Where do you consider yourself politically (Poll)

[Bystander]

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

SG2k will or will not clarify that as he sees fit. There is no requirement that he "make" his findings conform to your political views or purposes.

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?

He's not asking you to tell him what your views are. He's asking you to tell him what you want him to believe are your views.

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!

"None of the above." He now knows how many PF members wish to "pose" as special cases, "critical thinkers," or, "rugged individualists." (Yes, I am among that group.) Or, to address your primary concern, "What's in it for you?" Nothing.

"What you insist is a "movement" might be seen by others as an attitude."
They are words that add no meaning to the debate.

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

You call it a movement. I call it an attitude. SG2k hasn't called it anything for purposes of the poll.

Why is conservative an option?

"Conservative" is offered as an alternative to "liberal."

When did you stop beating your wife?

I haven't.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

As PF polls go, I feel very neutral about yours. My only 2 cents in this thread was that I thought Russ' attitude was eccentric. He objected to that, which required me to mention some things that might be wrong with polls. If there is any overlap between what I mentioned might be wrong with a poll and your poll, it is purely coincidental. I wasn't criticizing your poll. But, since you laid out your thoughts, my reaction would be to say you seem have things in perspective.

 

[russ_watters]

...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...

I can answer that and if it turns into a stand-alone conversation, we can just split it.

The miracle that is fracking caught most people by surprise, including me -- and I was trying to pay attention and still missed it! As of 2013, in absolute terms, carbon emissions by the US are down 9% from their peak in 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/us-ghg-emissions.html

This drop is mosty due to fracking for natural gas. Last month, for the first time ever, natural gas supplanted coal as the leading source of electricity in the US:
http://www.usnews.com/news/business...rpasses-coal-as-biggest-us-electricity-source

Here's the electrical generation history since 2005:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data...echart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

Here's the recent US and others' carbon emission history:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...w-more-slowly-in-2012-will-they-ever-decline/

About the best that could be said about the current administration is that they didn't see fracking coming and as a result hasn't been able to stand in the way:

In announcing the new rules, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said current well-drilling regulations are more than 30 years old, "and they simply have not kept pace with the technical complexities of today's hydraulic fracturing operations."

That was only a few months ago.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...artment-fracking-rules-sally-jewell/25101133/

To Obama's credit, I suppose, he didn't try to ban fracking - I'm not sure he even could, but he could have tried - and he got blasted by environmentalists for not trying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ruffalo/stop-fracking_b_3786370.html

The most damning part of this is that "environmentalists" have actually flip-flopped their position on natural gas, because of fracking. Prior to the rise of fracking, they said that natural gas would be a "bridge" to a carbon free economy because it would supplant coal and thus greatly reduce carbon emissions. That's absolutely true, but now that it actually happened, they have started arguing the opposite -- a wrong, anti-science stance:

The national green lobbies initially welcomed shale gas. In 2009, for example, Robert Kennedy Jr., head of the Waterkeeper Alliance, called it “an obvious bridge fuel to the ‘new’ energy economy.” Local environmental activists were not as enthusiastic, arguing that fracking contaminates drinking water and causes other forms of pollution. After a while, some of the national lobbies began to come around to the locals’ side. In the words of the journalist Matt Ridley, “it became apparent that shale gas was a competitive threat to renewable energy.” Josh Fox, director of the anti–natural gas documentary Gasland, put it bluntly on Kennedy’s radio show: “What’s really happening here is not a battle between natural gas and coal. What’s happening here is a battle between another dirty fossil fuel and renewable energy.”

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/22/natural-gas-flip-flop
Renewables have been rising and show no signs (yet) of starting to level-off, but solar is still well under 1% and wind just under 5% (up from 1% in 2007), whereas natural gas is up from about 21% to 30%. It appears to me that having a good solution isn't good enough: it has to be their solution.

As techtonic of a shift fracking has been, it's nothing compared to what nuclear power could have been and the damage caused by "environmentalists'" opposition to nuclear power. How many nuclear plants did "environmentalists" prevent from being built in the US since 1980 due to their activism? Fifty? A hundred? Even one nuclear reactor blocked by "environmentalism", operating for 5 years, would have displaced more carbon dioxide than all of the solar power ever implemented in the US, combined. Three nuclear reactors, if operating since 1985, would have saved more carbon than all of the solar and wind power in the US ever has. Obama tried very hard to support solar power and despite all the hype over the annual triple-digit increases in output, it has amounted to almost nothing altogether. Natural gas and nuclear have done vastly more and nuclear could have done vastly more-er had "environmentalists" just stayed out of the way.

 

[russ_watters]

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

As everyone should.

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.

Who would do that? Who is suggesting that?

The bias is because it ignores one of the largest political movements in the world.

Note, the OP clarified he's from Canada and the poll represents his view of the spectrum based on that. Yes, that makes it a Canadian/North American bias. If that prevents you from adapting to answer it, so be it. However, it has been explained that "very liberal" in the US/Canada is synonomous with the middle to far left end of the spectrum, representing a mild form of socialism. If that's not close enough for you, so be it. Socialism isn't very big in the US/Canada, so yes, that's the bias.

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

Clearly it would have been more universal to just say "left, right and center". I don't think that's a very big flaw since the definition is easily explained (in NA, left=liberal) and people should be able to get over it, but clearly it really upsets some people that their box isn't well represented.

 

[russ_watters]

...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.

That is an ridiculously broad statement considering the limited nature of this disucssion (and, of course, considering that I pointed out the flaw in your suggested poll), but please note that I suggested an improvement to the OP's poll in my second post in the thread:

If we just clarify that these are USA centric definitions and just use "left" and "right" instead, does that help?

I truly find this all very sad. If people won't make an effort to answer the questions of others about their positions, gaining common ground/understanding becomes impossible.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I truly find this all very sad. If people won't make an effort to answer the questions of others about their positions, gaining common ground/understanding becomes impossible.

Here at PF polls seem always to generate discussion about the poll, and it is in objections to the poll that the pollster can learn much about people's positions. I think that's really good. The actual polls end up being two-dimensional compared to the discussions where all the real meat is.

 

[Tosh5457]

Took the test on political compass, the wording on the questions are significantly biased to the left though. One gets the impression that corporations and the establishment are always evil due to the way they phrase it.

 

[FtlIsAwesome]

Interesting, I've become more right since the last time I took this test. And I expected to be lower on the chart.

Edit: As for the thread's poll, I picked none of the above. If I had to decribe myself, I'd say libertarian.

 

[BobG]

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.

CNN does exit polls for each presidential election (which seem to be hard to find right now - perhaps they'll bring the old polls back closer to the election season). The fact that the questions are similar for several elections allows one to compare results.

The number of voters that consider themselves conservative, moderate, or liberal stays pretty consistent.

The number of voters that identify as Republicans, Independents, and Democrats varies. The number of Republicans has dropped, while the number of the Independents has increased. Democrats have fluctuated, with a slight drop, but have essentially remained flat.

So, yes, most "Independents" probably lean to the right. And most of the defectors were probably moderate Republicans, which has helped contribute to a more conservative Republican Party.

Not a great tactical adjustment. It would be better for moderate Republicans to fight it out within the party than to be a left with a choice between an extremely conservative Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate that is probably too liberal for them. But not a horrible result (so far), as the most extreme Republican candidates haven't survived the primaries (yet).

 

[Gaz]

I was going to vote none of the above because politics is a joke but I'm British so wouldn't be voting for any of them anyways =)

 

[William White]

politics is a joke

sad but true (rather politicians are a joke)

will you be voting in the Euro referendum?

it will be an opportunity to get rid of a lot of politicians.

 

[Telemachus]

Every election year we post this *test* it seems to be fairly accurate.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Great. Here its mine :)

 

[DiracPool]

sad but true

The sad fact is that, typically, age scales linearly with political bias; the older you get, the more right you move. At least that's what my experience has been. Me included. When I was younger, I was extremely liberal and "progressive." But those were the days when I had faith in humanity. When you gain some years in wisdom, you see that at the end of the day, it really just boils down to a scramble for resources. There's no honor among thieves, the honorable thieves are selected out very early.

So at the end of the day, you're pitted politically against the good-willed idealism of the liberals versus the staid realism of the conservatives. It is that dynamic clash that drives coeval and coterminous politics.

 

[russ_watters]

The sad fact is that, typically, age scales linearly with political bias; the older you get, the more right you move. At least that's what my experience has been. Me included. When I was younger, I was extremely liberal and "progressive." But those were the days when I had faith in humanity.

I have a number of teacher friends who went the same way. When they started off, they were idealistic, believing all people to be good and any failures to be state-induced. After a few years, they realized most of the failures they saw in their students were parent/culture induced.

 

[brainpushups]

Some loaded questions in that survey, but interesting nevertheless.

 

[jack476]

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".

It doesn't really mean anything, they sometimes throw in a question like this to see how you respond to words like "multinational company" and "unethical exploitation".

Though I think it might have something to do with GMOs, the idea being that teams of scientists are sent out into the rain forest to find useful genes, because I guess biologists are basically Tyranids.

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!

I don't really know of many Democrats who are opposed to nuclear power, from what I've seen nuclear opposition tends to be a fringe position. And of course, even though Republicans are generally more interested in nuclear power, the fact that they also tend to be more anti-regulation makes it a bit of a catch-22.

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),

A lot of people on the religious right are quite confident that science is on their side, actually, that's kind of the problem. Many of the main creationist groups genuinely believe that they are doing science and advocating for better science education, the crazy people responsible for messes like Answers in Genesis are quite convinced that what they're doing is reconciling science with their religious beliefs rather than trying to attack science. So what really makes them dangerous isn't a hostility towards science itself, it's their attempts to appropriate science and use the trappings of scientific knowledge to push their agenda.

As for hostility towards science itself (rather than individual scientists, theories, or institutions), I really think that tends to come out of the extreme environmentalists rather than the extreme right, ie the ones who want us all to live in a big technology-free hippie commune in the woods. Speaking of hippie communes in the woods:

My results

 

[russ_watters]

It doesn't really mean anything, they sometimes throw in a question like this to see how you respond to words like "multinational company" and "unethical exploitation".

While you might be right, the term "plant genetic resources" does turn-up half a million hits on google, including to a journal of some sort, by that name. So it must mean something to some people.

I don't really know of many Democrats who are opposed to nuclear power, from what I've seen nuclear opposition tends to be a fringe position. And of course, even though Republicans are generally more interested in nuclear power, the fact that they also tend to be more anti-regulation makes it a bit of a catch-22.

Here's a fairly recent poll on the matter:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-power-year-fukushima.aspx

Republicans were pro: 65%, oppose: 34% Democrats pro: 50%, oppose 45%. The "oppose" fractions of both are disappointingly high.

 

[verkle]

Strange that the pollster puts the word "progressive" after "liberal" AND "very liberal". It is a euphemism. Should rather use words like socialist and communist.