Wednesday, April 19, 2006

I find this interesting..

The Coalition for a Better Memphis recently conducted candidate interviews in the various Commission races.

By clicking on the link, you can see how various candidates did in areas like Vision, Qualifications & Experience, ability to Implement Initiatives, The County Debt, and so forth.

However, they decided to average out the total score to get their final rating, rather than provide the aggregate score from the candidates' responses to the questionnaires. This, of course, can be a bit deceiving.

For instance, if you go to District 3, they show Paul Springer and Bob Hatton (the Cracker Endorsee!) with the same average of 77. However, if you add up the totals, Bob Hatton has the highest aggregate score, 620, not only in that Position, but of ALL District 3 Candidates regardless of position. His average was 77.5. Springer and Sidney Chism tied for next highest at 614, or an average of 76.75.

Some one should bring this to the attention of the Coalition, which just needs to tweak their otherwise diligent job of reviewing candidates.


polar donkey said...

I trust a Coalition for a Better Memphis as far as I can throw them. While it says "Coalition", I'd like to see who does most of the funding. Plus, what is the vision of a better memphis. Who's vision is it. I don't believe in some guardians issuing judgments on who they think are the best candidates for the commoners to vote for. If you don't think CBM has an agenda, I have a bridge to sell you.

David Holt said...

True enough, but you can read the candidates answers which is useful enough in itself if you aren't familiar with a candidate.

Unforgetableme said...

who are you supporting in all races?