Poll: Which U.S. political party do you most strongly agree with?

[GeeYouEye]

I picked Constitution, but only because the Libertarian Party is far too anarchist for my taste. The Republicans are scum. The Greens are insane. The Democrats are dangerous. (all IMNSHO, of course)

The real question is: where do you stand on the political compass.

I'll plot a map of MR members if anyone's interested.

EDIT: forgot to post my score.

Econ L/R: 9.12
Auth/Lib: -5.18

and this without even manipulating the results to get a more accurate answer.

 

[balconycollapse]

I hold a deep deep view that everything is interconnected and indirectly affects everything else somewhere along the line.


I will be voting for Howard Dean whom i have supported for about a year (hopefully Clark or any of the other candidates as a vp) provided he is a candidate in the next election and agree with the policies laid out by Democratic/Green/Lib leaders more often then Republican. I will not support the Republican party as long as it associates itself with the subsect of extremely conservative voters. I argue that these people are not the bulk of the party but they sure are the loudest and most detestable which get the most attention.

In my experience people i've met who are extreme in the way have tended to be in favor of returning to something that was, object to civil discourse, harbor hatred or fear of something that is or could be ( minorites, women in power to name a few), have an inablility to sympathize with plights of others until it afflicts them directly, and a tendency to be won over by superficial things like a southern drawl or a history of high school football glory days or military service, as well as a need to tell us all about their religion and how it is the only mode of living.

Lastly what i feel is lacking in america more then anything is an ability to cope with information. We need to teach people to ask why all the time of the media they are fed. If more knew how we may not be where we are. Its too easy to just "go along". Information overload from every possible angle. We need courses in media awareness and filtering data to find true meaning as young as pre-school. An uneducated populous is easily swayed.

 

[vniow]

Come on, no one has mentioned the PPP yet? It really doesn't matter anywayz since that will be all that matters come 2k16....

http://organicallydigital.com/ppp/

 

[skytown205]

I grew up staunch Republican--right-wing, fundamentalist Republican, as in Jerry Falwell and the rest. But it never seemed correct to me, and the more I looked into things, the more I found myself moving left-ward. After a radical phase, I suppose I would describe myself as a not-quite-moderate Democrat--though the actions of the current administration seem to be driving me back out there, to left of left.

 

[yamadataro]

I always enjoy voting in the Daily Poll here at Macrumors. And the American politics is a damn important matter for sure (even for me, a Japanese citizen!)

But I'm wondering about today's topic. I just don't feel comfortable to see this happening at a Mac site's FRONT PAGE.

In any case, the conversation here has been productive I think.

 

[mproud]

Howard Dean for President!
http://www.deanforamerica.com/


Republicans alike, you know:
http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/

Independents as well:
http://deanindependents.org/

Libertarians, too:
http://libertariansfordean.blogspot.com/

 

[coolsoldier]

I've never found a political party I really agree with. I describe myself as a populist (anti-corporate and anti-government) on domestic issues and pacifist of foreign policy issues.

And I end up voting against the incumbent in every election.

Edit: that didn't quite come out right. I'm not quite "anti-government", but I think the government's role (other than screwing corporations) should be as limited as possible. I'm all for getting rid of corporations completely though. They're nothing more than a way to dodge individual responsibility.

 

[richters]

Re: Re: 2 things the US needs to solve

Originally posted by Frohickey
Democracy is not all its cracked up to be. Better to live in a constitutionally-limited republic.

Strange how the definition of the word "Republic" is being warped, even all the way to the US government. How dumb a government official is that. A 'republic' is a form of government with a chosen or nominated president, as opposed to a, for example non-elected, monarch. Or: a republic has elected officials all the way to the top.
A word opposite to 'democracy' may be 'autocracy'. A 'republic' may have the character of a democracy or an autocracy.
A country run only by a monarch would be an autocracy. The US, run by elected officials, is a republic AND a democracy.

 

[ph_555_shag]

I live in australia and i am an ALP member (think a little more left wing democrats)
IMHO i think the biggest problem in america is the way in which the government is elected, i personally am a strong believer in the australian system (i cant find a website)
where u have (in our case) 150 electorates that each elect a representative to parliament, normally based on their party membership, an then the party with the most votes has their leader as prime-minster.
I also believe that it is everyones RESPONSIBILITY to vote (i.e.. compulsory voting)
i am also a strong supporter of preferential voting ( http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/preferential.shtml )

btw my political compass was
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

 

[m_gerbik]

Originally posted by wdlove
I'm a Republican. I want to see a strong constitution, smaller govenment, strong foreign policy, strong military, and lower taxes.

I have to recommend switching parties then. During the last three years George Bush and the Republican Right has stomped on the constitution with the Patriot act...
Expanded the role of the government with the massive Department of Homeland Security (who's role it is to snoop on American's)...
Alienated the rest of the world with a very weak, separatist foreign policy...
Weakened our military by trivializing its role and cutting pay and benefits to the soldiers who are risking everything for us...
and ultimately causes much higher taxes by throwing us hundreds of billions of dollars into deficit, which we just have to pay later. Don't worry you can blame the Democrats or whoever you want when taxes get raised to clean up the mess made by corporate welfare.

 

[m_gerbik]

Originally posted by Les Kern
He does have some wonderful ideas, if only the damn media took him seriously.
Right now I'm leaning Dean, mainly because, like Kucinich, he's not afraid to say what needs to be said, and, unlike Kucinich, is electable.
I used to be a staunch republican, but I had an INCREDIBLE epiphany a few years ago. Now I believe the neo-cons (NOT the average republican) are the most dangerous threat to America since we were founded.

I really believe that Kucinich has the best chance of beating Bush because of the sharp contrast. People are ready for a big change right now and he inspires people. He will not be able to be ignored by the media if nominated. I'm really tired of this mood of fear that causes Democrats to compromise and lean right. The right-wing is shaping the agenda of the Democratic party, fragmenting us and causing us to believe that we can't have what we really want. If we put as much work into this as the Republicans do, Dennis Kucinich would be unstoppable. Instead we say, I guess Dean is ok. Dean WILL lose to Bush though because he doesn't want to leave Iraq, doesn't want to remove profits from health care, doesn't want to leave NAFTA and WTO which are ruining us. We have the opportunity to evolve here as a nation, but because of this idea that the best people can't possibly be elected we will again compromise and lose. Same old, same old.

 

[m_gerbik]

Originally posted by Gyroscope
I live outside US and we here are really afraid of people running white house. I sincerely hope that Mr. Bush will loose next elections. Bill Clinton was one of greatest US presidents ever. He wasn't perfect(no human being really is !!hm maybe except me ) but that dude was so damn cool. Call me wrong here but looking back 30-40 years it seems to me that only democratic presidents had that aura of humanity around them(Kennedy,Carter) while republican presidents were more cold calculated,ignorant and sometimes rather nasty.

Regards

Originally posted by Frohickey
Wow. Someone that actually thinks the measure of a good president is being a cool dude. Tell you what, how about getting US citizenship before you start talking about internal US elections and politics.

Wow Forhickey. That's really rude. How about leaving Candyland before talking about US politics?

 

[yamabushi]

My score for the political compass is:
Economic -5.5 Libertarian/Authoritarian -4.82

I was surprised at the economic score. I support free trade, free markets and greater global economic integration. I also noticed that President G.W. Bush scored far to the right towards free markets despite the fact that he erected barriers to trade in the form of protectionist tariffs on steel imports. I would therefore assume that the left/right scale is not purely economic but rather reflects other factors as well.

 

[2jaded2care]

Frohickey, I miswrote when I wrote that some people can't determine their own lives. Obviously, in this country everyone can and does, regardless of the laws. I just fear that if you give some people too much (legal) choice, the results will not be pretty for them or the ones affected by them. For example, "ideally" there should be no helmet laws for motorcyclists. Nevertheless, I don't want to see the results of that change firsthand. Or (in today's world anyway) fork out the medical expenses for those who can't pay for their own actions...

Libertarians tend to assume that most people are responsible, reasonable people, as they see themselves. And anyone who's not, well, they'll just have to deal with it... I don't think most people will be able to sit by and watch them attempt it. Maybe it would work as an evolution, but as a revolution, it would cause a big backlash.

Changing subjects, I think the only Dem candidate who has a chance against Bush is Clark. I don't support or know that much about him, but I get the feeling he's the only one the Republicans are scared of. I don't think the others have a chance. Dean will be loved by the libs, but I can't see him winning. Lieberman would be an interesting nominee, if only in the context of our world situation...

See ya at the landfill, Frohickey; I'll be wearing orange...

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by m_gerbik
Wow Forhickey. That's really rude. How about leaving Candyland before talking about US politics?

Candyland? Hah!
I live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia... in the belly of the the beast. I keep hoping that my company would move into the United States... at least the free states.

I was rooting for Gray Davis and a few more rolling blackouts. Nothing like blackouts to make a company think they ought to move somewhere else.

Yeah, I know. A little bit of schadenfreude... or is it some other term when you are hoping for bad things to happen to yourself.... oh well.

Besides, we put people in jail for participating in elections if they inject foreign influences into it. Ask a few of Clinton, Gore and Torricelli campaign contributors.

 

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
I think the only Dem candidate who has a chance against Bush is Clark. I don't support or know that much about him, but I get the feeling he's the only one the Republicans are scared of. I don't think the others have a chance. Dean will be loved by the libs, but I can't see him winning. Lieberman would be an interesting nominee, if only in the context of our world situation...

See ya at the landfill, Frohickey; I'll be wearing orange...

I think that as long as people assume Dean can't win based on the assumption that being loved by the libs = a bigtime loser in the general election, his chances will be greatly diminished. This is unfortunate, since he all but has the nomination locked up and he's actually quite moderate.

People tend to lack imagination when they try to foresee the future, and they usually forget that candidates move markedly to the center once they've got the nomination. I wish people would take a closer look at Dean and realize how easy it will be for him to move to the center and appeal to a much broader percentage of the electorate. Everyone assumes he's just another McGovern and therefore a hopeless loser, and if the Republicans and more moderate Democrats continue to convince themselves that Dean is a flaming liberal McGovern reincarnation, no one will even give him the time of day and look at what he really stands for.

The fact is that his appeal is that he 1. Opposed the war (which a lot of people agree or at least sympathize with now) and 2. He's feisty as hell. He's not some head in the clouds liberal. He's scrappy and smart and he will move to the center after the primaries, and his record in Vermont will back up his claims of being a centrist.

Clark, on the other hand, isn't even much of a Democrat. He has a Republican voting record, and his two-faced support for the war will do nothing to differentiate him in the general election.

I don't understand why everyone thinks the only chance the Democrats have is some kind of militant Bush-lite. Faced with a choice between Bush and Bush-lite, swing voters will vote for the genuine article and dissatisfied liberals will make protest votes for Nader, who is making rumblings about running again.

 

[2jaded2care]

Awimoway, you make some good points. Clark isn't much of a Democrat, but he is a Dem candidate (for now). Maybe Dean will tone down the rhetoric after he's shored up the party faithful, but he's already lost some of us (who weren't likely to vote for him anyway, admittedly). That said, I don't understand why any candidate has to "move to the center". Doesn't that mean, either he or she was lying before, or is lying now? Of course, I'm not a politician. (Probably they prefer the word "spin" to "lie".)

BTW, I appreciate your reference to Bush as the "genuine article"! (Out of context? Me? No!)

 

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Awimoway, you make some good points. Clark isn't much of a Democrat, but he is a Dem candidate (for now). Maybe Dean will tone down the rhetoric after he's shored up the party faithful, but he's already lost some of us (who weren't likely to vote for him anyway, admittedly). That said, I don't understand why any candidate has to "move to the center". Doesn't that mean, either he or she was lying before, or is lying now? Of course, I'm not a politician. (Probably they prefer the word "spin" to "lie".)

BTW, I appreciate your reference to Bush as the "genuine article"! (Out of context? Me? No!)

Moving to the wings or to the center does not necessarily mean the candidate is lying at one time or the other. It can just be a difference in emphasis. Emphasize your more extreme points in the primary, empasize your more centrist points in the general.

We always want politics to be about principle when in fact it is about compromise. Sometimes when a candidate changes their rhetoric, we assume they are without principle when in fact they are compromising their wishes with those of the electorate because, overall, they believe that the people would be better served by even a toned-down version of themselves than it would by the other candidates.

As for the "genuine article" bit... Well, yes, Bush is the "genuine article" ... genuinely lousy.

 

[bryanc]

I'd like to see a scatter plot of MacRumors members

I encourage everyone to go to The Political Compass and then post their co-ordinates.

It'll be fun to see if/how we cluster on a scatter plot. I expect, as is the case for so many measurements, I will be an outlier.

My co-ordinates are:
left: -8
libertarian: -7

Cheers

 

[2jaded2care]

If it's just a change of emphasis in topics, but the basic answers stay the same, I guess that's OK. The thing I can't stand is when they say one thing to one group, then something which seems contradictory to another group, and won't admit they've either changed their position, misspoken, or deceived.

You wrote "Sometimes when a candidate changes their rhetoric, we assume they are without principle when in fact they are compromising their wishes with those of the electorate because, overall, they believe that the people would be better served by even a toned-down version of themselves than it would by the other candidates."

Gee, that sounds good (are you in politics?). But it seems an awful lot like "tell the people what you think they want to hear -- whatever it takes to get elected." ...But what would I know?

 

[coolsoldier]

My "Political Compass"

Left/Right: -4.50
Lib/Auth: -4.05

I distrust the results of the test though, and here's why -- The linear representation of the political spectrum is certainly oversimplified, but so is a planar representation. To be really accurate, the "compass" would need an axis for every issue

 

[Awimoway]

I agree. My results, Economic Left/Right: -5.38, Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.44, fail to show that I am a religious, social conservative (society is too promiscuous, abortion on demand is wrong), yet I support affirmative action, gay rights, and a liberal economic agenda. There's just no way to encapsulate that on a 2-axis grid. Frankly, I would have thought I'd be high on the authoritarian scale. I think the poll operates too much on the guilt by association theory--if you subscribe to belief X, then you belong in group X. Not always true.

 

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Gee, that sounds good (are you in politics?). But it seems an awful lot like "tell the people what you think they want to hear -- whatever it takes to get elected." ...But what would I know?

Maybe you're just too jaded to care.

I don't know. I get tired of the way Americans (and I am one myself) habitually make blanket statements of pessimism about politics, government, society ("things", for example, are never the "way they used to be"). It's conventional wisdom that all politicians are liars. It's conventional wisdom that government is always out to screw you.

I mean, it's too easy to dismiss the whole process that way rather than really look at it for what it actually is--an imperfect system peopled by imperfect people who must respond to the demands of an imperfect society. Politics is like advertising. It must please or it will fail. Who's fault is it that we vote for the person we like most or buy the product we think is the best? Is there any way to make the process (either politics or advertising) more honest? Or to make our selections more accurate? I can't think of one. Can you?

In the meantime, politicians will continue to tell us what we want to hear and we will be forced to choose among the lesser of schmoozers. I don't think everyone who is attracted to running for office is fundamentally dishonest. I think the system selects successful candidates according to their ability to persuade people that they are likeable or more honest (whether or not they really are). Not that they are better leaders.

 

[coolsoldier]

The fundamental problem with American politics, society, etc. is that it is easier not to think. It is easier to follow a political party, or to look at that political compass grid and pick the candidate whose dot is closest to yours. What we really should be doing when we vote is to pick the candidate that we think would be the best person for the job. That is not necessarily the same as the person who most nearly agrees with you.

 

[Datazoid]

Coordinates:
Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.13

I'm as left as they come, baby! *dons flame-retardant suit*

EDIT: Is it just me, or does the +/- system seem to reflect "negatively" on liberals?