This Site Shows Accurate Voting History & Patterns for U.S. Politicians
Pinterest Stumbleupon Whatsapp
Advertisement

It’s hard to trust anything online these days. With rampant fake news, taking anything at face value could mean believing a total lie. When it comes to politics, there’s so much misinformation that getting to the truth feels like an impossible task.

We’ve shared how web resources can help you stay updated on politics. Another great site that can help you make political decisions is VoteSmart. This completely bipartisan site holds a wealth of information for over 40,000 US politicians, both local and federal.

Type in your ZIP code or a politician’s name and you can check out their biography, recent votes, and positions on various issues. Rounding out their data set are ratings from various activist groups and recent speeches. You can also review their funding information, including top donors. When viewing issue positions, VoteSmart shows whether a candidate directly confirmed their position or if they inferred it indirectly.

No matter which issues are important to you and what you believe, VoteSmart is a valuable resource when evaluating politicians. By seeing how these folks have voted in the past, what groups support them, and what they’ve said on key issues, you can make an informed decision instead of voting based on emotion or attack ads.

Get peace of mind by silencing the political nonsense on your Facebook news feed, too.

Have you used VoteSmart to make informed voting decisions? Or maybe you trust another resource for candidate information? Share it with us down in the comments!

Image Credit: mucahiddinsenturk via Shutterstock

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Howard A Pearce
    March 22, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    " Another great site that can help you make political decisions is VoteSmart. This completely bipartisan site holds a wealth of information for over 40,000 US politicians, both local and federal."

    Bi-partisan ? That is inherently discriminatory towards 3rd parties which the statement by Stegner seems to equate with being non-biased for some "strange" reason.
    The probable reason is that he has chosen to discount those parties as meaningless due to their MINORITY status.