Data from a Candidate Calculator
Ravi Iyer
University of Southern California
Suzanne Soule & Jennifer Nairne
Center for Civic Education
Doug Stenstrom
University of Southern California
What I hope to do....




Introduce VoteHelp and the idea of candidate
calculators
Cluster analysis to move beyond
liberal/conservative analysis
Moral Foundation Questionnaire results based
on clusters identified
Ask for your help in future research
What is a Candidate Calculator?





Allows voters to match their opinions to the
positions of politicians on an issue by issue
basis
Allows voters to weight the importance of each
issue
Importance is relative to a relatively
comprehensive set of issues
Produces a ranked list of politicians
Allows users to see how the rankings were
generated
VoteHelp.Org
VoteHelp.Org results page
VoteHelp Traffic
Referring Sites
Referring Sites
Cluster Analysis




“Each person's more-or-less idiosyncratic
perspective cannot be captured by assuming
that all people use the same dimensions”
(Fleishman 1986).
Knoke – Dimensions of political attitudes –
economic issues, social issues, & racial issues
(1979)
Previous Cluster Analyses?
Likely to be outdated by the time they are
published using older issues
Fleishman (1986)



ANES 1980 data - ~400-500 people
6 groups – liberals, quasi-liberals (less minority aid),
conservatives, advocates of limited government, those
with pro-labor attitudes (and anti-civil rights), those
who are middle of the road in attitudes toward
government economic programs.
12 issues: civil rights, defense spending, government
services, inflation vs. unemployment, abortion, aid to
minority groups, relations with the Soviets, women's
place in society, guaranteed jobs, the Equal Rights
Amendment, busing, and nuclear power.
4 Clusters
2 Liberal Groups

Group 1 – Top issues by issue
importance

Group 2 – Top issues by Issue
Importance

Iraq - Decision

Universal Health Care

Universal Health Care

Environment Regulation

Abortion

Global Warming

Gay Marriage

Iraq - Withdrawal

Stem Cell Research

Education Funding
2 Conservative Groups

Group 1 – Top issues by Issue
Importance

Group 2 – Top issues by Issue
Importance

Immigration Enforcement

Abortion

Gun Ownership

Gay Marriage

Aggressive Foreign Policy

Iraq - Decision

Government Spending

Drug Policy

Immigration Amnesty

Stem Cell Research
Beyond Liberal and Conservative


Social issue liberals

Environment and
education liberals

Law and order
conservatives
Social issue
conservatives
Harper's Bazaar Roundtable


Baker - The Republican Party is now three
factions having an argument: the social-issues
faction, the security faction, and the big-money
libertarian faction.”
McConnell - “real libertarians are pretty rare”
What can you do with this?



Issue based coalitions – i.e. Social
conservatives want increased educational
funding (M=5.4, 7th most important issue) and
agree on environmental issues (M=4.7-4.9), but
do not place as much importance on it (21st and
23rd out of 28 issues).
Areas where 1 group drives policy – i.e. Drug
policy is only important to social conservatives.
Issue analysis - Iraq withdrawal pits law and
order conservatives against both liberal groups
with social conservatives apathetic.
Moral Foundation Theory

Haidt & Graham 2007

Harm

Fairness

Ingroup Loyalty

Authority

Purity

Linked study at yourmorals.org - N=184
Conservatives vs. Liberals
MFQ Results by Cluster
Report
ym_cluster3
.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
MFQ_HARM_
AVG
3.5970
46
.89606
3.8636
44
.60510
4.0336
34
.45577
3.4205
44
.79153
3.2879
16
.83192
3.6724
184
.76650
MFQ_
FAIRNESS_
AVG
3.3137
46
.62475
3.8084
44
.52107
3.8566
34
.57828
3.4091
44
.61021
2.8984
16
.79217
3.5190
184
.66896
MFQ_
INGROUP_
AVG
2.8354
46
1.05093
2.1518
44
.85557
2.1387
34
.75089
2.8295
44
.81193
2.7969
16
.82143
2.5384
184
.93247
MFQ_
AUTHORITY_
AVG
2.9367
46
.95722
2.2837
44
.81052
2.2300
34
.72226
3.0767
44
.83056
3.2188
16
.70784
2.7080
184
.91175
MFQ_
PURITY_AVG
2.7294
46
1.33483
1.7078
44
.94825
1.9842
34
.78199
2.8324
44
.97496
3.7188
16
.93708
2.4581
184
1.19299
MFQ Results



Replicated Haidt & Graham findings using issue
positions rather than self identification as
liberal/conservative
Found that social conservatives score higher on
purity foundation
Found that law and order conservatives score
higher on fairness foundation
Summary




Importance questions are important...
.... especially in context of comprehensive set of
issues.
Cluster analysis can be leveraged into future
work to get beyond liberal/conservative splits.
Combining cluster results with linked studies
can help other theories get beyond liberal and
conservative distinctions too.
Future Directions (I need your help!)

Data analysis (more clusters, specific issues)

Linked studies

Candidate calculators in other countries

Candidate calculators for local elections


www.polipsych.com - Paper, presentation and spreadsheet of
issue importance and position means by cluster.
www.yourmorals.org - more on the moral foundations
questionnaire

www.votehelp.org

raviiyer@usc.edu