Revision history for DataSourcesforVoteEasyEvidence
Revision [57777]
Last edited on 2021-07-15 10:18:50 by JamesW [removal of onpoint and galaxy mentions]Additions:
2. VoteEasy - Our candidate matching tool that is active during election season
Deletions:
3. VoteEasy - Our candidate matching tool that is active during election season
Additions:
Special Interest Group Ratings (SIGs) reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position. Both ratings and endorsements are collected and entered by the Special Interest Groups program of the Officials Research Department.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601/marco-rubio/37 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any regulations.
1) Votesmart.org site search. You may want to start with the Issue Positions first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat.
1) Browsing or performing a Google site search of the politician's website(s)
1) social media search engines/browsing the politician's social media accounts
1) broader Google searches
1) Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
1) Search for content that is unlikely to come up in keyword google searches, for example: videos and certain pdfs. Often, this will be TV interviews of a politician, radio interviews of a politician, voter guides of an election or race, or pledges on an issue
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601/marco-rubio/37 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any regulations.
1) Votesmart.org site search. You may want to start with the Issue Positions first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat.
1) Browsing or performing a Google site search of the politician's website(s)
1) social media search engines/browsing the politician's social media accounts
1) broader Google searches
1) Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
1) Search for content that is unlikely to come up in keyword google searches, for example: videos and certain pdfs. Often, this will be TV interviews of a politician, radio interviews of a politician, voter guides of an election or race, or pledges on an issue
Deletions:
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any regulations.
- Votesmart.org site search. You may want to start with the Issue Positions first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat.
- Browsing or performing a Google site search of the politician's website(s)
- social media search engines/browsing the politician's social media accounts
- broader Google searches
- Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
- Search for content that is unlikely to come up in keyword google searches, for example: videos and certain pdfs. Often, this will be TV interviews of a politician, radio interviews of a politician, voter guides of an election or race, or pledges on an issue
Additions:
- Nay votes need to be considered more carefully and used in conjunction with another piece of evidence. Please ask the Elections Research Director (or designated Research Associate) before using a nay vote as evidence.
Deletions:
Additions:
Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. For questions that do match, this is the most conclusive form of evidence that you can find - the candidate is directly answering the question being asked. Any answers to a PCT from 6 years before the current election or more recently are good sources of information.
Deletions:
Additions:
2. Their Positions part of Political Galaxy: https://votesmart.org/galaxy
Deletions:
Additions:
Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database. ( Possibly using sponsorships post 2018 election )
Deletions:
Additions:
In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; all data taken should not be older than 6 years to the corresponding election year.
Deletions:
Additions:
>>**How to Search for Ratings/Endorsements Using votesmart.org**
- Select your candidate's name and then click on the Folder icon that says "Ratings"
- Use the "Issue" filter to specify your search.
- Scroll through the ratings listed and pick any that will be useful for evidence
- Recent endorsements will be listed on the left side of the page>>
- Select your candidate's name and then click on the Folder icon that says "Ratings"
- Use the "Issue" filter to specify your search.
- Scroll through the ratings listed and pick any that will be useful for evidence
- Recent endorsements will be listed on the left side of the page>>
Additions:
- Use the "Issue" filter to specify your search. The list of votes that the candidate has taken will be ordered chronologically.
Deletions:
Additions:
>>**How to Search for Votes Using votesmart.org**
- Select your candidate's name and then click on the Folder icon that says "Votes"
- Use the "Issue" filter to specify your search. The list of votes that the candidate has taken will be listed chronologically.
- Scroll through the votes listed and pick any that will be useful for evidence>>
- Select your candidate's name and then click on the Folder icon that says "Votes"
- Use the "Issue" filter to specify your search. The list of votes that the candidate has taken will be listed chronologically.
- Scroll through the votes listed and pick any that will be useful for evidence>>
Additions:
>>**How to Search for Past PCT Answers Using votesmart.org**
No Differences
Additions:
- Select your candidate's name and then click on the Folder icon that says "Positions"
- If the candidate has taken the PCT, his/her answers will display here
- A fully filled in green circle next to an answer means the answer can directly from the candidate (meaning it wasn't a research determination)>>
- If the candidate has taken the PCT, his/her answers will display here
- A fully filled in green circle next to an answer means the answer can directly from the candidate (meaning it wasn't a research determination)>>
Additions:
>>**How to Search for Statements Using votesmart.org**
Deletions:
Additions:
>>**How to do a statement search on votesmart.org**
- go to votesmart.org and type in the candidate's name you want to search
- Select your candidate's name and then click on the Folder icon that says "Speeches"
- Use the "Issue" filter, "Keyword Search", "Date Range", and "Speech Type" filter to specify your search. You usually don't need to use all of these at once, but they all can be helpful.
- Scroll through the statements listed and pick any that will be useful for evidence>>
- go to votesmart.org and type in the candidate's name you want to search
- Select your candidate's name and then click on the Folder icon that says "Speeches"
- Use the "Issue" filter, "Keyword Search", "Date Range", and "Speech Type" filter to specify your search. You usually don't need to use all of these at once, but they all can be helpful.
- Scroll through the statements listed and pick any that will be useful for evidence>>
Additions:
- Specific type of statement. They are very direct and issue focused, making them very useful Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand. From a candidate's "Speeches" page, you can filter for Issue Position statements by setting the "Speech Type" scroll down to "Issue Position".
Deletions:
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand. From a candidate's "Speeches" page, you can filter for Issue Position statements by setting the "Speech Type" scroll down to "Issue Position".
Additions:
Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. For questions that do match, this is the most conclusive form of evidence that you can find - the candidate is directly answering the question being asked. Any answers to a PCT since 2012 (6 years before the current election) are good sources of information.
Deletions:
Additions:
Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. For questions that do match, this is the most conclusive form of evidence that you can find - the candidate is directly answering the question being asked. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. Any answers to a PCT since 2012 (6 years before the current election) are good sources of information.
Deletions:
Additions:
- Votesmart.org site search. You may want to start with the Issue Positions first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat.
Deletions:
Additions:
The Issue Position process starts with the Political Courage Test - a questionnaire that Vote Smart sends to candidates asking them to give their issue positions on 16 major political questions. When a candidate fills out the test, their answers populate three different Vote Smart tools:
Deletions:
Additions:
==Public Statements collected from candidates==
Deletions:
Additions:
==Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates==
**Pledges:**
**Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters):**
==Candidate Surveys==
**Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs):**
**External Voting Guides and Surveys:**
Special Interest Group Ratings (SIGs) reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position. Both ratings and endorsements are collected and entered by the Ratings Sub-Departpert of the Research Department.
For instance, Candidate A opposes greenhouse gas regulations because they could hinder economic growth, while his main opponent, Candidate B, denies climate change all together and thinks humans can do whatever they want to the earth. In this scenario, an environmental SIG may rate Candidate A favorably (or even endorse) just because Candidate B is such a bad option for them, even though Candidate A actually is against regulating greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of these kind of practices, we will need multiple strong ratings (<25% or >75%) to make a determination based solely on SIG ratings.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any regulations.
To find a candidate's interest group ratings on the Vote Smart website, select their "Ratings" folder and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu.
When we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside sources. The main concern is that if someone can find the answer to something we've marked as "undetermined" with a quick google search, that would be hard for us to justify not having it.
**Acceptable External Sources**
Use discretion when searching for sources from websites other than votesmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality, reliable sources. When searching outside of votesmart.org, make sure you are only looking for the same types evidence described above (what the candidate said, how they voted, how they were rated). When you find good evidence outside of VS, the first thing you should do is see if we can process the data so it is on our site. This will require getting in touch with the different research Sub-Departments (Statements, Key Votes and Ratings). If you have any questions about who to send evidence to or if we can take it, ask your supervisor!
- Any video posted by the candidate is fair game.
- VoteSmart.org site search. You may want to start with the Issue Positions first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat.
**Pledges:**
**Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters):**
==Candidate Surveys==
**Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs):**
**External Voting Guides and Surveys:**
Special Interest Group Ratings (SIGs) reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position. Both ratings and endorsements are collected and entered by the Ratings Sub-Departpert of the Research Department.
For instance, Candidate A opposes greenhouse gas regulations because they could hinder economic growth, while his main opponent, Candidate B, denies climate change all together and thinks humans can do whatever they want to the earth. In this scenario, an environmental SIG may rate Candidate A favorably (or even endorse) just because Candidate B is such a bad option for them, even though Candidate A actually is against regulating greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of these kind of practices, we will need multiple strong ratings (<25% or >75%) to make a determination based solely on SIG ratings.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any regulations.
To find a candidate's interest group ratings on the Vote Smart website, select their "Ratings" folder and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu.
When we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside sources. The main concern is that if someone can find the answer to something we've marked as "undetermined" with a quick google search, that would be hard for us to justify not having it.
**Acceptable External Sources**
Use discretion when searching for sources from websites other than votesmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality, reliable sources. When searching outside of votesmart.org, make sure you are only looking for the same types evidence described above (what the candidate said, how they voted, how they were rated). When you find good evidence outside of VS, the first thing you should do is see if we can process the data so it is on our site. This will require getting in touch with the different research Sub-Departments (Statements, Key Votes and Ratings). If you have any questions about who to send evidence to or if we can take it, ask your supervisor!
- Any video posted by the candidate is fair game.
- VoteSmart.org site search. You may want to start with the Issue Positions first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat.
Deletions:
Pledges:
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters):
**Candidate Surveys**
Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs):
External Voting Guides and Surveys:
Special Interest Group Ratings (SIGs) reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position.
For instance, Candidate A opposes greenhouse gas regulations because they could hinder economic growth, while his main opponent, Candidate B, denies climate change all together and thinks humans can do whatever they want to the earth. In this scenario, an environmental SIG may rate Candidate A favorably just because Candidate B is such a bad option for them, even though Candidate A actually is against regulating greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of these kind of practices, we will need multiple strong ratings (<25% or >75%) to make a determination based solely on SIG ratings.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any additional regulations.
To find interest group ratings on the Vote Smart website, visit Ratings and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu.
**Quotes from Third Parties**
Sometimes, a candidate can either be quite vague or extremely long-winded in directly answering a question and as a result, we must use excerpts from a reputable third party source in which they summarize the candidate's position better than several somewhat related quotes or one extremely long quote. These sources are not as strong for determinations as directly related quotes since they are not actually from the candidate or their campaign; however, they can provide valuable support to other evidence and can more accurately convey a candidate's position on an issue than four or five broken up quotes that do not quite address the issue.
A good example of this situation comes from Rand Paul's position on privatizing social security. Although he no longer discusses it because he has moved on to more passed alternatives, the fact remains that he did once support it. In the absence of a direct quote about it, this Slate article which discusses this situation and states “Paul, after all, had always been for personal accounts” is a good source to convey this situation to viewers of our website. To make an final determination we will need more evidence, but it is a valuable resource for voters nonetheless.
**Note: There is some amount of discretion required for the validity of a source. Ideally, we should stick to major news organizations such as The Washington Post or The New York Times. If there is any question about how reputable a source is, and alternatives are not available, include the evidence and the staff and interns doing subsequent checks can better determine its worth. **
However, when we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside sources. The main concern is that if someone can find the answer to something we've marked as "undetermined" with a quick google search, that would be hard for us to justify.
===Known Limitations of Vote Smart Data===
While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
===Acceptable External Sources===
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality, reliable sources. Primary sources are greatly preferred.
- Media organizations. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are generally not acceptable sources, even if they quote the candidate.
- Any video posted by the candidate is fair game, but we shouldn't cite endorsements from 3rd parties or constituents ("Rep. Smith has been a champion for the sanctity of life, and that's why he has my vote.") unless the candidate verbally endorses the video ("I'm Rep. Smith and I support this message.").
- VoteSmart.org site search. You may want to start with the position papers first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat. Their titles start with the phrase "Issue Position:"
Additions:
When good statement evidence is found, but outside of the Vote Smart website, please show it to your supervisor so that they can send it to the Statements Sub-Department. Statements staff can then process the evidence so it is on our site. We want to use all of the evidence we can find, but we also want it to come from our own data!
Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database.
**Votes Found Outside of The Vote Smart Website**
When good Vote evidence is found, but outside of the Vote Smart website, please show it to your supervisor so that they can send it to the Key Votes Sub-Department. Key Votes can then process the evidence so it is on our site. We want to use all of the evidence we can find, but we also want it to come from our own data!
Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database.
**Votes Found Outside of The Vote Smart Website**
When good Vote evidence is found, but outside of the Vote Smart website, please show it to your supervisor so that they can send it to the Key Votes Sub-Department. Key Votes can then process the evidence so it is on our site. We want to use all of the evidence we can find, but we also want it to come from our own data!
Deletions:
Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database.
Additions:
Legislative sponsorship/co-sponsorship can provide additional insight into candidate issue positions.
Deletions:
Additions:
Yea votes are not a foolproof indicator of a candidate's position on the issue. Usually if a candidate is committed to a certain cause, they will have spoken about it, which can be used to validate vote evidence.
Deletions:
Additions:
- Nay votes need to be considered more carefully and used in conjunction with another piece of evidence. Please ask Jesus or Peter before using a nay vote as evidence.
Deletions:
Additions:
- Nay votes need to be considered more carefully and used in conjunction with another piece of evidence. Please advice Jesus or Peter before using a nay vote as evidence.
Deletions:
Additions:
Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions, as sometimes "actions speak louder than words." Using legislation as evidence can be challenging though, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily indicate support for or opposition to an issue position.
Deletions:
Additions:
Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. Any answers to a PCT since 2012 (6 years before the current election) are good sources of information.
Deletions:
Additions:
**====Reason For Issue Position Research====**
Deletions:
Additions:
**====Reason For Vote Easy Research====**
Deletions:
Additions:
**====Reason For VoteEasy Research====**
Deletions:
Additions:
**====Reason For Vote Easy Research====**
Deletions:
Additions:
Pledges:
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters):
Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs):
External Voting Guides and Surveys:
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters):
Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs):
External Voting Guides and Surveys:
Deletions:
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)
Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)
External Voting Guides and Surveys
Additions:
Pledges
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)
Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)
External Voting Guides and Surveys
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)
Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)
External Voting Guides and Surveys
Deletions:
**Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)**
**Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
**External Voting Guides and Surveys**
Additions:
- Specific type of statement. They are very direct and issue focused, making them very useful
Deletions:
Additions:
**Speeches Found Outside of The Vote Smart Website**
Deletions:
Additions:
**Speeches Found Not on The Vote Smart Website**
When good statement evidence is found, but outside of the Vote Smart website, please show it to your supervisor so that they can send it to the Statements Sub-Department. The Statements can then process the evidence so it is on our site. We want to use all of the evidence we can find, but we also want it to come from our own data!
When good statement evidence is found, but outside of the Vote Smart website, please show it to your supervisor so that they can send it to the Statements Sub-Department. The Statements can then process the evidence so it is on our site. We want to use all of the evidence we can find, but we also want it to come from our own data!
Additions:
**Public Statements collected from candidates**
Public Statements include anything put out or made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed/said by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Public Statements include many different speech forms (Press Release, Speech, Debate...ect). As long as it is a direct quote from the candidate or their team, we can use it for evidence. Statements from candidates are regularly published on the Vote Smart website by the Statements Sub-Department of the Research Department.
**Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates**
**Pledges**
**Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)**
**Candidate Surveys**
**Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
**External Voting Guides and Surveys**
Public Statements include anything put out or made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed/said by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Public Statements include many different speech forms (Press Release, Speech, Debate...ect). As long as it is a direct quote from the candidate or their team, we can use it for evidence. Statements from candidates are regularly published on the Vote Smart website by the Statements Sub-Department of the Research Department.
**Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates**
**Pledges**
**Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)**
**Candidate Surveys**
**Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
**External Voting Guides and Surveys**
Deletions:
Public Statements include anything put out or made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed/said by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Keep in mind that the type of evidence we are looking for are direct quotes from the candidate or their campaign. Statements from candidates are regularly published on the Vote Smart website by the Statements Sub-Department of the Research Department.
==Speeches and Public Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates==
**Pledges**
**Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)**
==Candidate Surveys==
**Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
**External Voting Guides and Surveys**
Additions:
- Specific type of statement that are very direct and issue focused, making them very useful
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand. From a candidate's "Speeches" page, you can filter for Issue Position statements by setting the "Speech Type" scroll down to "Issue Position".
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand. From a candidate's "Speeches" page, you can filter for Issue Position statements by setting the "Speech Type" scroll down to "Issue Position".
Deletions:
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand. From a candidate's "Speeches" page, you can filter for Issue Position statements by setting the "Speech Type" scroll down to "Issue Position".
Additions:
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand. From a candidate's "Speeches" page, you can filter for Issue Position statements by setting the "Speech Type" scroll down to "Issue Position".
Deletions:
Additions:
Public Statements include anything put out or made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed/said by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Keep in mind that the type of evidence we are looking for are direct quotes from the candidate or their campaign. Statements from candidates are regularly published on the Vote Smart website by the Statements Sub-Department of the Research Department.
Direct quotes will make up a large portion of evidence we use because of the quantity of speeches which are available to us. They can also be very direct and clearly answer a question, making them ideal evidence.
Example: transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says: “I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”. This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life. - https://votesmart.org/public-statement/866396
Direct quotes will make up a large portion of evidence we use because of the quantity of speeches which are available to us. They can also be very direct and clearly answer a question, making them ideal evidence.
Example: transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says: “I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”. This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life. - https://votesmart.org/public-statement/866396
Deletions:
Public Statements (what's in the "Speeches" folders) include anything put out or made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Keep in mind that the type of evidence we are looking for are direct quotes from the candidate or their team.
Example: transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says: “I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”. This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life.
Additions:
Statements which are straight from the candidate or campaign are the best evidence so long as they directly relate to the question at hand. This includes speeches, issue positions, public statements, and old PCT answers. Again, in order for any of these sources to qualify as Tier 1, they must directly address the question being asked. Because Tier 1 evidence is clear and conclusive, we can make a determination off of just one or two pieces of evidence. However, finding 2-3 pieces of tier 1 evidence is ideal.
Statements can be found by navigating to the candidate's page on votesmart.org and selecting their "Speeches" folder. From there, you can select an "issue" from the scroll down menu, or try a keyword search for your topic.
Public Statements (what's in the "Speeches" folders) include anything put out or made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Keep in mind that the type of evidence we are looking for are direct quotes from the candidate or their team.
- Specific type of statement that is very direct and issue focused, so thereby useful
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand. When on a candidate's "Speeches" page, you can filter for Issue Position statements by setting the "Speech Type" scroll down to "Issue Position"
An example of a good issue position statement is this one for Dianne Feinstein taken directly from her campaign website at the time.
Statements can be found by navigating to the candidate's page on votesmart.org and selecting their "Speeches" folder. From there, you can select an "issue" from the scroll down menu, or try a keyword search for your topic.
Public Statements (what's in the "Speeches" folders) include anything put out or made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Keep in mind that the type of evidence we are looking for are direct quotes from the candidate or their team.
- Specific type of statement that is very direct and issue focused, so thereby useful
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand. When on a candidate's "Speeches" page, you can filter for Issue Position statements by setting the "Speech Type" scroll down to "Issue Position"
An example of a good issue position statement is this one for Dianne Feinstein taken directly from her campaign website at the time.
Deletions:
These can be found by navigating to the candidate's page on votesmart.org and selecting their "Speeches" folder. From their, you can select an "issue" from the scroll down menu, or try a keyword search for your topic.
Public Statements (what's in the "Speeches" folders) include anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Keep in mind that the type of evidence we are looking for are direct quotes from the candidate or their team.
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand.
An example of a good issue position statement is this one for Dianne Feinstein taken directly from his campaign website at the time.
Additions:
**====Reason For VoteEasy Research====**
However, only ~25% of Congressional candidates take the PCT (based off of recent years). Voters are still interested in where their candidates stand on the issues, so we go ahead and research how candidates would answer these questions. When candidates fail to take the PCT, these researched determinations (referred to as VoteEasy Determinations or Issue Position Determinations) act as a substitute for the three tools mentioned above.
The goal of VoteEasy Research is to construct strong and defensible determinations of politicians' positions.
However, only ~25% of Congressional candidates take the PCT (based off of recent years). Voters are still interested in where their candidates stand on the issues, so we go ahead and research how candidates would answer these questions. When candidates fail to take the PCT, these researched determinations (referred to as VoteEasy Determinations or Issue Position Determinations) act as a substitute for the three tools mentioned above.
The goal of VoteEasy Research is to construct strong and defensible determinations of politicians' positions.
Deletions:
However, only ~25% of Congressional candidates take the PCT (based off of recent years). Voters are still interested in where their candidates stand on the issues, so we go ahead and research how candidates would answer these questions.
The goal of Issue Position Research is to construct strong and defensible determinations of politicians' positions.
Additions:
3. VoteEasy - Our candidate matching tool that is active during election season
Deletions:
Additions:
Statements from candidates are regularly published on the Vote Smart website by the Statements Sub-Department of the Research Department. Direct quotes will make up a large portion of evidence for candidates because of the quantity of speeches which are available to us. They can also be very direct and clearly answer a question, making them ideal evidence.
These can be found by navigating to the candidate's page on votesmart.org and selecting their "Speeches" folder. From their, you can select an "issue" from the scroll down menu, or try a keyword search for your topic.
Public Statements (what's in the "Speeches" folders) include anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Keep in mind that the type of evidence we are looking for are direct quotes from the candidate or their team.
Example: transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says: “I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”. This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life.
These can be found by navigating to the candidate's page on votesmart.org and selecting their "Speeches" folder. From their, you can select an "issue" from the scroll down menu, or try a keyword search for your topic.
Public Statements (what's in the "Speeches" folders) include anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. Keep in mind that the type of evidence we are looking for are direct quotes from the candidate or their team.
Example: transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says: “I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”. This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life.
Deletions:
**Direct Quotes**
Direct quotes will make up a large portion of evidence for candidates because of the quantity of speeches which are available to us. They are also often the most direct and thus, the best.
In this example, we have a transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says: “I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”. This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life.
**Public Statements**
Public Statements are anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website.
An example of a good public statement is this op-ed by Ted Cruz from USA Today in which he states his positions on several issues including:
“We should welcome and celebrate legal immigrants who follow the rules, and at the same time honor the will of the people and prevent any more illegal amnesty.”
Additions:
Additions:
**====Reason For Issue Position Research====**
The Issue Position process starts with the Political Courage Test - a questionnaire that Vote Smart sends to candidates asking them to give their issue positions on 15-17 major political questions. When a candidate fills out the test, their answers populate three different Vote Smart tools:
1. The candidate's "Positions" page on the website: https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/138524
2. Their Positions part of Political Galaxy: https://votesmart.org/galaxy/#/Jimmy-Gomez-138524/Abortion-2/positions
3. VoteEasy - Our candidate matching tool that is only active during election season
However, only ~25% of Congressional candidates take the PCT (based off of recent years). Voters are still interested in where their candidates stand on the issues, so we go ahead and research how candidates would answer these questions.
The goal of Issue Position Research is to construct strong and defensible determinations of politicians' positions.
Statements which are straight from the candidate or campaign are the best evidence so long as they directly relate to the question at hand. This includes speeches, issue positions, public statements, and old PCT answers. Again, in order for any of these sources to qualify as Tier 1, they must directly address the question being asked. Because Tier 1 evidence is clear and conclusive, we can make a Issue Position determination off of one or two pieces of evidence. However, finding 2-3 pieces of tier 1 evidence is ideal.
The Issue Position process starts with the Political Courage Test - a questionnaire that Vote Smart sends to candidates asking them to give their issue positions on 15-17 major political questions. When a candidate fills out the test, their answers populate three different Vote Smart tools:
1. The candidate's "Positions" page on the website: https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/138524
2. Their Positions part of Political Galaxy: https://votesmart.org/galaxy/#/Jimmy-Gomez-138524/Abortion-2/positions
3. VoteEasy - Our candidate matching tool that is only active during election season
However, only ~25% of Congressional candidates take the PCT (based off of recent years). Voters are still interested in where their candidates stand on the issues, so we go ahead and research how candidates would answer these questions.
The goal of Issue Position Research is to construct strong and defensible determinations of politicians' positions.
Statements which are straight from the candidate or campaign are the best evidence so long as they directly relate to the question at hand. This includes speeches, issue positions, public statements, and old PCT answers. Again, in order for any of these sources to qualify as Tier 1, they must directly address the question being asked. Because Tier 1 evidence is clear and conclusive, we can make a Issue Position determination off of one or two pieces of evidence. However, finding 2-3 pieces of tier 1 evidence is ideal.
Deletions:
Statements which are straight from the candidate or campaign are the best evidence so long as they directly relate to the question at hand. In these circumstances, two or three pieces of evidence is usually plenty to firmly verify the candidate's position on that issue. This includes speeches, issue positions, public statements, and old PCT answers. Again, in order for any of these sources to qualify as Tier 1, they must directly address the question being asked.
No Differences
Additions:
In this example, we have a transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says: “I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”. This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life.
Deletions:
“I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”.
This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life.
Additions:
For example, a candidate may have voted against a bill to institute stricter gun laws, but not because they opposed the stricter gun laws, but instead because of how it was done or the severity of those restrictions. A real world example of all of this would be Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren's votes on S Amdt 1197 “Requires the Completion of the Fence Along the United States-Mexico Border”. Since Cruz voted in favor of the bill, we can use that as a solid piece of evidence that he is in favor of requiring undocumented immigrants to return to their country of origin prior to attaining citizenship. On the other hand, even though Warren voted against the bill, we cannot say that she is for sure in favor of amnesty of some sort because there may have been other factors for her disapproval of the bill. As a result, we only use votes in favor of a certain piece of legislation. The following general rules should apply:
Deletions:
No Differences
No Differences
Additions:
An example of a good public statement is this op-ed by Ted Cruz from USA Today in which he states his positions on several issues including:
Deletions:
Additions:
**====Types of Evidence====**
Deletions:
No Differences
Deletions:
Additions:
Public statements, speeches, interviews, debates and position papers are regularly published on the Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting "Speeches and Public Statements." From their, certain types of these public statements occur, such as:
In this example, we have a transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says:
“I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”.
**Issue Position Statements**
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand.
An example of a good issue position statement is this one for Dianne Feinstein taken directly from his campaign website at the time.
"Senator Feinstein supported the historic Affordable Care Act, which is benefiting millions of Californians."
Public Statements are anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website.
An example of a good public statement is this op-ed by Ted Cruz from USA Today in which he states his positions on several issues including
“We should welcome and celebrate legal immigrants who follow the rules, and at the same time honor the will of the people and prevent any more illegal amnesty.”
Although these are not direct words from the candidates, they have willingly attached their name to whatever the message is. So a pledge to not raise taxes is a pretty good indicator that they do not support raising taxes on any tax bracket will benefit the country. Additionally, if they sign a letter, it is a solid indicator of their support or opposition of an the issue in question.
Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. Any answers to a PCT since 2012 are good sources of information.
- Nay votes are rarely, if ever, used
**Special Interest Group Ratings and Endorsements**
Special Interest Group Ratings (SIGs) reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position.
While a candidate's rating from a Special Interest Group can be useful, it is also not foolproof because the SIG may have other motives in their rating of a candidate. Ratings are typically biased or partisan. In particular, a SIG may rate a candidate based partly on the views of their opponent.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any additional regulations.
To find interest group ratings on the Vote Smart website, visit Ratings and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu.
It is preferred if we can cite our own content (on votesmart.org) as evidence, especially if it's content we normally cover on our site. Citing votesmart.org has the advantage of highlighting the usefulness of our data and keeping users on our site if they are interested in seeing more detail. We also are confident in its reliability, whereas external sources may not be as relatable.
While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
- Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
In this example, we have a transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says:
“I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”.
**Issue Position Statements**
Issue Position Statements which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand.
An example of a good issue position statement is this one for Dianne Feinstein taken directly from his campaign website at the time.
"Senator Feinstein supported the historic Affordable Care Act, which is benefiting millions of Californians."
Public Statements are anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website.
An example of a good public statement is this op-ed by Ted Cruz from USA Today in which he states his positions on several issues including
“We should welcome and celebrate legal immigrants who follow the rules, and at the same time honor the will of the people and prevent any more illegal amnesty.”
Although these are not direct words from the candidates, they have willingly attached their name to whatever the message is. So a pledge to not raise taxes is a pretty good indicator that they do not support raising taxes on any tax bracket will benefit the country. Additionally, if they sign a letter, it is a solid indicator of their support or opposition of an the issue in question.
Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. Any answers to a PCT since 2012 are good sources of information.
- Nay votes are rarely, if ever, used
**Special Interest Group Ratings and Endorsements**
Special Interest Group Ratings (SIGs) reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position.
While a candidate's rating from a Special Interest Group can be useful, it is also not foolproof because the SIG may have other motives in their rating of a candidate. Ratings are typically biased or partisan. In particular, a SIG may rate a candidate based partly on the views of their opponent.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any additional regulations.
To find interest group ratings on the Vote Smart website, visit Ratings and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu.
It is preferred if we can cite our own content (on votesmart.org) as evidence, especially if it's content we normally cover on our site. Citing votesmart.org has the advantage of highlighting the usefulness of our data and keeping users on our site if they are interested in seeing more detail. We also are confident in its reliability, whereas external sources may not be as relatable.
While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
- Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
Deletions:
In this example, we have a transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says
“I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”
**Position Papers**
Position papers which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand.
An example of a good position paper is this one for Joe Biden taken directly from his campaign website at the time.
“Joe Biden will work to: Restore U.S. Leadership On Climate Change • Immediately direct U.S. negotiators to return to global climate change negotiations, to seek binding commitments among all major emitting nations - including emerging nations such as China and India - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that prevent catastrophic global warming.”
As mentioned above, because this evidence is quite old, the other evidence provided would need to be more recent to make sure that he has not changed his position on the issue.
Public Statements are anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. An example of a good public statement is this op-ed by Ted Cruz from USA Today in which he states his positions on several issues including
“Third, secure the border and stop illegal amnesty. [...] We should welcome and celebrate legal immigrants who follow the rules, and at the same time honor the will of the people and prevent any more illegal amnesty.”
Although these are not direct words from the candidates, they have willingly attached their name to whatever the message is. So a pledge to not raise taxes is a pretty good indicator that they do not support raising taxes on any tax bracket will benefit the country. Additionally, if they sign a letter such as this one to Obama asking him to sign the Keystone XL pipeline legislation, it is a solid indicator of their support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. Any answers to a PCT since 2012 are golden; answers older than that will need additional and more recent evidence to accompany it. For responses that are over ten years old, we need at least two more pieces of evidence to make a solid determination.
NPATs/PCTs have included three types of questions:
- Check your support (//Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding...//)
- Yes/No/Undecided (//Indicate your position on the following issues//)
- Level (//Using the key, indicate what state tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories//)
If the question requests that the candidate indicate his or her //support// for an issue statement, a lack of response may not indicate lack of support. Lack of support may only be indicated if the respondent marks "No" for a question based on the Yes/No/Undecided format or "Eliminate" based on the level format.
- Nay votes are rarely used for determinations; a candidate may have voted against a specific provision despite supporting the overall policy
- Procedural votes (such as a vote to invoke cloture) should not be used for determinations
**Interest Group Ratings and Endorsements**
Interest Group Ratings reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position.
While a candidate's rating from a Special Interest Group can be useful, it is also not foolproof because the SIG may have other motives in their rating of a candidate. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. In particular, a SIG may rate a candidate based partly on the views of their opponent.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any additional regulations.
Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
To find interest group ratings on the Project Vote Smart website, visit Issue and Interest Group Ratings or Issue Organizations and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu. Select the Interest Group and the rating year.
==Affiliations of the Politician==
**Biographical Information**
This information has largely been underutilized in VoteEasy Research prior to 2014. Caucus memberships can be useful if the caucus is clearly related to an issue position (for example: the "Out of Afghanistan" caucus). Other items like "Member, National Rifle Association," party affiliation and activity, or doing a general search of biographical information for a related issue category may prove useful in the future.
**Campaign Finance**
This information has not actively been included in VoteEasy Research as of 2014. This would be particularly useful in lieu of any other information, and could be especially useful when the campaign finance organizations classify groups by issue position. For example, if funding from "Pro Life" groups greatly exceeds "Pro-Choice" groups, you may reasonably assume that the candidate would likely act in support of pro-life policies.
It is preferred if we can cite our own content (on votesmart.org) as evidence, especially if it's content we normally cover on our site. Citing votesmart.org has the advantage of highlighting the usefulness of our data and keeping users on our site if they are interested in seeing more detail. We also are confident in its reliability, whereas external sources may be questionable.
Project Vote Smart does not currently publish external candidate surveys, non-key votes, local level content, or social media resources like YouTube videos, other videos/audio (unless it happens to be one of the transcripts we do collect), campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
++ - LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.++
- Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
- [[http://www.ontheissues.org On the Issues]] is a great starting point but is not appropriate to directly cite- instead, navigate to the primary source document being referenced and cite that document.
Deletions:
No Differences
Additions:
In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; all data taken should not be older than 6 years to the corresponding election year. There are no exceptions to this rule.
Deletions:
Additions:
**Note: When Tier 1 evidence is older than 2012 be sure to find a more recent second piece of evidence to ensure that their position has not changed over time. If it gets to be too old (before 2012), it cannot be used as evidence.**
Deletions:
Additions:
**Note: When Tier 1 evidence is older than 2012 be sure to find a more recent second piece of evidence to ensure that their position has not changed over time. If it gets to be too old (before 2008), it will likely requires two additional recent pieces of evidence.**
Deletions:
Additions:
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. Any answers to a PCT since 2012 are golden; answers older than that will need additional and more recent evidence to accompany it. For responses that are over ten years old, we need at least two more pieces of evidence to make a solid determination.
Deletions:
Additions:
**Note: When Tier 1 evidence is older than 2012 be sure to find a more recent second piece of evidence to ensure that their position has not changed over time. If it gets to be too old (before 2006), it will likely requires two additional recent pieces of evidence.**
Deletions:
Additions:
Interest Group Ratings reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position.
While a candidate's rating from a Special Interest Group can be useful, it is also not foolproof because the SIG may have other motives in their rating of a candidate. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. In particular, a SIG may rate a candidate based partly on the views of their opponent.
For instance, Candidate A opposes greenhouse gas regulations because they could hinder economic growth, while his main opponent, Candidate B, denies climate change all together and thinks humans can do whatever they want to the earth. In this scenario, an environmental SIG may rate Candidate A favorably just because Candidate B is such a bad option for them, even though Candidate A actually is against regulating greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of these kind of practices, we will need multiple strong ratings (<25% or >75%) to make a determination based solely on SIG ratings.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any additional regulations.
Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
**Quotes from Third Parties**
Sometimes, a candidate can either be quite vague or extremely long-winded in directly answering a question and as a result, we must use excerpts from a reputable third party source in which they summarize the candidate's position better than several somewhat related quotes or one extremely long quote. These sources are not as strong for determinations as directly related quotes since they are not actually from the candidate or their campaign; however, they can provide valuable support to other evidence and can more accurately convey a candidate's position on an issue than four or five broken up quotes that do not quite address the issue.
A good example of this situation comes from Rand Paul's position on privatizing social security. Although he no longer discusses it because he has moved on to more passed alternatives, the fact remains that he did once support it. In the absence of a direct quote about it, this Slate article which discusses this situation and states “Paul, after all, had always been for personal accounts” is a good source to convey this situation to viewers of our website. To make an final determination we will need more evidence, but it is a valuable resource for voters nonetheless.
**Note: There is some amount of discretion required for the validity of a source. Ideally, we should stick to major news organizations such as The Washington Post or The New York Times. If there is any question about how reputable a source is, and alternatives are not available, include the evidence and the staff and interns doing subsequent checks can better determine its worth. **
While a candidate's rating from a Special Interest Group can be useful, it is also not foolproof because the SIG may have other motives in their rating of a candidate. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. In particular, a SIG may rate a candidate based partly on the views of their opponent.
For instance, Candidate A opposes greenhouse gas regulations because they could hinder economic growth, while his main opponent, Candidate B, denies climate change all together and thinks humans can do whatever they want to the earth. In this scenario, an environmental SIG may rate Candidate A favorably just because Candidate B is such a bad option for them, even though Candidate A actually is against regulating greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of these kind of practices, we will need multiple strong ratings (<25% or >75%) to make a determination based solely on SIG ratings.
An example of a situation where we could make a determination based on ratings alone would be Marco Rubio's position on gun control regulations. Based on [[http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/1601 all of his ratings from SIGs]], it is safe to assume that he opposes any additional regulations.
Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
**Quotes from Third Parties**
Sometimes, a candidate can either be quite vague or extremely long-winded in directly answering a question and as a result, we must use excerpts from a reputable third party source in which they summarize the candidate's position better than several somewhat related quotes or one extremely long quote. These sources are not as strong for determinations as directly related quotes since they are not actually from the candidate or their campaign; however, they can provide valuable support to other evidence and can more accurately convey a candidate's position on an issue than four or five broken up quotes that do not quite address the issue.
A good example of this situation comes from Rand Paul's position on privatizing social security. Although he no longer discusses it because he has moved on to more passed alternatives, the fact remains that he did once support it. In the absence of a direct quote about it, this Slate article which discusses this situation and states “Paul, after all, had always been for personal accounts” is a good source to convey this situation to viewers of our website. To make an final determination we will need more evidence, but it is a valuable resource for voters nonetheless.
**Note: There is some amount of discretion required for the validity of a source. Ideally, we should stick to major news organizations such as The Washington Post or The New York Times. If there is any question about how reputable a source is, and alternatives are not available, include the evidence and the staff and interns doing subsequent checks can better determine its worth. **
Deletions:
Additions:
**Legislative Voting Records**
Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions, as sometimes "actions speak louder than words." Using legislation as evidence can be challenging though, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggest support for or opposition to an issue position.
For example, a candidate may have voted against a bill to institute stricter gun laws, but not because they opposed the stricter gun laws, but instead because of how it was done or the severity of those restrictions. A real world example of all of this would be Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren's votes on S Amdt 1197 “Requires the Completion of the Fence Along the United States-Mexico Border”. Since Cruz voted in favor of the bill, we can use that as a solid piece of evidence that he is in favor of requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin prior to attaining citizenship. On the other hand, even though Warren voted against the bill, we cannot say that she is for sure in favor of amnesty of some sort because there may have been other factors for her disapproval of the bill. As a result, we only use votes in favor of a certain piece of legislation. The following general rules should apply:
Even then, because there could be ulterior motives, Yea votes are not a foolproof indicator of a candidate's position on the issue. Generally, three or four votes in favor of legislation regarding a certain subject is needed. Usually if a candidate is that committed to a certain cause, they will have spoken about it, and that is a better source.
Access Key Votes and executive actions (including vetoes) by clicking 'Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page. Non-"key" votes, and votes prior to Vote Smart's coverage can be found at that legislature's website.
**Sponsorship**
Meaningful legislation often fails to make it to a vote. Legislative sponsorship/co-sponsorship can provide additional insight into candidate issue positions.
Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database.
Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions, as sometimes "actions speak louder than words." Using legislation as evidence can be challenging though, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggest support for or opposition to an issue position.
For example, a candidate may have voted against a bill to institute stricter gun laws, but not because they opposed the stricter gun laws, but instead because of how it was done or the severity of those restrictions. A real world example of all of this would be Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren's votes on S Amdt 1197 “Requires the Completion of the Fence Along the United States-Mexico Border”. Since Cruz voted in favor of the bill, we can use that as a solid piece of evidence that he is in favor of requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin prior to attaining citizenship. On the other hand, even though Warren voted against the bill, we cannot say that she is for sure in favor of amnesty of some sort because there may have been other factors for her disapproval of the bill. As a result, we only use votes in favor of a certain piece of legislation. The following general rules should apply:
Even then, because there could be ulterior motives, Yea votes are not a foolproof indicator of a candidate's position on the issue. Generally, three or four votes in favor of legislation regarding a certain subject is needed. Usually if a candidate is that committed to a certain cause, they will have spoken about it, and that is a better source.
Access Key Votes and executive actions (including vetoes) by clicking 'Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page. Non-"key" votes, and votes prior to Vote Smart's coverage can be found at that legislature's website.
**Sponsorship**
Meaningful legislation often fails to make it to a vote. Legislative sponsorship/co-sponsorship can provide additional insight into candidate issue positions.
Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database.
Deletions:
Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions, as sometimes "actions speak louder than words." Using legislation as evidence can be challenging though, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggest support for or opposition to an issue position. Access Key Votes and executive actions (including vetoes) by clicking 'Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page. Non-"key" votes, and votes prior to Vote Smart's coverage can be found at that legislature's website.
Sponsorship: Meaningful legislation often fails to make it to a vote. Legislative sponsorship/co-sponsorship can provide additional insight into candidate issue positions. Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database.
Additions:
**Note: Any answers to the current Political Courage Test take precedence over all other forms of evidence. Thus, if we have received a completed Political Courage Test from the candidate, further research is unnecessary unless they left some Vote Easy questions blank in their responses**
**Note: When Tier 1 evidence is older than 2010 be sure to find a more recent second piece of evidence to ensure that their position has not changed over time. If it gets to be too old (before 2006), it will likely requires two additional recent pieces of evidence.**
**Note: When Tier 1 evidence is older than 2010 be sure to find a more recent second piece of evidence to ensure that their position has not changed over time. If it gets to be too old (before 2006), it will likely requires two additional recent pieces of evidence.**
Deletions:
**Note: When Tier 1 evidence is older than 2010 be sure to find a more recent second piece of evidence to ensure that their position has not changed over time. If it gets to be too old (before 2006), it will likely requires two additional recent pieces of evidence.
Additions:
**Note: Any answers to the current Political Courage Test take precedence over all other forms of evidence. Thus, if we have received a completed Political Courage Test from the candidate, further research is unnecessary unless they left some Vote Easy questions blank in their responses
Statements which are straight from the candidate or campaign are the best evidence so long as they directly relate to the question at hand. In these circumstances, two or three pieces of evidence is usually plenty to firmly verify the candidate's position on that issue. This includes speeches, issue positions, public statements, and old PCT answers. Again, in order for any of these sources to qualify as Tier 1, they must directly address the question being asked.
**Note: When Tier 1 evidence is older than 2010 be sure to find a more recent second piece of evidence to ensure that their position has not changed over time. If it gets to be too old (before 2006), it will likely requires two additional recent pieces of evidence.
==Speeches and Public Statements collected individually from candidates==
Public statements, speeches, interviews, debates and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements." These include the following types
**Direct Quotes**
Direct quotes will make up a large portion of evidence for candidates because of the quantity of speeches which are available to us. They are also often the most direct and thus, the best.
In this example, we have a transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says
“I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”
This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life.
**Position Papers**
Position papers which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand.
An example of a good position paper is this one for Joe Biden taken directly from his campaign website at the time.
“Joe Biden will work to: Restore U.S. Leadership On Climate Change • Immediately direct U.S. negotiators to return to global climate change negotiations, to seek binding commitments among all major emitting nations - including emerging nations such as China and India - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that prevent catastrophic global warming.”
As mentioned above, because this evidence is quite old, the other evidence provided would need to be more recent to make sure that he has not changed his position on the issue.
**Public Statements**
Public Statements are anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. An example of a good public statement is this op-ed by Ted Cruz from USA Today in which he states his positions on several issues including
“Third, secure the border and stop illegal amnesty. [...] We should welcome and celebrate legal immigrants who follow the rules, and at the same time honor the will of the people and prevent any more illegal amnesty.”
==Speeches and Public Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates==
Although these are not direct words from the candidates, they have willingly attached their name to whatever the message is. So a pledge to not raise taxes is a pretty good indicator that they do not support raising taxes on any tax bracket will benefit the country. Additionally, if they sign a letter such as this one to Obama asking him to sign the Keystone XL pipeline legislation, it is a solid indicator of their support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
**Pledges**
Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
**Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)**
These are letters often signed by multiple candidates and are addressed to a government leader. These are especially useful when they directly address the issue.
==Candidate Surveys==
**Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. Any answers to a PCT since 2010 are golden; answers older than that will need additional and more recent evidence to accompany it. For responses that are over ten years old, we need at least two more pieces of evidence to make a solid determination.
Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year to locate these. Voting Guides and Surveys are acceptable as long as the answers are the candidate's words, and not research by the organization itself.
Statements which are straight from the candidate or campaign are the best evidence so long as they directly relate to the question at hand. In these circumstances, two or three pieces of evidence is usually plenty to firmly verify the candidate's position on that issue. This includes speeches, issue positions, public statements, and old PCT answers. Again, in order for any of these sources to qualify as Tier 1, they must directly address the question being asked.
**Note: When Tier 1 evidence is older than 2010 be sure to find a more recent second piece of evidence to ensure that their position has not changed over time. If it gets to be too old (before 2006), it will likely requires two additional recent pieces of evidence.
==Speeches and Public Statements collected individually from candidates==
Public statements, speeches, interviews, debates and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements." These include the following types
**Direct Quotes**
Direct quotes will make up a large portion of evidence for candidates because of the quantity of speeches which are available to us. They are also often the most direct and thus, the best.
In this example, we have a transcript of a speech in which Chris Christie says
“I'm pro-life and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life”
This a quote straight from his mouth which directly addresses the question at hand and with just one or two of these sorts of quotes, we can make a clear judgment that Chris Christie is pro-life.
**Position Papers**
Position papers which are either submitted by the candidate or retrieved directly from their official website are also very strong indicators of a candidate's stance on the question at hand.
An example of a good position paper is this one for Joe Biden taken directly from his campaign website at the time.
“Joe Biden will work to: Restore U.S. Leadership On Climate Change • Immediately direct U.S. negotiators to return to global climate change negotiations, to seek binding commitments among all major emitting nations - including emerging nations such as China and India - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that prevent catastrophic global warming.”
As mentioned above, because this evidence is quite old, the other evidence provided would need to be more recent to make sure that he has not changed his position on the issue.
**Public Statements**
Public Statements are anything put out made public by the candidate or their campaign. Generally this means it is either written/signed by the candidate, or taken from the candidate's website. An example of a good public statement is this op-ed by Ted Cruz from USA Today in which he states his positions on several issues including
“Third, secure the border and stop illegal amnesty. [...] We should welcome and celebrate legal immigrants who follow the rules, and at the same time honor the will of the people and prevent any more illegal amnesty.”
==Speeches and Public Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates==
Although these are not direct words from the candidates, they have willingly attached their name to whatever the message is. So a pledge to not raise taxes is a pretty good indicator that they do not support raising taxes on any tax bracket will benefit the country. Additionally, if they sign a letter such as this one to Obama asking him to sign the Keystone XL pipeline legislation, it is a solid indicator of their support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
**Pledges**
Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
**Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters)**
These are letters often signed by multiple candidates and are addressed to a government leader. These are especially useful when they directly address the issue.
==Candidate Surveys==
**Past Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research. Any answers to a PCT since 2010 are golden; answers older than that will need additional and more recent evidence to accompany it. For responses that are over ten years old, we need at least two more pieces of evidence to make a solid determination.
Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year to locate these. Voting Guides and Surveys are acceptable as long as the answers are the candidate's words, and not research by the organization itself.
Deletions:
Public statements, speeches, interviews, debates and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements."
**Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research.
Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year. Voting Guides and Surveys are acceptable as long as the answers are the candidate's words, and not research by the organization itself.
**Speeches and Public Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates**
Pledges: Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters): These are letters often signed by multiple candidates and are addressed to a government leader. These are especially useful when they directly address the issue.
Additions:
**External Voting Guides and Surveys**
Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year. Voting Guides and Surveys are acceptable as long as the answers are the candidate's words, and not research by the organization itself.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality, reliable sources. Primary sources are greatly preferred.
The following sources are pre-approved for citing evidence:
- Media organizations. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are generally not acceptable sources, even if they quote the candidate.
- Special Interest Groups for ratings, endorsements, pledges, and candidate surveys
- Official government websites
- Candidate sites: just about everything is acceptable, as long as it's an official site of the candidate, campaign, or officeholder. Use discretion when quoting endorsements from a 3rd party or re-posts/re-tweets "Candidate sites" may include, but are not limited to:
Listed below is a suggested research process for individual research, which can serve as a guide. However, you may begin to develop your own research process that is best suited to you. Once sufficient evidence has been retrieved, you may move on to the next question or candidate, and are not required to complete the full process listed below.
Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year. Voting Guides and Surveys are acceptable as long as the answers are the candidate's words, and not research by the organization itself.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality, reliable sources. Primary sources are greatly preferred.
The following sources are pre-approved for citing evidence:
- Media organizations. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are generally not acceptable sources, even if they quote the candidate.
- Special Interest Groups for ratings, endorsements, pledges, and candidate surveys
- Official government websites
- Candidate sites: just about everything is acceptable, as long as it's an official site of the candidate, campaign, or officeholder. Use discretion when quoting endorsements from a 3rd party or re-posts/re-tweets "Candidate sites" may include, but are not limited to:
Listed below is a suggested research process for individual research, which can serve as a guide. However, you may begin to develop your own research process that is best suited to you. Once sufficient evidence has been retrieved, you may move on to the next question or candidate, and are not required to complete the full process listed below.
Deletions:
Listed below is a suggested research process, which can serve as a guide. However, you may begin to develop your own research process that is best suited to you. Once sufficient evidence has been retrieved, you may move on to the next question or candidate, and are not required to complete the full process listed below.
**Acceptable External Sources**
- Voting Guides and Surveys: Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year. Voting Guides and Surveys are acceptable as long as the answers are the candidate's words, and not research by the organization itself.
- Interviews: National and local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Interviews are acceptable as long as the source is somewhat reputable. Take partisan interviews or blogs on a case-by-case basis.
- Candidate sites: just about everything is acceptable, as long as it's an official site of the candidate, campaign, or officeholder. Use discretion when quoting endorsements from a 3rd party or re-posts/re-tweets
Additions:
If you are researching a candidate individually: search by the name they are commonly known by and variations, along with [[VoteEasyResearchTerms relevant keywords]]. It's generally advisable to start with specific, targeted searches and then expanding those searches if it's not producing the needed results. When you find evidence that applies to multiple people (such as pledges, voter guides, etc.), fill in the positions for each candidate included.
- VoteSmart.org site search. You may want to start with the position papers first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat. Their titles start with the phrase "Issue Position:"
- Browsing or performing a Google site search of the politician's website(s)
- broader Google searches
- social media search engines/browsing the politician's social media accounts
- Search for content that is unlikely to come up in keyword google searches, for example: videos and certain pdfs. Often, this will be TV interviews of a politician, radio interviews of a politician, voter guides of an election or race, or pledges on an issue
- VoteSmart.org site search. You may want to start with the position papers first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat. Their titles start with the phrase "Issue Position:"
- Browsing or performing a Google site search of the politician's website(s)
- broader Google searches
- social media search engines/browsing the politician's social media accounts
- Search for content that is unlikely to come up in keyword google searches, for example: videos and certain pdfs. Often, this will be TV interviews of a politician, radio interviews of a politician, voter guides of an election or race, or pledges on an issue
Deletions:
- VoteSmart.org
- Google and social media search engines.
**Research Process** (work in progress)
specific, targeted searches/browsing
1. It is generally best to research each candidate individually. However, when you find a voter guide, pledge, or news article, fill in the positions for each candidate included.
2. Gather all relevant position papers and public statements from the Project Vote Smart website. You may want to start with the position papers first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat. Their titles start with the phrase "Issue Position:"
3. Check the candidate's campaign website using a google site search combined with key search terms. This will account for statements that have yet to be collected by Vote Smart's public statements department.
??5.Search for radio or television interviews. If there is not a transcript of the interview available, accurately transcribe any useful statements. Search the candidate's name with variations of terms like "interview," "radio," or "tv."
6. Search a candidate's YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
8.Search for old voter guides. Use combinations of terms like "state," "primary," "election [year]," "voter guide," or "questionnaire."
??9.Search for pledges by using terms related to a specific issue position like "pro-life pledge" or "pro-choice pledge."
Additions:
=====Data Sources for Evidence and How to Find Them=====
Deletions:
Additions:
===Search Techniques and Process===
Deletions:
Additions:
=====Data Sources for VoteEasy Evidence and How to Find Them=====
>>{{{toc}}}>>
====Types of Evidence====
===Tier 1: Statements from the Politician===
**Public Statements collected individually from candidates**
**Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research.
NPATs/PCTs have included three types of questions:
- Check your support (//Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding...//)
- Yes/No/Undecided (//Indicate your position on the following issues//)
- Level (//Using the key, indicate what state tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories//)
If the question requests that the candidate indicate his or her //support// for an issue statement, a lack of response may not indicate lack of support. Lack of support may only be indicated if the respondent marks "No" for a question based on the Yes/No/Undecided format or "Eliminate" based on the level format.
**Speeches and Public Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates**
Pledges: Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters): These are letters often signed by multiple candidates and are addressed to a government leader. These are especially useful when they directly address the issue.
===Tier 2===
==Actions of the Politician==
**Legislation**
Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions, as sometimes "actions speak louder than words." Using legislation as evidence can be challenging though, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggest support for or opposition to an issue position. Access Key Votes and executive actions (including vetoes) by clicking 'Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page. Non-"key" votes, and votes prior to Vote Smart's coverage can be found at that legislature's website.
- Yea votes can be used for determinations on certain relevant bills
- Nay votes are rarely used for determinations; a candidate may have voted against a specific provision despite supporting the overall policy
- Procedural votes (such as a vote to invoke cloture) should not be used for determinations
Sponsorship: Meaningful legislation often fails to make it to a vote. Legislative sponsorship/co-sponsorship can provide additional insight into candidate issue positions. Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database.
==3rd Party Evaluations of the Politician==
**Interest Group Ratings and Endorsements**
Interest Group Ratings reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position. Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
To find interest group ratings on the Project Vote Smart website, visit Issue and Interest Group Ratings or Issue Organizations and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu. Select the Interest Group and the rating year.
**[[PastVoteEasyResearch Previous VoteEasy Research]]** (not to be used exclusively in 2016)
==Affiliations of the Politician==
**Biographical Information**
This information has largely been underutilized in VoteEasy Research prior to 2014. Caucus memberships can be useful if the caucus is clearly related to an issue position (for example: the "Out of Afghanistan" caucus). Other items like "Member, National Rifle Association," party affiliation and activity, or doing a general search of biographical information for a related issue category may prove useful in the future.
**Campaign Finance**
This information has not actively been included in VoteEasy Research as of 2014. This would be particularly useful in lieu of any other information, and could be especially useful when the campaign finance organizations classify groups by issue position. For example, if funding from "Pro Life" groups greatly exceeds "Pro-Choice" groups, you may reasonably assume that the candidate would likely act in support of pro-life policies.
====Locating Evidence====
===Guiding Principles===
===Known Limitations of Vote Smart Data===
===Acceptable External Sources===
>>{{{toc}}}>>
====Types of Evidence====
===Tier 1: Statements from the Politician===
**Public Statements collected individually from candidates**
**Political Courage Tests (formerly known as NPATs)**
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research.
NPATs/PCTs have included three types of questions:
- Check your support (//Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding...//)
- Yes/No/Undecided (//Indicate your position on the following issues//)
- Level (//Using the key, indicate what state tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories//)
If the question requests that the candidate indicate his or her //support// for an issue statement, a lack of response may not indicate lack of support. Lack of support may only be indicated if the respondent marks "No" for a question based on the Yes/No/Undecided format or "Eliminate" based on the level format.
**Speeches and Public Statements that apply to Multiple Candidates**
Pledges: Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
Letters with multiple signers (including "Dear Colleague" Letters): These are letters often signed by multiple candidates and are addressed to a government leader. These are especially useful when they directly address the issue.
===Tier 2===
==Actions of the Politician==
**Legislation**
Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions, as sometimes "actions speak louder than words." Using legislation as evidence can be challenging though, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggest support for or opposition to an issue position. Access Key Votes and executive actions (including vetoes) by clicking 'Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page. Non-"key" votes, and votes prior to Vote Smart's coverage can be found at that legislature's website.
- Yea votes can be used for determinations on certain relevant bills
- Nay votes are rarely used for determinations; a candidate may have voted against a specific provision despite supporting the overall policy
- Procedural votes (such as a vote to invoke cloture) should not be used for determinations
Sponsorship: Meaningful legislation often fails to make it to a vote. Legislative sponsorship/co-sponsorship can provide additional insight into candidate issue positions. Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page. Please note that Vote Smart does not currently collect sponsorships for bills that don't make it to a vote, so it is quite likely that some "key" sponsorships are missing from the Vote Smart database.
==3rd Party Evaluations of the Politician==
**Interest Group Ratings and Endorsements**
Interest Group Ratings reflect how officials acted in line with an organization's preferred position. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. These ratings are often based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position. Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
To find interest group ratings on the Project Vote Smart website, visit Issue and Interest Group Ratings or Issue Organizations and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu. Select the Interest Group and the rating year.
**[[PastVoteEasyResearch Previous VoteEasy Research]]** (not to be used exclusively in 2016)
==Affiliations of the Politician==
**Biographical Information**
This information has largely been underutilized in VoteEasy Research prior to 2014. Caucus memberships can be useful if the caucus is clearly related to an issue position (for example: the "Out of Afghanistan" caucus). Other items like "Member, National Rifle Association," party affiliation and activity, or doing a general search of biographical information for a related issue category may prove useful in the future.
**Campaign Finance**
This information has not actively been included in VoteEasy Research as of 2014. This would be particularly useful in lieu of any other information, and could be especially useful when the campaign finance organizations classify groups by issue position. For example, if funding from "Pro Life" groups greatly exceeds "Pro-Choice" groups, you may reasonably assume that the candidate would likely act in support of pro-life policies.
====Locating Evidence====
===Guiding Principles===
===Known Limitations of Vote Smart Data===
===Acceptable External Sources===
Deletions:
===Types of Evidence===
==Evidence Collected for Politicians Individually==
**Public Statements**
===Locating Evidence===
==Guiding Principles==
==Known Limitations of Vote Smart Data==
==Acceptable External Sources==
Deletions:
Additions:
(For 2018 and future development only) **[[StandardizedEvidenceforVoteEasy Evidence that Applies to Multiple Candidates ("Standardized VoteEasy Evidence")]]**
Public statements, speeches, interviews, debates and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements."
Public statements, speeches, interviews, debates and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements."
Deletions:
Standardized Evidence is evidence that applies to more than one politician. We relate this evidence in bulk to all politicians associated with that evidence. Any evidence that is applied in bulk should not be included as part of the individual research being done (typically this will include past Political Courage Tests, legislation, interest group ratings and endorsements.
Those completing initial research will be primarily responsible for researching public statements like speeches, interviews, debates, social media (including tweets and facebook posts), campaign ads, and other statements not covered in standardized evidence. However, it is still important to understand every kind of resource used in VoteEasy research. Please pay close attention to all of the resources listed below.
**[[StandardizedEvidenceforVoteEasy Evidence that Applies to Multiple Candidates ("Standardized VoteEasy Evidence")]]**
Public statements, speeches, and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements." Note: pledges are included as part of standardized research.
Additions:
===Types of Evidence===
===Locating Evidence===
==Guiding Principles==
It is preferred if we can cite our own content (on votesmart.org) as evidence, especially if it's content we normally cover on our site. Citing votesmart.org has the advantage of highlighting the usefulness of our data and keeping users on our site if they are interested in seeing more detail. We also are confident in its reliability, whereas external sources may be questionable.
However, when we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside sources. The main concern is that if someone can find the answer to something we've marked as "undetermined" with a quick google search, that would be hard for us to justify.
==Known Limitations of Vote Smart Data==
Project Vote Smart does not currently publish external candidate surveys, non-key votes, local level content, or social media resources like YouTube videos, other videos/audio (unless it happens to be one of the transcripts we do collect), campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
==Acceptable External Sources==
==Search Techniques and Process==
- Google and social media search engines.
++ - LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.++
===Locating Evidence===
==Guiding Principles==
It is preferred if we can cite our own content (on votesmart.org) as evidence, especially if it's content we normally cover on our site. Citing votesmart.org has the advantage of highlighting the usefulness of our data and keeping users on our site if they are interested in seeing more detail. We also are confident in its reliability, whereas external sources may be questionable.
However, when we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside sources. The main concern is that if someone can find the answer to something we've marked as "undetermined" with a quick google search, that would be hard for us to justify.
==Known Limitations of Vote Smart Data==
Project Vote Smart does not currently publish external candidate surveys, non-key votes, local level content, or social media resources like YouTube videos, other videos/audio (unless it happens to be one of the transcripts we do collect), campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
==Acceptable External Sources==
==Search Techniques and Process==
- Google and social media search engines.
++ - LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.++
Deletions:
It is preferred if we can cite our website with VoteEasy Research, especially if it's content we normally cover on our site. However, when we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside media sources. Project Vote Smart does not currently publish external candidate surveys, non-key votes, local level content, or social media resources like YouTube videos, other videos/audio (unless it happens to be one of the transcripts we do collect), campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
**Training**
- Google and social media search engines. The main concern is that if someone can find the answer to something we've marked as "undetermined" with a quick google search, that would be hard for us to justify.
- LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.
Additions:
[[http://wiki.votesmart.org/CategoryTechnicalSkills#hn_Internet_Research Internet Research training]]
specific, targeted searches/browsing
3. Check the candidate's campaign website using a google site search combined with key search terms. This will account for statements that have yet to be collected by Vote Smart's public statements department.
6. Search a candidate's YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
specific, targeted searches/browsing
3. Check the candidate's campaign website using a google site search combined with key search terms. This will account for statements that have yet to be collected by Vote Smart's public statements department.
6. Search a candidate's YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Deletions:
__**Boolean Searches**__
Boolean searches allow you to combine words and phrases using the words AND, OR, and NOT to limit, widen, or define your search.
- Using AND narrows a search by combining terms; it will retrieve documents that use both the search terms you specify, as in this example: Obama AND Afghanistan. The Boolean search operator AND is equal to the "+" symbol.
- Using NOT will narrow a search by excluding certain search terms. NOT retrieves documents that contain one, but not the other, of the search terms you enter, as in this example: Kennedy NOT Ted. The Boolean search operator NOT is equal to the "-" symbol.
- Using OR broadens a search to include results that contain either of the words you type in. OR is a good tool to use when there are several common spellings or synonyms of a word, as in this example: liberal OR democrat.
- Using NEAR is equal to putting a search query in quotes, i.e., “Federal Estate Tax†You're essentially telling the search engine that you want all of these words, in this specific order, or this specific phrase.
3. Check the candidate's campaign website. Google search term: "site:www.theirwebsite.com." Move through each question using suggested search terms. This step can be really effective if a candidate has a lot of blogs, press releases, or news articles on their website.
Example: "cap trade site:http://www.barackobama.com/"
6. Search a candidate's YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. On Facebook and Twitter, use Find (Ctrl+F) to look for relevant words. Ctrl+F will only find words that are visible, so make sure to scroll down on the page.
7. Do a general Google search using suggested search terms. Google searches should turn up campaign and social media sites as well as news articles and interviews. If there is not a transcript of the interview available, accurately transcribe any useful statements.
Additions:
The goal of VoteEasy Research is to construct strong and defensible determinations of politicians' positions.
In an ideal world, each politician would directly, clearly, and consistently demonstrate his or her adherence to a specific issue position; in reality, we may need to make judgments based on a collection of evidence.
When collecting evidence for a Vote Easy determination, the number of pieces needed is largely dependent upon the quality of each piece of evidence. To make the research process as efficient as possible, please familiarize yourself with this tier list so that you can be sure to get enough evidence for each determination while also not wasting your time by over doing it.
When Standardized Evidence is used:
In an ideal world, each politician would directly, clearly, and consistently demonstrate his or her adherence to a specific issue position; in reality, we may need to make judgments based on a collection of evidence.
When collecting evidence for a Vote Easy determination, the number of pieces needed is largely dependent upon the quality of each piece of evidence. To make the research process as efficient as possible, please familiarize yourself with this tier list so that you can be sure to get enough evidence for each determination while also not wasting your time by over doing it.
When Standardized Evidence is used:
Deletions:
Additions:
===Data Sources for VoteEasy Evidence and How to Find Them===
**Training**
http://wiki.votesmart.org/CategoryTechnicalSkills#hn_Internet_Research
- Using AND narrows a search by combining terms; it will retrieve documents that use both the search terms you specify, as in this example: Obama AND Afghanistan. The Boolean search operator AND is equal to the "+" symbol.
- Using NOT will narrow a search by excluding certain search terms. NOT retrieves documents that contain one, but not the other, of the search terms you enter, as in this example: Kennedy NOT Ted. The Boolean search operator NOT is equal to the "-" symbol.
- Using OR broadens a search to include results that contain either of the words you type in. OR is a good tool to use when there are several common spellings or synonyms of a word, as in this example: liberal OR democrat.
- Using NEAR is equal to putting a search query in quotes, i.e., “Federal Estate Tax†You're essentially telling the search engine that you want all of these words, in this specific order, or this specific phrase.
- VoteSmart.org
- LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.
3. Check the candidate's campaign website. Google search term: "site:www.theirwebsite.com." Move through each question using suggested search terms. This step can be really effective if a candidate has a lot of blogs, press releases, or news articles on their website.
**Training**
http://wiki.votesmart.org/CategoryTechnicalSkills#hn_Internet_Research
- Using AND narrows a search by combining terms; it will retrieve documents that use both the search terms you specify, as in this example: Obama AND Afghanistan. The Boolean search operator AND is equal to the "+" symbol.
- Using NOT will narrow a search by excluding certain search terms. NOT retrieves documents that contain one, but not the other, of the search terms you enter, as in this example: Kennedy NOT Ted. The Boolean search operator NOT is equal to the "-" symbol.
- Using OR broadens a search to include results that contain either of the words you type in. OR is a good tool to use when there are several common spellings or synonyms of a word, as in this example: liberal OR democrat.
- Using NEAR is equal to putting a search query in quotes, i.e., “Federal Estate Tax†You're essentially telling the search engine that you want all of these words, in this specific order, or this specific phrase.
- VoteSmart.org
- LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.
3. Check the candidate's campaign website. Google search term: "site:www.theirwebsite.com." Move through each question using suggested search terms. This step can be really effective if a candidate has a lot of blogs, press releases, or news articles on their website.
Deletions:
- LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.
3. Check the candidate's campaign website. Google search "term site:www.theirwebsite.com." Move through each question using suggested search terms. This step can be really effective if a candidate has a lot of blogs, press releases, or news articles on their website.
??4.Check LexisNexis. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name.
- Using AND narrows a search by combining terms; it will retrieve documents that use both the search terms you specify, as in this example: Obama AND Afghanistan. The Boolean search operator AND is equal to the "+" symbol.
- Using NOT will narrow a search by excluding certain search terms. NOT retrieves documents that contain one, but not the other, of the search terms you enter, as in this example: Kennedy NOT Ted. The Boolean search operator NOT is equal to the "-" symbol.
- Using OR broadens a search to include results that contain either of the words you type in. OR is a good tool to use when there are several common spellings or synonyms of a word, as in this example: liberal OR democrat.
- Using NEAR is equal to putting a search query in quotes, i.e., “Federal Estate Tax†You're essentially telling the search engine that you want all of these words, in this specific order, or this specific phrase.
Revision [15610]
Edited on 2015-05-21 15:11:59 by Abigail McNeal [format and added content from VoteEasy home page]Additions:
==Data Sources for VoteEasy Evidence and How to Find Them==
Deletions:
Revision [15595]
Edited on 2015-05-21 12:13:30 by Abigail McNeal [format and added content from VoteEasy home page]Additions:
__**Boolean Searches**__
Boolean searches allow you to combine words and phrases using the words AND, OR, and NOT to limit, widen, or define your search.
- Using AND narrows a search by combining terms; it will retrieve documents that use both the search terms you specify, as in this example: Obama AND Afghanistan. The Boolean search operator AND is equal to the "+" symbol.
- Using NOT will narrow a search by excluding certain search terms. NOT retrieves documents that contain one, but not the other, of the search terms you enter, as in this example: Kennedy NOT Ted. The Boolean search operator NOT is equal to the "-" symbol.
- Using OR broadens a search to include results that contain either of the words you type in. OR is a good tool to use when there are several common spellings or synonyms of a word, as in this example: liberal OR democrat.
- Using NEAR is equal to putting a search query in quotes, i.e., “Federal Estate Tax†You're essentially telling the search engine that you want all of these words, in this specific order, or this specific phrase.
Boolean searches allow you to combine words and phrases using the words AND, OR, and NOT to limit, widen, or define your search.
- Using AND narrows a search by combining terms; it will retrieve documents that use both the search terms you specify, as in this example: Obama AND Afghanistan. The Boolean search operator AND is equal to the "+" symbol.
- Using NOT will narrow a search by excluding certain search terms. NOT retrieves documents that contain one, but not the other, of the search terms you enter, as in this example: Kennedy NOT Ted. The Boolean search operator NOT is equal to the "-" symbol.
- Using OR broadens a search to include results that contain either of the words you type in. OR is a good tool to use when there are several common spellings or synonyms of a word, as in this example: liberal OR democrat.
- Using NEAR is equal to putting a search query in quotes, i.e., “Federal Estate Tax†You're essentially telling the search engine that you want all of these words, in this specific order, or this specific phrase.
Revision [15571]
Edited on 2015-05-20 16:08:52 by Abigail McNeal [format and added content from VoteEasy home page]Additions:
**Research Process** (work in progress)
Listed below is a suggested research process, which can serve as a guide. However, you may begin to develop your own research process that is best suited to you. Once sufficient evidence has been retrieved, you may move on to the next question or candidate, and are not required to complete the full process listed below.
1. It is generally best to research each candidate individually. However, when you find a voter guide, pledge, or news article, fill in the positions for each candidate included.
2. Gather all relevant position papers and public statements from the Project Vote Smart website. You may want to start with the position papers first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat. Their titles start with the phrase "Issue Position:"
3. Check the candidate's campaign website. Google search "term site:www.theirwebsite.com." Move through each question using suggested search terms. This step can be really effective if a candidate has a lot of blogs, press releases, or news articles on their website.
Example: "cap trade site:http://www.barackobama.com/"
??4.Check LexisNexis. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name.
??5.Search for radio or television interviews. If there is not a transcript of the interview available, accurately transcribe any useful statements. Search the candidate's name with variations of terms like "interview," "radio," or "tv."
6. Search a candidate's YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. On Facebook and Twitter, use Find (Ctrl+F) to look for relevant words. Ctrl+F will only find words that are visible, so make sure to scroll down on the page.
7. Do a general Google search using suggested search terms. Google searches should turn up campaign and social media sites as well as news articles and interviews. If there is not a transcript of the interview available, accurately transcribe any useful statements.
8.Search for old voter guides. Use combinations of terms like "state," "primary," "election [year]," "voter guide," or "questionnaire."
??9.Search for pledges by using terms related to a specific issue position like "pro-life pledge" or "pro-choice pledge."
Listed below is a suggested research process, which can serve as a guide. However, you may begin to develop your own research process that is best suited to you. Once sufficient evidence has been retrieved, you may move on to the next question or candidate, and are not required to complete the full process listed below.
1. It is generally best to research each candidate individually. However, when you find a voter guide, pledge, or news article, fill in the positions for each candidate included.
2. Gather all relevant position papers and public statements from the Project Vote Smart website. You may want to start with the position papers first, as they may directly answer your question off the bat. Their titles start with the phrase "Issue Position:"
3. Check the candidate's campaign website. Google search "term site:www.theirwebsite.com." Move through each question using suggested search terms. This step can be really effective if a candidate has a lot of blogs, press releases, or news articles on their website.
Example: "cap trade site:http://www.barackobama.com/"
??4.Check LexisNexis. Usually you can narrow your search just by using the candidate's name.
??5.Search for radio or television interviews. If there is not a transcript of the interview available, accurately transcribe any useful statements. Search the candidate's name with variations of terms like "interview," "radio," or "tv."
6. Search a candidate's YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. On Facebook and Twitter, use Find (Ctrl+F) to look for relevant words. Ctrl+F will only find words that are visible, so make sure to scroll down on the page.
7. Do a general Google search using suggested search terms. Google searches should turn up campaign and social media sites as well as news articles and interviews. If there is not a transcript of the interview available, accurately transcribe any useful statements.
8.Search for old voter guides. Use combinations of terms like "state," "primary," "election [year]," "voter guide," or "questionnaire."
??9.Search for pledges by using terms related to a specific issue position like "pro-life pledge" or "pro-choice pledge."
Additions:
- Videos that attack the candidate in question should not be used, even if the candidate is quoted ("Rep. Smith hates America's seniors. 'I think Social Security could be re-examined...'").
Deletions:
Additions:
Standardized Evidence is evidence that applies to more than one politician. We relate this evidence in bulk to all politicians associated with that evidence. Any evidence that is applied in bulk should not be included as part of the individual research being done (typically this will include past Political Courage Tests, legislation, interest group ratings and endorsements.
Those completing initial research will be primarily responsible for researching public statements like speeches, interviews, debates, social media (including tweets and facebook posts), campaign ads, and other statements not covered in standardized evidence. However, it is still important to understand every kind of resource used in VoteEasy research. Please pay close attention to all of the resources listed below.
In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; try to limit the search at first to the past 2 years to ensure that the issue positions are most current. That being said, we can go as far back in time as useful to determine positions, as long as we understand that some positions may change over time, especially as the context of the situation changes.
It is preferred if we can cite our website with VoteEasy Research, especially if it's content we normally cover on our site. However, when we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside media sources. Project Vote Smart does not currently publish external candidate surveys, non-key votes, local level content, or social media resources like YouTube videos, other videos/audio (unless it happens to be one of the transcripts we do collect), campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality, reliable sources. Primary sources are greatly preferred. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are generally not acceptable sources, even if they quote the candidate.
- Google and social media search engines. The main concern is that if someone can find the answer to something we've marked as "undetermined" with a quick google search, that would be hard for us to justify.
Those completing initial research will be primarily responsible for researching public statements like speeches, interviews, debates, social media (including tweets and facebook posts), campaign ads, and other statements not covered in standardized evidence. However, it is still important to understand every kind of resource used in VoteEasy research. Please pay close attention to all of the resources listed below.
In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; try to limit the search at first to the past 2 years to ensure that the issue positions are most current. That being said, we can go as far back in time as useful to determine positions, as long as we understand that some positions may change over time, especially as the context of the situation changes.
It is preferred if we can cite our website with VoteEasy Research, especially if it's content we normally cover on our site. However, when we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside media sources. Project Vote Smart does not currently publish external candidate surveys, non-key votes, local level content, or social media resources like YouTube videos, other videos/audio (unless it happens to be one of the transcripts we do collect), campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality, reliable sources. Primary sources are greatly preferred. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are generally not acceptable sources, even if they quote the candidate.
- Google and social media search engines. The main concern is that if someone can find the answer to something we've marked as "undetermined" with a quick google search, that would be hard for us to justify.
Deletions:
Standardized Evidence is evidence that applies to more than one politician. We relate this evidence in bulk to all politicians associated with that evidence.
Those completing initial research will be primarily responsible for researching public statements like speeches, interviews, debates, social media (including tweets and facebook posts), campaign ads, and other statements not covered in standardized evidence. However, it is still important to understand every kind of resource used in VoteEasy research. Please pay close attention to all the resources listed below.
When we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside media sources. Project Vote Smart does not currently publish external candidate surveys or social media resources like YouTube videos, campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are generally not acceptable sources, even if they quote the candidate.
In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; try to limit the search to the past 2 years to ensure that the issue positions are most current.
Additions:
When we cannot determine a candidate's issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside media sources. Project Vote Smart does not currently publish external candidate surveys or social media resources like YouTube videos, campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. While Vote Smart does collect some interview transcripts and news articles, this will not be comprehensive. It is also possible that Vote Smart data is not as up-to-date as it should be. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are generally not acceptable sources, even if they quote the candidate.
In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; try to limit the search to the past 2 years to ensure that the issue positions are most current.
**Starting Points**
- [[http://www.ontheissues.org On the Issues]] is a great starting point but is not appropriate to directly cite- instead, navigate to the primary source document being referenced and cite that document.
- Voting Guides and Surveys: Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year. Voting Guides and Surveys are acceptable as long as the answers are the candidate's words, and not research by the organization itself.
- Interviews: National and local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Interviews are acceptable as long as the source is somewhat reputable. Take partisan interviews or blogs on a case-by-case basis.
- Candidate sites: just about everything is acceptable, as long as it's an official site of the candidate, campaign, or officeholder. Use discretion when quoting endorsements from a 3rd party or re-posts/re-tweets
- YouTube:
- Any video posted by the candidate is fair game, but we shouldn't cite endorsements from 3rd parties or constituents ("Rep. Smith has been a champion for the sanctity of life, and that's why he has my vote.") unless the candidate verbally endorses the video ("I'm Rep. Smith and I support this message.").
- Use discretion for videos released by PACs: only cite the candidate's direct quote. Videos from opposition PACs are never used.
- Videos that attack the candidate in question should not be used, even if the candidate is quoted (“Rep. Smith hates America's seniors. 'I think Social Security could be re-examined...'â€).
If you are unsure about the quality of a source, or would like to include a source not explicitly mentioned here, ask your supervisor!
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are generally not acceptable sources, even if they quote the candidate.
In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; try to limit the search to the past 2 years to ensure that the issue positions are most current.
**Starting Points**
- [[http://www.ontheissues.org On the Issues]] is a great starting point but is not appropriate to directly cite- instead, navigate to the primary source document being referenced and cite that document.
- Voting Guides and Surveys: Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year. Voting Guides and Surveys are acceptable as long as the answers are the candidate's words, and not research by the organization itself.
- Interviews: National and local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Interviews are acceptable as long as the source is somewhat reputable. Take partisan interviews or blogs on a case-by-case basis.
- Candidate sites: just about everything is acceptable, as long as it's an official site of the candidate, campaign, or officeholder. Use discretion when quoting endorsements from a 3rd party or re-posts/re-tweets
- YouTube:
- Any video posted by the candidate is fair game, but we shouldn't cite endorsements from 3rd parties or constituents ("Rep. Smith has been a champion for the sanctity of life, and that's why he has my vote.") unless the candidate verbally endorses the video ("I'm Rep. Smith and I support this message.").
- Use discretion for videos released by PACs: only cite the candidate's direct quote. Videos from opposition PACs are never used.
- Videos that attack the candidate in question should not be used, even if the candidate is quoted (“Rep. Smith hates America's seniors. 'I think Social Security could be re-examined...'â€).
If you are unsure about the quality of a source, or would like to include a source not explicitly mentioned here, ask your supervisor!
Deletions:
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are not acceptance sources. [[http://www.ontheissues.org On the Issues]] is a great starting point but is not appropriate to directly cite- instead, navigate to the primary source document being referenced and cite that document. In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; try to limit the search to the past 2 years to ensure that the issue positions are most current.
- Voting Guides and Surveys: Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year.
- Interviews: National and local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Newspapers will always be acceptable sources, but scrutinize source quality before using an interview from a blog.
- Candidate sites:
- YouTube
If you are unsure about the quality of a source, ask a staff member!
Additions:
- Candidate sites:
- campaign websites
- office websites
- Facebook
- Twitter
- YouTube
- campaign websites
- office websites
- YouTube
Deletions:
- Candidate YouTube channels
- Candidate Facebooks
- Candidate Twitters
Additions:
When we cannot determine a candidate’s issue position using our extensive database, we expand the search to include outside media sources. Project Vote Smart does not currently publish resources like YouTube videos, campaign ads, tweets, or facebook posts on VoteSmart.org. As a result, some of VoteEasy research must be conducted on external websites.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are not acceptance sources. [[http://www.ontheissues.org On the Issues]] is a great starting point but is not appropriate to directly cite- instead, navigate to the primary source document being referenced and cite that document. In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; try to limit the search to the past 2 years to ensure that the issue positions are most current.
- LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.
- Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
- Voting Guides and Surveys: Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year.
- Interviews: National and local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Newspapers will always be acceptable sources, but scrutinize source quality before using an interview from a blog.
- Candidate campaign websites
- Candidate YouTube channels
- Candidate Facebooks
- Candidate Twitters
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are not acceptance sources. [[http://www.ontheissues.org On the Issues]] is a great starting point but is not appropriate to directly cite- instead, navigate to the primary source document being referenced and cite that document. In all cases, you should use the most recent sources available; try to limit the search to the past 2 years to ensure that the issue positions are most current.
- LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.
- Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
- Voting Guides and Surveys: Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year.
- Interviews: National and local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Newspapers will always be acceptable sources, but scrutinize source quality before using an interview from a blog.
- Candidate campaign websites
- Candidate YouTube channels
- Candidate Facebooks
- Candidate Twitters
Deletions:
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are not acceptance sources.
LexisNexis: LexisNexis is one of the most effective search engines for national periodicals. However, do not link to LexisNexis, because someone without an academic affiliation will not be able to view the link. Instead, if you find a news article on Lexis Nexis, search Google to find the original source.
Google News: Google News is most helpful if you narrow your search with specific terms and by date. However, select 'Archives' if your search is too narrow.
Voting Guides and Surveys: Many state and local organizations will send a survey to candidates with questions related to the organization's specific interests. Although these surveys are often partisan, they can be very useful. Search terms like: voter's guide, questionnaire, survey, state, issue, and year.
Interviews: Local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Newspapers will always be acceptable sources, but scrutinize source quality before using an interview from a blog.
Candidate campaign websites
Candidate YouTube channels
Candidate Facebooks
Candidate Twitters
**Boolean Searches**
Boolean searches allow you to combine words and phrases using the words AND, OR, and NOT to limit, widen, or define your search.
Using AND narrows a search by combining terms; it will retrieve documents that use both the search terms you specify, as in this example: Obama AND Afghanistan. The Boolean search operator AND is equal to the "+" symbol.
Using NOT will narrow a search by excluding certain search terms. NOT retrieves documents that contain one, but not the other, of the search terms you enter, as in this example: Kennedy NOT Ted. The Boolean search operator NOT is equal to the "-" symbol.
Using OR broadens a search to include results that contain either of the words you type in. OR is a good tool to use when there are several common spellings or synonyms of a word, as in this example: liberal OR democrat.
Additions:
**[[PastVoteEasyResearch Past VoteEasy Research (with comprehensive evidence and determinations)]]**
**[[StandardizedEvidenceforVoteEasy Evidence that Applies to Multiple Candidates ("Standardized VoteEasy Evidence")]]**
**[[StandardizedEvidenceforVoteEasy Evidence that Applies to Multiple Candidates ("Standardized VoteEasy Evidence")]]**
Deletions:
Additions:
Those completing initial research will be primarily responsible for researching public statements like speeches, interviews, debates, social media (including tweets and facebook posts), campaign ads, and other statements not covered in standardized evidence. However, it is still important to understand every kind of resource used in VoteEasy research. Please pay close attention to all the resources listed below.
Deletions:
Additions:
Standardized Evidence is evidence that applies to more than one politician. We relate this evidence in bulk to all politicians associated with that evidence.
==Evidence Collected for Politicians Individually==
==Evidence Collected for Politicians Individually==
Additions:
**[[StandardizedEvidenceforVoteEasy Standardized VoteEasy Evidence]]**
Public statements, speeches, and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements." Note: pledges are included as part of standardized research.
Public statements, speeches, and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements." Note: pledges are included as part of standardized research.
Deletions:
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research.
**Legislation**
Congressional Voting Records: Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions. Using legislation as evidence can be challenging, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggest support for or opposition to an issue position. Access specific legislation by clicking 'Issues and Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page.
- Yea votes can be used for determinations on certain relevant bills
- Nay votes are rarely used for determinations – a candidate may have voted against a specific provision despite supporting the overall policy
- Procedural votes (such as a vote to invoke cloture) should not be used for determinations
Sponsorship: Legislative sponsorship and co-sponsorship can provide additional insight into candidate issue positions, even if the piece of legislation never made it to a vote. Access sponsorship and co-sponsorship by clicking 'Sponsored Bills' on a candidate's Voting Record page.
**Interest Group Ratings and Endorsements**
Interest Group Ratings reflect how officials voted with an organization's preferred position. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position. Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
To find interest group ratings on the Project Vote Smart website, visit Issue and Interest Group Ratings or Issue Organizations and select the issue topic from the drop-down menu. Select the Interest Group and the rating year.
Public statements, speeches, and position papers are regularly published on the Project Vote Smart website. These can be found by navigating to the candidate's biographical information page and selecting either "Position Papers" or "Speeches and Public Statements."
Pledges: Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
Additions:
Those completing initial research will not research past Political Courage Tests, legislation, or interest group ratings and endorsements. These resources have been thoroughly researched and standardized for all 2012 Congressional candidates. Information Technology at Project Vote Smart will assist the Political Courage Test department and input these resources automatically, rather than entering each one manually.
Those completing initial research will be primarily responsible for researching public statements like speeches, interviews, debates, tweets, facebook posts, and campaign ads. However, it is still important to understand every kind of resource used in VoteEasy research. Please pay close attention to all the resources listed below.
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research.
Congressional Voting Records: Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions. Using legislation as evidence can be challenging, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggest support for or opposition to an issue position. Access specific legislation by clicking 'Issues and Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page.
- Yea votes can be used for determinations on certain relevant bills
- Nay votes are rarely used for determinations – a candidate may have voted against a specific provision despite supporting the overall policy
- Procedural votes (such as a vote to invoke cloture) should not be used for determinations
Interest Group Ratings reflect how officials voted with an organization's preferred position. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position. Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
**Public Statements**
Pledges: Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are not acceptance sources.
Interviews: Local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Newspapers will always be acceptable sources, but scrutinize source quality before using an interview from a blog.
Those completing initial research will be primarily responsible for researching public statements like speeches, interviews, debates, tweets, facebook posts, and campaign ads. However, it is still important to understand every kind of resource used in VoteEasy research. Please pay close attention to all the resources listed below.
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for this year's Vote Easy Research.
Congressional Voting Records: Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions. Using legislation as evidence can be challenging, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggest support for or opposition to an issue position. Access specific legislation by clicking 'Issues and Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page.
- Yea votes can be used for determinations on certain relevant bills
- Nay votes are rarely used for determinations – a candidate may have voted against a specific provision despite supporting the overall policy
- Procedural votes (such as a vote to invoke cloture) should not be used for determinations
Interest Group Ratings reflect how officials voted with an organization's preferred position. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate's issue position. Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
**Public Statements**
Pledges: Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
Use discretion when collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are not acceptance sources.
Interviews: Local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Newspapers will always be acceptable sources, but scrutinize source quality before using an interview from a blog.
Deletions:
Students completing an internship at the University of Southern California will be primarily responsible for researching public statements like speeches, interviews, debates, tweets, facebook posts, and campaign ads. However, it is still important to understand every kind of resource used in VoteEasy research. Please pay close attention to all the resources listed below.
Project Vote Smart encounters many candidates who have previously filled out the Political Courage Test, but have consecutively failed to complete it in recent years. These past Political Courage Tests, previously called National Political Awareness Tests, can be used in VoteEasy research. However, because the test undergoes frequent changes based on issue salience and relevance, not all past questions will be applicable for the 2012 Vote Easy.
Congressional Voting Records: Legislative records can provide useful insight into the candidate issue positions. Using legislation as evidence can be challenging, because lawmakers may support an issue in principle but disagree with the specific policy. Based on these nuances, a vote does not necessarily suggests support or opposition to an issue position. Access specific legislation by clicking 'Issues and Legislation' on the Project Vote Smart homepage, or by clicking 'Voting Record' on a candidate page.
Interest Group Ratings reflect how officials voted with an organization�s preferred position. Consequently, ratings are typically biased or partisan. Interest group ratings are useful to determine a candidate's issue position only if the issue question corresponds directly to the objective of the special interest group. Interest group endorsements are also useful for determining a candidate�s issue position. Most ratings are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement.
**Position Papers, Speeches, and Public Statements**
When collecting sources from websites other than VoteSmart.org, good judgment must be used. It is critical that we limit our research to only the highest quality sources. Partisan blogs and slanted news outlets are not acceptance sources.
Pledges: Candidates will often sign a pledge in exchange for an endorsement. These pledges can be very useful if they directly address the same issue we are researching.
Interviews: Local newspapers and blogs often conduct interviews with candidates prior to an election. Newspapers will always be acceptance sources, but scrutinize source quality before using an interview from a blog.
