Hobbes and Locke as Political Scientists

After reading portions of Hobbes and Locke, I would like to compare them as Political Scientists. It seems that using scientist-ness as our criterion in comparing these two philosophers leaves Hobbes as the clear winner. When reading Hobbes, one gets the sense that he paid no attention to Aristotle's caveat,which says, of men no science can be made. Hobbes tries to account for every variable in a political society and address it as best he can. You can see this in the structure of his book: he starts by telling us that a political society is a fake human, and that that the city is composed of humans. in other words he says that the material and (kind of) formal cause of a city is a "human". Thus, in his four part book, he spends the entire first part looking at what man is. He describes the passions, the desires, and actions of men in lengthy detail so that we may better understand the components of a political entity. He even does so in a geometric/axiomatic manner (as much as possible). Even though axioms are based on opinions to some extent, Hobbes tries to base his opinions on observation and experience, and he then proceeds in a nearly deductive manner.
Locke, on the other hand, uses opinions and scripture as the basis for his political theory at nearly every turn. Where Hobbes is telling us to beware sentimentality, Locke is discussing the heritage of Adam. Where Hobbes is explaining what a human being is, Locke is telling us why we ought to read the Judicious Hooker and Sir Robert Filmore which are merely more opinions of the day.
Overall, it seems that hobbes gives us a more straightforward account of what a human is, how they behave, why they enter into a society, and ultimately why we should have an absolute monarchy. It is important to note, however, that all of these things follow from what a human is. In Locke it seems that one could disagree on many grounds like the system he is setting up is not just, or people wouldn't behave in the way he predicts. Yet for Hobbes, precisely because he has defined all of these things, the only argument you can have with him, is an argument about definitions.