You're not the real Tyler Durden!

Economic Left/Right: 4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26

I guess that's about correct...

@dexter:
It's not supposed to be a cross-section of society: just of webdippers. However, quite a number never use the forum, so it effectivly comes to a cross-section of webdippers who post on the forum somewhat regularly.

Some of the questions were loaded, or the answering of them would imply one moral view when you have another...
It would have helped if there was a neutral option and if the poll had been specifically about your views on what society should be doing and what government should be doing (for instance, "is homosexuality ok" juxtaposed to "should gov regulate it?"

@baumhaeuer, I realize that.
I was responding to Thucydides' post that "This quiz just might be stacked to create an impression that everyone is libertarian"

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

@ dexter: ahh, now I understand

@ Obamasprettyterrible: those are odd numbers for someone with that user name. The poll is inacurate!

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00

yeah the questionnaire focuses too much on economics and not as much on the social and policy aspects. Mine would've been more to the right had it been more evenly dispersed

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

With Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I like it!

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.41

A lot of the questions didn't instill a sense of confidence in this survey.

@dexter morgan - South Africa's brain trust has been severely damaged by Nelson Mandella. Apartheid was terrible and needed to be stopped, however the anti-white climate he aided in SA has fostered the greatest exodus of professionals they have ever seen.
@Tantris - you are right in saying that first past the post is flawed, however it gives us the best shot at majority rule, which history has shown to be the best use of a parliamentary system (I have maintained a Canadian viewpoint here, not sure about you).

In addition the upper right hand corner is what the Western World has deemed effective and realistic leadership. It is fine to have views wherever you like, but parties that get elected and govern are consistently in the upper right hand corner. And where as I am a right winger, history has shown that governing from the center and only slightly towards your ideology is the best implementation of government (e.g. Rome at it's peak, Pit the Elder/Younger, Robert Borden, Winston Churchill etc.).

@KaptinKool:
Actually, there are a great deal of voting systems that have been studied and shown how they affect the policies. The US system is very flawed. Specifically, in the discussion we were having, it failed the Condorcet criterion. Ralph Nader, through polling, was seen as the second pick in one presidential election for a majority of people.

So, you state that "it gives us the best shot at majority rule". You are just kind of spouting about stuff you don't know, aren't you?

At this point, I support acceptance voting. You can vote for as many people as you want, that you feel are acceptable to you. Whoever gets the most votes wins. Wouldn't that, by definition, give you majority rule?

@KaptinKool:
Personally, I am hoping for another Teddy Roosevelt right now. Where would he sit? Even in his time, he was opposed by the entire power structure, which is why he didn't get elected through the front door, so to say. The corporations in power, don't want someone that is going to push them around. Mostly, I would argue that the left-right economic scale could have people anywhere on the line from about half to the left and half to the right. Now, you can respond with "well, Bush is to the right of that". You were saying the effective and realistic leadership. That is not what existed under Bush.

As for the other direction, well, anyone elected to government would probably be slightly towards the authoritarian. Hopefully, they wouldn't be too far. I mean, I personally feel that the US government was moved disturbingly far in that direction during the Bush presidency. I would probably say anyone above Sarkozy is too high. I don't actually know the in depth policies of a few of these, though I know who they all are. I may be too charitable. I know Silvio Berlusconi is too high. Now, I am not saying these people won't get elected, especially when they have a lot of money behind them. I am just saying that they are kind of scary.

@Tantris - Clearly you are an American; I think it is important to remind you yet again that I am speaking to the Canadian Parliamentary system (which I am very well versed in, and your criticism of my political knowledge it starting to be offensive) where without first past the polls (in a 5 party system) we would never have a majority. The U.S. is effectively a 2-Party System and I have not commented to proportional representation in the U.S. at all (although it doesn't really matter in a 2-Party System).

Secondly I would need to see that poll about Ralph Nader, because almost all Republicans would have preferred Al Gore over Ralph Nader because Nader is considerably more left wing and is traditionally hated by traditionalists ever since his seat belt campaign. That in sequence with the state by state Electoral College system that we see in the states would have almost certainly given Al Gore the victory by a long shot (seeing as he had 48.4% of first choice to begin with). If anything with proportional representation the 1992 would have either seen G.H.W. Bush's 2nd term or possibly (though it is a long stretch) President Ross Perot (right-wingers took 56.4% of that popular vote).

As for Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism, I agree with you that the chart is somewhat skewed and if we saw some major Swedish or Austrian parties the results might be different. However on the Right/Left scale I think that the right side is realistic, not because it is right wing, but because social issues require a moderate stance and that is what the right side represents. Even pro-lifers and pro-gay marriage proponents end up on that side; it is not an extreme boundary its pretty broad. The reason is that when a politician is very divisive on social issues they can usually never get elected, and when they do it usually causes dissection to a degree.

Heck, Hitler got elected - getting elected doesn't prove anything about how effective of a leader they are.

That doesn't really address any of the points I brought up

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

My main point is that although I am a right winger, I understand that effective leadership governs from the centre and only slightly towards their ideology.

@KaptinKool:
Actually, the Republican party has used divisive social issues to create us-vs-them narratives that actually ends up causing a section of "true believers" on their side. If you can attach the division to nationalism or religion, you can also attack those on the other side at the same time.

The issues you mentioned end up being the common view of politicians because the Overton Window has been pushed far in that direction. Fox News and talk radio push constantly right. CNN tried to be balanced and is now a joke. MSNBC and, as crazy as this is, the Daily Show has actually pushed back a little bit in the last couple years. This drumbeat towards the right has been going on ever since Reagan. Free Market capitalism is the only talked about solution to problems. Government deregulation is still the thing to do. These are shown to have actually lead to the banking crisis.

Right/Left is economic. I would expect more deviation on that. As for up/down, pretty much every politician should be the exact center or a small deviation from it. As I said, I may agree that it would be more up, as much as I wish it wasn't far at all. You get very far up though, and scary things happen.

Strange that you would mention pro-gay marriage and pro-life, which are strangely on opposite sides of the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale.

@KaptinKool:
I can not find the poll. Perhaps I am misremembering from some random article I read. It has been a really long time. Acceptance voting, Condorcet, or IRV would be much better in the American system. As for your statement about Bush senior/Perot/Clinton, you are right. As Gore would have been elected in 2000. Those are the choice of the most people, and they should be the winner.

If we did include Sweden or some of the other countries in that region, we would see more left, on the economic scale. I imagine that we would see more libertarian as well. Switzerland just pushed back on America over the banking information. Seems pretty protective of customers privacy.

@Trantris:

The banking crisis was a mix of overregulation by clinton followed by deregulation by Bush. Clinton forced banks to give out loans to NINJA's (No Income, No Job's or Assets), this is a risk that banks should not be forced to take. Before that banks normally required a absolute minimum of 10% down on very cheap mortgages only, usually 25% on anything substantial. Also I admit they were deregulated too much but had Clinton's regulation not been in place they would have never assumed the subprime risk.

The other misconception about the baking crisis is that it was bad. Recessions are how Capitalism compensates for rapid growth and bad market decisions. If you let poorly structured companies such as GM die, they will be replaced with innovative startup, but the U.S. has decided to bail their auto industry out multiple time, hence American cars are poor quality. The same goes for banking, had more banks been allowed to fail smaller Credit Unions and local banks would have replaced them and the U.S. banking system would be much healthier (after a short downfall).

Recessions are "market tools" to weed out bad companies and allow innovation in the market, bailouts however perpetrate monopolies and prop up poor companies (GM) which will still need to be bailed out 20 years from now.

Also you are right, I meant pro-choice.

And as for "divide and conquer" politics, I am not favouring this. My main point has consistently been:

POLITICIANS HAVE TO RULE FROM THE CENTRE TOWARDS THEIR IDEOLOGY!

I have never said that I think that Republicans methods are good, I am just a right-winger. I also believe that Democrats play just as dirty as Republicans, and U.S. campaigns are rarely about issues.

Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46

Prop up poor companies like, Bank of America, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, AIG...

If they had improper financial structures (which they did) and they had been allowed to suffer (let their books take a hit) it would have driven the point home. Now banks "know" that there is no point in not assuming huge risk because if you do you just get bailed out because you are "too big to fail".

Just saying, I find the propping up of those much more offensive than the propping up of GM.

I don't, they are all equally bad. GM should have gone full on Cp. 7 in the 80's.

Nationalise the lot of 'em.