I've done these in the past, but never took them too seriously, because it's easy to skew the results based on poorly worded questions or by simplifying an issue. For instance, the USA Today quiz doesn't mention any specific progressive approaches to the tax system besides letting the Bush wealthy tax cuts expire, etc. And many use the death penalty as a proxy for all attitudes regarding criminal justice, which would be sloppy if one were take them seriously. You need multiple choice to make these tests workable, but that also means being careful to provide fair and varied choices.

However, as the reader comment above states, these are useful for focusing on issues, which the mainstream media puts a distant second to the horse race. Using these are a great idea - if someone built a comprehensive questionnaire that got into the meat of issues, the tests might take 30 minutes to complete, but they'd be a much more useful tool for matching candidates and for learning about issues.

Thanks for covering this, David - it's good not to dismiss something as silly without providing a fair analysis.

I think these kinds of quizzes are a good development. Too often, it seems like candidates are supported for relatively trivial reasons, not the least relating to whether the Corporate Mainstream News Media thinks particular candidates have a good chance of winning or not. The more that voters vote on the issues, the more that governmental policies that are enacted afterwards will reflect their positions. The only presidential candidates that were in the Congress in 2002 that voted against the Iraq War Resolution were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, which should generate those candidates plenty of support, you would think.

www.PartyofCommons.com

It's hard to see how these things accurately portray a fringe candidate like Paul, seeing as the one I looked at didn't have any questions about doing away with the Fed and going on the gold standard.

I mean, the gold standard?! Amazing.

But blimps are pretty cool. Go Ron!

I just listened to a League Of Women's Voters symposium (XM POTUS'08, ch 130) on the related party affiliation. The speakers, each expert in their related fields of research, polling and analysis, all expressed the same central conclusions;
Party affiliation is heavily influenced by the political environment one comes of age with in their twenties. Today's twenty-something's are more heavily democratic than ever before (off the charts, literally).
As that party's culture and values change, one tends to find specific issues to justify their continued affiliation.
Those who more thoroughly analyze and compare their true beliefs with an objective analysis of their party's current positions, is more inclined to re-evaluate their affiliation - particularly republicans drifting away from their party's all-consuming, social-values dogma.
Fascinating issue, and very timely as this presidential race has everyone scratching their head. We may be witnessing the most important presidential election consensus of our lifetime, and as such - perhaps the most thoughtful. It's going to be a fascinating year.
Thanks, David.

I made my first comment after doing the first four sites listed. The fifth, MyElectionChoices.com, is much more detailed, and is far superior. It lists proposals made by the various candidates in different policy areas. You check off proposals that you agree with.

It's not necessarily scientific (although compared to the other four, it's much closer), but it's more in depth. In addition, it shows the variety of ideas the various candidates have. I can be as cynical as the next person, but a lot of these candidates have interesting ideas, both D and R, and this is the best site of these by far. I'd rather here what the candidates have to say, instead of websites that filter out the most interesting and innovative ideas.

David--
Someone actually said they "favor Ron Paul as a Republican and Obama as a Democrat"????
That's a real laugher.
Obama is a big government, nanny state flip-flopper for crying out loud.
Obama has ZERO in common with Ron Paul except they both breathe air and have a pulse.
Don't you think someone should have asked this moron for a few more examples of how he equates the two??

This type of quiz would tend to give results that are all over the board, because it is based on heresay by the candidates, a less accurate indicator than supporting what they have done. Replacing what they have said by what they have done may not address all of the issues, but would give way more of an accurate indication of what each candidate is about - Ron Paul notwithstanding.

Paul and Huckabee followed by Dodd, Obama and Guilliani were my resuilts - seems dysfunctional to me.

These are interesting tools. The last one was certainly the most time consuming to go through, but combined perhaps something can be taken away from them.

If I rank the top three choices from the five tools I get Obama, Kucinich and Gravel. If I then eliminate Gravel and Kucinich as candidates that might have the right message at times, but from the wrong messenger, then my top three come out to be Obama, Dodd and Biden.

If I just consider the top three Dems in the race for the nomination (at this time), then Obama comes out far above Clinton and Edwards.

As someone who is undecided, the information is interesting.

Thanks for the mention. I always appreciate it when a reporter doesn't ridicule me. When I take the quiz I only match up with myself about 90%, so I suppose one shouldn't take them too seriously.

I've noticed that there are many revelatory testimonials on various web sites posted by Ron Paul supporters claiming similar conversion experiences. So many that I'm somewhat suspicious that it is a persuasive devide being advanced by the campaign. This is the campaign that's had supporters arguing all over the internet that orchestrated Republican straw polls are more reliable at measuring a candidate's strength than professional polling.

Odd.... My match said Dave Postman for President. Wonder if too many people broke the quizzes.