Quote:
|
Your first paragraph is pretty much what I have said before, though I did it more politely.
|
I thought about to say it differently, but found that it would leave too much substance behind. If I sounded rude, that was not intentional as I said, but comes with expressing what I mean in content. I do not wish to give up on the latter.
Quote:
|
It really doesn't take much to figure out how it works. You have your satements, your 3 possible answers and the option to emphasize certain answers. You could just as well do it on a piece of paper.
|
Nonsens. That is just a description of the visuals and tells nothing about the calculation model. You do not now how options get weigthed by the software. You take it as granted that all issues are of the same importance ot the one perosn filling the form. that all issues rated inside the double-weighted or single-weighted categories, are equally important to each other. you leave it to assuming how the software processes the markings you made. Regarding methodology you are very uncritical.
And regarding "on paper" - the voisual presentation would be different then, and that also makes a difference in how your brain and your intellect absorbs and calculates the information. Just to be a bit of a psychologic smartass, if you forgive.
The problem I have with this wahl-o-mat is not that it is there. The problem is that it is not being given as a fun-game, or a joke, an ironicc comment on the campaign - but that it is promoted and understood to be a serious tool of forming political opinion. You see - they mean it serious, if you have not realised it so far!