A GOOD Political Ideology poll. - Page 2

Kramerman · May 19, 2003, 02:55

OliverFA · May 19, 2003, 03:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
Social Ideology:

Radical: Believe extreme social change is needed
Liberal: Believe moderate social change is needed
Moderate: Believe little social change is needed
Conservative: Want to maintain status quo
Reactionary: Want to return to past policies, such as segregation, etc.

Isn't it a bit confusing? Ok, it's clear that social change is involved in this option. But to which way?

Rogan Josh · May 19, 2003, 03:51

Democracy
Social Democracy
Liberal

Democracy: I think your definition of Republicanism leads to too much power for the individual and too much focus on 'personality politics'. In my perfect society, the leaders of the country would be faceless, or even unknown, merely carrying out the policy desires of the population.

Economic: The Economic category could do with some clarification. I was swithering between choosing Social Democracy and Regulated Capitalism, but the 'US Style' put me off. I wouldn't want a system like the US where the main tendancy is for most of the wealth to go to the already rich, although I think the 'capitalist urge' is a good motivator to work hard. You really need to say whath the regulatory systems in 'Social Democracy' are before we can make a fair choice.

Social: I voted liberal, but I think this depends on where you are standing, and which society you want to change (or not). I would want to change US society more than I would change European society for example. It is also a little unclear whether one is allowed to consider economic social change, since this is presumably covered by the 'Economic' section.

cinch · May 19, 2003, 05:40

Leo:

Quote:

Could a European comment on the whole "Vote for Parties" thing?

Why do you need the Euros to comment on it? We have it right here in Canada.

Sure, we don't have Proportional Representation, but our parliamentary system is essentially party-based, not individual based.

Examples:

Party-Based: Prime Minister is the head of the party with the most votes (or seats won, in a PR-less country like Canada)
Individual-Based: President is voted for in a seperate election.

PartyBased: House of Commons is pretty much the be-all, end-all of... everything.
IndyBased: House of Commons, Senate, and Cabinet all wield certain amounts of power.

******
In my opinion, there are at least three different types of Representative Democracy (actually, I'm sure there are many more, but I'm not educated enough to break 'em down properly):

1. Euro-style PR Party-Based: You vote for the party which best reflects your views as a whole.

2. Canadian RepByPop Party-Based: You can do it like the Euros, OR you can simply vote for the MP that you think will serve your particular riding best.

3. Vote for the Congressman that will serve your riding best, and the President who will match your views as a whole.

(I'm sure someone can put it more eloquently and/or interestingly than that, but oh well, what's typed is typed...)

*************

Personally, I kinda like the way the Euros do it, becaue it prevents some of the candidates from simply dangling pleasing area-specific projects in front of their ridings, which may cause the people to stray from their ideologies.

cinch · May 19, 2003, 05:41

Mine:

Democratic (love the ideology-based! down with cult of personality!)
Social Democracy (capitalism yes, corporatism no)
Liberal

Sounds about right.

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 06:44

Democracy
Social Democracy (I would want regulated capitalism, but more regulated than the US, like environmental checks and the like)
Moderate (tempted to go Liberal, probably between the two)

Is Democracy supposed to me more democratic than a Republic? I thought the only difference was in a Republic you elect the head of state, and a Democracy was anything where the leaders are elected? I chose Democracy because I don't want an elected head of state, as I think it puts too much power in the hands of one person.

red_jon · May 19, 2003, 06:58

Democracy
Social Democracy
Liberal

Guess no big surprise there...

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 07:01

Quote:

Originally posted by cinch
1. Euro-style PR Party-Based: You vote for the party which best reflects your views as a whole.

Not all of Europe uses PR. The UK still elects MPs, and then the party with the most (in coalition if necessary) creates the Government.

While I would like proportional representation, as then we might get one or two MPs from minor parties (Green, Socialist, etc) and more Lib Dem MPs, I am a but wary of having coalition governments the whole time, and I am a I like the idea of a person representing that area. I presume under PR that is inpossible, having someone represented from one area. How does it work in practice? Do you elect so many MPs from each party depending on how many votes they get, and the Party chooses which ones?

lord of the mark · May 19, 2003, 16:15

well this still doesnt work for me.

Economics - to follow on urban ranger - there are at least two issues here - the extent of economic regulation/govt control over industry and income/wealth distribution.

Myself i tend to be "regulated capitalist" on control issues - I see some areas where US status quo is too statist, and some where it fails to address market failure. But I tend to be much farther to the left on issues of income distribution. Though i sometimes call myself a social democrat, i suppose "left wing third way" would be closer.

On social simply talking about change is not clear - id like to see a number of changes, but some are neither in a "libertararian" diiection nor are returns to the past. IE while i suspect most here will identify "social change" with either diversity or libertarian change, i dont see any room for communitarian change - unless you identify it with the past, which i do not.

Political - there are lots of different clever ideas about constitutional structures within democracies, but for the most part arguments about them are practical more than ideological id say. A better contrast for democratic vs republican would be the broader extent to which you favor or oppose governmental structures that limit or support popular soveriegnty - thus prop representation vs first past the post, electoral college vs direct election, party primaries vs party structure selection of candidates, etc.

cinch · May 19, 2003, 16:27

Drogue:

Quote:

While I would like proportional representation, as then we might get one or two MPs from minor parties (Green, Socialist, etc) and more Lib Dem MPs, I am a but wary of having coalition governments the whole time, and I am a I like the idea of a person representing that area. I presume under PR that is inpossible, having someone represented from one area. How does it work in practice? Do you elect so many MPs from each party depending on how many votes they get, and the Party chooses which ones?

Don't the Germans have a system that's half-PR, half RepByPop? That is, you elect people for your riding, but the parties can also gain seats on top of that, according to their percentage of the national popular vote. A hybrid system like that seems quite attractive.

Ramo · May 19, 2003, 16:31

Another:

Anarchy
Communism
Radical

VJ · May 19, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

well this still doesnt work for me.

No ****, sherlock?
As always, the poll is over-simplistic.

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 16:33

That is true. It was also used in Wales and Scotland for their assemblies IIRC. Does seem quite a good idea.

Aro · May 19, 2003, 17:53

Democracy
Social-Democracy
Liberal

Gangerolf · May 19, 2003, 18:09

Quote:

Democracy
Social-Democracy
Liberal

same here. the only sensible choice

St Leo · May 19, 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by cinch
Leo:
Why do you need the Euros to comment on it? We have it right here in Canada.

Sure, we don't have Proportional Representation, but our parliamentary system is essentially party-based, not individual based.

Examples:

Party-Based: Prime Minister is the head of the party with the most votes (or seats won, in a PR-less country like Canada)
Individual-Based: President is voted for in a seperate election.

Thanks. In that case, I prefer party-based.

Buck Birdseed · May 19, 2003, 19:45

I don't like this poll, but I'm not going to argue against it 'cause then Stefu is going to pressure me into finishing my own (different) three-axis political test...

Al'Kimiya · May 19, 2003, 20:43

Oligarchy, Capitalism, Conservative

Ben Kenobi · May 20, 2003, 17:02

Republican
Regulated Capitalism
Conservative

so many Anarchists.

We should lock them in a room with each other.

Al B. Sure! · May 20, 2003, 17:07

socially I'm a reactionary but i don't want no segregation...

most conservative republicans would also be reactionary as they don't want to sustain the status quo that includes such things as abortion.

BAD political poll! boh!

Al B. Sure! · May 20, 2003, 17:22

The 3 R's...

Republicanist
Regulated Capitalist
Reactionary

also I dont think that's a too good definition of Republican vs Democratic forms of government. Technically, democratic gov'ts are ones where the people vote on every issue and not for representatives (which would be a republic). Republics, in the traditional sense, also tend to have a federal system of government with power divided between the central gov't and the provinces.

Ben Kenobi · May 20, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

most conservative republicans would also be reactionary

Restoring society is not 'reactionary,'

Too many negative connotations with that word.

Al B. Sure! · May 20, 2003, 17:52

Obi-Wan:

But restoring society is def not conservative (meaning conserving the status quo)

Odin · May 20, 2003, 21:33

My democracy choice is different than republic because a Democracy has a lot more referendums than a republic, basically more of "Pure Democracy" type, like ancient Athens or many towns in New England. Republicanists believe in a more "elite" government, democrats believe in a more pure form of democracy.
Lord of The Mark got it right on the mark.

Ben Kenobi · May 23, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

But restoring society is def not conservative (meaning conserving the status quo)

Be careful. By this definition the Democrats favouring abortion on demand become conservatives.

Spiffor · May 23, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

Be careful. By this definition the Democrats favouring abortion on demand become conservatives.

Yes. The only way of being "radical" in this issue would be to make abortion mandatory

SlowwHand · May 23, 2003, 16:13

Republicanist, Regulated Capitalist, Moderate.

People asking that government control things, best watch what they wish for.

chequita guevara · May 23, 2003, 16:27

Democracy, Communist, Radical