Thanks to Dinochick for the Glassbooth quiz.
The first time, I came out 80% similar to Ron Paul, a Republican running as a libertarian, 72% similar to Mike Gravel, a Democrat running as a libertarian, and 64% similar to Barack Obama. I had limited my choices of issues to just a few, so then I took the quiz again.
The second time, I came out 76% similar to Mike Gravel, 71% similar to Barack Obama, and 70% similar to Ron Paul. That change came largely as a result of adding my anti-gun-control stance.
The third time, I added only gun control issues to the four I had chosen the first time, and in the results, they left that issue out entirely. Consequently, I have to conclude that the quiz is biased, because it came out identical to the first time.
Also, the way they define some of the issues is different from a simple "strongly oppose" or "strongly agree" response on the quiz - for example, when I said I was for "free trade," somehow that equated to being for NAFTA, which isn't really free trade, it's strongly regulated trade, legislated trade.
But, hey, that's as far as I'm getting into this sort of s***! Interesting quiz, though - after reading it, I'll probably have to vote either libertarian or Republican. Well, that's months away, plenty of time to decide...
7 comments:
What is the current Libertarian position on detachment faults? ;-)
I even had to go figure out what a liberarian was! LOL
I only did the issues I knew something about and left out some others. Maybe I should take it again and see what happens...
The problem with those quizzes (which are fun, I have to admit) is that most "regular" people end up aligned with the most idealistic candidates (e.g., Paul or Gravel). I think one reason this happens is that most politicians have to vote on bills and measures all the time as part of their job. They have to constantly make compromises and vote for bills that may have components they may not fully agree with idealistically to advance the part of the bill they do agree with. When you look at where all the remaining candidates end up on these quizzes, you can get an answer from their voting record and not what they say.
Whereas, us regular folks can say anything we want and not have a congressional voting record to show as basis for our ideals.
just a thought
"I support or oppose the idea that human pollution is a significant cause of global warming"
*headdesk*
I'm with you on the weird definitions of "free trade". I haven't seen a quiz yet that breaks down trade policy in a way that makes me happy - probably because the strongest factions right now are unregulated trade proponents and protectionists, plus the practice of appealing to one or the other rhetorical forms while actually just using trade policy as a diplomatic bartering chip for other ends.
Scott, any position on detachment faults is so far cryptic to unknown.
ReBecca, thanks for the morning entertainment!
Brian, I think the quiz actually may be biased - but that's just my bias. And you're right, we everyday people can say anything we want, and (hopefully) it's not being recorded somewhere (besides here). I've found that very slight changes in answers to quizes like these can change the outcome significantly. Like - I got different questions to answer, to a certain extent, each time I took the quiz - so experimentation can be illuminating.
Maria, don't bang your head too hard! (Didn't like the question or didn't like my response?)
Don't take it too seriously - it's months away! (I don't have any primaries to vote in.)
Heh, I have a special padded section of my desk for use whenever the conclusions of scientific research become a political position to "support" or "oppose". I won't injure myself much :)
Didn't even look at your response, sorry for the confusing flip reply.
Ha! I'll send some xtra padding. My "official position" is that global warming has been occuring for around 10,000 years, and that global climate change happens. (Like the s*** mentioned earlier.) :)
Post a Comment