Sunday, August 14, 2005

standardized politics

You've probably heard about cultural bias in standardized tests. But here's a new one--political bias. What about a (hypothetical) question that assumes there are only two candidates running for office and ignores the segment of the population who votes third party, writes in a candidate, or omits that question? I'm one of the cynics who believe that third partiers don't usually have much of a chance (Ventura being the most prominent exception), but to completely ignore their existence? That's a bit harsh.

10 Comments:

Blogger mal said...

It certainly shows an acceptance that the status quo is the natural condition.

Ventura is a great example. He was not considered serious until 10 days before the election when he literally came out of nowhere to win the election.

Minnesotans are an interesting bunch, socially liberal, religiously conservative and intellectually flexible. Interesting combination for the politicos to deal with. Minnesota was the state that went biggest for Perot when he ran also.

I am a transplant, but I really like these people

1:13 PM  
Blogger Jason said...

Does the question clearly state Republicans and Democrats?

2:59 PM  
Blogger Hubert said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

Regards,
John

casino poker online

3:19 PM  
Blogger Christopher said...

I love your blog! You did an excellent job! I have a blog on xbox360 exposed if you would like to come and comment on it!

3:58 PM  
Blogger Raymond's Edge said...

It does seem like this country is geared for only 2 parties. The election commission will not even allow a third party candidate to debate if they think he/she will get less than 10% of the vote. How will they ever get more then 10% if they are not included in the national debates??

4:25 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

Jason--No. The question says only "Candidate A and Candidate B." The question and scenario are fine in and of themselves. It's what is left implied in order to get the correct answer that made me angry.

4:43 PM  
Blogger Balloon Pirate said...

in my home state, you must be a member of either the Republican or Democratic Party to be considered for a position on the board of elections, or anything at all regarding polling. Even poll monitors.

Which means, should I feel the need to serve as a poll monitor, I must first join one or the other party. No third parties, no independents.

This, by the way, is during a time when the election commissioners go on TV starting in June of a major election year, begging for monitors and others to help.

Yeharr

3:03 PM  
Blogger United We Lay said...

When I was teaching the election this yeat most of my students didn't believe me when I old the there were more than two parties. I got in trouble for telling them about the third party candidates because itt was politically biased. All I had ever said was that there were third party candidates and that most people didn't know about them.

5:57 PM  
Blogger R2K said...

Hi from NYC!

R2000 :O)

7:08 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

PC, that's wrong. Very wrong. Teaching that third parties simply exist is equivalent to, I dunno, saying something ludicrous like the Earth revolves around the sun.

9:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home