Where on the political spectrum are you?

[Rush Limborg]

^^ I'm assuming this is a joke of some kind.

Not to be a dick or anything, but this is kinda spiralling out of control a bit, i'm not a mod or anything, but I don't think it takes a genius to work out that you guys are bringing TNZ style content into a Misc topic, its getting pretty personal, about, quite frankly something relatively minor, myself and quite a few others would be pretty peeved if this got the topic closed (as its one of the more interesting ones kicking around at the moment)...lets change the subject

Don't worry, it won't be closed. We're keeping an eye on it.

Captain M is correct, however; this discussion shouldn't get too personal.

I'm not one who knows a heck of a lot about the American Political system, so can anyone perhaps care to fill me in on their views of the non Republican/Democrat parties (minor parties) and perhaps explain if any of them have ever been close to making the White House, in recent years? cheers

As was pointed out, we basically have a two-party system here; all other parties are marginalized. This is an unintended side effect of our Presidential election process. First, we use an Electoral College system that has never done what it was intended to do; second, we use a simple voting system that discourages voting for "third party" candidates. What I would like to see happen is the elimination of the Electoral College, which would encourage a vast number of citizens to get out and vote; also, the use of a voting system where candidates can be ranked in order of preference would give hope to non-Democratic-Republican candidates. Ultimately, this would dismantle the two-party system and give us more reasonable (and qualified) elected officials.

Of course, this is very hard to accomplish, because both ruling parties are against it.

That's not the only reason. Without the Electoral College, candidates for office will ignore the states with lower populations, and only target states with higher populations.

In short, the "smaller" states will be ignored.

 

[Mr Silver]

What constitues a "Smaller State" exactly?

Obviously New York is gonna have considerably more influence than Wisconsin for example, so it can't be purely about size in the traditional sense

 

[Rush Limborg]

^By "smaller", I mean of smaller population.

And it is on a relative scale. Certainly, in absence of an Electoral College, politicians will be more apt to conentrate all their campaigning on states like California, New York, and Texas--and less on, say, Rhode Island, Alaska, and the Rocky Mountain states.

That's why we have it. For all its fauts, the simple fact is, it preserves what little federalism we have left, rather than allow our nation to dissolve into the chaotic "majority-rule" democracy our Founding Fathers despised.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I scored as Green, which is exactly what I voted for in the mid-terms where I could. I don't realy like having to chose one party over another, but i'll take Green Party if I have too.

 

[Brent]

republican
100%
Anarchism
83%
Communism
50%
Socialist
50%
Democrat
33%
Green
17%
Fascism
17%
Nazi
17%
You Scored as a : Republican Republican 100% Anarchism 83% Communism 50% Socialist 50% Democrat 33% Green 17% Fascism 17% Nazi 17%
Rate this quiz
Share With Friends

 

[Rush Limborg]

Someone asked for a list of "Third Parties". This isn't exhaustive, but here are the major ones I know of...

Libertatian Party: intense limited government; strong individual liberty and privacy--allows for de-criminalizing (some want legalizing outrights) pot; many libertarians support gay marriage and/or adoption; some are pro-choice; many are semi-isolationist (think Ron Paul), but certainly not all of them.

American Constitution Party (Constitutionalists): Hard-core Conservatives; super-strict constructionalists; against any inkling of a welfare state.

Green Party: Ralph Nader was part of this for a while--don't know if he still is. Basically, from what I could make of it, it's to the Democrats what the Libertarians and Constitutionalists are to the GOP--something of a "protest vote", when the base feels the "big" party has lost its way. Big on environmental policy and "social justice".

Socialist Party, and Communist Party USA: Titles say it all. Workers of America, unite!

Grassroots Party: Basically a "legalize pot" party.

Reform Party: Party of Ross Perot, Alan Keyes, and Patrick J. Buchanan. Seems more like a "personality" party, but tends to be to the Right of the Republicans.

 

[Nowhere Man]

The Political Compass


Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

 

[6079SmithW]

That's not the only reason. Without the Electoral College, candidates for office will ignore the states with lower populations, and only target states with higher populations.

In short, the "smaller" states will be ignored.

^By "smaller", I mean of smaller population.

And it is on a relative scale. Certainly, in absence of an Electoral College, politicians will be more apt to conentrate all their campaigning on states like California, New York, and Texas--and less on, say, Rhode Island, Alaska, and the Rocky Mountain states.

This is also the reason why we have the Senate, so that all states can have an equal say in national policy regardless of population size.

 

[TheGodBen]

Democrat
This Year: 83%
Last Year: 92%
Difference: -9%
What this means: I'm slightly less ideal-less, gutless and incompetent.

Green
This Year: 83%
Last Year: 75%
Difference: +8%
What this means: I think that Top Gear isn't as good as it used to be.

Anarchism
This Year: 75%
Last Year: 67%
Difference: +8%
What this means: I've developed a slight interest in punk music.

Communist
This Year: 58%
Last Year: 58%
Difference: 0%
What this means: The test is broken.

Socialist
This Year: 42%
Last Year: 42%
Difference: 0%
What this means: The test is working correctly.

Republican
This Year: 8%
Last Year: 8%
Difference: 0%
What this means: I'm still not a big supporter of the IRA.

Fascism
This Year: 0%
Last Year: 25%
Difference: -25%
What this means: Fuck yeah! I resent myself slightly less.

Nazi
This Year: 0%
Last Year: 0%
Difference: 0%
What this means: I like the Jews. They have provided the world with many great comedians.

 

[Lookingglassman]

I'm a Nazi because I am part black. The teabaggers portray Obama as Hitler and since I am his color and agree with many of his policies that must make me a Nazi too!

Yup, same as me being of mixed-asian/european ethnicity makes me a potential Terrorist

(Hides behind a shield) I think Barack Obama is a brilliant guy, he's easy to relate to, is a genuinely nice guy and acts like he actually cares, furthermore he's helping to bridge the gap between African-Americans and Caucasians, I actually think Barack Obama could be the key to ending this stupid racial discrimination that still goes on in the World. Sure he's having problems at the moment, but what Political Leader doesn't? I think a lot of people had a high expectation of him and because of a couple of false starts, he gets a shitload of criticism, call me an optimist, but I really think Barack Obama is going to do a lot of good for not just the USA but the World in time

I like Obama too, but the only thing I learned from his election is this country is still very much racist. Whites have done him so wrong these last two years. I can understand if there are LEGITIMATE policy differences, but most of the stuff coming from the teabaggers/repubs is straight up hatred of the man and it is obvious it is because he is black.

 

[TerokNor]

My results were:

Green 92% (Green winning the tie.)
Democrat 92%
Anarchism 63%
Socialist 63%
Communism 63%
Republican 17%
Fascism 0%
Nazi 0%

In the political compass test I am in the middle of the green field.

I like Obama. I certainly hope he gets reelected. However I do not think he is the key of ending discrimination. That would be a too big burden on one mans back. The whole discrimination thing is way to complex to be simply solved.
I don´t have that much political knowledge I have to say, however under Obama the anti-america-mood, that had build up strongly during the Bush-years, has changed...it is not that extreme anylonger (well at least in the smallish part of the world I have direct access too). Thats good.

TerokNor

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I'm assuming this is a joke of some kind.

Uh, yeah. I'm saying I took the quiz and got 100% what the fuck is wrong with you? as my response.

Okay, I was pretty sure it was something like that.

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that having a debate, however heated, but without any significant insult or open name-calling, is "TNZ-style" and thus discouraged in Misc. Apparently, the only topics we can have here are depression and tabloid weddings.

No, we can discuss pretty much anything. The only rules are to keep it civil and avoid personal attacks. "Discuss the Post, not the Poster." TNZ is irrelevant to Misc and there's no reason for anyone to even bring it up here.

think about it this way, in 1990 if someone said "In 20 years time a Black Man will be President", people would laugh, it was completely unheard of

If someone had told me in 1970 that it would take 40 years to have a Black president, I would have laughed; there's been a lot of backsliding.

That's not the only reason. Without the Electoral College, candidates for office will ignore the states with lower populations, and only target states with higher populations.

In short, the "smaller" states will be ignored.

The exact opposite would happen, because States would become irrelevant and candidates would have to campaign for all the people equally. The only way the Electoral College would have a chance of working the way you think it does would be if all States had an equal number of Electoral Votes. The way it works now, the parties focus on big States and strategize blocks of small States. In the end, the only thing the Electoral College does is discourage a lot of people from Voting and occasionally put the runner-up in the big chair.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Well...I came out as Republican, but since Libertarianism wasn't an option, I'm not exactly sure that's accurate.

Same for me.

There's plenty of things about the Republican Party I disagree with.

If you want my honest opinion of were I am on the political spectrum - I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I'm a Nazi because I am part black. The teabaggers portray Obama as Hitler and since I am his color and agree with many of his policies that must make me a Nazi too!

Yup, same as me being of mixed-asian/european ethnicity makes me a potential Terrorist

(Hides behind a shield) I think Barack Obama is a brilliant guy, he's easy to relate to, is a genuinely nice guy and acts like he actually cares, furthermore he's helping to bridge the gap between African-Americans and Caucasians, I actually think Barack Obama could be the key to ending this stupid racial discrimination that still goes on in the World. Sure he's having problems at the moment, but what Political Leader doesn't? I think a lot of people had a high expectation of him and because of a couple of false starts, he gets a shitload of criticism, call me an optimist, but I really think Barack Obama is going to do a lot of good for not just the USA but the World in time

I like Obama too, but the only thing I learned from his election is this country is still very much racist. Whites have done him so wrong these last two years. I can understand if there are LEGITIMATE policy differences, but most of the stuff coming from the teabaggers/repubs is straight up hatred of the man and it is obvious it is because he is black.

I don't think it's because he's black as much as it's because he's a Dem. I definately think there is still racism and I know people who refused to vote for Obama only because he was black. I wouldn't say most, but some of the tea baggers are racist. The thing about the tea baggers is that they do have some good ideas and are just misinformed or uneducated. Some of those people are just hard core conservative republicans by another name. They just hate Obama because he's a Dem. If it were a Republican president doing these things they would be fine with it. I'm not a tea bagger or anything, i'm just saying don't judge all of them based on Sarah Palin and Dick Army and Christine O'Donell.

 

[Darth Duck]

Green 100%
Anarchism 100%
Democrat 92%
Socialist 83%
Communism 25%
Republican 0%
Fascism 0%
Nazi 0%

I'm sad I did better on Democrat than on Socialist and Communism.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The exact opposite would happen, because States would become irrelevant and candidates would have to campaign for all the people equally.

Ah...no.

The fact is, without the College, candidates would campaign in larger population centers, and leave the smaller centers alone. Thus, those in more "rural" areas woudl be ignored, while the Big Cities would effectively choose our presidents.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I don't think it's because he's black as much as it's because he's a Dem. I definately think there is still racism and I know people who refused to vote for Obama only because he was black. I wouldn't say most, but some of the tea baggers are racist. The thing about the tea baggers is that they do have some good ideas and are just misinformed or uneducated. Some of those people are just hard core conservative republicans by another name. They just hate Obama because he's a Dem. If it were a Republican president doing these things they would be fine with it. I'm not a tea bagger or anything, i'm just saying don't judge all of them based on Sarah Palin and Dick Army and Christine O'Donell.

None of whom are racist.

And...it's worth noting that there is a good amount of the Tea Party (not "tea baggers"--that is a derogatory term, with an unfortunate innuendo) are Democrats disenchanted with the direction the Liberals/"Progressives" (such as Obama) have taken the party. Check the polls. These folks were once called "Reagan Democrats".

"If it were a Republican president doing these things they would be fine with it."

Eh...no. The GOP base does not support the party blindly. If the Republicans go too far, the base stays home--and you get 2006.

Just saying.

It's not party, per se. It's ideology. It's that, whether he's an honest-to-goodness Leftist (which I believe), or he's just a good, nice moderate who's done what he can to reach out (highly unlikely, see: "I won.")--the fact is, he is President at a time when the government (under his watch) has extended to a point beyond what the Tea Party members can tolerate.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The exact opposite would happen, because States would become irrelevant and candidates would have to campaign for all the people equally.

Ah...no.

The fact is, without the College, candidates would campaign in larger population centers, and leave the smaller centers alone. Thus, those in more "rural" areas woudl be ignored, while the Big Cities would effectively choose our presidents.

They would have no reason to do so, since all votes count equally; and, as far as reaching voters goes, most campaigning is done remotely in this century.

 

[sidious618]

None of whom are racist.

On the contrary, Pali is very racist. She continuously tried to bring up Obama's ethnicity in subtle ways during the 2008 election.

And...it's worth noting that there is a good amount of the Tea Party (not "tea baggers"--that is a derogatory term, with an unfortunate innuendo) are Democrats disenchanted with the direction the Liberals/"Progressives" (such as Obama) have taken the party. Check the polls. These folks were once called "Reagan Democrats".

This is very dishonest on two fronts:
1) The tea party called themselves teabaggers. To try and act like it's a mean term others made up is not at all fair.
2) Very few tea party members are Democrats. I think it was like 1 in 10 or less.

Eh...no. The GOP base does not support the party blindly. If the Republicans go too far, the base stays home--and you get 2006.

Really? What about 2004? It was already obvious then that Bush was going to spend us into oblivion.

 

[RJDiogenes]

On the contrary, Pali is very racist. She continuously tried to bring up Obama's ethnicity in subtle ways during the 2008 election.

You mean the way Fox did, when they ran stories such as how Obama's plane smelled worse than MCain's?