The results are in on how many candidates running for federal or state office in New Hampshire this fall agreed to participate in Project Vote Smart's National Political Awareness Test.

That's the one that asks candidates seeking to represent us in public office a simple question: "Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?"

So how did they do?

In a word: Putrid.

Here are the, um, highlights:

• Only one of the two gubernatorial candidates participated in the test: Democratic Gov. John Lynch. (50 percent)
• Only one of the five congressional candidates took the test: Libertarian Ken Blevens, a candidate in the 2nd Congressional District. (20 percent)
• And only 155 of the 737 candidates for the state Legislature bothered to complete the test: 87 Democrats, 60 Republicans and eight independent or third-party candidates. (21 percent).
• Locally, the response rates from state legislative candidates were even worse: eight of 46 in Nashua (17 percent); five of 26 in Hudson (19 percent); two of 15 in Merrimack (13 percent).

Overall, that means 79 percent of all New Hampshire candidates -- nearly eight out of every 10 -- refused to give state voters an opportunity to learn where they stand on issues such as the budget, crime, education, health, immigration, taxes and voting laws.

Not only is that downright disappointing -- particularly in a state that prides itself on its civic involvement -- it's even worse than the national average, which is pretty hard to do these days.

Nationally, 48 percent of federal candidates and 28 percent of state legislative candidates agreed to participate in the issues survey this year -- an all-time low since the nonpartisan Project Vote Smart first introduced the test in 1996.

By way of comparison, 72 percent of all congressional candidates took the test that year, and the figure was even higher in New Hampshire: 88 percent.

So what happened?

As noted in The Telegraph editorial of Oct. 23 (click here), state party leaders -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- campaign advisers and others began advising candidates that stating their positions clearly in writing wasn't in their best political interests.

Once these positions are put into writing, so the theory goes, then it becomes too easy for a particular position or two to be distorted and become the subject of negative TV ads from their political opponents. And given the nature of political ad campaigns these days -- been watching any TV lately? -- that fear is certainly understandable on that level.

And that's a darn shame.

Still, when you break that argument down to its basic level -- candidates being afraid to tell voters where they stand on important issues because they fear their opponents may use it to their advantage -- you realize how silly it really sounds.

And in a state like New Hampshire, which boasts the third-largest legislative body in the English-speaking world, how else can voters easily assess where more than 700 House and Senate candidates stand on the issues of the day? It's not like they are all out there holding press conferences or participating in TV debates.

Says Adelaide Elm Kimball, Project Vote Smart's senior adviser:

"If candidates are afraid of letting their opponents know where they stand on key issues, how can they possibly let the voters know how they will handle the job if they are hired? Candidates have lost sight of who their prospective employers are."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

So to view the responses of those brave candidates who did complete the test -- and the names of those who didn't -- visit www.vote-smart.org and scroll down to the "2006 National Political Awareness Test Results." Or you can click here for a direct link to the New Hampshire results.