Electoral Compass

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

This has probably been posted here before, but I would invite everyone to take the quiz, and then look at just how far you are from your least-favorite Democratic candidate.

I prefer Obama to Hillary, and my test results bore that out.

It showed that I agreed with Obama 78% of the time. It also showed that I agreed with Hillary 71% of the time. Is that difference enough to justify the civil war we have going on here? Take the quiz and decide for yourself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119939661834265699.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_rightbox|Electoral Compass>

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. Tombstone coming in 3...2...1

Thanks for playing.

[ThomWV]

6. I prefer a jack-off Bill to a jack-off George if that is your first queston on the board.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Duh!

Dismissed!
The Professor

[RB TexLa]

8. Their dog was runover by a car, dumbass

[flor de jasmim]

3. Electoral compass has been set up well, but--

Some of the questions are ambiguous.

For instance:
Iraq is just one front in a broader fight against Islamic terrorism.

a) If you focus on "just one front" and agree, you implicitly accept the idea of Islamic terrorism.
b) If you focus on "Islamic terrorism" and disagree (with that frame), then you tacitly accept the idea that Islamic terrorism is occurring on more than one front!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. I said "strongly disagree"

because I think the entire "fight against Islamic terrorism" is an excuse for xenophobia and wanking huge military subcontracts.

But I do agree that there are nuanced meanings to the question.

[Orsino]

15. Yeah, bogus.

Like making the fact of global warming a political question. Just the WSJ moving the goal posts.

Not to mention their putting Democrats in the upper-left corner, as though they're actually liberals.

[LWolf]

4. I find this compass more accurate:

I prefer the global perspective, rather than the too-narrow U.S. perspective on politics. I am further to the southwest than anyone listed, and not anywhere close to B.O. or HRC.

How does the electoral compass decide a candidate's positions? By what they say on the campaign trail, or by what they have done in office?

I can't compare my positions to those assigned the candidates; my browser prevents pop-ups.

[flor de jasmim]

9. Interesting one--did you make this?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. It's from politicalcompass.org

I'm at the site right now. I find this chart high questionable.

The questions themselves are poorly-written. Example: "Multinational corporations illegally exploit the countries where they are located" (That's not an exact quote, but its in the ballpark). Now you're given only options of 1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Disagree or 4) Strongly Disagree. The fact is that some multinational coporations are exploitive, and some are not. I'm being asked to agree or disagree with a vaguely-worded, blanket statement.

And so their summary of the 2008 Primary candidates is based on the site's interpretation of the candidates' stand on the issues (one of the questions asks whether abstract art is really art -- I haven't heard Hillary's opinion on this subject - or anyone else's, for that matter). Curiously, all but three candidates fall into the right-wing authoritarian section.

Not worth the bandwidth it's consuming, IMO.

[flor de jasmim]

11. Thanks--I'll go back to my day job then! :-)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. Gainful Employment is over-rated...

nt

[LWolf]

17. That's why I find it more accurate.

I don't find anything liberal about HRC or Obama. I think it comes from looking from the outside, instead of the inside.

I prefer a more global political perspective.

Many questions about the compass are addressed on the FAQ page.

[LWolf]

14. No; it's been around for several years:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

<snip>

The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counseling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, a new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep.

[TahitiNut]

16. You and me both. As the 'season' goes on, I find it more and more relevant.

:thumbsup:

[LWolf]

18. Yes. I especially like this part, from the FAQ:

<snip>

14. 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.

[zonmoy]

19. many of us can though.

I for one always end up making everybody seem real conservative and authoritarian with my views. I always end up in the lower left hand corner of that test.

[LWolf]

21. I do, too.

I also consider myself far enough away from most of the candidates listed that it's appropriate for them to be in the upper right quadrant.

I prefer to look from the outside; a non-U.S. assessment. The national perspective on what constitutes "liberal" or "right" or "left" has been so corrupted by Orwellian propaganda that I don't find it at all accurate.

[zonmoy]

22. I agree. I also find that my views tend to be actually closest

to that of anarchists. although the greens come in a close second. those of us that actually are liberal see the ones that are called the liberals as complete frauds.

[LWolf]

23. Exactly.

It pisses me off and drives me away from holding my nose in November. If there could be more honesty, and less pretense, about where parties, candidates, and voters in the U.S. really stand, I'd have more confidence in the whole process.

[zonmoy]

24. Just say that there is an anarchist movement to vote nobody in elections

it is a call for a none of the above category in all elections.

http://www.vote-nobody.com/

[LWolf]

25. If there were a "none of the above" category,

I would have voted for it more often than not. :(

[zonmoy]

26. yeah. I agree.

I also think that anybody that doesn't vote their vote should be automatically entered as a vote for none of the above. and if none of the above wins then all candidates are disqualified and a new election is held with all new candidates.

[LWolf]

27. Good idea.

[leftofthedial]

13. Obama, Edwards, Clinton

76%, 74%, 73% respectively


Interesting that they included many candidates who dropped out, but not Kucinich.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. I find this intriguing.

It implies that they've been able to unambiguously ferret out Obama's position on all the questions asked.

Me
16% more economic left than Obama, 1% more traditional.
6% more economic left than Hillary, 15% more progressive.

My bias is strongly toward economic issues, which explains my Clinton support.

80%
76%
75%

Obama, Edwards, Clinton.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Rather West and South of Gandhi on the other Political Compass. :^)