soulcyon
02-27-2012, 11:06 AM
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/02/the-verdict-is-in-obama-and-ron-paul-are-the-most-truthful-presidential-candidates-so-far/
Who is the most honest presidential candidate? Who is the most accurate presidential candidate? Which candidate primarily uses mostly false rhetoric to sway potential voters? Who has made the most factual errors? Who has made the least factual errors? Gingrich? Paul? Romney? Santorum? Obama?
By using PolitiFact to analyze the multitude of statements from each of the candidates, assigning accuracy values a numerical value and converting that value into a percentage, we can compare the accuracy and/or honesty of each candidate on an equal playing field (the exact methodology is described at the bottom of this article with an example).
Not to worry! Texas on the Potomac has already done the mathematical heavy-lifting. All you have to do, faithful reader, is enjoy the fruits of our labor.
In the race for the most truthful candidate (as judged by PolitiFact and determined by Texas on the Potomac), President Obama comes in first place. He earns the gold metal in validity with 65 percent accuracy based on 344 statements. Obama’s most ample category was the half-true category with 85 statements on his designated profile.
The silver medal is awarded to Ron Paul, who had 58 percent accuracy from 33 statements that were evaluated on their honesty and truth. Paul’s true and mostly true categories were the most plentiful, tied with seven statements in each.
In third place just behind Paul is Mitt Romney; 57 percent accuracy awarded Romney the bronze medal. PolitiFact analyzed 116 of his statements and his most abundant category was half-true statements with 32.
Honorable mention goes to Rick Santorum. He earned 49 percent accuracy from 29 statements that were analyzed by PolitiFact. Santorum’s half-true category was the most ample with nine statements.
The least accurate candidate? Newt Gingrich. (AP photo)
Coming in last is Newt Gingrich with just 42 accuracy points. His 56 statements earned him a consolation prize of a personal fact checker to filter his inaccuracies. His half-true, mostly false and false categories each had 12 statements, for a three way tie for his most abundant categories.
Obama had the highest percentage of true statements with 24 percent, while Gingrich had the lowest with a mere 9 percent.
The highest percentage of half truths went to Santorum with 31 percent. Ron Paul had the lowest percentage of half truths with 18 percent.
Twenty-one percent of Gingrich’s statements were ranked false at the highest percentage, and the lowest percentage of false statements were to Mitt Romney with 14.655 percent.
The smallest percentage of “pants-on-fire” statements goes to Obama, with a mere 1.45 percent. On the other hand, Gingrich had the highest percentage with 18 percent of his statements considered “pants on fire” inaccuracies.
(Cue the chorus of “liar, liar, pants …” Well you know the rest.)
——————————————-
Here’s our methodology:
For each truth value, a numerical value was assigned (five points for each true statement, four points for each mostly true statement, three points for each half-true statement, two points for each mostly false statement, one point for each false statement and zero points for “pants on fire” statement.
Next, the number of statements in each category were multiplied by their designated truth value. For example, if a candidate had 20 true statements, 20 would be multiplied by five to give 100 accuracy points for the “true” category. If a candidate had 20 half-true statements, 20 would be multiplied by three to give 60 accuracy points for the “half-true” category. The same method is applied to each of the six categories.
Confused? Here is an example for you to follow: Barack Obama had 82 true statements (which we multiplied by 5 to get 410 true points), 77 mostly true statements (which we multiplied by 4 to get 308 mostly true points), 85 half-true statements (which we multiplied by 3 to get 255 half-true points), 42 mostly false statements (which we multiplied by 2 to get 84 mostly false points), 53 false statements (which we multiplied by 1 to get 53 false statements) and 5 “pants-on-fire” statements (which we multiplied by zero to get zero “pants-on-fire” points).
Once the accuracy points have been obtained from each category, they must be added together for a total accuracy score.
These numbers total 1110 points.
The number of statements must be added together and multiplied by five to obtain a potential accuracy score.
The total number of his analyzed statements was 344. The number was then multiplied by 5 to get 1720 potential truth points (had all of his statements been true, he would have 1720 points).
Divide the potential accuracy score by total accuracy score and multiply by 100 to obtain the final accuracy percentage, and round to the nearest whole number.
So 1720 is divided by 1110 (1110/1720) and the result (.645348) is multiplied by 100 (64.5348) and rounded to the nearest whole number to get 65 percent accurate.
Who is the most honest presidential candidate? Who is the most accurate presidential candidate? Which candidate primarily uses mostly false rhetoric to sway potential voters? Who has made the most factual errors? Who has made the least factual errors? Gingrich? Paul? Romney? Santorum? Obama?
By using PolitiFact to analyze the multitude of statements from each of the candidates, assigning accuracy values a numerical value and converting that value into a percentage, we can compare the accuracy and/or honesty of each candidate on an equal playing field (the exact methodology is described at the bottom of this article with an example).
Not to worry! Texas on the Potomac has already done the mathematical heavy-lifting. All you have to do, faithful reader, is enjoy the fruits of our labor.
In the race for the most truthful candidate (as judged by PolitiFact and determined by Texas on the Potomac), President Obama comes in first place. He earns the gold metal in validity with 65 percent accuracy based on 344 statements. Obama’s most ample category was the half-true category with 85 statements on his designated profile.
The silver medal is awarded to Ron Paul, who had 58 percent accuracy from 33 statements that were evaluated on their honesty and truth. Paul’s true and mostly true categories were the most plentiful, tied with seven statements in each.
In third place just behind Paul is Mitt Romney; 57 percent accuracy awarded Romney the bronze medal. PolitiFact analyzed 116 of his statements and his most abundant category was half-true statements with 32.
Honorable mention goes to Rick Santorum. He earned 49 percent accuracy from 29 statements that were analyzed by PolitiFact. Santorum’s half-true category was the most ample with nine statements.
The least accurate candidate? Newt Gingrich. (AP photo)
Coming in last is Newt Gingrich with just 42 accuracy points. His 56 statements earned him a consolation prize of a personal fact checker to filter his inaccuracies. His half-true, mostly false and false categories each had 12 statements, for a three way tie for his most abundant categories.
Obama had the highest percentage of true statements with 24 percent, while Gingrich had the lowest with a mere 9 percent.
The highest percentage of half truths went to Santorum with 31 percent. Ron Paul had the lowest percentage of half truths with 18 percent.
Twenty-one percent of Gingrich’s statements were ranked false at the highest percentage, and the lowest percentage of false statements were to Mitt Romney with 14.655 percent.
The smallest percentage of “pants-on-fire” statements goes to Obama, with a mere 1.45 percent. On the other hand, Gingrich had the highest percentage with 18 percent of his statements considered “pants on fire” inaccuracies.
(Cue the chorus of “liar, liar, pants …” Well you know the rest.)
——————————————-
Here’s our methodology:
For each truth value, a numerical value was assigned (five points for each true statement, four points for each mostly true statement, three points for each half-true statement, two points for each mostly false statement, one point for each false statement and zero points for “pants on fire” statement.
Next, the number of statements in each category were multiplied by their designated truth value. For example, if a candidate had 20 true statements, 20 would be multiplied by five to give 100 accuracy points for the “true” category. If a candidate had 20 half-true statements, 20 would be multiplied by three to give 60 accuracy points for the “half-true” category. The same method is applied to each of the six categories.
Confused? Here is an example for you to follow: Barack Obama had 82 true statements (which we multiplied by 5 to get 410 true points), 77 mostly true statements (which we multiplied by 4 to get 308 mostly true points), 85 half-true statements (which we multiplied by 3 to get 255 half-true points), 42 mostly false statements (which we multiplied by 2 to get 84 mostly false points), 53 false statements (which we multiplied by 1 to get 53 false statements) and 5 “pants-on-fire” statements (which we multiplied by zero to get zero “pants-on-fire” points).
Once the accuracy points have been obtained from each category, they must be added together for a total accuracy score.
These numbers total 1110 points.
The number of statements must be added together and multiplied by five to obtain a potential accuracy score.
The total number of his analyzed statements was 344. The number was then multiplied by 5 to get 1720 potential truth points (had all of his statements been true, he would have 1720 points).
Divide the potential accuracy score by total accuracy score and multiply by 100 to obtain the final accuracy percentage, and round to the nearest whole number.
So 1720 is divided by 1110 (1110/1720) and the result (.645348) is multiplied by 100 (64.5348) and rounded to the nearest whole number to get 65 percent accurate.