Candidate Overview Profile
Option 1
Line Graphs where x= Time (comparison to "average amounts of colleagues and opponents" would ultimately be shown on same chart):Statements:
y = # of speeches or words
plotted points = # of speeches or words uttered each year
Votes with Party:
y = 0-100% party loyalty
plotted points = % of time voting with party majority each year
(In the interest of time, could just do % of votes other than "did not vote" out of total votes and call it "Votes")
Positive Ratings:
y = # of positive ratings and endorsements received (defined as 60%? or above)
plotted points = # of positive ratings and endorsements received each year
Courage:
y = % of political courage (pass = 100%, fail = 0%, except for 2010 when other measurements were allowed)
plotted points = % of political courage for each opportunity candidate had to receive political courage
Money Raised:
y = amount of money raised
plotted points = $ money raised each year
*single year candidates, new officials would look weird because there would only be one point, and not a line. A yearly might put them a disadvantage compared to other candidates if they haven't been "active" for a complete year
Option 2
Bar charts (or other representation like thermostat, meter, etc. Comparisons could be done either by plotting the average of the office type on this or by toggling between stats and comparisons. Alternatively, the actual amount could just be represented in text, with a bar graph showing what percentile they fit in compared to others):
Statements:
plotted point = frequency of how many speeches or words they have per month
range= lowest and highest frequency amounts of any candidate/official we track (or limit to office type)
Votes with Party:
plotted point = % of time voting with party
range=0-100%
Positive Ratings:
plotted point = # of positive ratings or endorsements received each year
range = lowest and highest number of positive ratings or endorsements of any candidate we track (or limit to office type
Courage:
plotted point = % of political courage in their most recent election (we've talked about averages previously but historically we've focused on their most recent opportunity)
range = 0-100%
Money Raised:
plotted point = $ amount raised
range = lowest and highest amounts raised of any candidate/official we track (or limit to office type)
*problem: need consistent range, like 0 to 100%? or relative to office type/other candidates and officials
Option 3
Verbal Snippets/Totals:
Gives us more flexibility as to what we could write...and we could also list rank or display percentiles visually. Example text (would need to be reworked:
Statements: "53 speeches/month" "Ranks 100 out of 105"
Votes with Party: "30% of the time"
Ratings: "4 positive ratings/year"
Courage: showed courage in 1 out of 2 elections
Finance: raised $1000 this election"
Things to keep in mind:
-Votes: Only trouble I can think of is states where multiple parties are listed (NY's are all over the map) or NE which has non-partisan state reps. I'm wondering how that might end up looking for those, but for the vast majority of people in the system this seems good.
-treat the following lack of data different than "zeros"? -no speeches or just position papers for those offices we don't actively cover, no votes for non-incumbents, hasn't been tested with PCT yet ever, no ratings or endorsements at all, no finance data available yet
To Keep in Mind for Future Development:
-Alternative naming schemes take away from the brand. Clever titling to reconsider in the future:
"Talkativeness" for frequency of public statements
"Loyalty" "Predictability" for voting with party
"Likability "Job Performance or References or Evaluations" for ratings
"Political Courage" for "Courage"
"Bankability/"Campaign Capital or Financial Support or Resources or
Viability (even though just one measure of viability) or Marketability
or Merchandisability or Sponsorship or Investors" for campaign finance money raised
-for Votes, users want Party Loyalty over other measurements. Other measurements to consider in the future: "Attendance" or "Participation" (percentage of votes made other than "did not vote" out of total votes),and Effectiveness (percentage of time someone's vote = the "winning" vote out of total votes). I'm not sure I agree with the term "effectiveness" though because it's not related back to their own positions.
-bad visual = Line graph that can go positive or negative (would be good for representing loyalty-votes w/ or against party, ratings-positive or negative ratings, and PCT), but statements and finance couldn't be represented
-inconsistencies between measures would be confusing. for example: Graph over time on how they vote, vs their party
Votes(line graph): Yay/nay votes compared with the major parties(or their own party only)
-Improve ratings measurement if we can- suggestions: "Likeability without knowing who "likes" them doesn't mean much, and challengers with only endorsements could not be accounted for. So take all general "liberal" ratings/endorsements and "conservative" ratings/endorsements in aggregate to create an assessment of where they lie on the ideological spectrum, or else how likable they are by liberal interests vs. conservative interests. I think in order to do this we would need to assign an ideological category to each interest group and rating, but I think we should do this anyway." (time concern)
Another Idea: we could show a sample positive rating, perhaps the highest rating or an endorsement from the last 2 years from a group marked as major. You could call it something like- "Biggest Fan: [SIG]" "#1 Fan: [SIG]" a la http://onecharmingparty.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/diy-foam-finger-1-550x733.jpg "Favorite of [SIG]." We'd have to figure out what to do if they've only been rated negatively or not at all
I still think an average rating would be best here. And just having a biggest fan may not be accurate(multiple 100%s), and pretty narrow. Or an entire replacement.
CategorySoftwareProjects
