[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"letter-2026-09-25-five-weeks-before-november":3},{"letter":4,"newer":12,"older":12},{"slug":5,"path":6,"title":7,"date":8,"summary":9,"draft":10,"html":11},"2026-09-25-five-weeks-before-november","\u002Fupdates\u002F2026-09-25-five-weeks-before-november","Five weeks before November 3","2026-09-25","What changed at PoliticalDNA this summer, from a lookup that sets your representatives' votes against your own answers to an evidence page that lists what hasn't held up, and why updates will come as letters from now on.",false,"\u003Cp>This page used to be a list of one-line entries. That was enough while the changes were small. They aren't small anymore, so from now on each update will be a letter like this one: what changed, why I changed it, and what I'm working on next.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Your ballot, next to your answers\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The biggest addition is a way to see who represents you. Enter your address on \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fwho-is-my-representative\u002F\">Who is my representative?\u003C\u002Fa> and you'll get your members of Congress and the candidates on your November 3 ballot. The candidate lists come from the states' certified lists where they've been published. Federal filings would have been easier, but they still include people who lost their primaries and they miss most independents. If redistricting moved you into a new district this year, the page tells you.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Every one of the 539 current members has a profile. Where a member has voted on something the DNA Scan asks about, the profile puts that vote next to the Scan's statement, and if you've taken the Scan you can see how often they voted on the side you answered. Which votes count, and why, is written up on \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fofficials\u002Fmethodology\u002F\">the methodology page\u003C\u002Fa>. Deep Readings now include a chapter on your own ballot as well.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>The evidence, including what didn't hold up\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>I rewrote \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fthe-science\u002F\">The Science\u003C\u002Fa> as an evidence page. It reports what 5,737 Scan results say about the model itself. A single left-right line captures 62% of the variation in people's scores. That's a lot, and the other 38% is why the Scan measures four dimensions instead of one. Of the people who ranked the 32 strains themselves, 39% put their actual result first, where chance would give about 6%. Those people chose to take part, so treat that number as a ceiling.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The page also has a section called "What has not held up." Nation and culture move together more than I'd like, for one. If you're skeptical of political quizzes, and you should be, that's the page I'd hand you.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>The thinkers\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Thirty-five living figures now have a "Where they stand" section, with a source for every position. Fifty-three historical figures got longer biographies, and every new claim in them was checked against a source before it went up. That check turned up errors in what was already on the site, and those are corrected. The rule for these pages hasn't changed: report what people argued and did, and leave the judgment to you.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Smaller things you might notice\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cul>\n\u003Cli>The homepage and all 32 archetype pages have a new design. Some of you are also seeing a new question screen and results page while I test them against the old ones.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>If you invite someone to compare results, you can ask for an email when they finish.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Origins, Dynamics and Civics now work with a keyboard and a screen reader as well as the Scan does, and the site's colored text meets contrast standards.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003Cli>Password reset links now work even when you open them in a different browser from the one you asked in.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003Ch2>What's next\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Between now and November 3, most of my time goes to the ballot tools. A few districts are still missing from the candidate lists, and I'm rechecking others as states finish certifying. After the election I'll write again with what I've learned.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>PoliticalDNA is independent, and it's still built entirely by one person. If something on the site is wrong, or you want something that isn't there, tell me.\u003C\u002Fp>\n",null]