This is how it works: The scores for each candidate are tabulated with very simple arithmetic. The stance you entered for each issue is compared against the stance of the candidate. If you and the candidate do not agree (IE: you marked support, the candidate opposes) points are subtracted. If you and the candidate agree, points are added. The number of points added or subtracted is determined by the weight you assigned. “Minimal” is worth one point, “important” two, and “key” is worth five points. If you OR the candidate list an issue as unknown/other, no points are added or subtracted. This is very noteworthy as many candidates have issues listed as unknown/other. This will have the effect of pushing some candidates (some more than others) towards the middle of the list. It also often results in candidates being ranked higher than others that have less disagreements. Look at the list carefully and follow up by investigating the candidates further.
So what were my results? A bit different than the Match-o-Matic which for meÂ had Ron Paul at #1, then Mike Gravel, then Dennis Kucinich. This one has me down as aligning with Kucinich, then Gravel, Richardson… with good ole Ron Paul pretty far down the list.