Political Compass 2015 edition

[Tetchytyke]

It's election time again and the Political Compass have set up a revised version of their little test, measuring where people lie in terms of their politics.

It's an interesting way to spend ten minutes, although I don't know how scientific it really is (not very, I expect).

You can probably guess where on the compass you'll find me though

Mod note - Linky to the test

 

[MidnightFlyer]

This be mine:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=8.63&soc=-6.0

(Further down and towards the centre is where I would place myself personally)

I do wish options existed on those kind of things saying 'None of my business': a lot of my political belief is based on people doing whatever they so wish so long as they do not harm another - like gay marriage *, my opinion doesn't matter since people should be able to do it come what may.

* - I support it FWIW, I'm just using it for argument's sake.

 

[Chapeltom]

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015?name=You&ec=5.0&soc=-6.26 - That's me.

 

[TheEdge]

AAAARGH!

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015?name=You&ec=-3.75&soc=2.1

I'm on the left. Why am I on the left?!!? :cry:

I really expected myself to be up in the top right hand corner. Or at least higher up on authoritarian. I genuinely believe a 1 party system/dictatorship is the best form of government.

 

[BlythPower]

Looks about right...

 

[sprinterguy]

Looks about right...

Mine's fairly similar and is exactly what I expected to find.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourukchart?name=You&ec=-5.5&soc=-3.74

 

[Bletchleyite]

That chart nicely shows we have some huge areas of political view that are essentially unrepresented. Not surprised we have most parties in favour of authoritarianism, though!

Neil

 

[bb21]

You can probably guess where on the compass you'll find me though

You surprise me. You are even more to the right than I am. Then again my results actually surprised me too.

 

[90sWereBetter]

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourukchart?name=You&ec=-6.25&soc=-4.0

Didn't think I was as left wing as the graph shows (bearing in mind I'm fairly apathetic about a lot of things), but hey ho. Slight predicament that I'm close to the Green Party with my views, yet I won't vote for them until they prove they won't turn British motorsport into a backwater, which I fear they would do with legislation about emissions and noise limits.

I am a selfish person sometimes.

 

[ainsworth74]

I must admit my reaction is rather similar to TheEdge as I rather expected to on the right (but I always expected to be heading towards libertarian ) as that's where I'd identify myself personally.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-3.38&soc=-3.74

Which I guess means I should vote for the Greens. Which is, uh, odd as I don't identify with nearly any of their policies whatsoever (for example I'm diametrically opposed to their policies on Trident and defence).

 

[GatwickDepress]

I'm off the chart apparently...

 

[SS4]

Here's mine although an option of apathy would be nice.

Nobody who's read my post history should be surprised at my position which is quite similar to OPs who I tend to agree with on this forum

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

This be mine:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=8.63&soc=-6.0

(Further down and towards the centre is where I would place myself personally)

I do wish options existed on those kind of things saying 'None of my business': a lot of my political belief is based on people doing whatever they so wish so long as they do not harm another - like gay marriage *, my opinion doesn't matter since people should be able to do it come what may.

* - I support it FWIW, I'm just using it for argument's sake.

Gay marriage is a big mistake the Con-Dems made.
They can get "married" and a cival partnership, yet I won't be able to get a cival partnership when I meet the right girl. It is unfair for everyone else who only gets one option yet they get two.
Also it is a distortion of the meaning of marriage which I think has been devalued. It's just an attempt to gain votes.

 

[bb21]

Gay marriage is a big mistake the Con-Dems made.
They can get "married" and a cival partnership, yet I won't be able to get a cival partnership when I meet the right girl. It is unfair for everyone else who only gets one option yet they get two.
Also it is a distortion of the meaning of marriage which I think has been devalued. It's just an attempt to gain votes.

Surely you should be pushing for civil partnerships to be made available to all, regardless of sexual orientation, if your gripe is with the unavailability of it to straight couples, rather than seeing the approval of gay marriage as a mistake?

As to the devaluation of the meaning of "marriage", I will just say that we all have vastly different opinions on this and should probably just respect such differences.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Surely you should be pushing for civil partnerships to be made available to all, regardless of sexual orientation, if your gripe is with the unavailability of it to straight couples, rather than seeing the approval of gay marriage as a mistake?

As to the devaluation of the meaning of "marriage", I will just say that we all have vastly different opinions on this and should probably just respect such differences.

So you'd have no problem in human-animal marriages then? I don't see how that's different. The "couple" in either case will not be able to have kids out of wedlock anyway.

My phone keeps crashing on page 4 of the compass.
I would imagine I'm left and not authoritarian as I believe in Star Trek's political principles.

 

[bb21]

It's nice to know that you compare marriage between two people in love with that between a human being and another species.

 

[Searle]

In the middle which is what I was expecting, I'm not sure at all who to vote for in the next election! My home area is typically Conservative heavy, so I'm not sure how to feel that I'm so far away from them.

I can do nothing but laugh at GrimsbyPacer's comment Comparing gay people to animals is going to win you nothing but people laughing at you.

 

[GatwickDepress]

So you'd have no problem in human-animal marriages then? I don't see how that's different. The "couple" in either case will not be able to have kids out of wedlock anyway.

My phone keeps crashing on page 4 of the compass.
I would imagine I'm left and not authoritarian as I believe in Star Trek's political principles.

The animal comment is beyond ridicule. As for not able to have children, procreation is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Nice to know I'm an animal though. My ex-girlfriend said the same!

But only because I never put the margarine back in the fridge.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So you'd have no problem in human-animal marriages then? I don't see how that's different. The "couple" in either case will not be able to have kids out of wedlock anyway.

Nearing five years and 11,500 posts on here and I have never read such balderdash. Are you for real? How is someone marrying a god damn animal anything like same-sex marriage? The only question that should be asked about the whole same-sex marriage carry-on is why it is anything to do with the government. If two gay people who love each other can find a vicar (or whoever) who will marry them then so be it, that is all that matters. They deserve the right to be together not because the Coalition wish to look cool and modern, but because they are human beings. If anything the hastily-arranged and short-lasting marriages you see from Z-list celebs these days are more of an insult to love and marriage than any homosexual couple who will be together for all eternity will ever be.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Some people can legally marry a goat in India.
It can't be that odd. What I'm saying is you either believe that marriage should be restricted or free. I was just trying to find the extreme, which by the looks of comments many won't except.
But why? What are the acceptable limits?
Best to keep it simple isn't it??

And what does art have to do with political views?
One of the questions was about abstract art. Surely no political party has policies on that.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What are the acceptable limits?

Two legal, consenting, able-minded human beings. Same as for sex, porn and anything else of that genus. Not that hard to define...

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Two legal, consenting, able-minded human beings. Same as for sex, porn and anything else of that genus. Not that hard to define...

Yes that's right. But as we all know laws change.
For example what if the law in future allows siblings marriage?

I would be interested with how MPs faired on this political compass.
I bet some will be put in the wrong party!

 

[radamfi]

I don't see why the state needs to be involved in consensual personal relationships. By all means have a ceremony to celebrate your partnership, and you can tell your friends and family that you are 'married' if you desire, but it should have no bearing on what benefits you get or what tax you pay. People should not be penalised or rewarded for not participating in such partnerships. There should not even be a need for them to be registered. It is silly anyway as such registrations can be dissolved at any time. Laywers benefits enormously from the marriage/divorce industry.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Unsurprisingly I come out somewhere politically close to the Greens, although I don't agree with them on several of their policies like Nuclear Power and removing border controls.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourukchart?name=You&ec=-7.13&soc=-5.23

Personally I think the quiz should gave had a neither agree nor disagree option as some questions I couldn't make my mind upon ether I agreed or disagreed with it in principle.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Unsurprisingly I come out somewhere politically close to the Greens, although I don't agree with them on several of their policies like Nuclear Power and removing border controls.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourukchart?name=You&ec=-7.13&soc=-5.23

Personally I think the quiz should gave had a neither agree nor disagree option as some questions I couldn't make my mind upon ether I agreed or disagreed with it in principle.

Maybe you don't have to select anything?
Edit, you do have to answer all.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Have the questions/ranking algorithm changed, or is it just the positions of the parties on the results graph that've been updated?

I think this is a slightly interesting representation:

That almost no names in the green quadrant are legible was perhaps predictable

 

[ainsworth74]

Have the questions/ranking algorithm changed, or is it just the positions of the parties on the results graph that've been updated?

I believe they review the position of the political parties on their chart periodically as new policies/positions come out.

I think this is a slightly interesting representation:

We really are bunch of lefty looneys on this forum aren't we

 

[PermitToTravel]

Only three of the folk who care to share are righter than me hock:

 

[Abpj17]

Yeah; I'm down in the green too (top right of the cluster though). I've done the test for years and it's stayed broadly consistent. What I did notice this time is pausing a bit longer over the 'free market' questions (for the past year, my job has involved 'competition' stuff). And that for the earlier sections, I tend to answer agree/disagree - because most social/political questions aren't binary. But for sex/religion, I mostly did strongly agree/strongly disagree - but it is a lot more binary.

The parties thing is hopeless when everything is in the top right. There used to be a chart of individuals which is more revealing

 

[SS4]

Have the questions/ranking algorithm changed, or is it just the positions of the parties on the results graph that've been updated?

This is why I am largely disillusioned with politics nowadays. As you can see I am in the bottom left but they're all in the top right