and the winner is...

Bill Richardson!

I just found a quiz online, created by the Washington Post (you should take it too) that summarizes the candidates' answers to various questions and asks how much you agree or disagree, then weights the results and tabulates them to tell you who you should vote for. The whole test is blind (they mix up the answers and don't show you which candidates they belong to), so as far as I can tell, this seems to me like the best way to pick a presidential candidate yet. Obviously there are problems with this method, but shit, seems about as scientific as picking a favorite person can be.

The test told me some interesting things, both about myself and the candidates. First of all, I hate it when dodgy or pander-y answers are given to these kinds of questions. Therefore, I only chose ones that gave a strong stance. As a result, I ended up picking ZERO of Obama's answers. That's right, zero. The candidate I thought I liked the most ended up scoring the lowest out of all five. Richardson was first, followed by Hillary, followed by Chris Dodd (??), then Edwards, then Obama.

I also discovered I really don't know jack shit about Richardson or Dodd, but based on this quiz, you better believe I'm going to do some research. Not that I really think either of them have a chance at winning, but what the hell. The Washington Post just earned Richardson one more vote than he would have otherwise.

I think this quiz should constitute voting, in and of itself. It's too easy to get caught up in stuff like the celebrity and "personality" of the candidates. Obviously these things bear no relation to the quality of a president (Bush sure is a charming fella, ain't he?). Instead of picking names, voters should be given a quiz like this. It seems like the best way for the real voice of people to emerge from all the political bullshit.

Now we just need to assign the quiz some sort of paper trail.