Choice Matrix

I’ve been trying to figure out a way to codify and quantify my decision making process regarding my vote for POTUS. Being President seems to require a complex matrix of skills, temperament, philosophy and habits. I’ve tried to lump these qualities into set of meta-qualities, and then assign each a value weight. Then I evaluate the candidate, and give each a score for each meta-quality that ranges from 1 to 10.

This takes into account such fuzzy things as speaking ability, or appearing presidential, and even weighs tougher questions like can he get legislation passed.

Here are the meta-quality groupings I devised.

Personal Style – This encompasses speaking style, appearance, communication skill, energy level, posture and so on. All those things that go into making people like you, or not like you. They are not terribly important, but they are important to a certain degree. Therefore I give them a relative weight of 3 out of 10.

Organizational Effectiveness – The simple question here is can this candidate run an administration that is both efficient and effective? This involves execution of tasks and goals, creative thinking, bold action, and all within budget and time constraints. Obama seems to have taken the lead on this one, proving his ability by running on heckuva campaign.

Political Philosophy – this is the first one most people think of. I’m assuming that policy flows out of philosophy, so if you agree with a candidate on philosophy, the policy will work for you too. In the case of this year’s election, one must be very careful as the candidate each try to define the philosophy of the other. Of course, distortion is really what they seek, not definition.

Legislative Mojo – This is closely related to Organizational Effectiveness, but with a much narrower focus. Basically, will the candidate propose legislation and will he be able to get it passed into law? One’s philosophy may be great, but without the ability to actually persuade and move the lawmakers, you got nothing.

So here is what I came up with when I did my evaluation. This is a thin slice approach to the question. My numbers are just made up from gut feelings. I think the matrix is self-explanatory. McCain comes out the winner by a slight margin. 

Other factors I considered, but did not include in the matrix are 

Decisional Philosophy - Essentially this is a measure of where the candidate falls on the Pragmatic/Ideological continuum. Are decisions based on an idealogy that may or may not be connected with real conditions in a real world? Or are decisions based on available data, analyzed to make value determinations regarding courses of action, or pursuit of goals.

Conceptual Agility - How good is the candidate at seeking and using new ideas. Does he foster an atmosphere of creativity. Does he himself seek unorthodox positions, and is he willing to champion them if they are good for the country. This is closely related to Decisional Philosophy.

Still thinking this through. May need to adjust the matrix.

Dopplegangers and Bizarro World Candidates

As I was our running through the slush this morning, enjoying the fresh snow that has been falling gently gently for the last 6 days, my thoughts turned to democracy and our wonderful elections. I thought about the brave and strong candidates, who thoughtless of their own safety, hurl themselves into the harsh light of public scrutiny, subjecting themselves to all manner of physical and emotional torment at the hands of the people, all for the paltry prize of becoming the leader of the free world.

I occured to me that there were some fasinating parllels among the candidates. It seems in fact that each candidate in the field has his own doppleganger, his own Bizarro complement. Each pair hails from a different party, but shares a style of candidacy. Within each pairing, there is shared style, but a much different emphasis on substance and focus.

STYLE SUBGROUP	REPUBLICAN	DEMOCRAT
TECHNOCRAT	ROMNEY	CLINTON
EMOTICRAT	McCAIN	OBAMA
POPULIST	HUCKABEE	EDWARDS
POLARIST	PAUL	KUCINICH
NON-STARTER	THOMPSON	RICHARDSON

Technocrats are candidates who are focused on technology (in the Ellulian sense), "the totality of methods rationally arrived at, and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity." In other words, governing is all about the methodology, the programs, the technique. Romney and Clinton don't really differ that much in style. They differ mainly in the tools and ends they would use the technology of government for. The danger of either, of course, is whether the technology really serves humanity, or vice versa.

The Emoticrats seek to lead by inspiring, by appeal to the emotional desires and dreams of the citizens. McCain says, "I will never back down in hunting and killing the enemies of our Great Nation. I will Never Never stop!" That appeals deeply to certain segment whose main concern is the enemy without. Obama says, "We need Change. I will bring Change. We need to Unite. I will unite us." This appeals to the hearts of those who fear the enemy within, which is only those who cannot just get along, or who don't want to change. Of course, change is never defined. The great danger is that an emoticratic appeal can move millions to action, but to what action? They use similar styles, but their ends are very different ends.

The Populists set themselves up as the contenders for the people against the overwhelming machine of the big bad Wolf we can government. Huckabee wants to save us from the grasping claws of the IRS that want to steal the money that is rightfully ours. Edwards wants to save us from the iron heel of the military industrial bureaucratic complex that presses our necks down so that we cannot earn the money that is rightfully ours. The both style themselves as saviors of sorts, but their means are quite different.

The Polarists stand on the far ends, shouting as loud as they can. Unfortunately for them, they stand so far out there that only a few, those whose hearing aids are already tuned to their special frequency, can actually hear them. It has been said that a sign of integrity is what you do when no one is watching. If this is true, then God bless Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They are trying to fit 10 pounds of integrity into a 5 pound sack.

The Non-Starters are good guys who apparently just have no idea whatsoever how to actually run a national presidential campaign. They might have had something good to add, but just totally screwed themselves.

I'm not sure how much value this analysis has for actually choosing one candidate or another, but it's kind of interesting to see how it all breaks out. The question is, will the parties choose there candidates with matching styles, or will they pit one style against another? How will that affect the campaign? If this happens in the national election, you may see one candidate trying to change their style to counter the other. My guess is that the candidate the changes will most likely lose.