The Questionnaire Process: How We Did It

Missouri & Illinois General Election 2004

Candidate Questionnaire Responses

By Jim Day

On September 1, 2004 we mailed each of the 163 candidates within the Missouri and Illinois readership areas of the MetroVoice (from the President of the United States on down to the St. Louis County Executive) our General Election 2004 Questionnaire. Along with the questionnaire we mailed a cover letter explaining who we are, the purpose of our questionnaire and how they could respond. The cover letter began with the following: “The St. Louis MetroVoice is a NON-PARTISAN monthly newspaper that is distributed throughout the greater St. Louis metropolitan area and surrounding communities (including Illinois), that reaches approximately 40 to 50,000 readers in over 675 distribution points. We are presently assembling our November 2004 General Election Special Focus Issue, which will be distributed October 20, 2004. The purpose of this special issue is to provide candidates with the opportunity to relate their opinions and/or positions on issues that concern our readers and the general public. We do not endorse candidates or political parties and would greatly appreciate your participation in this issue by completing the enclosed candidate questionnaire and providing us with your photograph.”

The Process

As you can see, our stated purpose was clearly to provide candidates the opportunity to relate their opinions or positions on issues that we decided were of major concern to our readers and the public at large. We emphasized the point that we are non-partisan and do not endorse candidates or political parties. The cover letter was sent on MetroVoice stationery, which plainly reads “St. Louis’ Christian News and Events Publication.”

Not only was this an excellent opportunity for the candidate to relate their personal opinions or positions on some of the top issues of our day but at the same time, show the differences between themselves and their opponents on the issues. By extension, it allowed them to connect with prospective supporters/voters who agree with their positions/opinions. Quite clearly, candidates had nothing to lose from answering our unbiased questionnaire and everything to gain.

Candidates were given clear and concise instructions regarding a number of ways they could return their questionnaires and photos (either by U.S. Mail, fax or e-mail). All 163 candidates were mailed the questionnaire via First Class U.S. Mail to the address or addresses which they themselves provided to the Missouri and Illinois Secretary of State offices. By mailing the questionnaires First Class, we were assured that the candidate would receive the questionnaire or it would be returned to us as “undeliverable.” In a great many instances we even mailed a duplicate copy to the candidate’s campaign or business office in addition to their home addresses. All in all, 195 questionnaires were mailed.

To further ensure that every candidate received our questionnaire we employed the services of Mrs. Jacque Ramey, a home schooling mom, to call each of the candidates starting on September 6th. She concluded her calls on September 30th. Mrs. Ramey was directed to call each candidate a bare minimum of three times, and if need be, fax or e-mail a copy of the questionnaire and cover letter should the candidate (or their representative) state that they had not gotten the questionnaire or that it had been misplaced or lost.

When the questionnaires were initially mailed, the candidates were given a deadline of September 20th to respond. Knowing that candidates would be busy campaigning, we went the extra mile and extended the deadline first to the 25th of September and then again to September 30th to make sure they had ample time to respond.

Knowing that it would be difficult to contact the presidential and vice presidential candidates, I personally contacted their respective campaign offices and spoke to their representatives. I personally e-mailed and faxed questionnaires and cover letters to the Bush-Cheney, Kerry-Edwards, Badnarik-Campagna and Peroutka campaign headquarters. Mr. Baldwin, the Constitution Party Vice Presidential candidate did not have to be contacted as he had responded during the initial mailing.

The Reasoning Behind the Process

By now, you’re probably asking yourself, why am I going through this lengthy dissertation on the process we went through to make sure every candidate got our questionnaire and had the opportunity to respond. The answer is quite simple, and in fact, was printed at the end of the questionnaire itself which read: “If it [the questionnaire] is not returned we will assume you Chose Not to Respond which will be noted next to your name in our section.”

We obviously took our efforts and questionnaire seriously. We strongly believe that citizens should be informed as to where a candidate stands on issues which presently (or could in the future) affect their lives -- before they vote for any candidate. In fact, we believe that those who are in public office or vying for public office are actually obligated to inform citizens of their positions on issues because of their potential or present representative status.

With this in mind, the readers will note that several candidates have “Chose Not to Respond” printed next to their names. This was their choice -- not ours. We would have rather that they had responded. If your candidate didn’t respond, I suggest you call them and ask them why not. I can assure you, it was not because they were not given the opportunity.

The Questionnaires

As for the questionnaires we chose what we felt were some of the top issues of the day. Two different, though similar, questionnaires were constructed. One for federal level candidates and one for state level candidates.

In structuring the questionnaires, we actually didn’t ask the candidates a question per se. Instead, we provided them with several statements under each topic and asked them to circle the one statement closest to their opinion or position. By in large, we attempted to provide the candidates with a range of choices which reflected opinions from one end of the political spectrum to the other. And, for good measure, we threw in choices which tested the candidate’s knowledge of philosophy and history, such as some of the statements offered under the topics of the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment, and Legislative Philosophy.

The objective was not just to get the candidate’s opinion, but to encourage them to really think about their opinion/position on each topic. Hopefully, assuming the candidate was honest, our readers will be able ascertain from the candidate’s selections how the candidate thinks, how informed they are, and what type of world view they possess. On the surface it may appear that our questionnaire was easy, but I assure you, it was not.

Candidates’ Answers

The vast majority of candidates chose (as they were asked to do) just one of the statements provided under each topic. Although it was not specifically stated in our cover letter or on the questionnaire itself, we did allow the candidates to add short clarification comments if they felt that the selections we provided under each topic did not quite reflect their opinion or position. Some candidates chose a statement, but wrote a clarifying comment. Others chose not to give any opinion or left the topic blank and wrote in a comment.

If a candidate made a choice but added a comment, we recorded their choice, added an asterick (*) next to their answer, and recorded their comment below their total list of responses. For example, under our topic of Abortion (topic 4 on the state level and topic 5 on the federal level questionnaires) one of the five choices we provided was “[d] Abortions should not be allowed except to save the life of the mother.” A candidate may have selected [d] but added a clarifying statement such as “In the case of an ectopic pregnancy.” In this particular case you’ll see their recorded response as 5. d*. Then, below their total list of recorded responses, you’ll find *5. Wrote in: “In the case of an ectopic pregnancy.”

On questionnaires where a candidate chose not to select any of our choices but chose instead to make a comment or write in their opinion/position, we recorded their response as “NA* or No Answer with an asterisk (*). Here again, below their list of recorded responses we quoted their written response/comment.

A small number of candidates wrote rather lengthy paragraphs to explain their positions as opposed to selecting just one of the statements below a topic. In each of these cases, since the candidate did not actually choose one of our statements, we put NA* as their answer and then edited their comments to a manageable size printing them below their entire list of responses. I personally did the editing of these candidates’ responses to ensure that the crux of their opinion/position was conveyed as accurately as possible in as few a words as possible. If any readers wish to obtain a copy of a candidate’s complete response, they are more than welcome to call me and I will send them a copy so they can see for themselves what the candidate wrote.

Some candidates chose not to make a selection under one or more of the topics, so in these cases, we simply put “NA” for No Answer.

If a candidate did not respond to our questionnaire at all, you’ll find “CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND” next to their name.

Incumbent candidates, those presently holding either a federal or state office for which they are seeking reelection, are indicated by a lower case italicized and bolded “i” after their name.

Can’t Find Your Candidate?

If you can’t find your candidate listed there are four possibilities; 1. They are in a contest outside of our readership area, 2. They are a local candidate running for an office below that of a State Representative (with the exception of St. Louis County Executive), 3. They are an Independent, Green Party or write-in candidate which chose not to include, and 4. They have already won their race by default (meaning no one from another political party will be running against them in the November 2nd General Election.) Candidates who fall into the number 4 category are: