives three 10-weighted economic factors that aren’t present otherwise.
If you found yourself mostly or entirely agreeing with my positions, you probably should seriously consider Ron Paul for President. He’s not just better, he’s WAY better than all the rest. There’s only one position on that spreadsheet that he and I disagree on (the Border Fence). There are a few others (birthright citizenship being one) that aren’t on the spreadsheet, but overall, he’s way ahead in my book.
If you want a copy of the raw spreadsheet, let me know.
V-
edited: discovered a calculation error which changed Thompson’s score from a 42 to a 47.
I’d like a copy of that spreadsheet please.