2008 US Presidential: Ranking/Grading and Election Results

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking Results and Actual Election Results

The FDA’s evaluation and ranking/grading of the 2008 US Presidential candidates is an outside perspective of how American citizens, candidates, parties, and individuals and organizations outside of the United States, can view the 2008 US Presidential election results. Also, the evaluation process is an example of evaluating as an addition to voting.

The FDA’s ranking/grading of the 2008 US Presidential candidates:

1. Nader 64.5/80 (80.6%)

2. McCain 48.5/80 (60.6%)

3. Obama 44.5/80 (55.6%)

4. Barr 44/80 (55%)

5. Baldwin 28.5/80 (36.6%)

Actual election results:

1. Obama 52.6% (364 ECV)

2. McCain 46.2% (162 ECV)

3. Nader .52% (0 ECV)

4. Barr .4% (0 ECV)

5. Baldwin .14% (0 ECV)

64.1% of the United States voting public voted (US Election Commission), which means 35.9% of the US voting public did not vote.

Analysis:

There is clear discrepancy between the FDA’s results and that of the actual election.

The FDA study is an evaluation and ranking/grading of the US Presidential candidates based on their backgrounds and visions, and policies of the candidates’ political parties. The study is not a prediction or poll of how Americans would vote.

Moreover, the FDA study is limited to four key policies of the federal political parties—economy, health, environment, and foreign policy. It does not evaluate, for example, education policy, and the parties’ make-up including membership and leadership.

The FDA believes that the evaluation of the backgrounds, visions, and four key policy areas, gives a reasonable indication of how the candidates compare. Hence, it is the conclusion of the FDA that the 2008 US Presidential election was flawed, in that Mr. Nader and Mr. Barr should have faired significantly better. The gap alone of 52.08% between Mr. Obama and Mr. Nader, in actual percentage of the popular vote, is in stark contrast to FDA's grading of Mr. Nader at 80.6% and Mr. Obama at 55.6%. This gross discrepancy may be attributed to the US two party system, in which third parties are not allowed in the Presidential debates, and are largely ignored in the mainstream media. Also, in backlash to the Bush Administration, the US public turned to the new face of Mr. Obama, while apparently overlooking/ignoring Mr. Nader and Mr. Barr. Ironically, the US Presidential election, which lasts for over two years from the onset of public statements, is the longest election in the world, and yet third party candidates remain largely in the dark.

Was democracy served in the 2008 US Presidential election? It is questionable because Mr. Nader, the highest graded politician by the FDA ever, stood out from the other candidates, with an overall grade of 80.6%, 25% points ahead of Mr. Obama, and yet as mentioned Mr. Nader ended up receiving a mere .52% of the popular vote.

If the United States had a healthy democratic system, all viable presidential candidates would receive equal attention in the mainstream media, have access to the US Presidential debates, and have similar campaign funding.

The real losers in the 2008 US Presidential election are the American people, because they ended up with the third ranked/graded candidate, and therefore, they settled for weaker policies and representation. This settlement is exacerbated by the mounting economic and social problems facing the American people.