Yeah I’m 67% Women’s Equality Party!
It said I’m:
67% Women’s Equality (?)
64% Peace and Freedom (?)
56% Socialist
53% Democratic
53% Green
44% Republican
44% Libertarian
44% Constitution
The first 5 on that list are “Big Government”, which I am not in favor of, and I’m not in favor of Socialism in reality. In theory it could be ok but I don’t see how it could work with the weakness of man.
All in all I’m not sure I believe that quiz but it does show my beliefs are all over.
I came out Constitution, Libertarian, Democratic, Women’s Equality and Republican. :smack:
Me - 77-78% Green, Women’s Equality, Dem, Soc.
Sorry, but since the US Constitution says nothing about marriage, I’m going to have to ask you to explain how “original intent” is inconsistent with “marry whomever”.
As to the OP. I’m going to guess that you are a member of the Littleman Mustache Party.
Not sure how the original Constitution could be read to support marriage of a white person to 3/5 of a black person.
Moreover, since the Constitution is silent as to same sex marriage, an “original intent” advocate would support all types of state limits on same.
Huh. I got 78% Women’s Equality and 76% Socialist. Of the major parties, 75% Democratic, 50% Libertarian, 37% Republican.
I find those results a bit odd. I tend to be score more libertarian and much less socialist on these sorts of quizzes, typically ending up strongly libertarian on social issues, and right on the middle for economic issues. Like when I read the OP’s political views, I find myself much more in common with him than not.
Let’s say that there are 20 or so relatively independent political variables. Just for sake of argument. Mapping all the possibilities of that multidimensional political space onto 2 or 3 party label outcomes results in a mess.
I like the idea of “How important is this to you?” But I didn’t see how to enter the code. Browser problem?
You might find this political compass interesting as it doesn’t try to slot you into a party and goes beyond the narrow US models of left and right
It does chart the US parties in a few elections, and the explanations and FAQs provide important context.
Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple, at least when it comes to national-level US politics. I’m a registered democrat. I’d say my view is closer to D than R on about 80% of issues, which is sufficient for me to happily identify as a democrat without constantly having to throw out qualifiers and addenda and so forth.
Nonetheless, I can certainly imagine an election in which I thought that the Republican candidate was just better, more qualified, more sensible, less corrupt, more in-agreement-with-me, than the Dem candidate.
Unfortunately, for any of the prominent federal positions (prez, senator, congressman), there are ripple effects which would make it VERY hard for me not to vote for the democrat. In congress, the party that has control of congress is MASSIVE, as we have seen with the reign of awfulness of Mitch McConnell. Even a GOP candidate who I greatly respected would, assuming they are GOP enough to be running as a GOP candidate, caucus for McConnell as majority leader. That’s a MASSIVE factor, quite possibly as large a negative (from my perspective) as whatever benefit I would get from having a senator who I genuinely liked and respected.
As for presidents, there’s the issue of supreme court justices. Now, I agree that that’s not 100% a slam dunk. If there was a candidate who I thought was a revolutionary thinker who identified as GOP but basically had a unique and personal political philosophy, which I thought was super awesome, then maybe he would nominate SC justices who followed his own political philosophy. But in the much more likely case of “sure, candidate A is a dem and candidate B is GOP, but candidate A is lackluster and corrupt, and candidate B is brilliant and I totally respect them”, the fact that candidate B is still nearly certain to nominate conservative justices, and the longlasting effect of that, means that I would still likely vote for the democratic candidate.
And, frankly, I think that’s a shame. I think it’s a weakness of our system. I can certainly see the original intent of the checks-and-balances and entwinements between the prez and congress and the SC (SC nominations, having to sign laws, vetoing), but it does make it VERY hard for me to not vote for someone of “my” party. And it’s not because I’m a mindless team-playing sheeple, it’s because that’s what the system motivates me to do.
Probably about right …though I’m guessing here maybe more than you are since half of that I never heard of until now.
When I did it it took a while after the page appeared to be loaded before it would let me highlight a dot for that option.
It basically just always confused me.
Everybodies a Dem or a republican and I see so many people Hardline that and choose a team while I never could.
That’s why I kind of like the whole second chance voting model.
First pick, second pick if your first pick is so far under the competition you could choose who your vote would go to.
I think it would fluidize the party system a bit more , people wouldn’t worry they were throwing away their vote on a third party so you’d get some winners and eventually a sizeable enough third party or group of other in office that we wouldn’t have these political stalemates since you’d have an odd number of parties. Even guarantee the other group would have to be appealed to by the current two in some cases, like tie breakers.
Totally nailed it! That’s my party
The one thing that surprised me was that my highest (Constitution) was only 60% and Democratic/Women’s Equality/Republican all fell within about 5% from 45-40%. I came out grouped a little closer than I would have suspected.
I sympathize with the OP. I don’t fit the radicals that seem to increasingly dominate the two major political parties. I wish we could drop the tribalism and come together to what’s best for the country and the world. In fact I think most Americans would agree about what problems we face and a general direction we should look for the solution.
It’s kind of depressing that we have this unprecedented ability to communicate but we use it to shout at each other, build echo chambers, look at butt cheeks, and gossip about Kardashians. I’d change it if I could, but, like anything worth doing, it wouldn’t be easy and I’ve got shit to do. depressed emoji
The “How Important?” function on that poll seems to be buggy. “Somewhat” was extremely difficult to click–the clickable are seemed to be outside the dot. The other options seemed to work fine.
I like second chance voting for the opposite reason–it will reduce the influence of small parties in close elections and ultimately eliminate them.
Voters’ stances on many issues probably form a bell-curve shape, and America used to have two “big tent” parties that accommodated wide bell curves of opinion. Despite huge political fighting, bipartisan consensuses emerged. Way back in 1900 the D’s supported anti-trust legislation but it was the R, Teddy Roosevelt, who got it passed.
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed with strong bipartisan support. The very next year, the Voting Rights Act was passed, again with bipartisan support.
W.R. Hearst is often shown as an example that Fake News has been around for a long time but, despite all his faults, Hearst was a sincere advocate for the common man. Today’s Fake News is bought and paid for by oligarchs in Russia and kleptocrats right here in the U.S.
There is no easy solution. In today’s political clime, 3rd parties or “independents” will just increase the power of the right-wing kleptocrats.