Civic Academy · How to Evaluate
Did They Answer the Question?
≈ 4 min read · or listen, or skim the bold lines
D · Draft — not verified Not line-checked against the Navajo Nation Code. How we verify →
The single sharpest evaluation skill a voter can own. The nonpartisan League of Women Voters calls it watching for candidates “evading real issues” — working hard to avoid giving direct answers to direct questions. Here's how to spot it, and the seven distortion tricks that usually travel with it.
The core test
After any candidate answer, ask one thing: could I repeat back what they would actually do? “I've always cared deeply about housing” is a feeling, not an answer. “I'll push the home-site lease backlog to 90 days by adding staff to the Land Department” is an answer — you can check it, measure it, and hold them to it. Concern is not a plan.
The seven distortion tricks (per the League of Women Voters)
- Name-calling: attacking the opponent's character instead of giving information.
- Rumor mongering: “people are saying…” — implying guilt without stating or proving it.
- Guilt by association: attacking a candidate for who supports them rather than what they stand for.
- Catchwords: empty trigger phrases that stir feelings but defy definition.
- Loaded statements: “I oppose wasteful spending” — who doesn't? It dodges saying which spending.
- Passing the blame: pinning every problem on the opponent — was that person even in a position to cause or fix it?
- Promising the sky: pledges no office-holder could deliver. Realistic goals deserve more trust than miracles.
Use it on this site
Every answer on the candidate Q&A pages now has a private check: Did they answer the question? Yes / Partly / Evaded / N/A. Your tallies appear on your My Ballot Notes. N/A is always fine — a bad question, a topic you don't care about, or one you don't understand deserves no forced judgment.
Quick check
Check your understanding — private, no grades
“I've always been concerned about healthcare costs” — and nothing more. That's&he (an invented example) llip;
Right — could you repeat back what they'd DO? No.
“We all know my opponent is backed by outside money.” (an invented example) Which trick?
Right — judge candidates by their own words and deeds.
Goes with: How to weigh what a candidate says · Elections 101
All lessons · Try it on the candidates
The “I don’t know” answer — honest, or a dodge?
“I don’t know” can be the best answer in politics — or the smoothest evasion. The difference is checkable:
Honest: they admit the limit and say how they’d find out — who they’d ask, what they’d read, when they’d report back. Candor plus a method is a strength, not a weakness. Don’t punish it, or we teach leaders to bluff.
The tell: “I’d have to research that” — and then the subject never returns. Or sharper: they claim not to know it at minute five, then explain it fluently at minute twenty. If you spot that, use the ✎ My note box on the answer and jot the two spots (“said don’t-know at Q3, explained it at Q7”). Your note, your record, your call. The “Also touches this subject” links under each answer connect the same topics across an interview — the same way for every candidate — so checking takes one tap.
The follow-up is where the truth lives
First answers are rehearsed; second answers are revealing. Five follow-ups that work on almost anything — ask them at forums, chapter meetings, or through any profile’s Ask this candidate a question form:
• “What’s step one?” — plans without a first step are wishes.
• “What does it cost, and where does that come from?”
• “Who does the work — which office, which people?”
• “By when — and how would we know it happened?”
• “When you last had the chance to act on this, what did you do?”
Your voice: today’s Corner question · all surveys, by subject · the data so far.