Where do you consider yourself politically (Poll)

[StatGuy2000]

Ditto, but most liberals would probably disagree that I'm an environmentalist...which is fine, because I tend to disagree that they are.

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

As an example, consider the following Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/

This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it's about accepting the scientific method and scientific evidence.

 

[Dembadon]

 

[StatGuy2000]

My political compass (caveat: I agree with Ryan above that the questions lack nuance, so I don't feel that the questions in Evo's link accurately capture my political orientation).

 

[russ_watters]

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

[Thanks for the compliment]
The way I see it, both sides are similarly hostile to science, particularly when it comes to environmentalism - the left just pretends not to be, whereas the right is open about their hostility. The basis of my above statement:

Which is more damaging to the environment:
1. A Republican who favors coal, fracking and nuclear power and believes Global Warming is a conspiracy?
2. A democrat who favors solar and wind and vehemently opposes nuclear power and fracking?

The irony is that the environmentalist on the left favors preventing global warming, but takes positions that cause it to get worse, while the anti-science Republican denies global warming, but takes actions to fix it!

You might argue - and I agree - that the Religious Right is more specifically hostile toward science than any other group (extreme environmentalists tend to believe science is on their side, Republicans openly acknowledge they do not like science), but a lot of those issues are relatively low impact. Ie, which is a bigger issue, global warming or brain death? Or stem cells? And ironically, both extremes include opposition to vaccines.

 

[Intrastellar]

That was not done on purpose

 

[Czcibor]

Big boxes, not little boxes. People want to be unique: they want their own little box, not to be collected into the same big box as everyone else.

Problem is that people may feel annoyed if put boxes scaled for a different country.

For example - do you support constitutional monarchy, Russ? No? So in this case for quiz scaled for United Kingdom you would for that question be marked as "radical left wing". A few more questions, like whether you support idea of state church or upper chamber of parliament with hereditary peers, and you'd discover being by British standards centrist, at best.

My perception with discussions like this is that because people don't like to be put in big boxes, they argue against them instead of just answering the question as best they can. Like it or not, though, people get put in boxes all the time -- they must be in order to analyze group beliefs. Or, to vote in an election: An election is almost literally putting yourself (your vote) into a box.

When I answered this quiz a year ago I got in the centre. Does it mean that I'm so centrist, or just they are not asking me questions in which I'd give very radical answers, because, based on their US-centric view, no-one shares such views?

Classically, liberalism is essentially synonomous with "personal freedom", including private property ownership. But as the wiki on the political spectrum points out, modern liberals (in general) favor social freedom, but oppose economic freedom (private property). And vice versa for conservatives. That's why tax rates are higher in more "liberal" countries. So in that way, the current usage of the word "liberal" doesn't match the original meaning -- it's just a label for the box. But in my googling for information about European political parties, it appears to me that the usage by the OP and in the US is the accepted usage in Europe too, so I don't understand why you are arguing this. Liberal, socialist, democrat, progressive: these are all related/linked ideologies on the left side of the political spectrum, differing largelly in degree, and often put under a "socialist" umbrella (just like the right side is put under a "capitalist" umbrella, highlighting the two extremes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists

OK, you are teaching us American unique feature. In Europe, when someone calls himself liberal, that should be translated to American English as "soft line libertarian". If someone in Poland calls himself "liberał" it means that he wants to lower taxes and slash safety net.

 

[WWGD]

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

As an example, consider the following Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/

This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it's about accepting the scientific method and scientific evidence.

To be fair, there is anti-science on the left, with anti-vexxers, radical feminists and Wiccans, etc. Embarrassingly- enough, a good chunk of the country is anti- intellectual, or at least ignorant on the basics of science, evidence, basic statistics and the scientific method.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To be fair, there is anti-science on the left, with anti-vexxers, radical feminists and Wiccans, etc. Embarrassingly- enough, a good chunk of the country is anti- intellectual, or at least ignorant on the basics of science, evidence, basic statistics and the scientific method.

I concede that there are anti-science elements on the left, including the anti-vaccine activists (although from what I gather, the anti-vaccine activists doesn't appear to be particularly found more heavily among Democrats than Republicans -- this is a bipartisan anti-science movement), radical feminists who regard science as being anti-female, Wiccans, etc. But from my reading of it, these anti-science elements are very much part of the fringe, and no Democratic candidate, at least in recent years, have ever openly supported positions (as far as I'm aware of) that was truly contrary to scientific evidence. Certainly no Democrat has ever been openly opposed to or reject evolution, as one particular example.

I fully agree with you that an embarrassingly large chunk of the US population is anti-intellectual and ignorant of the basics of science, evidence, and the scientific method, of which the strong influence of Christian fundamentalism and the poor quality of science education in public K-12 schools in many parts of the country are to at least partly to blame.

 

[BobG]

economic= -3.63 social= -2.62

Moderate.

Different questions and slightly different results from a different one I recently did. The other one I did I was practically right smack dab in the center (+1 economic and -0.5 social).

The selection and wording of the questions can have an effect on a person's results. I don't have a particular ideology that guides my decisions. I tend toward a more pragmatic view with each situation viewed individually. I think the questions tend to be worded to reflect current arguments (vs a more historic view of issues). For example, saying the rich should be taxed more than average wage earners probably earns me a "liberal" rating in today's world, while the historic issue hasn't been whether tax rates should be higher for rich people - it's should the rich be taxed more than half their income.

But, the link probably reflects where I stand in today's environment. Views that would have been considered "conservative" 30 years ago get you booted out of the Republican Party today.

Evo's link provides a better picture than a one dimensional line. I still think it needs a third axis, though, for foreign policy.

(I should draw this. I actually ordered 3-dimensional paper last time my work asked for supply orders. They rejected me the first time, because I wrote 3-dimensional paper on the requisition sheet. I had to call it "isometric bond paper" in order to get them to buy me some. Now that I got the supply guys at work to actually buy me 3-dimensional paper, I need to find a way to use it. Hmm, maybe I can draw 3 red lines.)

 

[tom aaron]

I concede that there are anti-science elements on the left, including the anti-vaccine activists (although from what I gather, the anti-vaccine activists doesn't appear to be particularly found more heavily among Democrats than Republicans -- this is a bipartisan anti-science movement), radical feminists who regard science as being anti-female, Wiccans, etc. But from my reading of it, these anti-science elements are very much part of the fringe, and no Democratic candidate, at least in recent years, have ever openly supported positions (as far as I'm aware of) that was truly contrary to scientific evidence. Certainly no Democrat has ever been openly opposed to or reject evolution, as one particular example.

I fully agree with you that an embarrassingly large chunk of the US population is anti-intellectual and ignorant of the basics of science, evidence, and the scientific method, of which the strong influence of Christian fundamentalism and the poor quality of science education in public K-12 schools in many parts of the country are to at least partly to blame.

I need some category of 'Scientific pragmatist'.

I dislike Conservative neanderthalism and equally dislike Liberal anti-science political correctness.

To blame in the USA?...lots to go around: Christian fundamentalism but also liberal anti-Nature mediocrity. Censorship at both ends of the spectrum.

 

[Tosh5457]

Here's mine

Could you please provide an example of such an economic policy by Social-Democrats that could be considered free market? Frankly, what I tend to see from people on the left side of the spectrum is that they consider outcome to be freedom, and it really isn't.

Sure, I can give plenty of examples from my country. In Portugal the Social-Democrats, who are the majority in the coalition with the People's Party, and clearly more right-wing than them, are applying many necessary cuts in government spending, privatizing public companies (even too many unfortunately, like the ones on monopoly sectors), reducing global corporate tax rates, reducing tax rates for exporting companies, renegotiating public contracts made by the previous socialist government to save tax payers money in useless spending, and so on...

 

[Bystander]

9: None of the above (Disgusted)

 

[Czcibor]

By occasion my stats:

Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77

So (allegedly) centrist.

(when I was younger I used to be simply right wing)

 

[micromass]

Here's mine:

 

[micromass]

[Thanks for the compliment]
The way I see it, both sides are similarly hostile to science, particularly when it comes to environmentalism - the left just pretends not to be, whereas the right is open about their hostility. The basis of my above statement:

Which is more damaging to the environment:
1. A Republican who favors coal, fracking and nuclear power and believes Global Warming is a conspiracy?
2. A democrat who favors solar and wind and vehemently opposes nuclear power and fracking?

The irony is that the environmentalist on the left favors preventing global warming, but takes positions that cause it to get worse, while the anti-science Republican denies global warming, but takes actions to fix it!

You might argue - and I agree - that the Religious Right is more specifically hostile toward science than any other group (extreme environmentalists tend to believe science is on their side, Republicans openly acknowledge they do not like science), but a lot of those issues are relatively low impact. Ie, which is a bigger issue, global warming or brain death? Or stem cells? And ironically, both extremes include opposition to vaccines.

Sure, you are correct that both Republicans as Democrats are hostile to environmentalism. That does answer why you prefer not to identify as a Democrat on these issues, but not why you like to identify as a Republican? Why just identify as neither? Do you believe that you must identify as one or another?

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, you are correct that both Republicans as Democrats are hostile to environmentalism. That does answer why you prefer not to identify as a Democrat on these issues, but not why you like to identify as a Republican? Why just identify as neither? Do you believe that you must identify as one or another?

That's not what I said. I said that they are hostile to science when it comes to environmentalism. But to answer the questions:
1. Yes, I believe I must identify as one or the other.
2. Republican policies, while based on anti-science views, produce better scientific results on key parts of this issue*. That's deliciously ironic, but the point to me is that the policy itself is what matters, not the philosophy behind it.

*I'm specifically referring to global warming/carbon emissions. I consider it the most significant environmentalist issue today. However, I also consider GM/organic food to be an issue of considerable importance.

 

[russ_watters]

But from my reading of it, these anti-science elements are very much part of the fringe, and no Democratic candidate, at least in recent years, have ever openly supported positions (as far as I'm aware of) that was truly contrary to scientific evidence. Certainly no Democrat has ever been openly opposed to or reject evolution, as one particular example.

I can't tell if the word "open" is the key word in that passage (you said it twice, so...) but to me it is more important that they support scientifically sound policies than that they say the like or dislike science. I'm more of a "where the rubber meets the road" guy and I don't find it particularly relevant whether a person's anti-science views are "open" or covert.

 

[William White]

Some questions were a bit dodgy.

Left -8.88
Libertarian -3.59

 

[OmCheeto]

My score:
View attachment 86317

Anyone else thrown by this question?
"Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries."

What does that even mean? Sounds hippie, so I said "strongly disagree".

I believe we discussed this at one point or another. Ah ha! Young Om on the downsides of Globalization [PF] 1/1/2008

Looking back over it though, it looks as though the multinationals lost most of the law suits.
But I selected "strongly agree", based on the memory.

ps. Here's my new and improved leanings:

Anyone know how to find the old ones? I have a feeling that I'm moving to the right and up, as I pro/regress into my senior years.

 

[StatGuy2000]

That's not what I said. I said that they are hostile to science when it comes to environmentalism. But to answer the questions:
1. Yes, I believe I must identify as one or the other.
2. Republican policies, while based on anti-science views, produce better scientific results on key parts of this issue*. That's deliciously ironic, but the point to me is that the policy itself is what matters, not the philosophy behind it.

*I'm specifically referring to global warming/carbon emissions. I consider it the most significant environmentalist issue today. However, I also consider GM/organic food to be an issue of considerable importance.

russ, I'm curious as to why you feel you must identify as either a Democrat or a Republican. If the issue is based on the particular policy concerned (btw, I am skeptical of your claim that Republican policies actually produce better scientific results on key parts of the issues you raise, to the extent that these policies are actually Republican issues as opposed to issues with bipartisan support, but that's a separate argument), then wouldn't it be more logical to consider yourself an independent, and support or oppose a given policy based on their merits, regardless of which political party that policy originated from? Why do you feel you need to align yourself to a particular political party?

Even though I identify myself as largely left-of-centre in my political views, I am first and foremost an independent. I am not a member of any political party, either in Canada or the US (I'm a dual citizen living in Canada, and hence can vote in both Canadian & American elections), and I support a given political party based on a range of views and policies and whether those policies make sense.

 

[Bystander]

Anyone know how to find the old ones

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...al-compass-this-election.648912/#post-4141851

 

[Czcibor]

Or even older?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/where-are-you-on-the-political-compass.57168/

 

[Choppy]

Much like others I have a difficult time answering questions like this.

On some issues I lean right. On other issues I lean left. It's not because I sit on the fence. I have strong opinions about certain things, but I like to think that I am open enough to be swayed by an accumulation of evidence.

I really didn't like that quiz that Evo posted because I felt that for a lot of the questions my answer was very dependent on the specific wording. For example, I rarely if ever believe in absolutes when it comes to politics and yet many of the questions seemed to be worded that way.

 

[zoobyshoe]

russ, I'm curious as to why you feel you must identify as either a Democrat or a Republican. If the issue is based on the particular policy concerned (btw, I am skeptical of your claim that Republican policies actually produce better scientific results on key parts of the issues you raise, to the extent that these policies are actually Republican issues as opposed to issues with bipartisan support, but that's a separate argument), then wouldn't it be more logical to consider yourself an independent, and support or oppose a given policy based on their merits, regardless of which political party that policy originated from? Why do you feel you need to align yourself to a particular political party?

Even though I identify myself as largely left-of-centre in my political views, I am first and foremost an independent. I am not a member of any political party, either in Canada or the US (I'm a dual citizen living in Canada, and hence can vote in both Canadian & American elections), and I support a given political party based on a range of views and policies and whether those policies make sense.

I don't get it either. I find Russ' insistence that people should try to fit themselves into the best possible choice, even if that's the lesser of all evils, to be eccentric:

Big boxes, not little boxes. People want to be unique: they want their own little box, not to be collected into the same big box as everyone else...

My perception with discussions like this is that because people don't like to be put in big boxes, they argue against them instead of just answering the question as best they can. Like it or not, though, people get put in boxes all the time -- they must be in order to analyze group beliefs. Or, to vote in an election: An election is almost literally putting yourself (your vote) into a box...

You can't argue your way out of a box by arguing about the label. We could easily re-name them "Box 1" and "Box 2" if that would help, but it doesn't change anything so it should not be necessary......but still your problem and not the poll's. Everyone needs to average their own views and weigh them against the choices in this poll and actual elections and pick the closest fit.

But sometimes these are the wrong boxes...

...which does not preclude answering the poll.

When I posted the infamous "buggered" question (post #31), Russ ignored all his own above rationalizations and declined to pick a category for himself, despite the fact he doesn't seem to have left anyone a good reason for questioning any poll.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get it either. I find Russ' insistence that people should try to fit themselves into the best possible choice, even if that's the lesser of all evils, to be eccentric:

When I posted the infamous "buggered" question (post #31), Russ ignored all his own above rationalizations and declined to pick a category for himself, despite the fact he doesn't seem to have left anyone a good reason for questioning any poll.

Actually, I missed that post, but I don't get the relevance. No one is trying to trick or trap anyone here, though I definitely agree that people are reacting as if they are being trapped!

I really don't get this either. Don't you people vote? How do you avoid - almost literally - placing yourself in a box? But to be a bit more specific:

I'm curious as to why you feel you must identify as either a Democrat or a Republican... then wouldn't it be more logical to consider yourself an independent, and support or oppose a given policy based on their merits, regardless of which political party that policy originated from? Why do you feel you need to align yourself to a particular political party?

Even though I identify myself as largely left-of-centre in my political views, I am first and foremost an independent. I am not a member of any political party, either in Canada or the US (I'm a dual citizen living in Canada, and hence can vote in both Canadian & American elections), and I support a given political party based on a range of views and policies and whether those policies make sense.

There's two reasons, one legal and one practical:
1. I vote in Pennsylvania and in Pennsylvania, you must be registered to a political party in order to vote in that party's primary elections. Some people (my parents have done it, but I haven't) switch their party registry when they see a primary election they consider important and want to vote in it.

2. What you are saying implies you think I always vote Republican. I don't, but I usually do. So as a matter of practical reality, that makes me a Republican. Frankly, I think a great many people who self-identify as "independent" are just not self aware or are too belligerant regarding the "boxes" issue to accept what they are. Just look at the poll above: a full 50% voted for "moderate" or "none of the above", when the reality is that for those who took the quiz, the swing is pretty solidly to the left:
Very Right: 0
Right: 4
Middle: 1
Left: 1
Very Left: 4

I assume some of the disconnect is due to people who are so very far left that they labeled themselves "none of the above" because "very liberal" wasn't far enough left to capture them.

You guys almost sound mad that I'm not on your team (or just that I'm on the Republican team), which is flattering, I guess, but remember: we've only talked about one issue here: how the parties interact with science. As you should all be well aware, my views on economic freedom are very solidly Republican, and economics is basically half of what government is about.

By the way, "eccentric": (of a person or their behavior) unconventional and slightly strange.
This is a few years old, but in 2012, a record high, 42%, self-identified as "independent" (in 2005, it was an equal 33%, 33%, 33%).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

It is my perception that people are either not self-aware enough to know where they fit or just don't like being put in boxes, so they purposely falsely self-label, but either way, that leaves 57% who self-identify as Democrat or Republican. So no, my position on the issue of whether to self-identify as the closest to me even if it doesn't exactly fit is not "eccentric", it's the majority position. Yours is the "unconventional" position.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Actually, I missed that post, but I don't get the relevance. No one is trying to trick or trap anyone here, though I definitely agree that people are reacting as if they are being trapped!

Not trapped so much as shoehorned into a box that is not a good fit, all in the service of someone else's purposes:

The person asking a question is the one who gets to decide what is most important to him/her (what s/he wants to know).

Everyone has to wonder what the person making the poll is up to and whether they want to participate in that agenda.

I think it's eccentric of you to suppose all polls are fine. They're actually very hard to compose properly, something I know from having tried it here, from seeing other people's attempts get picked to pieces here (usually justifiably) and from encountering polls in real life that left me baffled, unable to pick an answer.

It's not all that hard to call yourself one thing or another for voting purposes because you're not stuck to it in the actual voting. If people were required to vote a party line all the way through the ballot, I think then there'd be a lot of objection to it.

 

[russ_watters]

Not trapped so much as shoehorned into a box that is not a good fit, all in the service of someone else's purposes:

Everyone has to wonder what the person making the poll is up to and whether they want to participate in that agenda.

Are you serious? Again, don't you vote? I find it ridiculous that you assume a nefarious motive behind what could not be a more mundane question! If I ask you your favorite color or your favorite movie, would you assume I am trying to trick you into revealing racism? Jeez, get a grip! Clearly, the OP was curious what peoples' political afiliations are. The audacity!

I think it's eccentric of you to suppose all polls are fine.

I've never said anything of the sort.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Are you serious? Again, don't you vote?

Yes, I'm serious, and I answered the second question in the last sentence of #61.

I find it ridiculous that you assume a nefarious motive behind what could not be a more mundane question!

Every poll has an agenda. The potential participant should wonder what it is and whether or not they want to participate. I certainly did not say the OP had a nefarious agenda, nor am I saying political polls have a nefarious agenda. I am saying they have an agenda, and it's perfectly O.K. to wonder what it might be and question whether you want to participate. The same is true of non-political polls.

A paucity of choices, in my mind, can be an indicator that the designer of the poll is, consciously or not, limiting potential responses in order to shoehorn the responses into being evidence to confirm some bias, some thing they already believe. I think Vanadium's objection was a good one: if the boxes seem wrong for you, don't participate. In a mercenary vein, a poll may be exclusively about collecting demographic information for marketing. My favorite color and movie along with a few other inocuous-seeming tidbits might get me flooded with irritating spam.

On the other hand, someone's agenda might be pure curiosity. Not all agendas are bad, but everything you said about polls seems to add up to the notion that all polls are perfectly above board. That is: you contradicted every reservation anyone posted about polls.

 

[William White]

really don't get this either. Don't you people vote? How do you avoid - almost literally - placing yourself in a box?

I vote for the party that best, or most, represents my views.

What does not happen is that I am told what my views are, and if I disagree it is my fault and not the polls.

So no, I do not vote liberal because somebody tells me I am a liberal.

If I ask you your favorite color or movie

Yes, if you ask
red
blue
or
otheror
Horror
Comedy

That is a flawed poll, especially, if you try to rationalise it by suggesting that , say orange, is so close to red, then the answer for someone whose favourite colour is orange, is in fact red. Or if somebody liked action films...etc..

The poll is severly flawed, and it says more about the bias if the pollster than the voters. The bias is because it ignores one of the largest political movements in the world.

The trick to getting a good poll to find out what people really want is to ask the correct question(s)

edit: zooby just said effectively what I was thinking.

 

[William White]

They're actually very hard to compose properly,

This

The same question can be framed is many ways.

The wording

The order of options can make a difference.

It is why most democracies have electoral commissions to ensure that the question is as unbiased as possible. There are lots of arguments about how exactly to make a question as unloaded as possible. And that is difficult to do because we all take a bias to the table.

The question for the upcoming UK referendum on membership of the EU is a prime example.

Some people wanted a In/Out question
Some wanted a Yes/No question

Another good example is the clarity act in Canada.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yes, I'm serious, and I answered the second question in the last sentence of #61.

Every poll has an agenda. The potential participant should wonder what it is and whether or not they want to participate. I certainly did not say the OP had a nefarious agenda, nor am I saying political polls have a nefarious agenda. I am saying they have an agenda, and it's perfectly O.K. to wonder what it might be and question whether you want to participate. The same is true of non-political polls.

A paucity of choices, in my mind, can be an indicator that the designer of the poll is, consciously or not, limiting potential responses in order to shoehorn the responses into being evidence to confirm some bias, some thing they already believe. I think Vanadium's objection was a good one: if the boxes seem wrong for you, don't participate. In a mercenary vein, a poll may be exclusively about collecting demographic information for marketing. My favorite color and movie along with a few other inocuous-seeming tidbits might get me flooded with irritating spam.

On the other hand, someone's agenda might be pure curiosity. Not all agendas are bad, but everything you said about polls seems to add up to the notion that all polls are perfectly above board. That is: you contradicted every reservation anyone posted about polls.

If you are stating whether I have an agenda, yes, I have an agenda -- to get a snapshot of the political beliefs/philosophies/tendencies/voting preferences of the participants of PF. I suppose my real interest is the political alignments of those who work in the STEM field overall, but I acknowledge that the participants of PF are not necessarily a representative sample of those who work in the field. This poll is purely for my own curiosity (and hopefully the curiosity of others on PF), and one shouldn't read any more into this than any other poll conducted here.

You mention about the paucity of choices -- keep in mind the following:

(1) I'm not a professional pollster, not am I an expert in political science, sociology, or psychology. Even though I'm trained in statistics, many statistics graduates are not especially well-trained in the development of polls (including those about political preferences). So I presented this poll in a scale that seems to be the most intuitive (to me) about how to ask about political preferences (on the left-right spectrum). If there are ways that I could present these polls in a manner that you, Vanadium or William White, feel would better capture the political preferences, then please, suggest them to me.

(2) Also, PF has only a limited capacity in terms of the # of poll options. Keep that in mind when criticizing me about the way the poll is designed.

 

[William White]

If there are ways that I could present these polls in a manner that you, Vanadium or William White, feel would better capture the political preferences, then please, suggest them to me.

(2) Also, PF has only a limited capacity in terms of the # of poll options. Keep that in mind when criticizing me about the way the poll is designed.

I've said quite clearly that there is not an option for "socialist" or even "leftist".

A quick google on the difference between socialism and liberalism might have helped?

Socialism is one of the biggest poitical movements in the world, and has been ignored.

That's fair enough, if you want to resrict your poll.

But why not restrict it by removing the option of liberal? or conservative? or moderate (whatever that means)

 

[Bystander]

I've said quite clearly that there is not an option for "socialist" or even "leftist".
A quick google on the difference between socialism and liberalism might have helped?
Socialism is one of the biggest poitical movements in the world, and has been ignored.
That's fair enough, if you want to resrict your poll.
But why not restrict it by removing the option of liberal? or conservative? or moderate (whatever that means)

SG2k's poll, SG2k's choices. He might not really care what distinctions socialists and liberals and leftists wish to draw amongst themselves. What you insist is a "movement" might be seen by others as an attitude.

 

[William White]

Well, if the pollster choses to make their own distinctions, what's the point of the poll?

What "others might see" is irrelevent, if the purpose of the poll is to find what someone's views are! You may as well not ask them?

A loaded poll is a flawed poll. The joint-second most popular answer (at the moment) is none of the above. So the pollster has no idea where these people stand!

Even your post shows a basic misunderstanding, "distinctions amongst themselves". That's a very miopic wrong headed view of things."What you insist is a "movement" might be seen by others as an attitude."
They are words that add no meaning to the debate.Why is conservative an option?When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[Tobias Funke]

I think even "moderate" is too vague. I see a lot of "both sides are just as bad" false equivalences on PF where a poster pretending to be a rational observer disgusted with both "extremes" is very much choosing a side. Reading their posts is a much more accurate way of labeling them than just asking them.