Political Compass: Where do you stand?
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
Political Compass is one of my favorite sites … even more so, now that they offer example charts of various political election seasons around the world, including the current US presidential race.
So, I took the test yet again, to pinpoint my spot on the map (yellow), and merged my results with politicalcompass' current political candidates chart (red & blue) and a few other political and historical figures charted on their site (white).
Here's what I came up with:
Take the Political Compass Test yourself, and see where you stand in comparison.
I really like this way of thinking about politics. It demonstrates to me how a two party system simply ends up shoehorning people into a party they don't really fit into. Of course it also shows that there really isn't that much difference between our various candidates. Hell, John Edwards is closer to Newt Ginrich than I am to Edwards. Guess those of us who are actually over towards the left or libertarian really don't have anyone to speak with our voice in the government, eh? FWIW, I'm about between Mike Gravel and Nelson Mandela on this graph…
22nd January 2008 at 9:50 am | permalink |Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
22nd January 2008 at 10:23 am | permalink |Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36
Ive been reading this blog for a few weeks now, and its come to be one of my favorites. Im afraid I have to steal your idea and blog about it myself. But dont worry, I only have about 3 readers and I will, of course, give you credit and link back to this site. Keep up the good work!
22nd January 2008 at 10:24 am | permalink |@eric: Indeed … even though the two parties are clustered, for the most part, separately, it really is a matter of degrees of the same thing, isn't it?
I'd like to see at least four viable parties in this country: Progressive, Democrat, Republican, Evangelical. The progressives are getting shut out by the Democrats' positions, and the Evangelicals are screwing the rest of the Republicans.
@hko: So, you're hangin' down by me and the Dalai Lama, eh? Good company, if I do say so myself. ;-)
@steve: Feel free! Links are always appreciated, and it's not about "my idea" it's about getting the ideas out there, however & wherever you can. :-)
22nd January 2008 at 2:54 pm | permalink |Economic: 5
Social: -5
My party proposal:
Bottom Right: Libertarians
Bottom Left: Greens
Top Right: Republicans, Democrats
Top Left: I doubt this country will ever want to go there.
The Libertarian Party and Green Party usually have full 50 state ballot access or near full access. This option is available now. More people just need to get on board. Republicans who dislike Evangelical-inspired policy are probably close enough to Libertarians. Those "progressives" (I dislike that term it has authoritarian connotations in my perspective.) being shut out by the Democrats are probably close enough to Greens. I disagree with Greens on economic policy, but I hope both the Libertarian Party and the Green Party flourish in the future. The more important thing is to get toward the libertarian end of the spectrum.
22nd January 2008 at 6:28 pm | permalink |@deadmoo: In a way, I'd agree. The primary problem with third and fourth parties in this country is that everyone is afraid to vote for them … and the way the political system is structured really wouldn't lend itself to reasonable representation of the third and fourth place groups.
But yes, I've long believed if everyone who said, "I'd like to vote third party, but it's like throwing your vote away," just shut up and actually fucking voted for the candidate they honestly liked best, there'd be a huge difference almost immediately.
22nd January 2008 at 6:43 pm | permalink |Here's mine, complete with slightly-shitty editing because I don't know how to make a straight line in Gimp.
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2048/politicalcompassfr1.png
I just took yours alphabitch and added where I'm @.
22nd January 2008 at 9:41 pm | permalink |@DavidGX: Wow … you're even further out there than I am! You wingnut, you. ;-)
22nd January 2008 at 10:30 pm | permalink |Yea, but why isn't Ron Paul less authoritarian than any forced single pay health care person.
22nd January 2008 at 10:43 pm | permalink |Death to the fetus is pretty authoritarian too. It would have to be a wash at worst on abortion. I would have to put him farther south. Oddly enough, if that square were a map of the US, I would place him somewhere near Houston.e
@kangalanatolian: Single-payer health care isn't charted on the vertical personal liberty scale, it's on the horizontal economic scale. Being pro-single-payer would move someone towards the left (socialist) end.
And while being anti-abortion should make him *more* authoritarian (which would be further north, not further south), he frames it as a "states' rights" issue, and says he'd like to reverse Roe v. Wade at the Federal level, and let states decide individually whether or not to allow abortion. Ironically, I think taking that angle actually moves him further south (less authoritarian).
22nd January 2008 at 11:15 pm | permalink |"Death to the fetus is pretty authoritarian too."
Eh? Maybe if he wanted to force everyone to have abortions it might be. But having an abortion is a choice, which I don't see why most right-wingers don't get. If you don't agree with getting abortions… don't get any.
You want to save lives? How about better sex education for school students? How about access to contraceptives and giving students REAL information rather than the bs'd-up "abstinence online, condoms always fail" garbage a lot of them get now? I'll bet hard case money that'll prevent more abortions from happening then you'll ever prevent forcing the opinion of your imaginary friends down everyone's throat and it'll probably make you a lot less hated as well.
Another thing would be more diplomacy, less war. That alone would save a SHITLOAD of lives. Yet another thing is more funding for things like stem cell research, etc.
But I've gone off into a rant haven't I @_@;
p.s. ron paul sucks. Pass it on.
23rd January 2008 at 1:14 am | permalink |@davixgx: Thanks for the reminder. I really need to do a post about "abstinence only" sex ed. Fucking morons.
23rd January 2008 at 3:32 am | permalink |@ alphabitch: Okay, I just did mine. I wound up just east of you on the economic scale (probably because I didn't like the absolutist tone of some of the statements) and just a smidge north of you on the social scale.
Plotting points:
23rd January 2008 at 6:36 pm | permalink |Economic: -4.50
Social: -4.41
@becca: I drift around that general area, depending on my mood, and how many seriously f*ed up articles I've read about how many politicians that day. hehe
23rd January 2008 at 7:11 pm | permalink |Personally, I think the whole compass is obtuse … like the warden in "Shawshank Redemption" was obtuse–deliberately so.
Where does something like rational pragmatism fit in? Does staking out an unequivocal, idealistic, yet pragmatic position require one to be scored on any of the 4 continuums? Because not one of these candidates have I heard advocate for any sort of individual, citizenship-based rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Not one of these candidates have I heard seriously discuss one of the primary, central underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution … that the power of this country lies in its people and the purpose of the constitution is to keep the government and its powers in check. Instead, I have heard a stumbling, mumbling apologia about why "We, the People" need to accept our Washington overlords, about why "We, the People" need to embrace and extend a government that has already overstepped its bounds.
We need a Thomas Paine, "Common Sense" Party. A party of atheism and secularism; a party of rationality.
Fuck Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. Fuck all of the political pundits who argue why a political party "needs" to be in power. Fuck these political cretins who barely engage in rational discourse on the floor of Congress, and who insist that the average citizen is too "obtuse" to understand the reality of the political process. When are these spineless fucks going to stand up and advocate for the American people and the rights that go with our citizenship?
23rd January 2008 at 7:40 pm | permalink |Hmmm:
Your political compass
24th January 2008 at 9:57 am | permalink |Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44
@becca: I think the compass is designed more to highlight people's *ideals* as opposed to what their on-the-road actions would be. The candidates, otoh, might be unfairly ranked because they're being judged on their spoken positions … but in a way, that's perfectly fine, because voting on what the candidates will try to DO is more pragmatic than voting based on what they ideally believe anyhow.
@jack frost: Damn, boy … you're practically a full-blood communist, ain't you? ;-)
24th January 2008 at 4:38 pm | permalink |It appears that your questions were tainted with your own ideology. If that is the case, shame on you for manipulating people into thinking that they are that politically liberal.
24th February 2008 at 6:07 am | permalink |I've known about the "Political Compass" website for quite some time, and I believe it's a significant improvement over the traditional 2-dimensional system. However, I believe they've made a serious mistake in confusing "socially liberal" with "libertarian". If one answers questions related to social issues in a liberal way, you'll be labeled libertarian. This more appropriately belongs on the x-axis, along with economic issues. Or on a separate axis by itself.
I find the most important aspect of libertarianism is the application towards economics. Personally, I come back as strongly libertarian and middle-of-the-road - slightly left of Edwards. This is ridiculous. I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative - and VERY libertarian. The site seems to be skewed about 3-4 squares to the right, indicating a liberal bias in the site's founders.
I think this system would be improved by putting social and fiscal liberalism/conservativism on separate axes, and libertarian vs. authoritarian (I don't believe that a truly fascist government is the opposite of libertarianism, in spite of Hitler's application of the form of government).
The system I've toyed with for a while is also a three-dimensional system, with authoritarianism/ libtarianism on the z-axis, and economic and social issues on the others. That would put communism, fascism, totalitarianism, and liberal democracy in the four quadrants of the xy plane…..
24th February 2008 at 9:49 am | permalink |P.S. Eco: +0.88; Soc: -3.75
24th February 2008 at 9:55 am | permalink |@David Baughman: Well first off, they're not my questions. That's why I linked to another site for the actual test. Second off, if you read the background information, you'll notice that they're using the *actual* definitions of the political terms in question, not the modern bullshit political rhetoric definitions. Modern American political discourse wouldn't know what "liberal" was if it got slapped upside the head with it.
@kevin: As I understood it, the x axis on that test is economic, and the y axis is social issues. If you're in favor of the government not meddling in peoples personal/moral lives, that would be "socially libertarian" … Libertarian is yet another word that's pretty much useless in political conversation. That said, a 3D version of the compass would be really interesting to see!
24th February 2008 at 3:44 pm | permalink |Economic Left/Right: -8.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.23
Wow. this genuinely surprised me. Not the libertarian part, but the left wing part. Sigh….i guess i better go buy a black mask and some Molotov cocktail ingredients.
25th February 2008 at 8:33 pm | permalink |What club do i have to join to be an anarchist?
[...] stand for? Maybe. How about ourselves? Do we know? Recently on the website of swear-rambling alphabitch I found an interesting link to a political test where you can determine your own political [...]
1st March 2008 at 5:40 am | trackback from Nomad’s Snippets - Credit Card Secrets, Political Compass and new Poll | nomad4everBang on there, you yellow dot covers my red dot. lady, your spot on. Great site. Keep it up.
XX
18th March 2008 at 4:22 pm | permalink |@maxattaks: Well, don't confuse popular political jargon with the real meanings of the terms … ;-)
@saviour: Yay! I knew I couldn't be the only one. hehe
18th March 2008 at 4:57 pm | permalink |Economic Left/Right: -3.88
29th March 2008 at 8:45 pm | permalink |Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
Sounds about right. lol