Political Compass Tests

[Waddler]

I agree with everything in that post. ^

Two things I have been going back and forth on are free trade and abortion... I do not fully understand what the deal is with international trade, so my answers on those questions are usually different every time I take a political quiz. the other issue I am deciding and undeciding is whether abortion should be legal. I definitely believe that it's wrong - it's murder. But does the government have the right to restrict people by making it illegal? I don't know.

I'm in the same boat as far as the intricacies of international trade, but I do understand the debate over abortion. Abortion is the taking of a human life, but it is not yet murder; I believe it should be considered murder (the illegal taking of a human life).

However, abortion should remain legalized until we--as a society--can figure out how to prevent the results of banning abortion. If abortion were banned tomorrow, for instance, here's what I believe would happen:

1. Unemployment would rise due to the closure of clinics.
2. You would have protests, if not riots, from people who believe abortion is a woman's right.
3. Illegal abortions would be performed, some of which would be "back alley abortions" using crude means that are dangerous to the mother (and obviously, the child).
4. Domestic abuse would rise, based on one parent wanting to follow the law and the other not wanting to follow the law.
5. Abuses against children would rise due to parents not committing an abortion, but resenting their children.
6. Law enforcement would be strained even more due to the prevalence of sex and pregnancy in our culture. Investigations would have to be opened, adding to the already overwhelming pile of criminal investigations law enforcement deal with.
7. Mental illness would rise, because of the added stress of unwanted children being born. You would have children developing mental illnesses as a result of unloving, stressful environments. Parents and children alike would also develop mental problems like depression.
8. Suicide rates would rise because of unloving environments.

There are other problems, but you can see why the banning of abortion would immediately cause problems. Like I said, I wish abortion would be abolished, but the ideal condition for such a circumstance would be if the nation overwhelmingly felt abortion was wrong and should be made illegal. If we can achieve that, these eight problems (and others) will be diminished significantly.

Conservatives who shout for an end to abortion often don't consider these problems. Some have, and I applaud them for it, but the vast majority of Conservatives I have met do not consider the problems resulting from the banning of such a thing as abortion.

 

[graciesings]

Ok, the browser is having trouble quoting this post.

I'm in the same boat as far as the intricacies of international trade, but I do understand the debate over abortion. Abortion is the taking of a human life, but it is not yet murder; I believe it should be considered murder (the illegal taking of a human life).

However, abortion should remain legalized until we--as a society--can figure out how to prevent the results of banning abortion. If abortion were banned tomorrow, for instance, here's what I believe would happen:

1. Unemployment would rise due to the closure of clinics.
2. You would have protests, if not riots, from people who believe abortion is a woman's right.
3. Illegal abortions would be performed, some of which would be "back alley abortions" using crude means that are dangerous to the mother (and obviously, the child).
4. Domestic abuse would rise, based on one parent wanting to follow the law and the other not wanting to follow the law.
5. Abuses against children would rise due to parents not committing an abortion, but resenting their children.
6. Law enforcement would be strained even more due to the prevalence of sex and pregnancy in our culture. Investigations would have to be opened, adding to the already overwhelming pile of criminal investigations law enforcement deal with.
7. Mental illness would rise, because of the added stress of unwanted children being born. You would have children developing mental illnesses as a result of unloving, stressful environments. Parents and children alike would also develop mental problems like depression.
8. Suicide rates would rise because of unloving environments. *Also because of parents, especially teenagers, who can't "take care of it quietly" and feel like their life is now ruined.

There are other problems, but you can see why the banning of abortion would immediately cause problems. Like I said, I wish abortion would be abolished, but the ideal condition for such a circumstance would be if the nation overwhelmingly felt abortion was wrong and should be made illegal. If we can achieve that, these eight problems (and others) will be diminished significantly.

Conservatives who shout for an end to abortion often don't consider these problems. Some have, and I applaud them for it, but the vast majority of Conservatives I have met do not consider the problems resulting from the banning of such a thing as abortion.

Some of those reasons you listed are kind of - meh. Even though they are all very good points I don't think that all of them will be a big deal. For example, not all of the babies would be kept with their parents, probably a number would be given up for adoption? so the bit about kids having to grow up in that kind of environment would not be as bad. Anyway, the ones that really worry me are 2, 3, and 6. "Back alley" abortions especially worry me. That is dangerous, medically. And who is going to enforce this law and deal with the rioting? The government has already bit off more than it can chew, the country doesn't have the ability to enforce making abortion illegal.

Of course, the best case scenario is convincing the world that abortion is wrong. However... well, good luck.

So yeah, I have trouble endorsing either view. I do think that the taking of an innocent human life should be outlawed by the government, but in a day and age like ours, making abortion illegal would be tough.

And is it forcing one standard of morality on the entire population? I don't feel like it is - I think "death is death" should be obvious - but the fact stands that it isn't the government's job to make sure people do the right thing.

 

[Waddler]

I don't think morality should be legislated. There should be no laws respecting marriage, for instance. I believe homosexuality is immoral, but I also believe a marriage of any kind is between the individuals and God. I am against tax breaks or penalties for married couples. I do believe there should be documentation of a marriage, but we don't have the right to tell two people what they can and cannot do.

No Christian should think they can control anyone's actions. A parent has a legal obligation to care for their child. Consequently, the parent may tell the child, "you do not have my permission for this" or "you have my permission for that." A parent also grants certain rights to a teacher or other caretaker for a time, giving the teacher or caretaker rights to grant or deny permissions within reason.

Beyond that, we should not try to tell someone what they can and cannot do, except when those actions infringe upon the rights of others. Someone having an abortion or engaging in a homosexual lifestyle does not infringe upon the rights of others (except in the case of abortion, one may argue that infringes upon the right of the child to life). Consequently, we should not legislate our morality for them.

 

[SnowyMacie]

My results...

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

According to the Nolan Chart, I'm moderate but leaning liberal/libertarian.

 

[blackribbon]

Economic 2.75
Social -0.87

I take issue with the wording of some of these questions

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .
What does this mean? Everyone deserves the highest standard of medical care...but not everyone can have access to the same treatments. A practicing alcoholic who has shown no interest in lifestyle changes should not be given a liver transplant regardless of ability to pay because of the limited supply of available organs. But the person who does have the ability to pay should be allowed to purchase the fancy high tech wheelchair that is not financially feasible for average joe. And the general public should not be required to pay for expensive treatments that only show limited chances of success...even if a wealthy person can. Society does not have unlimited resources to pay for medical treatment. Standards of care is different than treatment options.

 

[Nanopants]

I don't usually like these quizzes because I often doubt the presuppositions behind the questions and I seem to be pigeonholed into answers I don't agree with. But I will say that I'm a realist with libertarian ideals at heart: IOW I believe that freedom is ideal, but reality requires authoritarian rule. That being said, authorities must be morally grounded agents for the good of society, else reality will bite them in the rear when the regime is overpowered by its own society fighting for its liberties. Too much liberty on the other hand opens the door for self-appointed totalitarianism, and an authority that rules by consent of the people is needed to counteract that, so on the authoritarian/libertarian scale I'd place myself right in the center if I could.

As for economics, I view the situation with the same paradigm: left would be roughly equivalent to authoritarian rule, imo, with legislation regulating business owners, and the right would be more in favor of the freedom to own property and to make a profit. With too much regulation, the profit that everyone depends on is stifled, and with too much economic liberty, businesses begin to operate in totalitarian and short-sighted ways (e.g. Walmart, and the whole mess behind our economic crisis), so I'd put myself in the center on that scale too if I could.

The only time when I'd be off-center, if I could help it, is when society's perception is off center and needs correction. In the US, I think we're off center: too authoritarian and too economically liberal, so I'd be Libertarian/Left. In England though, for example, I'd classify myself as libertarian/right. In a third world nation overrun by warlords, I'd probably be authoritarian/left.

 

[MehGuy]

Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64

 

[RobertMerton]

Economic 2.75
Social -0.87

I take issue with the wording of some of these questions

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .
What does this mean? Everyone deserves the highest standard of medical care...but not everyone can have access to the same treatments. A practicing alcoholic who has shown no interest in lifestyle changes should not be given a liver transplant regardless of ability to pay because of the limited supply of available organs. But the person who does have the ability to pay should be allowed to purchase the fancy high tech wheelchair that is not financially feasible for average joe. And the general public should not be required to pay for expensive treatments that only show limited chances of success...even if a wealthy person can. Society does not have unlimited resources to pay for medical treatment. Standards of care is different than treatment options.

There was outrage in my country when one of the directors of one of the largest health insurance providers in the country suggested that those with private health cover should get 'priority' in emergency departments.

 

[Sketcher]

Political Compass is skewed left. Its line of questions leads people to more left-leaning answers. Heck, I had this in mind when I took it, and it put me to the economic left of Barack Hussein Obama.

Economic Left/Right: 3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

The Nolan Chart was better, but several questions did not do justice to the issues they presented.

Social 65%
Economic 80%

 

[MarkSB]

I don't usually like these quizzes because I often doubt the presuppositions behind the questions and I seem to be pigeonholed into answers I don't agree with.

Haha, that's pretty much how I felt with the one that I did. Many of the answers which were provided sounded like stereotypical sound bytes from American left/right wing candidates, so sometimes I just picked the answer which I found to be the least offensive.

 

[blackribbon]

I don't think morality should be legislated. There should be no laws respecting marriage, for instance. I believe homosexuality is immoral, but I also believe a marriage of any kind is between the individuals and God. I am against tax breaks or penalties for married couples. I do believe there should be documentation of a marriage, but we don't have the right to tell two people what they can and cannot do.

No Christian should think they can control anyone's actions. A parent has a legal obligation to care for their child. Consequently, the parent may tell the child, "you do not have my permission for this" or "you have my permission for that." A parent also grants certain rights to a teacher or other caretaker for a time, giving the teacher or caretaker rights to grant or deny permissions within reason.

Beyond that, we should not try to tell someone what they can and cannot do, except when those actions infringe upon the rights of others. Someone having an abortion or engaging in a homosexual lifestyle does not infringe upon the rights of others (except in the case of abortion, one may argue that infringes upon the right of the child to life). Consequently, we should not legislate our morality for them.

So you are okay with a 40 year old man marrying a 10 year old girl? Or maybe several 16 year old girls? or a 12 year old boy?...as long as they consent? How about a woman marrying her favorite dog? Not really a stretch for any of these because they have all been attempted in the US...except legislation prevents them.

And if it is okay to abort a unborn child...how about terminating an unwanted live birth that is say...less than 24 hours old?....or maybe only week along (I mean, what is the difference between a few days?)

 

[blackribbon]

There was outrage in my country when one of the directors of one of the largest health insurance providers in the country suggested that those with private health cover should get 'priority' in emergency departments.

So much for the concept of free national coverage. I also know that your gov't has limited resources so often people will die while waiting in line for necessary diagnostic procedures. Equal death seems to be okay. However, people who have money or private insurance can come to the US where they can be treated in a more timely manner and side-step the issue.

I provide equal care for all my patients once they are in a hospital bed. I have even seen the doctors schedule a discharge for "after dinner" for a known homeless man to make sure he gets a little more nutrition before he leaves our care.

 

[blackribbon]

Oh...and there will be no long-term increase in unemployment if every abortion clinic was shut down tomorrow. Nobody specializes in abortion. Every doctor, nurse, and medical tech would be fully employable in another field of healthcare...maybe already are...and since they are outpatient centers, most don't staff that many people anyway.

Several of your other objections could be addressed by making it socially acceptable for mothers who do not want their babies to give them up for adoption....instead of shaming young girls further by making them feel like they are "bad" mothers for doing the most loving, unselfish act they can do in some situations.

 

[Qyöt27]

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

There have been other times I scored more toward the center, but I was still in the lower left quadrant. But considering that the Political Compress was configured for the UK and is suspected of being intended to bash the Labour Party and Tony Blair, there's issues with it (just as there are issues with the Nolan chart exhibiting a Libertarian bias).

Also, somewhat related:
xkcd: Nolan Chart

Another one that made the rounds during 2012 and is still being updated with voter information for this year is ISideWith, which asks more questions, provides for user-specified weighting of issues importance, and is more diverse (at the bottom of the page there are different pages for country-specific quizzes). I don't have the time to go and take the ISW quiz again right now, but a longer post I made from last year that details things fairly well:

One quiz that got brought up last year was the one from ISideWith. I'll just copy-paste the results and commentary post I made back then (meaning, September), as it hasn't really changed much at all in the interim. Post starts below.


The last couple of times I've taken the Political Compass, it was somewhere in the area between the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela¹.

The ISideWith test came out to:
96% Jill Stein
79% Barack Obama
75% Rocky Anderson
46% Gary Johnson
5% Mitt Romney
4% Virgil Goode
51% Florida Voters (surprise, surprise)
54% American Voters

By party:
95% Democratic
86% Green
21% Libertarian
6% Republican


However, I'll note that even with how nice it was to take a quiz with more nuanced answers and an importance scale feature, some of those answers and questions were either not how I'd phrase them, or still really inadequate. But on the whole, it is fairly accurate of an assessment.

I'm not affiliated with a party, though. I was when I initially signed up (I was a registered Moderate), but that party dissolved and Florida's elections laws dictate that in such an event, affected voters are automatically switched to Non-Affiliated (Independent, except that that isn't the word used); they can switch to a different one on their own. I just never bothered.

Ideologically, I'm basically a Classical (aka "Bull Moose") Progressive, only distilled against modern concerns*. This basically means that I'm in favor of restructuring (not 'growing' or 'shrinking') government and social programs for efficiency and transparency reasons, distributist economics (which also includes some things like strong support for credit unions and local cooperatives), anti-corruption measures, civil libertarianism, remix culture, FOSS, strong support of consumer's rights and advocacy on its periphery, social justice, better financial regulations, reforming elections to proportional representation and/or becoming a straight-up consensus democracy, campaign finance reform to allow smaller donations and explicitly sever corporate influence from government, and so forth.

*I specifically put this here because some of the things Roosevelt (that's Teddy, not FDR) and his contemporaries supported I definitely do not, as time itself has proved they weren't wise decisions. Most significantly, the Imperialist parts. However I do still recognize the need for a strong central government and at the very least, the illusion of having a big stick. I also hate nationalism with the undying passion of a thousand suns, as cognitively dissonant as that might be considering the statement immediately before this.





¹That is, about 25-30% of the way into the lower-left quadrant of the Compass.



Theologically, I would probably rate as a moderate, although that's mostly because the Fundamentalists cause the right side to skew away from traditionality. I got more liberal as I got more traditional, basically. But I also have influences from modern scholarship and philosophy, which casts it in a less traditional light (meaning, Higher Criticism, Existentialism, and in some areas an agnostic or deistic view of events in that I'm willing to admit I don't know and that it's probably impossible to know).

About the only thing I'd tack onto that, and why I really can't get behind the Green Party or Justice Party entirely, is that I don't buy into (actually, actively oppose) appeal to nature fallacies or any number of nature/food/diet woo, Big Placebo, crankery, quackery, or related pseudoscience that can tag along for the ride. And the thing is, for the Green Party that's a significant problem; for the Justice Party it's not really as much of one, but their willingness to put some of that nonsense on their platform is disheartening.

 

[Waddler]

So you are okay with a 40 year old man marrying a 10 year old girl? Or maybe several 16 year old girls? or a 12 year old boy?...as long as they consent? How about a woman marrying her favorite dog? Not really a stretch for any of these because they have all been attempted in the US...except legislation prevents them.

And if it is okay to abort a unborn child...how about terminating an unwanted live birth that is say...less than 24 hours old?....or maybe only week along (I mean, what is the difference between a few days?)

I never said I was okay with any of the things you've mentioned. You're putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. What I believe is that people will make their choices, and as long as acting on those choices does not infringe upon the rights of others, they should be free to make those decisions and suffer the positive or negative consequences.

When it comes to children who remain under the guardianship of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s), they are considered too young to make certain decisions for themselves. If a parent consents to allowing their child to marry, they--in my mind--are infringing upon the child's rights, because the child is presumably ignorant--hence the need for a parent or legal guardian to consent in the first place. Consequently, I believe an argument can be made for the prohibition of marriage involving minors.

I believe we can mandate a prohibition of marriage between two different species (such as a person and their dog). The animal is presumably of lower intelligence and reasoning capability than their owner, and so is not a willing participant in the marriage. This infringes upon the rights of the animal.

As far as abortion goes, I do not like abortion, and I frankly wish people would get it through their thick skulls that abortion is the taking of a sacred human life. Unfortunately, those who support abortion have no concept of the sanctity of life. I believe abortion should be banned, because it infringes upon the rights of the child. Unfortunately, banning abortion completely in the short-term will create more long-term problems that have yet to be addressed.

If more people were willing to adopt, and if the adoption system was more able to handle the overwhelming number of orphaned children that would result from a ban on abortion, that would help immensely. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the adoption and foster care system in the United States (if not elsewhere in the world) is rife with problems.

So no, to answer those specific scenarios, I believe they infringe upon the rights of individuals--animals and humans alike. We don't, however, have the right to tell people they can't get married to one another, they can't listen to a certain kind of music, or read a certain book, or watch a certain movie. Of course, I'm referring to fictional entertainment, not descriptions of real-life events where one has infringed upon the rights of another (i.e., a "faces of death" film).

Censorship has its place, but it should not be so heavy-handed that it attempts to hide, alter, or otherwise present a false representation of history or culture as it is. I believe wholeheartedly in the freedom of speech, provided that speech does not infringe upon others. Threatening the president, for example, infringes upon his rights. I don't like the guy, but I have no right to threaten him, so that is why it is illegal, and should be.

Freedom comes from a desire to prosper and see the world in reality. Fear comes from a desire for comfort by hiding the world in lies. I see my society rife with fear, while calling it freedom. I love America, and I stand for the idea of what my nation was intended to be. I do not love the condition she's in at the moment, and I think that seriously needs to change.

 

[FreedByte]

This is something I was really interested in before my birthday, I think I showed it to a few of you.

but I was fascinated by these map-your-political-views tests.

This one feels less accurate to me, but it is better tailored to a global scale:
The Political Compass - Test

I also like the Nolan chart, but most of the surveys for it (especially the first link) are very tailored to US issues:
Survey - Nolan Chart
Political quiz

So... post your results and I'll post mine when I get a chance.

Internet political tests are all pretty terrible to be honest. They are all fairly biased or ask irrelevant or poorly worded questions (like the political compass does). However, the political compass is good in that it asks questions surrounding property rights that quizzes like the nolan chart do not. Here are my political compass results:

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23

 

[graciesings]

I personally think that you have to be a true independent thinker to score out of the green zone on a political compass test, because the questions are worded so that the green zone answers "make more sense."

 

[High Fidelity]

I can't see how that would make sense.

 

[graciesings]

Qyoth, I loved that 2014 Political Party Quiz link! I don't know about others, but it gave me pretty reasonable answers.

 

[FreedByte]

I personally think that you have to be a true independent thinker to score out of the green zone on a political compass test, because the questions are worded so that the green zone answers "make more sense."

well it is true that the political compass is notorious for averaging out a bit towards the libertarian left corner instead of the center.