My mistake.
Here's how it works:
You have the illusion of choice between a right-wing party and an extreme right-wing party, then there's an election, which the extreme right-wing party wins before the votes are counted, or all of the black people's votes are thrown away.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 14:45, archived)
Here's how it works:
You have the illusion of choice between a right-wing party and an extreme right-wing party, then there's an election, which the extreme right-wing party wins before the votes are counted, or all of the black people's votes are thrown away.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 14:45, archived)
I'm going to resist the temptation to be glib, here.
The American political organisations aren't parties at all in the sense that the term is used throughout the rest of the democratic world.
They exist only to form voting blocks for the presidential elections, and have no other coherence.
Also, while American politics would have a centre that is somewhat to the right of the European model, both of their main political organisations have policies on either side of that centre.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 14:48, archived)
The American political organisations aren't parties at all in the sense that the term is used throughout the rest of the democratic world.
They exist only to form voting blocks for the presidential elections, and have no other coherence.
Also, while American politics would have a centre that is somewhat to the right of the European model, both of their main political organisations have policies on either side of that centre.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 14:48, archived)
....
On this thing: www.politicalcompass.org/ , I came out slightly under the line, and slighly to the left. (about -2/-3 or -3/-2)
I was always under the impression that I'm slightly to the right and slightly above the line.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 14:53, archived)
On this thing: www.politicalcompass.org/ , I came out slightly under the line, and slighly to the left. (about -2/-3 or -3/-2)
I was always under the impression that I'm slightly to the right and slightly above the line.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 14:53, archived)
Very slightly left wing economics, massively libertarian.
No real surprise, there.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 15:00, archived)
No real surprise, there.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 15:00, archived)
I think it's based on the generalized American standpoint, that from my impressions, isn't as centered as the UK.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 15:07, archived)
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 15:07, archived)
It's very American, but that's not my problem.
It should give the option for "no opinion" or "neutral" for the questions.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 15:08, archived)
It should give the option for "no opinion" or "neutral" for the questions.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 15:08, archived)
I'm sure it does.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to like it.
Also I feel it would be nice to have the option of saying that a statement is meaningless, but I can guess why they wouldn't.
Maybe they also explain that in the FAQ.
If only there were some way to find out.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 15:14, archived)
But that doesn't mean I'm going to like it.
Also I feel it would be nice to have the option of saying that a statement is meaningless, but I can guess why they wouldn't.
Maybe they also explain that in the FAQ.
If only there were some way to find out.
( , Thu 4 Sep 2008, 15:14, archived)