Get To Know Your Next President

 Send to a Friend  |  Digg!
The Idea

I'm not at all satisfied with the way politics is covered in the mass media. Here we have a powerful means to inform voters, beyond what our nation's founders could have ever imagined: it could be used to take democracy to a new level. Instead it is used to stir up anger and controversy, play premature popularity contests, and encourage empty posturing.

We end up a divided nation, distrustful of our own neighbors.

I'm tired of hearing candidates forced to make their case for leading our nation in only 30 seconds.

I'm tired of hearing long empty speeches full of focus-group crafted phrases aimed at getting applause.

I'm tired of slick campaign videos with footage of handshakes, american flags, and patriotic music.

I'm tired of fiery arguments where the people talk over each other and press hot buttons to boost ratings.

Can anything be done?
I believe that the people are more reasonable than they are treated.

I believe that they are willing to listen to a candidate present their views.

I believe they are open to having their mind changed.

I believe that with better information, they'll make better choices.

Everyone knows that with enough debating skills you can appear to win an argument without being right. Applause can color viewers' opinions before they even consider the content. Speeches are too crafted. Soundbites are too simplistic. Campaign ads are too empty and sentimental. So what is there?

I like respectful but challenging video interviews.

They exist -- we just have to dig a little. I find the most informative ones, the ones that allow me to honestly consider the candidate, follow these guidelines:

  • the candidate has time to completely answer each question
  • the interviewer does not interrupt them
  • the interviewer asks critical questions and followups
  • there is no applause
  • the content is primarily about their positions, not their opponents'
  • the interview is at least 10 minutes
I think there are other people who would like to see interviews like that too. I think they'd be willing to watch a wide variety of candidates. I think they'd be open to see what their options for the future are, to really consider things and then make a choice.

I've done a search for each candidate who is registered in all 50 states, and collected the videos here for people to watch. I've randomized the listing order for each visitor, so that no candidate gets a placement advantage. I've not grouped them by party because I don't think it matters: either they have a good plan to run the country or they don't.

Of course I have my preferred candidates, but I'm going to do everything I can to keep that from affecting my presentation. I want this to be a resource for all citizens. I want to try to help make things better. We are a diverse nation, but we all love our country.

Not all the candidates had equal coverage on youtube, but this was the best I could find for each. I tried to find between 20 and 60 minutes of airtime for each candidate. I prefer one long video, but collected multiple videos if necessary. I think most voters are willing to spend an hour getting to know each of the people that might be running their country.

If you can find better video interviews for any of the candidates which more closely meet the guidelines I listed above, or more material for those who have less than an hour of airtime, I would be happy to consider putting them on this site. Other ideas for improvement can be sent as well, though any suggestions that would be divisive will be rejected.

Thanks,
Citizen J

The Videos
ordered randomly for each visitor
Help me find a full hour of quality interview footage for each candidate

Random Afterthoughts

There's a lot of room for improvement, but I'm working with what is available. I wasn't able to completely meet my own standards for each candidate, but I did my best. Suggestions are welcome.

It would be nice if there was a more consistent set of videos, say 30 minutes each, that cover a more consistent range of topics. It would be nice if we had better journalists. People who know how to ask more challenging questions and followups.

Why some station doesn't do interviews like this as a mini-series event is beyond me. I suppose some stations do in a small way, but not consistently across all candidates. And being aired once is not enough: this needs to be available on demand. The internet can help with that.

Youtube has a political site: http://www.youtube.com/youchoose ... but the separate out "the issues" into soundbites. I think that encourages people to make shallower decisions without considering the whole candidate. I also think that an interview with followups are required to discourage soundbites.

I don't think people are dumb. Nearly all US voters are capable of running their lives with a degree of success in a very complex world. They certainly have the ability to make reasonable decisions -- as long as they're not being hammered by manipulative presentations.

I don't believe any of the candidates are stupid or evil. To get as far as they have, they are at least of above average intelligence. And whether their goals align with yours or not, they are trying to make the world a better place. Devoting your life to politics is a respectable challenge.

I don't believe that either party is evil or stupid. The issues we face are complex and no one approach solves everything. There is usually a fair reason behind why someone holds a certain view, even if you don't agree with the reason.

I believe that people can listen and understand oppsing views. Even if they disagree, they can do so with respect and understanding that nobody is out to ruin the country.

I believe in the wisdom of crowds, which is the foundation of democracy. I also believe that, as described in the book, there are several ways to undermine the wisdom of crowds, and the mass media employs them all, probably without even realizing it.

Even if a person's mind isn't changed by watching all the videos, I believe it is a worthwhile thing. I found myself feeling less disgusted and more inspired after watching the videos. It made me hate politics less. It made me want to be more aware and involved.

I chose these people because they are all registered in all 50 states. I do not choose to include or exclude candidates based on current popularity or likelihood to win. The fact that most media outlets restrict on popularity causes harm by limiting our exposure to diversity.

I would love to standardize a process to create and promote these types of videos. I think the hardest part of making quality videos of this type would be finding an appropriate interviewer: someone who can challenge the candidate without attacking them. Choosing which topics to cover would also be a challenge.

I think this type of thing would be particularly beneficial in primaries, or any election where there were multiple candidates per party. Once we get down to the final two in the presidential race, people tend to line up blindly behind their party affiliation, unfortunately.

If you don't think you have the time to watch the videos for each listed candidate, then you are abdicating your responsibilities as a US citizen. Take the time, and make your choice. It could be the most important thing you do with that time.

I think polls in advance of elections, and staggered primaries, with reporting, hamper democracy. People choose based on who they think will win, who they think is the most popular.

In general, I think most of the analysis, focus groups, etc, hamper the wisdom of crowds.

I've been disappointed that as the primaries and caucuses roll on, reporting is almost exclusively about election winning methodology and not about issues. Election winning methodology is an interesting topic, but it seems very counterproductive to put it front and center over the actual practical operations of our nation.