DontVote.org's mission is to combat the "Get out the Vote" movement that is pushed by organizations that would like to increase the number of uneducated voters to help their cause. DontVote.org encourages people to Vote, but only AFTER they have educated themselves on the policies and individuals for which they are voting. Voting should be considered a privilege and exercised with responsibility and discretion. Just like a final exam, responsible voting requires self-education and thought. When the time comes to cast your ballot, if you don't know for what or whom you're voting, then DON'T VOTE.
You scored 318 out of 350 possible points, or 90.86%
You should definitely vote.
In truth, I took educated guesses on a couple. One I got entirely wrong (both parts) and two I got just the second part wrong. How'd you do? (Via Susan)
Well maybe I shouldn't vote after all because I couldn't figure out how to get my score to display on my site - I just got the vote/don't vote banner. I'll have to go back and replicate my score to get the whole picture.
Posted by: susan | November 04, 2006 at 04:50 PM
I got 100% :)
Posted by: scott | November 04, 2006 at 06:11 PM
I got 96%, but I'm not sure what question I got wrong. I mean, I can imagine what it might have been, because there were a couple I wasn't certain of, but I don't know the final answers.
Posted by: Debra Hamel | November 04, 2006 at 06:19 PM
Duh. I realized there are answers. I think I got Ban-Ki Moon wrong. I know who he is, but he looked Japanese rather than Korean.
Posted by: Debra Hamel | November 04, 2006 at 07:30 PM
He gave me pause for a moment, too, but mostly it's because to me he resembles a young Dali Lama.
Posted by: scott | November 04, 2006 at 08:19 PM
I got 96%--I missed Ban-Ki Moon.
Posted by: Margaret | November 05, 2006 at 12:22 AM
I got 53% - mostly because I didn't know a lot of the US politicians (I got Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld) and it suggested I move to France!
BUT what I'm finding hard to believe is that of the people who took this test, more of them recognised Paris Hilton than Queen Elizabeth II.
But maybe that's cos I'm British.
Still, apparently she's more recognisable than Kofi Annan!
Posted by: Kirsty | November 05, 2006 at 03:43 AM
The inclusion of Paris Hilton et al. was silly, I thought.
Posted by: Debra Hamel | November 05, 2006 at 12:22 PM
I had the same score. I gave Dennis Hastert the wrong job, incorrectly identified Ban Ki-moon as Hideki Matsui the Emporer of Japan and called Nancy Pelosi Barbara Boxer (but I did give her the right job).
Posted by: Karan | November 05, 2006 at 05:16 PM
Why is the test based solely on recognizing people's faces? I know perfectly well who Tony Snow and Rush Limbaugh are, to pick two examples, but I have no idea what they look like. Other than forked-tongued and fat. I truthfully answered all the questions with "I don't know" when I really didn't know and the test says I should not vote. Because I don't know what Christine Aguilera looks like? I don't get it.
Posted by: DJ | November 05, 2006 at 05:20 PM
Your point is a good one -- even if you could identify all of them, does that mean you are qualified to vote? Does that mean you understand any of their positions on any issues? Nope, not necessarily.
Posted by: Karen | November 05, 2006 at 05:24 PM
I got 348 out of 350. I couldn't believe Alec Baldwin had got so chubby - I identified him as a Canadian politician.
Posted by: Liz | November 05, 2006 at 09:42 PM
I thought i'd be at a terrible disadvantage, being someone who has rejected television completely. How would I know what these people look like? Still, I got every qeustion right. Go figure.
And yes, it's dumb. Just recognizing these people doesn't mean you know anything about their positions or the issues of the day.
And some of these folks aren't political characters in the first place!
Posted by: scott | November 06, 2006 at 12:24 PM