I like how they feel they can categorize "famous" people based on "how they might have answered the questions".
I can't speak for them personally, but from their FAQ:
4. How can you determine where politicians are honestly at without asking them?
How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We've relied on reports, parliamentary records, ... and actions that spoke louder than words.
I take that to mean that they attempted to use
documented records that expose a person's position (like their voting history) on bills which most closely resemble their questions.
That doesn't seem very hard to me for areas of well documented figures, and highlights that an 'opposition' which rolls over at every opportunity is most likely in
general agreement with those in charge, they just want more pie for themselves. It's funny that more people aren't worried about why Monopoly, Duopoly and Oligopoly all rhyme.

Now if you really want to pick on them you should be aiming at how many points are attributed to each question. Is it worse to hate Gays than Black people? Is it better to believe in pre-emptive strikes than secret police? Is libel better than racism? The right to a jury trial more important than the right to a trial without delays? Assigning 'accurate' weights to each question would seem to be the hard part from my experiences.
