In my Inbox the other day I found a link to the new Presidential Matchmaker on Change.org. "Find out which presidential candidate most matches your views" promised the email. So, I went and guess what, Change.org thinks I should marry Hillary Clinton. And they're right, I am a huge Hillary fan and recently sent her a donation!

But let's get down to how the Matchmaker works. Aside from the small technical detail that only a recovering evaluator would notice that the five point Likert scale is backwards and should be moved to the more natural progression from oppose on the left to support on the right, the biggest challenge is developing a methodology for squeezing the candidates positions into the soundbite questions. I am struck by the amount of effort that went into defining the answers to the questions and the corresponding candidates' positions. For instance, if you click on the first question in the survey, "Abortion is a woman's right" the following definition comes up when you click on it (which I didn't realize at first, a point I'll come back to.) The definition begins with the following:

POSITIONS

* Strongly Support means you believe: Abortion is a private decision between a woman and her doctor. You believe in the `Right to Choose' and are strongly pro-choice. The right to abortion empowers women and is an important part of women's health rights and women's reproductive freedom. That right includes the right to a government subsidy for poor women who want an abortion.
* Support means you believe: Restricting `Partial-Birth Abortions' or other specific procedures is reasonable, but clinic access should be unfettered, since other women may choose differently than you. You are pro-choice, but believe that some restrictions are acceptable.
* Oppose means you believe: The fetus is a human being who has rights independent of its mother's rights. You are "pro-life." While abortion under certain circumstances might be tolerated, the basic rights belong to the fetus, not the mother.
* Strongly Oppose means you believe: Abortion is immoral because it kills a human being, and should never be tolerated. `Roe v. Wade' should be overturned and we should protest abortion clinics as other forms of injustice are protested.

When my answer and Hill's were compared, that we are both staunchly pro choice, here's what Matchmaker had to say about Hill's position:

Answer Based on the Following Stances:

* Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases
* Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too
* Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania
* Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice
* Remain vigilant on a woman's right to chose
* Keep abortion safe, legal and rare
* Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion
* Supports parental notice & family planning
* Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
* Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
* Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
* Expand embryonic stem cell research.

So, a few reflections on the site and the idea of position matching with candidates. At first glance, I thought that the survey was going to be a string of leading questions ( e.g. do you like dogs, are you appalled by the Bush administration, do you think climate change is bad?) that would end with a pronouncement that my IQ is very high (really, extraordinarily high!) or that my perfect mate was waiting in a chat room and I could talk to him for a $10 charge. But although the survey questions themselves were at times a bit trite verging on silly ("drug use is immoral; enforce laws against it for the very large legalize drugs and don't enforce laws contingent) the thinking and content behind them was very good. Here are a few suggestions for improving the site for the next go round:

It would have been very helpful to have an introductory explanation from Change.org of the methodology behind the matchmaking content. How did they pick these issues? What criteria were used to develop their ranking of the candidates' positions, meaning how did they decide that a candidates statements, votes, actions constituted strong support or strong opposition?

Next, some of the user interface could have been clearer. For instance, it took me a while to figure out that by clicking on the survey topic itself a window would pop with the criteria for that question. Also, when I compared my results to others, again it took me a while to understand that by clicking on the question mark next to the candidates' response the rationale behind the candidate's response would pop up. Two critically important pieces of content were hard to find.

Those are the mechanical difficulties, there is a larger issue of creating side-to-side connections and participation that Matchmaker has the potential exploit that it doesn't do yet.

First, the site could have a chat room for those interested in discussing and tugging on the criteria to go to. These criteria and survey questions should be considered works in progress, not finished products, and as such ongoing discussion of how to continue to refine them would be a wonderful, community-building effort. Second, we can send our results to friends in my address book, but I'd love a way to meet other Hillary lovers on the site, or better through a Meetup, as a result. Third, Change.org you had me at hello, now what do you want me to do? Where and how can I explore these issues and candidates further?

Overall, Matchmaker is a great start, clear, easy to use, great potential, another UI iteration and more connectedness and it will be a terrific addition to this and future campaigns.

Change.org | Hillary Clinton
afine's blog | email this page | delicious | digg | technorati