From the quoted link (I’m not sure it’s an article - I wasn’t able to find the byline - it reads more like an editorial) -
Not exactly an unbiased, fact-based piece. 
It is an editorial. Read it this morning in the actual paper. Growled a titch. But then again, I’m one of those nasty conservatives.
For what it’s worth – I took the compass test as a resident of the riding I lived in when I was in Ottawa, and despite the checkmark being closest to the NDP (which is likely where my federal vote would go), it showed me as Liberal.
How does Question 20 inform what party you should vote for?
The question is “Marriage should only be between a man and a woman,” e.g. “do you oppose gay marriage?” But no major political party opposes gay marriage. If you don’t believe me, look it up; no party has any plan to make a change to the law as it stands.
That question can’t intelligently inform your vote at all. Why’s it there?
That’s one of about 1,000 problems with the quiz. I don’t know if it’s biased, but it’s pretty goddamned stupid.
Unsurprisingly, the test put me down as a Liberal, though I wouldn’t vote for a party led by Michael Ignatieff in a million years.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth May proposes high-speed rail between Saskatoon and Regina.
Because if the States can’t push high speed rail for NYC-Washington, we can surely get it for Saskatchewan! This is why we can’t have nice things.
I agree that one seems extreme - I went through the analysis, and it claims that the Conservative policy:
"*The Conservative Party believes that Parliament, through a free vote, and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage. The Conservative Party supports the freedom of religious organizations to determine their own practices with respect to marriage.
A Conservative Government will support legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.*"
The tool seems to determine that to mean that a conservative position is agree.
The biggest problem with the vote compass is, well, the compass. It’s an interesting widget for comparing your own opinions to those of the parties, but that’s not what anyone’s talking about. It’s all “It said I’m a Liberal! No way in hell that that’s accurate!” usually without any details of why they got that assessment. Is it a flaw in how the questions are weighted? Did extreme but opposite answers average out to a moderate position (as was the case for me on the social axis)? Or are some people just unwilling to accept that they agree with a party they dislike more than they assumed?
It would have been better to, instead of a compass, format it as a “blind taste test”, where you answer blindly and are then simply shown how your answers compare to the parties. You can still use the widget that way, but everyone’s gotten distracted by the colourful compass next to the interesting part.
I don’t see how that would be better; I don’t see it as CBC’s job to tell any undecided voters that they’re actually Liberals, which is basically what this Compass is doing (and what any “blind taste test” that is biased the same way would do).
I am assuming that the question is marking you on a degree of social conservatism. You are quite right - none of the parties has an official platform point that indicates any desire to change anything about gay marriage. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s opposition to same-sex marriage is a matter of record, but since the second vote on it in Dec. 2006 he has stated that he doesn’t see reopening it in the future.
That aside, the people who support the abolition of same-sex marriage tend to support the Conservative party. Partly because of that support, and partly because Prime Minister Stephen Harper has broken his word on many other issues (he stacked the senate even though he said he wouldn’t, he later used the senate majority to kill bill C-311, which had been approved by the House of Commons, he promised transparency and then was not transparent, etc., etc.) there is a lot of mistrust on the left of what socially conservative policy he will pursue if ever given a majority. I believe the mistrust is entirely justified.
And I repeat what I said earlier to Leaffan - I don’t take this thing any more seriously than I take a Cosmo or a FaceBook quiz. Will this influence anybody’s vote any more than a Conservative attack ad that uses a Fox news approach to facts? I’ve had heated discussions in the dog park with Toronto Sun readers who seem to think that Michael Ignatieff’s ancestors were Russian Counts who came to Canada in silk shirts with chests full of gold coins. And the proof of this assertion? I’ve never seen it. Has anybody?
It seems the height of naivety, to believe this means anything.
I think, with a majority government, everything would be back on the table. I think he’d rescind the abortion laws too, given a majority.
Plus he’s prorogued the government twice, and was found in contempt of parliament.
I’m sorry, that’s too much for me. All of Canada should be afraid of a Conservative Majority Government.
Definitely Russian Counts, but they fled the Bolshies with the shirts on their backs (dunno if they were silk or not).
Iggy’s great granddad was Count Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatyev. The family was a close supporter of the Tsar:
He served in various diplomatic posts.
Iggy’s granddad was Count Pavel Nikolayevich Ignatiev. He was the last Tsarist Minister of Education:
Iggy’s dad, George Ignatieff, took up the family business and served as a diplomat for Canada:
Again, we get into perceptions. I see that as a smart political move, because for him to not make senate appointments when he had the chance, knowing that there was no way at the time to abolish or reform the senate like we need, would have been stupid. We’re not holding politicians to their election promises now, are we? I recall a certain PM Chrétien who bald-facedly lied about repealing the GST.
Well, I don’t think any of those things, and I’m not scared - which of us is right?
AH HA! That explains why I expect him to turn into a bat and flap off into the night at the end of each speech! 
The compass apparently interprets two extreme left and two extreme right answers as equal to four centrist answers. That’s silly, and it wouldn’t happen if the quiz didn’t attempt to compile one’s answers on a compass. Plus, I don’t remember the compass having much in the way of options for weighting the questions; you can only toggle categories on or off. If you only kind of care about day care but really care about the Afghanistan mission, the compass will be a lot less useful to you than a simple readout of where the parties stand on day care compared to your own answer along with a similar readout for Afghanistan.
The “blind taste test” aspect could be useful in dispelling misconceptions people hold about parties. Suppose somebody mistakenly thinks that the Liberals want to pull our troops out of Afghanistan ASAP. Then he takes the quiz and answers “strongly disagree” on the troop withdrawal question. The quiz then tells him “The Conservatives and the Liberals agree with you on this issue, while the NDP and the Green Party disagree with you.”. That could help him make a more informed decision without him feeling like he’s been told how to vote. It would be especially useful for lower profile issues; how many people know off the top of their head where each of the parties stands on the prospect of adopting a carbon tax?
Your pardon, I should have been clearer. The Russian Counts, I do not dispute - that’s established history. It’s the idea that they came to Canada with a lot of wealth, and that Michael Ignatieff has played up (or made up) their poverty that irritates me.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Yes, that would probably be more useful.
You are right about perceptions. I hold it against Prime Minister Harper that I have heard since 1997 that he is the White Knight to bring order, dignity and transparency to the House of Commons and in actual practice, it has been at least as dirty as it always was. In my opinion, it has been much worse.
Yes, I have always held politicians to their election promises, and will continue to do so.
The $64,000. question is - do you respect him for it? Would it allow you to trust him in the future?
In my opinion, PM Stephen Harper is someone who has earned neither my trust nor my respect. So much so that I’m genuinely surprised when I hear other people say they trust him more than Michael Ignatieff.
You’re wrong in your thinking. Brainwashed by the CBC perhaps.
I’m very sorry, Leaffan, I am with elbows on this one. I will not call you ‘brainwashed’ - you have your own beliefs and your own reasons for believing them. I can only repeat what I’ve said before - if Prime Minister Harper had wanted to earn my trust, it would have started with a more conciliatory approach to a minority parliament. His intransigence just indicates to me that he feels that he is right and the rest of the legitimately elected MPs of the opposition parties are wrong. That conviction leads him to use every trick in the book to get his way.
If you are right, Prime Minister, why can you not convince your opposition? Why does the word ‘compromise’ seem to be completely missing from your vocabulary?
I would gladly say this to Stephen Harper’s face as respectfully as I have just put it here, save for the fact that I can’t get within a mile of him in this campaign. Even the press, who are there to ask the hard questions on my behalf, are restricted to 5 questions a day, and kept behind the barrier.
It is not voodoo, it is not the CBC’s magic cheese touch of doom that has restricted him to a minority government in the last two elections - it is the fact that he has done nothing which has changed the minds of those who oppose him.
What I was responding to was this “I think he’d rescind the abortion laws too, given a majority.” No he wouldn’t and there’s no way in hell any politician in Canada will ever touch this issue with a ten foot pole. It ain’t gonna happen. Believe it or not, even the vast majority of Conservative supporters would not want this; yours truly included.
The fact that anyone would even suggest that the Harper Conservatives think this way suggests to me a sort of media brainwashing; it really does amount to that.
You want to talk non-conciliatory prime ministers? Chretien and Trudeau were arrogant pricks, really.
The fact that the Conservatives have only managed to eek out a minority in the last couple of elections is hugely due to the Liberaly biased media in our country. Look at the bias of the Toronto Star, and look at who wins in the 416 area code; there’s a direct correlation here. The CBC is practically campaigning for the Liberals!
Harper is an intelligent conservative and given a majority could possibly be the best prime minister we’ve had in my life time.
Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no Liberal bias whatsoever in the media, it’s just that you’re wrong in your opinions?
I only ask because Mike Duffy, senator and Peter Kent, MP would seem to indicate that there have been at least some conservative fifth columnists in the ‘left-biased media’ for a few years. Is it just that the conspiracy is too inefficient to weed them out?