The Mercer Conservatives Index

The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The Index”) will use a basic grading system to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. I will begin my analysis by examining legislators that represent Mercer County in Harrisburg and in Washington DC. I will then continue the analysis over the next 7 – 10 days as I examine all of our incumbent lawmakers and the candidates that are challenging them in the Primary and General Elections. This analysis will include Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and the six candidates that are challenging her from the Republican Party.

I’ll warn you now that you may not all agree with my grading system. You also may not agree with my conclusions. Unfortunately, it is MY index and it reflects my findings. If you’d care to start your own index, I invite you to do so. This project is, after all, an attempt to generate interest in our legislators and in candidates running for public office. It is intended to spark conversation and debate. It is not intended to serve as an endorsement of any public official or candidate.

Published Grades for Legislators that Represent Mercer County:

The Grading System

Each candidate (as well as the incumbents) are graded on a set of 10-11 categories (depending on their current elected status). For each category, the candidate will receive a score based on the information that I’ve collected (through my personal exchanges with each of the individuals). The score assigned will be a number from 0 to 5 with 0 being the lowest score . . . and 5 being the highest. The scores for each candidate will be tallied and a total score will be provided. That total score will then be converted into a letter Grade (A, B, C, D, F) based the common grading scale below:

Grade A = 90-100%
Grade B = 80-89%
Grade C = 70-79%
Grade D = 60-69%
Grade F = 0-59%

Analysis Categories

Below is a brief description of each category and how the score for that category was determined.

Record

For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific issues. For candidates for office, this score is based on their published stand on issues and their professional resume.

Leadership

Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they left me with.

General Intellect

Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.

Capability

Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up to the position for which they have been or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire.

Likeability

Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that others may view them.

Electability (applied to candidates in current races only)

Electability is defined as the candidates ability to win the election in November. This takes into account the individual against whom they will be running.

Transparency and Accountability

This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response to the questions that were asked.

Public Service

Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking, and personal meetings.

Desire to Represent “The People” of their District

This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?

Scrappy Factor

I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.

Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test

During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?” My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or gal next door”. . . not just a politician.