The Political Test Thread

[Surreptishus]

The test is stupid man... its making me come up wth the wrong orientation. <_<

Edited June 18, 2006 by Surreptishus

[Baley]

It's okay. I felt that way too at first. You just have to live with it and, in time, embrace it.

[Enoch]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -0.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

 

As for the quiz overall, I'm not a big fan of the phrasing of the questions. For example:

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

This statement is true. Anyone who understands anything about political theory should 'Strongly Agree' with this sentiment. Of course, that's not what they're really trying to ask. They really want to know how "significant" and worthwhile you think this advantage is. Most people probably do answer the question in this light, but when designing a survey, you never want to trust that your audience will correct your mistakes for you.

[Enoch]

... and now the other one (because I'm avoiding work):

 

You are a

 

Social Liberal

(75% permissive)

 

and an...

 

Economic Moderate

(41% permissive)

 

You are best described as a:

 

Democrat

For sheer laughs, I liked the "famous people" filter. Apparantly, I am the political average of Robert Redford, Bono, M.L.K. jr., and Adam Sandler (??!).

[Pidesco]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -2.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

[Kasoroth]

These are pretty entertaining. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that I end up completely opposite from George W Bush.

 

The Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.13

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

 

 

OKCupid

Social Liberal: (83% permissive)

Economic Liberal: (30% permissive)

You are best described as a: Strong Democrat

 

You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

 

(Graph has been rotated so the economic axis is left-right to match the other graph)

-Kasoroth

Edited June 19, 2006 by Kasoroth

[Cantousent]

You are a

 

Social Moderate

(56% permissive)

 

and an...

 

Economic Conservative

(80% permissive)

 

You are best described as a:

 

Capitalist

 

You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (24, 112)

modscore: (48, 34)

raw: (4532)

[Fenghuang]

I'm neutral with an Anarchist bent apparently. Actually I already had myself pegged this way.

 

[astr0creep]

You are a

 

Social Liberal

(61% permissive)

 

 

and an...

 

Economic Liberal

(21% permissive)

 

 

You are best described as a:

 

 

Democrat

 

 

You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

[taks]

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

This statement is true.

 

while i disagree with your assertion that this is a true statement, i agree with this:

 

Of course, that's not what they're really trying to ask.  They really want to know how "significant" and worthwhile you think this advantage is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

why do i disagree with the first assertion? because "all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system" are not necessarily tied to political ideology. your assertion that this is the case presumes that everyone following one ideology does so blindly. i.e. you are assuming people really are sheep and if the party votes one way, everyone agrees and their votes follow lock-step. political infighting is not uncommon. not all democrats agree with the party line, and the same goes for republicans (US system). however, it could probably then be said that a true, one-party system is not possible and the result of political differences within a given party is what gives rise to the multi-party system.

 

i picked strongly disagree with this, but i first selected strongly agree for your very reasoning. the problem, i felt, was that having one party does not solve the basic drive behind ideology in the first place: human will. in the end, everyone looks out for themselves to one extent or another. what is good for joe schmoe, may not be good for suzy normal. even if they have the same fundamental beliefs, they will disagree on many of the details (which may not seem to be details to an outsider). heck, they may even disagree on what is important and not important. this disagreement alone will impede progress in the sense that the question is asking.

 

i think a corollary to what i'm saying is that in the end, heterogeneous ideology, down to the nitty gritty details, cannot exist. as a result, the question itself is flawed.

 

btw, differences between people is what makes democracy work. the delay in progress is actually a good thing. without it, societies would forge ahead without giving serious debate to the issues that impact everyone. if a bad decision is made, the results could be disastrous. like lemmings to a cliff. debate does not impede, it forces level-headed decisions.

 

taks

Edited June 19, 2006 by taks

[Walsingham]

I am a social conservative (38% permissive) and an economic conservative (60%). Apparently this makes me a centrist:

 

"You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness."

[Enoch]

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

This statement is true.

 

while i disagree with your assertion that this is a true statement, i agree with this:

 

Of course, that's not what they're really trying to ask.  They really want to know how "significant" and worthwhile you think this advantage is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

why do i disagree with the first assertion? because "all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system" are not necessarily tied to political ideology. your assertion that this is the case presumes that everyone following one ideology does so blindly. i.e. you are assuming people really are sheep and if the party votes one way, everyone agrees and their votes follow lock-step. political infighting is not uncommon. not all democrats agree with the party line, and the same goes for republicans (US system). however, it could probably then be said that a true, one-party system is not possible and the result of political differences within a given party is what gives rise to the multi-party system.

 

i picked strongly disagree with this, but i first selected strongly agree for your very reasoning. the problem, i felt, was that having one party does not solve the basic drive behind ideology in the first place: human will. in the end, everyone looks out for themselves to one extent or another. what is good for joe schmoe, may not be good for suzy normal. even if they have the same fundamental beliefs, they will disagree on many of the details (which may not seem to be details to an outsider). heck, they may even disagree on what is important and not important. this disagreement alone will impede progress in the sense that the question is asking.

 

i think a corollary to what i'm saying is that in the end, heterogeneous ideology, down to the nitty gritty details, cannot exist. as a result, the question itself is flawed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a fair interpretation, I suppose. When I read "one-party system," I thought of Fascist and Socialist governments where the decision making was done entirely by elites. It seems that you're reading the term more broadly to include democratic systems that happen to be dominated by one party (such as modern Japan).

btw, differences between people is what makes democracy work.  the delay in progress is actually a good thing.  without it, societies would forge ahead without giving serious debate to the issues that impact everyone.  if a bad decision is made, the results could be disastrous.  like lemmings to a cliff.  debate does not impede, it forces level-headed decisions.

True, but that doesn't mean the speed in the lawmaking process can never be a virtue. As long as there are some cirumstances where it is advantages to act without delay, a system with fewer checks and less opportunity for debate does have an advantage. (For the record, I agree that, on the whole, a more deliberative process is preferable. The offsetting disadvantages you cite by far outweigh the speed factor.)

[taks]

That's a fair interpretation, I suppose.  When I read "one-party system," I thought of Fascist and Socialist governments where the decision making was done entirely by elites.  It seems that you're reading the term more broadly to include democratic systems that happen to be dominated by one party (such as modern Japan).

sort of, yes. well, if you think about it, in the fascist/socialist system that you refer to, it is not a party, it is a totalitarian rule. the "party" should refer to everyone.

 

 

True, but that doesn't mean the speed in the lawmaking process can never be a virtue.  As long as there are some cirumstances where it is advantages to act without delay, a system with fewer checks and less opportunity for debate does have an advantage.  (For the record, I agree that, on the whole, a more deliberative process is preferable.  The offsetting disadvantages you cite by far outweigh the speed factor.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yup. also, where is it written lawmaking needs to be speedy? sure problems fall through the cracks and people end up getting wronged during the debate process. however, reactionary lawmaking is rarely good in the end. that's why i point out the disadvantages, as you note, outweighing the speed. laws are for long-term solutions. their goals are not meant to be quick-fixes (though they are often inappropriately used in such a manner). a big problem, btw, is unintended consequences that result from quick-fix laws that create more problems than the few originally expected to be solved.

 

taks

[Checkpoint]

Since I'm lazy I only took the comedy test.

 

Social liberal

(71% permissive)

 

Economic liberal

(28% permissive)

 

I'm a Democrat.

 

I exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

 

So there.

 

I also laughed at "It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each other to a duel and fight a Death Match." For the record I went with Strongly Disagree for a somewhat accurate outcome of the test, but I was slightly tempted to answer Strongly Agree just for the heck of it.

[Laozi]

Well plus that would totally screw Master Blaster

[Kitch]

Economic Left/Right: -2.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

 

 

---

You are a

 

Social Liberal

(63% permissive)

 

and an...

 

Economic Liberal

(30% permissive)

 

You are best described as a:

 

Democrat

[Cantousent]

Dammit, I'm the only Capitalist? Even taks isn't with me in the capitalist area. He's an anarchist and unabomber protoge. What the hell?

[Walsingham]

Checkpoint: I DID answer strongly agree for the deathmatch question. In all seriousness, if two people are genuinely consenting I don't see why not. Especially given that in such a circumstance they're more than likely to commit the action outside the law at some point.

[Baley]

So did I.

 

Do you consider yourself a social conservative?

 

Because it's kinda funny how two of our mods are the only forumites to have gotten that result.

 

 

Dammit, I'm the only Capitalist?  Even taks isn't with me in the capitalist area.  He's an anarchist and unabomber protoge.  What the hell?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I think Taks has the biggest "capitalist score" around. He just seems to have an equally high "liberal score". Of course, this test is pure quackery. One of the reasons I love it. Definitely.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Baley

[213374U]

Awesome. (w00t)

 

 

Take that, you dirty commies!

 

As for the compass one:

 

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 1.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.49

 

According to that I'm standing right up there with G. Schr

[taks]

Dammit, I'm the only Capitalist?  Even taks isn't with me in the capitalist area.  He's an anarchist and unabomber protoge.  What the hell?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, anarchist is EXTREME capitalist and EXTREME social liberal. i think i was 88% in both. so baley is right...

 

i'm not sure why they call that anarchist, however. it seems to me that anarchist would be completely anti-government, so not really on this chart. i did choose all the "keep the govmint outta my life" options, but i'm pretty strong on defense and general law-making.

 

i also took the other test, btw, and got like a 6.5 on economic and -3.5 on social.

 

and everyone here always thinks i'm some ultra right-wing conservative. sheesh.

 

taks

[themadhatter114]

Political Compass: 3.25 Economic, -.36 Social

OK Cupid: Social 60% Permissive, Economic 81% Permissive, right between Donald Trump and Ted Nugent.

[Baley]

Funny how capitalism is now considered conservative. And how a man trying to make all humans equal by force is more of a liberal. Ah. Quacks. Quack. Quack. Quack.

[Nartwak]

Dammit, I'm the only Capitalist?  Even taks isn't with me in the capitalist area.  He's an anarchist and unabomber protoge.  What the hell?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, I'll try to do better next time.

[taks]

Funny how capitalism is now considered conservative. And how a man trying to make all humans equal by force is more of a liberal. Ah. Quacks. Quack. Quack. Quack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it's is only "conservative" in the sense that it is more like the way things were way back when in the US. i.e. the term conservative only applies to capitalism in the US as we have shifted away from the lasseiz faire ideas of adam smith.

 

even the one chart refers to capitalism as "economic liberal"...

 

taks