50 political positions.

The test is weird!! If Bill O'Reilly was here he would say, "That test stop here, because this is the no spin zone." :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Economic Left/Right: 4.00

what the fuck is that?


At the question: Should we shoot the poor in the head? Did you answer "I strongly agree" !?

It s easy to answer questions while trying to look like a right winger... but explaining each of your choices would be more than interesting to say the least :2 cents:

Well fuck me...

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

Long live Ghandi :thumbsup

Jesus Christ would place much further to the left than the Pope.

economically that is... is also an authoritarian

Well I could tell right away it was written by non-Americans because they spelled words with "S" that we normally spell with a "Z" :1orglaugh

I just always imagined the Pope being absolutely conservative in every way :1orglaugh

You mean it was written by someone who can actually write English?? :Graucho

Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

Hmm, expected different to say the least..

you are confusing christians with US conservatives/christians.... the pope actually have a hearth... :1orglaugh

Yeah the Pope would feed the hungry... the US conservatives would make them get a job! :1orglaugh

Totally fucked and messy combination!! :1orglaugh

Furious_Female:


Do they have any jobs left to give the hungry????

Well, the Help Wanted ads in the newspaper still runs 2 or 3 pages long as usual.... Of course it's ridden with "Work at home send us cash before you make money" schemes :1orglaugh But it depends... If you are going to starve, you take any job you can I guess. When you go to Welfare in this county, they get you a job at the local chicken farm... unless of course you have some meal tickets, I mean kids* :winkwink:

Did I just say Marxism?

im the nelson mandela of gfy:Graucho

Nothing to be ashamed of!! :) He's actually a very honorable guy!

Hey I like your screen name! :)

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

I thought I saw tons of pro bush ppl here when the war started. Seems we are almost all left wing libertarians now??

Or is it that the Bush supporters THINK he is a left libetarian, in which case that makes them stupid left wingers.

fucking commie.

I'd be interesting in seeing Lensman and Fletchs results

No, point out the difference between webmasters and webmistresses

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72

Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64


Pretty close to the middle. Slightly right economically, and 3.64 steps away from middle toward Libertarian.

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

I think the problem is more that people have very little idea of their own political position. People often base their political choices on the idea of belonging to a specific group (e.g. republicans, democrats, labour, the tories, the green party, etc.) than on their actual stance on various issues.

A funny example of this is Furious_Female, who scored more left-wing economically than most democrat politicians in the US. Still, she says:

"Yeah the Pope would feed the hungry... the US conservatives would make them get a job!"

It is pretty clear that although her ideas on economics don't come close to those of the conservatives at all, she has "sloganistic" ideas on what the conservatives are, with which she identifies.

Here, a large weakness of democracy shows it's ugly head: many people actually vote for parties not because those parties represent their ideas, but because their preconceptions about parties and political systems are more influential in their voting behaviour than rational deliberation.

Wrong! :1orglaugh

The truth is, I have a bleeding heart. I'm the most generous person most people have ever met. So I have a hard time not being charitable and giving, to those in need and those less fortunate than myself. I never claimed to be a Republican because I support their views 100%. The truth is, I'm against the welfare system and believe if people are poor, it's their own fault. But when it comes to kids and disabled/sick people, I would give my left arm to make their lives better. However, I believe normal healthy adults create their own poverty and can better themselves, by any means possible. That test was not specifc enough, to give answers the way I see fit. My conservatism is in a lot of gray areas, it's not always absolute.

I am a Republican because I agree with that party more than I agree with Democrats. I'm against abortion, I'm pro guns, I'm anti-tax raising and tax breaks for the higher income brackets, I believe prayer/meditation time should be restored in schools, I think porn on the net SHOULD have some policing and regulations to weed out some of the idiots that make it hard on everyone else, I support the war, I support our troops, I support the war on terrorism, I'm in favor of the word God on money and in the Pledge of Allegiance and so on and so on.

That test was created by someone obviously non-American and it didn't have enough questions and/or answers to critique my beliefs.

(I didn't write the above) There were many questions omitted from that test, that were important. So if anything, that test is inconclusive. Although, I do admit I agree with some Democratic policies, I just happen to agree with Republican policies and legislation more. I never claimed to be 100% conservative, I am moderate... but I lean to the right more than the left.

As far as economics go, my answers come from my "heart" not from logic. That's just in my nature... however, my compassion is limited to people and children that cannot better themselves. I would need a more specific test to display where I stand on the scale.

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.23

Jean Chrétien eh? Not too sure I'm very happy about that...

You quoting that really says a lot... Those are soundbites. Not many people would disagree with those. They don't, however, represent any real political party. They're simply too vague for that.
Commies also say "We believe in freedom". Only when you ask about their more specific ideas on what freedom means to them and how they want to achieve it does it become clear that their conception of freedom is not quite the same as yours.

What you do is divide politics into very broad issues, like the ones above, in which most political parties really do not differ that much, and very specific issues (guns, abortion, the pledge of allegiance, "God" on money), which in all reality only make up a very small part of a government's policy.
Add to that the fact that politicians tend to blow their differences way out of proportion (it really isn't the Friedman/Marx dichotomy many people think it is, the democrats and republicans only fight about differences that are effectively pretty small), and you have a big-ass storm in a tiny glass of water.

There are two big problems here:
#1: People fail to see the big picture.
#2: The American political system sucks. Yes, it does. Really.
Because of the two-party system and because senators and representatives are chosen by majority in a specific area instead of presence of support throughout the country, it only pays to aim at the majority, smaller groups (that still consist of millions of people) are left unrepresented in the government and there is no variety of choices.

Imagine 1000 people, who have to choose 100 people to represent them. Of those 1000 people, 30% support political system A, 30% support B, 15% support C, 10% support D, 10% support E and 5% support system F.
Then, after elections, the representation is made up of... about 50% A and 50% B. The 40% of people that didn't choose for those are just deemed "unimportant".
Wouldn't it be better if representation would consist of 30% A, 30% B, 15% C, 10% D, 10% E and 5% F?

Ofcourse, this makes it a bad idea to vote for someone who doesn't get the majority, and so it becomes useless to vote for someone who might actually give the best representation of your ideas.

The effect of this on America?
It's a big like a Walmart where only Coke and Pepsi are available.

Actually you just reinforced the point I was making...

Just like the compass test, those statements are general and some of the test questions were too vague and they didn't cover many "minor" issues, that can sway people one way or another. When you start disecting the statements, that's when the truth comes out.

The American political system is pretty much the same it always has been. A country divided 50/50 with a few tie breakers in between. However, other political parties, like the Green party, are becoming more popular and will probably eventually make up a larger percentage than they do currently.

I am with the Republican party, because they have been what I agree with most, since I can remember. There's many other small scale issues, that aren't worth mentioning in the big picture, that I tend to agree with and those are the space fillers that make a lot of people decisive. It's not about the rhetorical policies for some people, like it is for others. I happen to be in favor of many of their traditional views and that is what leads me to want that representing my country and myself, more than the Democrat's policies.

I live in a state that will always win the Democratic vote, so my vote for Republican presidents would be in vain. The American government might need a lot of changes, but I don't see anything happening anytime soon or in my lifetime. I have no desire to DRASTICALLY (i.e. change the democracy in itself) change the way things are, because it works for me, I'm happy with my life and I trust my country knows best, until they prove me wrong (unlikely).

Edit: California recall is a prime example of what happens when you have TOO many options. I don't think the US needs 200 different political options to be "fair".

The compass test is not nearly as vague, primarily since most of those questions don't provoke a "Well duh..." for almost everyone.
Like I said, the problem with politicians is that they only talk about the "Well duh" things and the minor points, but very little about the stuff in between - which in the end is actually most important.


But even if they make up a larger percentage, they still have no influence because they nearly nowhere are the majority. Even if they'd get 20% of the votes in most places, their representation in the government will be 0% or close to it.


Even if you agree with the republicans on most points, the test shows that there are many points on which you don't agree with them at all. Why then don't you feel it would be a good thing to change the political system so that you can vote for a party where your views are represented much more accurately, and where your vote will even make a difference?

But their is a very large area between 2 and 200. You probably don't need 200 different soft drinks in your supermarket either, but that is no reason to just limit it to Coke and Pepsi.

But eventually you run out of different ways to run things. How many different policies can you actually have? A lot of political stand points are yes or no. Yay or nay to be precise. There simply isn't time to go into every minor detail and it's much easier to categorize things in a group, rather than scattered in hundreds or dozens of different directions.

There's other colas in stores, but I like Pepsi because it tastes the best to me. If people want Walmart brand, so be it... but sometimes having too many options creates more problems than it's worth.

Tell me how many or which governments in the world have more options and better representation for it's citizens? Explain to me, how other systems work better and how to improve America's government. I don't say this sarcastically, I am genuinely interested in what better solutions are out there, as opposed to just criticizing what is in place.

There aren't many different choices on each individual subject, no. There are, however, many subjects.

For instance, there's the religious right, but also the religious left. The religious left can be considered the "help thy neighbour"-christians and such. They are generally in favor of a strong social system, but are against abortions, homosexuality and such. Which party should they vote for?
Or what about libertarians? Both economically and socially, they take a laissez-faire position... so what party should they vote for?

Too many options can be problematic, yes. But there are more than just 2 very clearly defined groups with a large following. Just use an electoral treshold of, say, 5%, and the problem of too many options fades away.

I already say what alternative would be better in my opinion... more parties, representation is determined by national % of votes, and an electoral treshold.
Many European countries have this, and it at the very least provides a much better range of choices. (not hundreds of parties, mind you, almost always less than a dozen of clearly defined parties)

Even this test is flawed in so far as it averages out the total of my responses, giving me a single position. The reality is that I have responses left and right, libertarian and authoritarian.

As you point out, in real life our choices are very limited. It isn't just a matter of having to go with a party that likely represents only some of your views and is that odds with others. We don't really know what the parties represent.

Sure we know what they are selling us at any given time, but then both are busy selling us what they believe we want to buy. We have little clue what their real plans are, let alone what they will actually be able to accomplish. Then we have the anomalies such as although the Republicans present themselves as guardians of the economy while the Democrats show more social concern, historically the Democrats have managed the economy far better.

And underpinning all of this is that very few of us are making informed choices. Never mind that experts often cannot agree, economists for example don't agree on what it takes to run a solid economy. Most of the public are not even aware of what the choices are, and certainly not of the implications of those choices. So we end up with conflicts such as wanting better education but not wanting to pay for it. Wars without casualties (on our side). And of course the politicians play very effectively on the non-objective factors that dictate what we "think".

To my knowledge, nothing is preventing other parties from forming. If a group of people want to start a new party, they are allowed to. And if people want to vote for that party, they are allowed to. That's the beautiful thing about America. The thing that prevents this from happening, is that the majority of people can agree with what is already in place and don't feel the need to further the options. The ones that do, go ahead and start their own movements.

You are forgetting a few things:
#1: A party needs to get a majority in an area before it has any influence whatsoever.
#2: Because of this, people are less likely to start new movements or vote for new movements... after all, it probably won't have any influence either way.

And the majority of people? In the 2000 elections, 52% of potential voters actually did vote. That means 48% didn't vote. The group of people that chose not to vote was actually twice as large as the group that voted for Bush. How many of those would have voted if their views had actually been represented in the election?

That's sort of my point. The majority doesn't see anything "wrong" with how things are being run now. When/if the majority ever wants drastic changes and more options, they will happen. Until then, the US is being run the way it is and I am content with it, the way it is... like many others.

The people that don't vote, probably feel like I do... it's a waste of time when you know which way the majority swings in your state.

Ehm... no. Changes will only happen *if* the majority think they should happen, *if* the party presenting those changes also manages to win voters on all other subjects, and *if* people see the party as having a real chance of changing things.

That's the whole problem with this. The system actually prevents big changes on single subjects from happening by it's own structure.

Theoretic situation:

democrat party is anti-guns, gets 45% of the votes
republican party is pro-guns, gets 50% of the votes

Now, if 80% of the people voting for the democrats were against guns, and 40% of the people voting republican were anti-guns?

Although 56% would be anti-guns and only 39% would be pro-guns (other voters aren't even included here), pro-guns would win.
Democracy at it's finest?

Pretty much :1orglaugh

its a silly test set up by liberals.
do I need to take a test to show you where I stand? :Graucho

Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.49


Their questions on economics probably give an acurate idea but their social questions are bullshit.
for example the question:
Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
is obviously slanted towards the stupid. The facts are that our civil liberties are not being curbed because we're Americans. Now if their are curbs in place for foriegners, well, that's not me.

Most of the social stuff is bullshit as I said.
Also, none of the heads of state actually took the test, they just ranked them where the website thought they should fall according to their agenda.
sad.

From the faq:

<b>Some of the questions are slanted</b>

Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to understand that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point.

Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.

considering gun ownership is protected under the bill of rights, I'd say yes, democracy at its finest.

stating the obvious to hide the subtle only tricks the dopey.:winkwink:

Apart from the obvious fact that this was just an example, the idea of constitutions that can never be changed is also rather undemocratic.

I agree, free speach is just so, so,.........inconvenient
and the other protections they give, so unnecissary!

Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.46


Definetly on the right, but totally evenly split on the lbertarian question.