- CES and Tech Politics
- Small Tents vs. Big Networks: Recreating the GOP
- Daily Digest: Party Hopefuls Vying for Tech Cred
- Inside the Bailout: The Public Servants Our Hopes Are Riding On
- Candidates For RNC Chair Duke It Out (Sort of) Online
- Daily Digest: For Open Government, It's Put Up (Online) Time
- 2012: The Race Starts Now
- Laying Groundwork for Post-Inaugural Citizen Service
- Daily Digest: </2008>
- Transition video views
By the editors, 01/03/2008 - 4:19pm
The internet offers a better way to involve the public in evaluating our presidential debates, and because we’ve wanted to improve upon attempts to incorporate it into that process, we launched 10Questions.com on Oct. 17, 2007. Now, two and a half months later, the public has had the chance to rate the candidates’ responses to the top ten submitted questions and we are declaring 10Questions an unmitigated success.
In Round One, the public submitted the questions they’d like to see the candidates answer, and then voted for their favorites. During this period, which ended on Nov. 17th, the site received more than 121,000 votes on 231 videos. The top ten videos ended up being substantive and thoughtful questions, with nary a talking snowman in sight.
In Round Two, Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich all responded to the top ten videos on the site. In addition, we worked with MySpace and MTV to have Obama answer the top question, about Net neutrality, during his appearance in their joint Presidential Dialogues series. We think the participation of two of three Democratic frontrunners and one Republican frontrunner, and the lack of snowman-type joke questions to respond to, legitimized for once and for all a format in which the public decides which questions to ask the candidates.
With 1,938 net votes, the Obama response about Net neutrality garnered the most net votes in Round Two. John Edwards’ responses to that question and the number two question, about whether America is a theocracy, were the second and third most-popular responses. Mike Huckabee was actually the first candidate to post his responses, and his answer to the theocracy question was the fourth most-popular candidate answer.
You can see the rest of the results here. We should note that John Edwards captured six of the top ten favorite responses, making his responses the most popular in Round Two; according to these ratings, he answered the questions more reliably than the other candidates.
Edwards and Huckabee benefited from participating early; Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich got their videos in just before the deadline, so the public didn’t have much time to weigh in on whether they actually answered the questions. That said, four of Kucinich’s responses landed in the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th spots. Gravel didn’t far as well, only managing to land one response in the 20 highest-rated responses.
The site remained popular throughout its run, with a total of almost 150,000 unique visits.
We view 10Questions as a precedent-setting success and a legitimate, people-powered alternative to the status quo.
Recent blog posts
Recent comments
- thank you
2 hours 18 min ago - By merging its organizing
8 hours 36 min ago - The numbers
11 hours 3 min ago - That's 95,000 people, 4.2 million votes
1 day 1 hour ago - Service
2 days 22 hours ago - National day of slavery.........
4 days 6 hours ago - Re: I was in DC for the
6 days 3 hours ago - The Obama campaign is doing
6 days 21 hours ago - Re: Headline Woes
6 days 22 hours ago - From a communications theory perspective ...
6 days 22 hours ago

print
email
delicious
digg
technorati
Well done
I think this was a wonderful format, and entirely agree that it should be taken as a "precedent-setting" approach to things.
I'd just suggest a way to somehow make it work like a poll works, in terms of random samples of people who are asked to answer each question for each candidate. Otherwise you get people/supporters raiding the votes. Perhaps you could even have a "general public" vote, that wouldn't be done by the random sample, and then a more deliberate, controlled group of randomly selected people who would commit to answering some number of questions. The questions and answers take a little bit, so, with some effort, it seems it could be set up where a large randomly selected group of people are asked to participate and take 7-10 minutes to listen to one question and one answer by one candidate (any more than that and you'd have to likely pay people to ensure they are listening to full questions and answers, but for this i bet people'd be willing to actually listen to a full question and answer on a whole). So, that is, the randomly selected group could be split up so everyone just had one question and answer to listen to and vote on; you'd just have to make sure you had a big enough group. I think that could legitimize this as a trustworthy poll, build up a lot of hype, and at the same time keep the public involved by allowing them to submit questions and vote. Thoughts?