One that evaluates a candidate on each of the amendments to the constitution

Imagine looking at that:

A+ 1st
D- 2nd
B+ 24th

Yeah, sure, maybe there would be appropriate N/A, but imagine evaluating the candidate on THAT scorecard, rather than an asinine single issue "score"

How would that work?

If its done right it can work. The nra score card has worked for them but they lost me in 1982 with it.

It's a thought exercise on single issue voting. I didn't quite mean the LGC needs a scorecard.

It's also a good idea to get a refresher on amendments and proposed ones. I had forgotten the 27th amendment

Inquisitor wrote:It's a thought exercise on single issue voting. I didn't quite mean the LGC needs a scorecard.

It's also a good idea to get a refresher on amendments and proposed ones. I had forgotten the 27th amendment

Don't feel bad you probably know more about the constitution than most people in public office who are there to protect it.

Inquisitor wrote:It's a thought exercise on single issue voting. I didn't quite mean the LGC needs a scorecard.
It's also a good idea to get a refresher on amendments and proposed ones. I had forgotten the 27th amendment

Why are the candidates silent about the 3rd Amendment?

Is this another of Hillary's United Nations attempts to subvert Our Constitution?

Oh, sure, everybody talks about the 2nd and the 1st and the (fill in the blank) Amendment, but WE hear very little about the 3rd...

Isn't that strange?

Wake up America.

(Random punctuation, emphasis and capitalization added for effect)

bigmike0301 wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:It's a thought exercise on single issue voting. I didn't quite mean the LGC needs a scorecard.
It's also a good idea to get a refresher on amendments and proposed ones. I had forgotten the 27th amendment ;)

Why are the candidates silent about the 3rd Amendment?

Is this another of Hillary's United Nations attempts to subvert Our Constitution?

Oh, sure, everybody talks about the 2nd and the 1st and the (fill in the blank) Amendment, but WE hear very little about the 3rd...

Isn't that strange?

Wake up America.

(Random punctuation, emphasis and capitalization added for effect)

You apparently haven't looked in your closet or under your bed lately have you?

Maybe this idea has more legs than a simple thought experiment.

Anyone want to join a small working group and pound out a meaningful way to evaluate? We can start with Obama

Inquisitor wrote:Maybe this idea has more legs than a simple trout experiment.

I only eat the trout that don't have legs. Where the fuck have you been fishing?

Smart ass.

"thought"

The iPad hates me...

Trout experiments sound like more fun to me.

Salt before frying or salt after frying? Only science can answer such a question.

Both. Next?

Inquisitor wrote:Both. Next?

sweet or smoky paprika? first course or second? smoked, fried, steamed, grilled?

I'm running with this because I have no idea what we might make the criteria for our scorecard.

Thinking a little more...

We should score both on the position espoused on a particular issue as well as likelihood of doing or facilitating anything about it. That might be a good way to account for things like having two candidates with substantively different positions but the likelihood of different real outcomes is minimal.

Obama: not enthusiastic about gun restrictions, but open to some.

Romney: gives lip service to 2A fundamentalism.

Actual difference: Barry ain't coming for your guns and Mittens MagicUnderpants isn't about to repeal NFA or GCA. Both would likely sign things they didn't think were politically risky if bills came to the Oval Office desk.

Smokey.

Now, for the rest of the story

How about the other 26, how about a gut check, plus or minus, on all 27?

Fukshot wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:Both. Next?

sweet or smoky paprika? first course or second? smoked, fried, steamed, grilled?

I'm running with this because I have no idea what we might make the criteria for our scorecard.

I like mine dipped in salty butter and garlic,wrapped in tinfoil and grilled,,YUM!,as for a politician scorecard I'm not sure thats a good idea,I am afraid we would all be disappointed with the results

Inquisitor wrote:Smokey.

Now, for the rest of the story

How about the other 26, how about a gut check, plus or minus, on all 27?

Sounds like a starting place. The problem is that there are many of the 27 on which direct statements are hard to find. What are our criteria for evaluating on any given issue?

I agree with Vodkin that results will be disappointing.

No criteria, just gut check, we can quantify it later

Yes, I imagine even an obamabot like myself may find myself annoyed with the results

I don't have a problem with disappointments, I don't expect perfection and at this point all I expect of Obama is to be better than Romney. If this has any chance of taking off it can be something in the future that can be used much like the nras report card with our members. The fact that this club would not be so single issue would be a big plus. It would also give us more credibility in the main stream press.