On this page we'll do our best to answer questions you have about the site. We get zillions of emails, so please don't expect a personal reply, especially if your question is answered below!

Who is behind WSYVF?
WSYVF is created and run by Thoughtplay, a company based in Oxford, England. You can find out more about us here - we're also the folk behind the popular book recommendation site What Should I Read Next?.

Why have you created WSYVF?
We created the original WSYVF site in the run up to the 2005 General Election in Britain. We are passionate advocates of democracy and were tired of how political debate in Britain had turned into little more than few glib phrases being exchanged about a handful of policies. Few people were motivated to read the manifesto documents from the parties, so we created a quiz that you help people understand how the parties stood on the issues that were important to them - and more significantly to go on and learn more about the detail behind the results we provided. The WSYVF was more successful than we thought possible - spreading virally the quiz was taken more than 900,000 times in the three weeks before the election and the site was for a while the most popular political site in the country. We received news coverage across five continents and were interviewed on radio stations from Manchester to Tokyo to Sydney. In the two years since other people have created their own versions of the our idea for elections in other countries around the world.

Who pays for the site and how independent are you?
The coding, support and hosting of the site is paid for purely though advertising revenue. Thoughtplay and its directors have not received payment or incentive from any political party, lobbying group or 527 either in the USA or anywhere else in the world. No one involved in the site is a member of a political party. Our sites make pretty much just enough money to support themselves, and everyone involved in the company has a 'real' job which supports them.

If you are British, why are you creating a quiz about the US Presidential Election?
We are passionate about democracy and quite simply the US Presidential Election is the biggest game in town. Around the world politics has become a media circus, and this is particularly true of the US with astonishing levels of media spending by candidates, attack ads and special interest groups. Also, the result affects everyone in the world!

If you are based in Britain, where do you get your information from?
We get our information on the candidates' positions from a range of sources - their websites and policy papers, opinion articles they have written and speeches they have given. We also reference a range of print and broadcast media sites, aggregator sites such as ontheissues.org and independent think tank sites such as health08.org. We find realclearpolitics.com useful for the latest news and polling and factcheck.org for sanity checks. The wonder that is YouTube means that we can now watch debate footage as well as getting live video from CNN. We do not claim to be perfect and will rectify any errors we have made on a candidate's position if we receive a request from a member of their campaign staff from a verified campaign email address. We will not change the scoring of a candidate's position based upon feedback from anyone else. In most instances we have taken the position of the candidate based upon explicit statements they have made, however on a couple of occasions we have made assumptions based upon their general positions. In a few cases we where we have been unable to find a position/make a judgement we have given the candidate a neutral score for the statement - see the detailed explanation page for more information.

How do you pick the statements?
Picking the statements is one of the most difficult challenges in putting WSYVF together - the statements have to be simple and as unequivocal as possible while being relevant to the voter. We have picked subject areas that surveys have shown are particularly topical in this election and, most importantly, where there are differences in position between the candidates. For the latter reason, there different statements for the difference quizzes. As the campaigns continue we will update the statements - if you register with the site we will send you email updates whenever the statements have changed.

How does the scoring system work?
Each candidate received a score based upon your response to the statement. For all statements, if you express a neutral position on a statement all candidates will receive a score of 0. In most instances, if you express agreement with a statement, a candidate who agrees with you scores 3, one who disagrees score -3. If you strongly agree then a candidate aggress will receive 9, one who disagrees will score -9. Obviously if you position is the opposite, the scoring is reversed. In a couple of instances the points scored are as high as +/- 12 to reflect a particularly strong position on the part of a candidate, in a couple they are lower, +/- 3 to reflect a more modest view. In some cases a candidate will receive a 0 score for all responses to reflect the fact that we haven't been able to determine a clear position from them on the subject. Full details of the scores behind each statement are available if you register with the site and there is more detailed focus on some of the individual points in the discussion of the statements.

Is there the possibility of unconscious bias in the way that the statements have been phrased?
This was an issue raised when we first created a quiz for the UK General Election. The point made essentially was that a positive statement was more likely to elicit a positive response than a negative statement. While we can appreciate that there are instances where such phrasing can have an impact, the statements being made in this quiz are sufficiently clear cut that we do not believe that wording will influence the response a quiz taker gives. Take for instance two ways of making a statement around the same issue: 'Partial Birth abortion should be banned.' and 'Partial Birth Abortion should not be banned'. We think that people are sufficiently smart not to change their view on the subject if one way of statementing is used over the other.

I don't care about the age/gender/ethnicity of the candidate - can I opt not to answer these statements?
Many people will share your views - all statements are mandatory, however to express that you have no opinion on these factors simply select the 'neutral' response as appropriate which will attribute a zero score for each candidate on these responses.

Why haven't you included Alan Keyes?
We didn't think he was formally running, especially given that his name was not included in the Iowa caucus. We understand however that he did receive a number of write-in votes and is on the ballot in other states, so will make sure that the site is updated to include him if his campaign continues.