Join 3,382 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Who do you side with?
August 30, 2012 2:06 PM   Subscribe

See which U.S. presidential candidates you side with on most issues.
posted by crunchland (354 comments total) 21 users marked this as a favorite

 
(Note: Doesn't need any identifying information unless you choose to share your results through the site.)
posted by crunchland at 2:08 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein.

who?
posted by Zed at 2:12 PM on August 30, 2012 [129 favorites]


97% with the green party.
posted by hopeless romantique at 2:12 PM on August 30, 2012


Yeah, I've never heard of Jill Stein either but, based on how much she agrees with me, she must be a pretty smart lady.
posted by 256 at 2:13 PM on August 30, 2012 [93 favorites]


i was expecting it to say something random like Ron Paul.
but no i got Jill Stein.

and i was like "who?"

then i remembered i may have read about her on mefi...
posted by sio42 at 2:13 PM on August 30, 2012


I like that they tell me I side with Jill Stein, but they don't tell me who Jill Stein is, or provide a link to her campaign page, or even tell me what party she represents.

"I side with Jill Stein on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election" might as well be "I side with my cousin, Floyd, on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election".
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:13 PM on August 30, 2012 [23 favorites]


Hey, it turns out there's still a Green Party! Huh.
posted by gurple at 2:13 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


on preview...
wow. was this thing made by the Jill Stein PAC?
posted by sio42 at 2:13 PM on August 30, 2012 [24 favorites]


I'm honestly surprised I have as much as 7% in common with Romney.

'sup Jill Stein
posted by Greg Nog at 2:13 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


98% Jill Stein *shrugs*

Interestingly, she's big in Montana. (via the stats page)
posted by book 'em dano at 2:13 PM on August 30, 2012


Gary Johnson. Barack Obama. Jill Stein. In that order.

I only know one of those names.

But that's fine, seeing how I am not an American citizen anyway.
posted by vidur at 2:14 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Jill Ste~ OH COME ON.
posted by boo_radley at 2:14 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


I really appreciate how you can click "other stance" and choose stuff like "actually, abolish all national borders"
posted by theodolite at 2:15 PM on August 30, 2012 [27 favorites]


Who the hell is Jill Stein? *Google* Oh.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:17 PM on August 30, 2012


joining the chorus of "who the hell is Jill Stein?"
posted by ambrosia at 2:18 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein was mine but in their list of people I've also got in common I thought it was hilarious to see that the average Oregon Voter shares 2/3rds of my choices as well.
posted by mathowie at 2:18 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein 91%. Who?
Obama 66%, well okay.
Romney 16% Ugh I feel dirty from my knees down.
posted by iurodivii at 2:18 PM on August 30, 2012 [7 favorites]


mathowie, it said the same for me in Pennsylvania. I don't think it's a "state" thing so much as an "internet" thing.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:19 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein.

But might like many people like me I'm being realistic and voting for Obama.
posted by vacapinta at 2:19 PM on August 30, 2012 [8 favorites]


Yeah, I got Jill Stein, then Obama, then Rocky Anderson (who?). Who do I actually have? Steven Fucking Harper and Rob Give Me A Motherfucking Break Ford.

wow. was this thing made by the Jill Stein PAC?

I was thinking Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian who is actually cracking the 2% mark in polling, wasn't even on my results page, so I smell Populist Blue -- oh. He does show up when I ask it to show more candidates, but given he was a 59% match for me, he should have appeared above the fold.

Shenanigans or bad coding?
posted by maudlin at 2:20 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


I live in Massachusetts and actually voted for Jill Stein when she ran for governor here. I scored 91% in agreement with her, which is really no surprise to me. (I was more surprised to score 86% with Obama) But I don't think Jill Stein is qualified to be POTUS.
posted by briank at 2:20 PM on August 30, 2012


Well guess who.
posted by jquinby at 2:20 PM on August 30, 2012


Stein Blue? Who?
posted by Doleful Creature at 2:21 PM on August 30, 2012


Barack Obama, Democratic Party
Jill Stein, Green Party
Rocky Anderson, Justice Party
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party
Ron Paul, Independent
Mitt Romney, Republican Party
Virgil Goode, Constitution Party
posted by crunchland at 2:23 PM on August 30, 2012 [12 favorites]


Mine is totally wrong - it says I side 3% with the Republican party and I categorically deny that shit! The real number is 0, pollsters, got that? Zee-row percent! Recalibrate.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:23 PM on August 30, 2012 [17 favorites]


Hmm. Apparently someone needs to do a FPP on Jill Stein.
posted by Elly Vortex at 2:24 PM on August 30, 2012 [11 favorites]


Let's schedule it for November 7th.
posted by 2bucksplus at 2:25 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


Fwiw, I scored 88% with Obama and 87% with Jill Stein.
posted by crunchland at 2:25 PM on August 30, 2012


I had a surprisingly hard time answering some of those "should" questions, like "Should the government require health insurance companies to provide 'free' birth control?" (sorry I have to put editorial scare quotes around 'free' because jesus fuck have you seen my insurance premiums recently?)

On one hand, I don't necessarily think the government should do that, in that I don't think it's necessarily a moral imperative (I'm more interested in expanding access to hormonal birth control by making it OTC). However, I think they have the right to do so, if they decide it's a priority.
posted by muddgirl at 2:25 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Mine is totally wrong - it says I side 3% with the Republican party and I categorically deny that shit!

I got that too. Turns out he's for space exploration. But thats all we agree on.
posted by vacapinta at 2:25 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Emma Goldman, FDR, most dogs and a big bag of weed. Also, I guess mostly the green party and somehow I scored pretty high for Mr. Obama, considering the Emma Goldman and the bag of weed thing and the really not liking the whole US troops overseas and secret wars and blah, blah, blah.

I vote for a bag of doritos or Obama if the doritos aren't on the ballot.
posted by Divine_Wino at 2:26 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


This is good, crunchland, thanks for posting it.

The venerable On The Issues is still around, too, and they have their own 2012 Presidential Speculation quiz if folks want to get a slightly different read.
posted by cog_nate at 2:26 PM on August 30, 2012


Also, Jill Stein.
posted by cog_nate at 2:26 PM on August 30, 2012


Seeing and joining the chorus of Jill Stein and I wonder ...

sneaky Green Party viral marketing?

dun dun dun
posted by Tevin at 2:26 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I think what my 4% Romney number shows is that the system is accurate only to a minimum of +- 4%. Well actually just -4%
posted by mcstayinskool at 2:27 PM on August 30, 2012


96% in agreement with Jill Stein.
posted by killdevil at 2:27 PM on August 30, 2012


It's always the fucking Green Party. CAN NOT HAS
posted by LordSludge at 2:28 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


Who knew The Blue was Green? Also Jill Stein, followed by Obama, and with Romney in the high single digits.
posted by zippy at 2:28 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


All these Jill Stein recommendations leads me to think there's a non-zero chance this might be a ploy to split the progressive vote.
posted by JHarris at 2:29 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


If you are 96% Jill Stein and 4% Mitt Romney, is that 4% something I could remove through dieting? Also, permission to call my 4% Gollum?
posted by mcstayinskool at 2:29 PM on August 30, 2012 [10 favorites]


99%
Democratic
95%
Green
64%
Libertarian
3%
Republican

I will now saw off my right foot to rid myself of that 3%.
posted by incandissonance at 2:29 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I got 96 percent siding with Jill Stein, as did everybody else in my facebook feed who took the quiz. If I still lived in DC I'd totally vote for her, but since PA is actually contentious (even moreso now with new voter id rules) I'll probably suck it up and vote for Obama. (Distant mid-80 some percent third.)
posted by ActionPopulated at 2:29 PM on August 30, 2012


Oddly enough, Jill Stein and I agree on most things, but Obama is not far behind.
posted by arcticseal at 2:29 PM on August 30, 2012


Here in red state country, it's easy to vote your conscience without worrying that your vote is going to throw the electoral votes for a candidate you don't like. Romney a 99.2% chance of winning my state, so I will probably be the only one in my precinct to vote for Jill Stein.
posted by Daddy-O at 2:29 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Jill Stein 94%, Barack Obama 88%, Rocky Anderson 72%.

Mitt Romney 1%.

Yeah, sounds about right.
posted by kyrademon at 2:30 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein, too.

Jill Stein - 92%
Barack Obama - 83%
Rocky Anderson (who?) - 69%
Ron Paul - 30%
Mitt Romney - 5%

What's really weird is, apparently, I agree with 57% of my fellow Hoosier voters. I know that's wrong, because this state is almost completely tea-bag-liber-batshit-crazy.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:30 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Jill Stein 95%. Can anyone match me for Jill Steininess? Sadly, this is the first I've heard of her, not being an American. But it's reassuring to know she exists. How can I purge that 4% Romney?
posted by steganographia at 2:31 PM on August 30, 2012


No agreement with Romney on any major issues!
posted by Renoroc at 2:32 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


If it fucking tells me Kucinich again, I'm leaving the internet for good.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:33 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Why isn't the Socialist Worker's Party on this?
posted by incandissonance at 2:34 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


On cog_nate's quiz I got Nader, Stein then Obama.
posted by JHarris at 2:34 PM on August 30, 2012


90% Jill Stein, 84% Rocky Anderson.

(I will continue to vote NDP.)
posted by Sys Rq at 2:35 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


I match 93% with Jill Stein! How do I send her a wink or whatever? Maybe see if we have any chemisty. This is OkCupid right?
posted by Ad hominem at 2:36 PM on August 30, 2012 [29 favorites]


Terrifyingly, my choices are echoed by 69% of Florida respondents. Wonder why they don't vote?
posted by halfbuckaroo at 2:36 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Sorry, I vote straight Natural Law Party.
posted by Cash4Lead at 2:37 PM on August 30, 2012


Expected to get someone I've never heard of, got someone I'd never heard of.
posted by ckape at 2:38 PM on August 30, 2012


93% Jill Stein too.
posted by R. Mutt at 2:38 PM on August 30, 2012


Also, my wife just took the test, and she scored the highest agreement with the libertarian candidate, then obama. So it's not rigged to necessarily project Jill Stein. I think it might more be an indication of how homogeneous Metafilter is.
posted by crunchland at 2:39 PM on August 30, 2012 [20 favorites]


Got drunk, took the test, got Jill Stein, googled Jill Stein, now what?

(correct answer: got a cup of green tea)
posted by daniel_charms at 2:40 PM on August 30, 2012


the only thing I agree with in this poll is that NONE of these issues should be issues at all. It's fucking pitiful that every 4 years liberals allow conservatives to control what "ISSUES" define the differences between the parties. There isn't a single question on that list that the Republicans didn't fabricate some bullshit argument out of thin air in order to make it controversial enough to appeal to the base instincts of the ignorant faction of their base (i.e. those not millionaires)
posted by any major dude at 2:41 PM on August 30, 2012 [29 favorites]


I really like this interface, where you can accordion more questions and get more response choices if you want them. 95% Stein, Who?, etc.
posted by zeek321 at 2:41 PM on August 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


UK or Canadian Mefites, is there anything similar to this in your countries? I'd be interested in learning whether I would vote, say, Liberal or NDP.
posted by Cash4Lead at 2:42 PM on August 30, 2012


98% Kodos
posted by griphus at 2:43 PM on August 30, 2012 [9 favorites]


With all the Steinmaniacs in here how can she lose.

mods, can we get a Jill Stein AMA?
posted by Ad hominem at 2:44 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Maybe instead of dismissing Jill Stein because you don't know her, get to know her. She is the most qualified Green Party nominee in history and she is a damn good candidate. Start here. Then go here. Then do your damndest to get her into the debates.
posted by moammargaret at 2:45 PM on August 30, 2012 [7 favorites]


sneaky Green Party viral marketing?

It's pretty well known that the USA hasn't had a political left for a long time, and that by international standards, the Democrats are your typical moderate right-wing party. It's also fairly well known that Mefi leans left.

Why is it surprising that a site that matches candidate stances to user views is matching someone other than a right wing presidential candidate to people who aren't right-wing?
posted by anonymisc at 2:45 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


I got Jill Stein too. Who?
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:46 PM on August 30, 2012


Rocky Anderson? So, I checked him out. Turns out that there is a Justice Party that was started last year and sounds pretty interesting.

As someone who has given monthly donations to the Green Party USA before, I always feel about them the same way as I do PETA—I like most of your cause, but sometimes I hit the crazy, attention-hungry underbelly. Cynthia McKinney during the Libyan Revolution was one for example. I still support them, but I'm not always thrilled by it.

I like what I've read so far about the Justice Party, but does it have any substance? Any defecting democrats? Any attempt to capture local, state, and national offices besides POTUS? Organization? I know it's new so I'll cut it some slack, but if anyone here has information about it, I would appreciate it.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:46 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I got Pat Paulsen
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:47 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


The one thing I'm wondering about, crunchland, is how they're creating that truncated list of results. I got Stein, Obama, Anderson (at 68%) then a HUGE leap to Ron Paul (28%), then another gap to Romney (2% -- I'm calling that the US exchange rate and not anything real).

But the full list slips Gary Johnson in between Anderson and Paul, then Virgil Goode between Paul and Romney. Sure, Paul and Romney are more well known, so maybe people would be more interested in seeing how their views compare to those guys' views, but with so few candidates, why offer the truncated version to begin with? And why were some additional quiz questions under the fold on the main page, too?
posted by maudlin at 2:47 PM on August 30, 2012


Barack Obama 93%
Jill Stein 83%
Ron Paul 21%
Mitt Romney 7%

Sounds about right. No agreement with Ron Paul or Mitt Romney on any major issues.

Looks like I get Obama over Stein due to more agreement on economic & foreign policy issues (where I am less left-wing than on healthcare, social, immigration, etc issues).
posted by wildcrdj at 2:47 PM on August 30, 2012


Agree with any major dude. I felt slightly dirty even answering a question about whether I "believe" in evolution in 2012.
posted by vacapinta at 2:47 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Jill. Fucking. Stein.
posted by Windopaene at 2:48 PM on August 30, 2012


(Sadly, I live in Virginia so I'll probably end up voting Obama. I agree with many [but not all] of his policies and Virginia is a swing state now. I'm hoping that the Republicans that start losing Virginia will alter behavior based upon it.)
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:48 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Yay, Mitt Romney 0%!

And yeah, 97% Jill Stein.
posted by octothorpe at 2:49 PM on August 30, 2012


Stein: 96%
Anderson: 87%
Obama: 77%
Ron Paul: 34%
Mitt Romney: 3%

Is that 3% because we're both mammals? Sort of?
posted by brundlefly at 2:49 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Jill Steins all the way down.
posted by Ad hominem at 2:52 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


This survey is fundamentally flawed because it does not ask whether you believe the rent is too damn high.
posted by The Bellman at 2:53 PM on August 30, 2012 [33 favorites]


I feel like this sort of thing is basically propaganda for fringe candidates. Much in the same way the famous "diamond test" favors libertarians.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:53 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Obama, then Stein, then Johnson, and a side helping of Ron Paul for not being nuts about foreign policy.

I don't know who Virgil Goode is but I evidently agree with him less than I agree with Mitt Romney, which I gotta tell you is saying something.

Also looking at some of the actual tabs, its idea of similar answers is a little confusing:
Gary Johnson: Ban after the first trimester
Your similar answer: Pro-choice

No,aurvey, you are confused; that is not at all what pro-choice means. Those answers are *not* similar.
posted by nat at 2:55 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Curse you, Jill Stein!!!!!
posted by The World Famous at 2:55 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


The Steinster. Makin' copies.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 2:56 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Is that 3% because we're both mammals? Sort of?

Well, you can always console yourself with the fact that you've got more in common with a banana than with Mitt Romney.
posted by daniel_charms at 2:56 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


The Diamond Quiz referenced above.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 2:57 PM on August 30, 2012


Metafilter: Jill Stein.
posted by seanmpuckett at 2:58 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Crazy the things that are issues these days...I was expecting a question like...

Poor people should have their blood drained, and the blood then used as fertiziler for rich people's rose bushes: Agree or disagree?
posted by Chekhovian at 2:58 PM on August 30, 2012 [8 favorites]


Yeah, Jill Stein, 91%

But I also got 17% Romney. It's likely because I said illegal immigrants should be deported. But then, I also said they should be given an amnesty. But, you know, just the other way round...
posted by Jehan at 2:58 PM on August 30, 2012


Weird, when I took this a couple of weeks ago, Stewart Alexander was included. It sounds like they removed him - I wonder why? He was my runner-up (after Jill Stein, obviously).
posted by granted at 2:59 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, Jill is not really left enough.

I found a lot to like about the Communist Party of Ontario, except their odds of getting a seat at the table.
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:00 PM on August 30, 2012


Also, I hate these things for the same reason I get frustrated with ok cupid surveys: the correct answer to at least 75% of the questions is "it's more subtle than that, this is a stupid question". What the hell does "reform" mean as an answer? It's like campaigning on "change" (brilliant, because everybody likes it, it sounds good, but who knows which "change" you mean?)

If they had the option of "quit simplifying complex political issues into simple sound-bitey questions" I'd answer that for a good chunk of the questions.
posted by nat at 3:00 PM on August 30, 2012 [7 favorites]


The diamond test is a pretty slick piece of libertarian propaganda. Nobody in their intended audience wants to be perceived as "statist" or "authoritarian". So the OBVIOUS answer is to vote libertarian....
posted by Afroblanco at 3:00 PM on August 30, 2012


Yeah, a Jill Stein-ian here as well.
posted by littlesq at 3:01 PM on August 30, 2012


It'd be interesting to see this combined with a projection of state voting trends. "I'm in Oregon. Is it safe-Obama enough to vote for Jill Stein, or do I go pragmatic?"
posted by CrystalDave at 3:01 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Jill Stein 89%
Obama 76%

The ballot should be like this people vote issues not parties or names The candidate with the highest level of aggregate support wins. We should have more than two possible choices.

66% of Oregonians taking the test would give up its votes for Jill if she had a chance.
posted by pdxpogo at 3:01 PM on August 30, 2012 [7 favorites]


98% with Jill Stein. I'm not going to vote for her, but if this were OKCupid I would definitely ask her out.

yes, i know she's married.
posted by ubiquity at 3:01 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I thought Roseanne Barr was running too... how come she ain't on there?
posted by spilon at 3:01 PM on August 30, 2012


UK or Canadian Mefites, is there anything similar to this in your countries?

There seems to be this, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. It's showing the US 2012 election too and at the moment Obama and Romney are close together in the top-right segment of the compass. Comparing their position to a chart of famous leaders, they're somewhere between Thatcher and Hitler.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 3:01 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


81% Jill Stein
80% Obama

I'm cool with this.
posted by Splunge at 3:02 PM on August 30, 2012


Rutherford B. Hayes??? Huh.
posted by "But who are the Chefs?" at 3:02 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, I really like (and didn't notice at first) the expansion of options with the "Choose another stance" menu that pops up if you select it. Much more nuance than a straight up-down answer, but it's not crowding out the survey.
posted by CrystalDave at 3:02 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I got a tie at 90% Gary Johnson and 90% Jill Stein. How is that even possible? Chronic Traumatic Encephelopathy?

Romney came in last.
posted by bukvich at 3:03 PM on August 30, 2012


If they had the option of "quit simplifying complex political issues into simple sound-bitey questions" I'd answer that for a good chunk of the questions.

They actually do this better than any similar quiz I've seen - the "Choose your own stance" options are pretty nuanced, and you can add your own stance (although I'm not sure how they'd use that in their calculations).
posted by granted at 3:03 PM on August 30, 2012


This is great, since 61% of the voters here in New York state agree with me, I don't actually need to vote.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 3:03 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


93% Jill Stein, on environmental, science, domestic policy, immigration, social, economic, and foreign policy issues

85% Barack Obama, on science, healthcare, environmental, social, and immigration issues

72% Rocky Anderson, on environmental, domestic policy, social, immigration, economic, and foreign policy issues

21% Ron Paul, on domestic policy and foreign policy issues

3% Mitt Romney, no major issues

In case you wanted to know what the right answers were.
posted by maxwelton at 3:03 PM on August 30, 2012


Roseanne Barr didn't win the Green nomination? Kinda disappointed about that.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:03 PM on August 30, 2012


It'd be interesting to see this combined with a projection of state voting trends. "I'm in Oregon. Is it safe-Obama enough to vote for Jill Stein, or do I go pragmatic?"

Heh. I live in Indiana, which is going to go for "ennywonbuttheblackmuslim" so hard it'll hurt your grandchildren. So, I can safely vote for Stein.

On the other hand, the last time I went against the tide and voted for Nader, we ended up with Bush. I'm still trying to live that one down...
posted by Thorzdad at 3:04 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


That diamond quiz actually told me I'm a centrist leaning liberal. Probably because the questions are vague to the point that you can't help but think of exceptions. If you want a healthy alternative energy market you pretty much have to allow at least some gov't 'handouts' at inception for example. That's different than tax breaks for oil companies. Same deal with the drug question; are you thinking weed or are you thinking professional heroin traffickers? Eh maybe I'm just a big government statist.
posted by 2bucksplus at 3:05 PM on August 30, 2012


I got Jill Stein first, then Obama. I got close to 60% alignment with Romney and over 50% with Ron Paul which scares me a lot (that just can't be right!).

I call b.s. with this survey because some of those questions weren't really yes/no answers for me so I skipped them.

very clever marketing stunt, Jill Stein's people
posted by fuse theorem at 3:05 PM on August 30, 2012


Chekhovian: "Poor people should have their blood drained, and the blood then used as fertiziler for rich people's rose bushes: Agree or disagree?"

I'd like to see the "Choose another stance" menu for this.
posted by brundlefly at 3:05 PM on August 30, 2012


I, too, am evidently a fervent supporter of Jill Stein, then Obama, the, at a distant third, Gary Johnson, whom I only know because a friend of mine has gone diehard libertarian on facebook, complete with links to articles demanding he be added to presidential debates. Is that a thing? When you go libertarian, are you presented with a packet of arguments and such that you are then supposed to bring up at every opportunity?
posted by Ghidorah at 3:06 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Jill Stein by a hair over Obama. Once again, I wish we had plurality voting in the US.
posted by davejay at 3:07 PM on August 30, 2012


Hey let's all vote for Jill Stein. What could possibly go wrong?
posted by Danf at 3:08 PM on August 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


I got Dwight Eisenhower. But I'm using a really old browser.
posted by Longtime Listener at 3:08 PM on August 30, 2012 [26 favorites]


OK, was looking at the comparisons. For Jill Stein:

Are you in favor of decriminalizing all drugs?
Jill Stein: Yes, but not all drugs
Your similar answer: Yes

I guess I get what they mean, but the language of the answer they used for her coming right after the question is... amusing. ("Are you in favor of X? Yes, but not X.")
posted by wildcrdj at 3:09 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


This also shows why third parties will never hold sway in the U.S.- they fall to in-fighting even worse than the major parties. Why doesn't Ron Paul join Gary Johnson and form a libertarian umbrella coalition between the Libertarian Party and the minarchist elements of the GOP, as well as random internet libertopians and Objectivists? Why doesn't Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan link up the Peace and Freedom Party with the Greens to support Jill Stein's bid and form a leftist umbrella coalition with other minor progressive parties? At least this way third party runs would seem slightly less quixotic and pointless. But no, everyone wants to do their own thing and look ridiculous.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:10 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


MetaFilter.com's Results for the 2012 Presidential Election Quiz
posted by chinesefood at 3:10 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


I felt slightly dirty even answering a question about whether I "believe" in evolution in 2012.

One of the "choose another stance" options is "Yes, Evolution is a fact"

Although when I took this test a few weeks ago (I also got Jill Stein), I swear one of the answers was "Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact." Kind of wonder if they changed this.

I also really would like it if they put a quick explainer next to each issue, for the truly undecided voter who may not know much about the issues. I've seen that on other similar tests. For example, I'm betting a lot of people who vote don't know why or why not the US should maintain a presence in the United Nations.
posted by triggerfinger at 3:11 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Jill Stein: 82%
Gary Johnson: 80%
Barack Obama: 76%

The state with which I have the most accord is California. This is good because the state in which I live is also California. Yay, us.
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on August 30, 2012


IT'S REALLY STRESSING ME OUT THAT SOME OF YOU MIGHT NOT BE SEEING THE CHOOSE ANOTHER STANCE OPTION
posted by granted at 3:12 PM on August 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


The page requires javascript. People without javascript turned on will miss half the questions (since you need to click to expand each section) and will not be able to choose stances besides YES and NO or whatever.
posted by Justinian at 3:13 PM on August 30, 2012


IT'S REALLY STRESSING ME OUT THAT SOME OF YOU MIGHT NOT BE SEEING THE CHOOSE ANOTHER STANCE OPTION

I am voting WIDE in 2012!
posted by Forktine at 3:13 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Also, WTF with the 5% GOP overlap? I swear there is nothing I agree with them on. Nothing.
posted by Forktine at 3:14 PM on August 30, 2012


Where's the question about whether or not I built that?
posted by 2bucksplus at 3:15 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Astroturf is green. Kinda makes you wonder.

GOOGLE JILL STEIN
posted by emelenjr at 3:15 PM on August 30, 2012


There's more than two parties in the US? Ha!
posted by palbo at 3:15 PM on August 30, 2012


The "choose another stance" option doesn't change the fundamental brokenness of the question. In other words, I spent literally 3 minutes staring at the text box thinking "How do I encapsulate the idea that the real issue is whether or not the government has the right to mandate rules for health insurance companies?"
posted by muddgirl at 3:16 PM on August 30, 2012


Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how I got 7% Romney. Maybe we both like trees? I don't really care how tall they are, though.
posted by ambrosia at 3:16 PM on August 30, 2012


91% Obama, 85% Jill... well, then.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 3:17 PM on August 30, 2012


83% with Jill Stein. I have never heard of her. 76% with Obama.

Too bad Mike Gravel isn't running again. I probably would have gotten him. Or so I would hope.
posted by Redfield at 3:17 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


It blows my mind what you Americans have for issues. Shouldn't most of those questions have been settled 100 years ago?

What's next: "Do you BELIEVE in the possibility that the weaker-sex should be allowed to vote?"
posted by blue_beetle at 3:17 PM on August 30, 2012 [17 favorites]


Like this Rocky Anderson character. "Justice Party" sounds pretty awesome, but realistically it'd be better if they just Voltron'd this shit and formed like a Justice Caucus within the Greens or something. Why are third parties so bad at consolidating and cooperating? The only semi-successful third party presidential runs this last century* were based on powerful personalities like Ross Perot, George Wallace, Robert LaFollette, and Teddy Roosevelt, who, with the exception of Perot- who's a billionaire anyway- all came from established parties. So really in those cases it was less about grassroots third parties and more like schisms within the main parties based around charismatic insurgent candidates. A million third party jokesters hoping to cultivate their own personality cults is not going to work. If they were seriously, they'd work together.

* I'm arbitrarily basing this around if they received >10% of the popular vote.
posted by Apocryphon at 3:20 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


GOOGLE JILL STEIN! ...pretty great survey format, I think.
posted by j_curiouser at 3:20 PM on August 30, 2012


95%
Democratic
95%
Green
46%
Libertarian
4%
Republican

WTF?

Mitt Romney
no major issues

so what's the 4%? I feel dirty.

64% american voters

OK, now THAT's odd. As a pinko liberal socialist by US standards - aka british Lib Dem/green voter, how the hell do you yanks end up with such hard-core right wing nutters?
posted by ArkhanJG at 3:20 PM on August 30, 2012


Apparently the US Green Party has significantly different policies from the Canadian version.
posted by rocket88 at 3:22 PM on August 30, 2012


I took this a while ago and don't have the link, but I remember I got Gary Johnson first at around 90%, Obama a close second among the serious candidates, then Romney significantly behind Obama.
posted by John Cohen at 3:22 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein, big surprise, and I actually really love the Green Party platform and her Green New Deal. I have a Jill Stein bumper sticker on my car right next to the HRC sticker in fact.

Her biggest problem is obviously that nobody has heard of her. If someone would give her 100 quizillion magical non-corrupting dollars, I suspect she'd have a very good chance of winning instead of zero chance at winning.
posted by Foosnark at 3:23 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


OK, now THAT's odd. As a pinko liberal socialist by US standards - aka british Lib Dem/green voter, how the hell do you yanks end up with such hard-core right wing nutters?

Serious answer: because voters are often politically ignorant and vote for candidates with whom they disagree and against their own self-interest. Without even realizing it in many cases. Politics is more like rooting for a sports team than a rational decision based on evaluating facts.

Poll after poll consistently shows that to be true.
posted by Justinian at 3:23 PM on August 30, 2012 [8 favorites]


I just retook the quiz with more nuanced answers, and answering the hidden questions, and Stein's number rose a point while Obama's fell seven. But I'm not also confused why Anderson's matches were hidden unless I clicked "show all candidates", since I matched his stances at 57% but Paul's were only 23% and yet his were shown. Plus, it was only one candidate that was hidden...you couldn't just show them?
posted by maxwelton at 3:23 PM on August 30, 2012


I side with...

Jill Stein 91%
Obama 84%
Democratic Party 92%
Green Party 81%


huh?

And who is Rocky Anderson, Justice Party (75%)?
posted by Bwithh at 3:24 PM on August 30, 2012


Why were so many of the questions culture war issues or easy stuff like "do you like space"?
posted by postcommunism at 3:24 PM on August 30, 2012


64% american voters

OK, now THAT's odd. As a pinko liberal socialist by US standards - aka british Lib Dem/green voter, how the hell do you yanks end up with such hard-core right wing nutters?


Well, let's ask it this question: Is that 64% of registered voters or 64% of people who actually vote.
posted by adamdschneider at 3:24 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Jill Stein, 90%! I'd love to see a Jill Stein AMA at Reddit -
posted by Auden at 3:25 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


OK, now THAT's odd. As a pinko liberal socialist by US standards - aka british Lib Dem/green voter, how the hell do you yanks end up with such hard-core right wing nutters?

Unfortunately, voters in the US don't pick a candidate based on the outcome of 'which candidate has the same opinion as me' polls.

There was a Pew research study a few years ago which showed that something like 70% of US voters are ideologically liberal, but a vast majority tend to vote based on one or two issues, plus they have learned to hate the word 'liberal.'
posted by muddgirl at 3:26 PM on August 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


I might believe I agreed with Mitt Romney on some position or another if I actually thought he had articulated any position to which he's committed.

Beyond his VP pick, anyway, which I don't agree with.
posted by weston at 3:26 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Jill Stein 90%
Barack Obama 90%
Rocky Anderson 70%
Gary Johnson 61%
Mitt Romney 34%
Ron Paul 28%
Virgil Goode 4%
American Voters 58%

Somehow I got 34% agreement with Romney, even though we don't agree on any major issue.

Democrat 93%
Green 83%
Libertarian 25%
Republican 17%

I am a bit surprised by the Green Party agreement.

When they separate it by issue, Obama shows up more often than Jill Stein, and yet she is still my top result. Heck, even Obama is alphabetically first. WTF is going on here?
posted by Melee Loaf at 3:26 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein, 90%! I'd love to see a Jill Stein AMA at Reddit

The servers would be OK (sadly).
posted by maxwelton at 3:26 PM on August 30, 2012


And the Meadow Party gets ignored at the polls YET AGAIN.
Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
posted by entropicamericana at 3:27 PM on August 30, 2012


OK, now THAT's odd. As a pinko liberal socialist by US standards - aka british Lib Dem/green voter, how the hell do you yanks end up with such hard-core right wing nutters?

Because the alternatives are never presented. Hence the people in this thread who agree with Jill Stein 95% of the time but have never heard of her.
posted by moammargaret at 3:27 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


I should add that I voted for Obama, but wasn't surprised that my results didn't list him first.

However, I don't know how useful some of these questions are. Whenever the choices included "reform" and "dismantle," I couldn't take the question seriously. If you want to change a government program at all, you're probably going to refer to your desired changes as "reform," no matter what you actually plan to do.
posted by John Cohen at 3:28 PM on August 30, 2012


I like what I've read so far about the Justice Party, but does it have any substance? Any defecting democrats? Any attempt to capture local, state, and national offices besides POTUS? Organization? I know it's new so I'll cut it some slack, but if anyone here has information about it, I would appreciate it.

Honestly, I'm not sure if any third parties are any good at doing this, except occasionally the big three (Greens, Libertarians, and Constitution Party).
posted by Apocryphon at 3:28 PM on August 30, 2012


I was surprised there was no "Do you think religion should guide policy?" since it looks like the basic tenets of civilization were up for discussion anyway.
posted by Marauding Ennui at 3:28 PM on August 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


I might believe I agreed with Mitt Romney on some position or another if I actually thought he had articulated any position to which he's committed.

Romney has committed to a position: not releasing his tax returns.
posted by ambrosia at 3:28 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Because of you, 0 people have taken this quiz
Shouldn't that read '0 people have taken this quiz because of you'?
posted by therubettes at 3:28 PM on August 30, 2012 [8 favorites]


Well, I have to say, given that Jill Stein probably had a pretty small budget for campaign spending, paying somebody to create this quiz was probably a good move.

Jill Stein 96%
posted by koeselitz at 3:29 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


I fully expected to agree with Jill Stein, and I did at over 95% (closed the page a little early).

If I didn't know all the US Presidential candidates, I wouldn't be crowing over this fact on the internet.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:29 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


How am I only a 96 percent match with Jill Stein? I must have put a wrong answer in there somewhere.
posted by brina at 3:30 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


1% with Romney. (And that 1% is a lie).
posted by Auden at 3:30 PM on August 30, 2012


From the same site: Interview with Jill Stein
posted by triggerfinger at 3:30 PM on August 30, 2012


a vast majority tend to vote based on one or two issues

Around where I live that issue tends to be abortion. My high school really pushed "Vote for Republicans because they are Pro-Life." Uh, no. They might be Pro-Life, b ut that doesn't mean they won't tank the country.
posted by Melee Loaf at 3:30 PM on August 30, 2012


I got 97%...

(on preview, oh well, never mind)
posted by univac at 3:30 PM on August 30, 2012


UK or Canadian Mefites, is there anything similar to this in your countries? I'd be interested in learning whether I would vote, say, Liberal or NDP.

During elections there's the Vote Compass, promoted heavily on the CBC website. It's quite well researched and put together, but you can't seem to take the quiz now as far as I can tell. The questions are on the site though, and the response pattern of different areas of the country. Might provide an interesting comparison to the American version.

The odd thing about the Vote Compass is that some of the issues are ones in which all of the parties official stances are in agreement. (So you can't take the presence of a question on the list as an indication of widespread disagreement on that issue.) There are also graphs depicting the opinions of different demographic groups which is cool.

Just on a brief scan, lots of the questions are similar. Canada has the addition of questions about military presence in the Arctic, Quebec culture and nationhood, lots of immigration and multiculturalism questions, and questions about abolishing the (non-elected) Senate. No talk of campaign finance whatsoever, probably because contributions are capped for both individuals and corporations at something like $1000-$2000 and supplemented with various forms of public funding.

Anecdata: took the American quiz just now and got Jill Stein like the rest of you (though I got bored part of the way through and didn't answer all the questions so this is probably not the best indication), when I take the Canadian version I get pretty solidly NDP or Green Party.
posted by lookoutbelow at 3:33 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


How am I only a 96 percent match with Jill Stein? I must have put a wrong answer in there somewhere.

... well it's not quite accurate at points.
On mine, under "Issues we do not side on..." they listed the following:

Should the United States increase our space exploration efforts and budget?

Jill Stein: Regardless, we should not use space-based technology for military purposes (P3 C3)

You: Yes

posted by Auden at 3:33 PM on August 30, 2012


You will NEVER guess who I got... Oh...
posted by zeoslap at 3:33 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I guess I didn't really realize just how far left-leaning I really am. And it's been long way to travel for me, growing up in a pro-military Utah Republican home. Yet here I am, apparently ready to be besties with the nominee form the Green Party.

But the thing is, the thing is:I took the questions pretty seriously, like logically and objectively and considering the weight of human history and advances of technology and wealth systems and all that stuff and I felt like these were the most logical, most sensible, and above all what I thought to be the most civilized answers to the questions.

And I got Jill Stein. What?!

It's really weird for me to realize this, a person who not-so-long-ago had a regular subscription to REASON magazine, but you get to a point where these ideological and political debates stop being the abstractions of a college dorm-room argument and you start facing the real world with real people in it and I guess my perspective just changed. Significantly.

Maybe I am being naive, but I think a lot of people, people who would defend their Republican roots with all the passion they can muster, I think if you were to ask them point-blank without --fear of being labeled-- something like "do you believe it would be a good thing if every single American citizen had access to clean water, adequate nutrition, and a reliable doctor?" I think a lot, maybe most of them would say yes.

And yes, I get that it's a lot more complicated than that. But really, it's not. The "complications" are completely fabricated. Manufactured dissent! It still amazes me how quickly we fall for this bullshit "us v. them" line, even while the conservative Christians are singing Amazing Grace and the "lefties" are singing We Shall Overcome, and even though the details are different the goals, the desires, the deepest desires of our hearts are the same.

Just about everybody wants the same things: to be safe, to be warm, to be fed, to be healthy, to be free. And while that is harder to achieve on the ground, the leaders of political parties aren't doing us any favors by drawing lines in the sand for us while they take our money. It's like the fucking Sneetches story, forever and ever.

I'm sorry, I'm ranting. Yes. We have to organize. Groups are helpful. We can't always agree on everything. Yes, yes. But when you're lying in bed at night, eyes wide open staring at the ceiling, doesn't it all just strike you as the biggest, dumbest, worst house of cards ever built?
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:33 PM on August 30, 2012 [33 favorites]


If I didn't know all the US Presidential candidates, I wouldn't be crowing over this fact on the internet.

I know, everytime I turn on the TV it's another Stein commercial and everytime I turn on NPR its another puff piece about Gary Johnson. And don't get me started on the sheer amount of column inches the NYT devotes to Rocky Anderson.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:34 PM on August 30, 2012 [8 favorites]


My high school really pushed "Vote for Republicans because they are Pro-Life." Uh, no. They might be Pro-Life, but that doesn't mean they won't tank the country.

Republicans are not "pro-life."
posted by raztaj at 3:35 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I think Rocky Anderson gets so high a % because he didn't take a stance on many things.
posted by pdxpogo at 3:35 PM on August 30, 2012


So I took the quiz twice... first time honestly and I got 97% Jill Stein, 93% Barack Obama. Then I reset the thing and answered the opposite on every issue. 97% Mitt Romney.

Not rigged. And I do NOT want to meet Bizzaro m@f.
posted by m@f at 3:36 PM on August 30, 2012 [7 favorites]


As much as I like what I see from Jill Stein, I am worried that if she gains in popularity we'll see a repeat of the 2000 election. People have incredibly short memories and as long as our system remains a first-past-the-post system, we really only have two parties.
posted by triggerfinger at 3:36 PM on August 30, 2012


Doleful Creature: "It's really weird for me to realize this, a person who not-so-long-ago had a regular subscription to REASON magazine, but you get to a point where these ideological and political debates stop being the abstractions of a college dorm-room argument and you start facing the real world with real people in it and I guess my perspective just changed. Significantly. "

Who are you? Me?
posted by brundlefly at 3:36 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Yay Jill Stein.

According to this, I agree with Mitt Romney on 3% of "no major issues."
posted by marxchivist at 3:37 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


And I got Jill Stein. What?!

In the developed/industrialized world, that probably makes you a centrist or moderate. You're just living in the most extreme outlier state.
posted by anonymisc at 3:38 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


I'm not surprised I (and most people here) got Jill Stein. From when I first started paying any attention to politics, (drawing on my DJ experience) I've always felt like the Green Party was like that one AMAZING song that, if you had your way, would be a club hit, but you know it will kill the floor, so you put on a popular song you can stand, and learn to be content with just enjoying that aforementioned track at home, on really good headphones. Alone.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 3:39 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Joining the Jill Stein club at 94%. Was very relieved to see Romney in last place, in single digits, though.

As I took the quiz, I thought, "Huh, maybe I'm more conservative than I thought...let's see how this turns out..."

Guess not.
posted by MoonOrb at 3:39 PM on August 30, 2012


This isn't a site driven by the Jill Stein campaign at all. If you look at the map, way more people seem to agree with Gary Johnson than Jill Stein.

MetaFilter is honesly not a very good representation of the US -- we are way too intellectual and curious about things.

I'm always shocked when I see Todd Akin bumper stickers locally, because I hang out online with much classier people than those who actually live here.
posted by Foosnark at 3:39 PM on August 30, 2012


89% Jill Stein
81% Barack Obama
77% Rocky Anderson
60% Gary Johnson
31% Ron Paul
8% Mitt Romney

94% Democratic
89% Green
39% Libertarian
4% Republican

Can I infer from this that the Green Party candidate better represents the Democratic party than the Democratic candidate?
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:40 PM on August 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


UK or Canadian Mefites, is there anything similar to this in your countries?

In a similar vein, there's this for the last Australian federal election. A lot of the questions are probably uninterpretable for non-Aussies, but it allows you to select "neutral" so you can effectively skip those items. It seemed about right: I got the MeFi default of Jill Stein / Barack Obama on the US quiz, and the Australian one pegged me as a Green voter (though there aren't enough economic questions, so it ended up thinking I would vote for the Socialist party, which isn't likely), with the ALP getting preferences.
posted by mixing at 3:41 PM on August 30, 2012


In the developed/industrialized world, that probably makes you a centrist or moderate. You're just living in the most extreme outlier state.

Yeah, good point.


Who are you? Me?

It's possible? I mean one night I ate some pretty sketchy chili dogs and it's possible that our personalities merged in the dorkosphere or something
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:41 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Jill Stein.

I read about her before. I think I'll vote for her.

Although I hear Futurama's Nixon in the background, "Go ahead, throw your vote awayyyyy!"
posted by Malice at 3:41 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


I actually scored higher for Obama than Jill Stein. Hunh.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:44 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: way too intellectual and curious about things.
posted by granted at 3:45 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


The Great Big Mulp: Can I infer from this that the Green Party candidate better represents the Democratic party than the Democratic candidate?

That's probably true of both side's candidates for most presidential elections. Fairly moderate candidates are much more likely to appeal to swing votes, so you maximize the chance of winning.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:45 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


It's a fuxored survey. I got 90% Jill Stein, 81% Barack Obama, but I have a really hard time seeing only a 10 percent difference between these two based on the answers I gave and what I know of the Obama administration and what I know of the Green Party platform.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:47 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


If we used instant runoff elections in the United States, Jill Stein would be president in January.
posted by the jam at 3:48 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


I don't actually think it's possible to get anybody besides Jill Stein.
posted by koeselitz at 3:49 PM on August 30, 2012


I'm going to redo the quiz while thinking "What would an ignorant buffoon choose?". LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on August 30, 2012


Issues we side on...

Should the federal government fund stem cell research?
Mitt Romney: No
Your similar answer: Yes, as long as they are non-fetal stem cells*
Uh survey guys, that's not really agreement. I can sleep in peace that I don't really have anything in common with that... person.



* because it's such a contentious issue for many christians, I'm willing to concede that federal dollars probably shouldn't be spent on it, even though I have no problem with it and it will slow down the medical research into the benefits of stem cell therapy/discoveries
posted by ArkhanJG at 3:53 PM on August 30, 2012


So I think I figured out the problem. I live in NY 15th district. The most democratic district in the nation. We voted for 93% Obama in 2008. I'm pretty sure a Romey supporter would get run out of the neighborhood. But we are all clumped up in a tiny part of New York. What we do is disperse every 4 years and start colonies in all the red states.

Mefites, would that work? Can the 15th send our excess dems to red states to help turn them blue?
posted by Ad hominem at 3:54 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


All these Jill Stein recommendations leads me to think there's a non-zero chance this might be a ploy to split the progressive vote.

Always amusing that people on the left in America are shocked to discover that when they measure their values against those of the Democratic party, the Democratic party comes up wanting.
posted by Jimbob at 3:55 PM on August 30, 2012 [7 favorites]


I swear all I did was answer questions like I think a stupid person would answer. I even bent over backwards to be fair! For example I said that we shouldn't withdraw from the UN because I think even dumb people would generally say no. I said we should increase NASA spending even though I answered yes to that one for myself as well. And so on.

The totally unscientific WWAMD (what would a moron do) results?

MITT ROMNEY: 99%.

Seriously.
posted by Justinian at 3:56 PM on August 30, 2012 [9 favorites]


Thorzad,

You and I are not the only liberals in the state of Indiana. There's lots of us, we just don't attract attention to ourselves by acting like loudmouthed jackasses.

I'm still voting Obama. This race is not a game.
posted by double block and bleed at 3:57 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Note that to get to 100% with Romney I had to go full moron and say we should withdraw from the UN. That's some dumb policy right there.
posted by Justinian at 3:57 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Jill Stein (duh) 92%
Rocky Anderson 83%
Barack Obama 83%

I don't want to show how high a percentage for:

Ron Paul
Mitt Romney

because it's embarrassingly high. Same with the Republicans. WTF? I want a recount!

The Justice Party seems interesting.
posted by deborah at 3:58 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


I had already heard about Jill Stein and was already planning on voting for her. Today, I saw some Romney signs and was wavering but this questionaire firmed my resolve to do the Right Thing. Thanks!
posted by DU at 3:59 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


And for the UK equivalent, there's this from the 2010 BBC election coverage; not a survey, but lets you really drill down to the detail differences (you can pick parties other than the big 3 listed using the drop down lists)

Though I was once told by my politics teacher that most of the british parties would fit comfortably inside the left-wing of the Democratic party, with the British National Party as Republicans.
posted by ArkhanJG at 3:59 PM on August 30, 2012


UK or Canadian Mefites, is there anything similar to this in your countries? I'd be interested in learning whether I would vote, say, Liberal or NDP.

For another UK equivalent, here's a quiz the Daily Telegraph put out before the 2010 General Election. I voted Lib Dem in that election but was half-considering voting Labour, and it's given me 56% Lab, 55% LD, 52% Green and 44% Conservative, so it's certainly not a million miles off. Bear in mind that the Telegraph is a right-leaning paper so there may be bias - I tried to find an equivalent on the Guardian's site but couldn't see one.
posted by ZsigE at 4:02 PM on August 30, 2012


Steinarama, 96%.
Hope and Change, 85%.
The Gov, 7%.
7 too many. Gonna hit the shower.
posted by MarvinTheCat at 4:03 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein. And everyone is still pissed at me for voting Nader.
posted by malocchio at 4:03 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I'm still voting Obama. This race is not a game.

It's all a fucking game. I just don't want to play their game. I refuse to give up and just vote for the lesser of two evils, win or lose I am voting for the candidate I'm behind.

Because I don't feel right for voting for a man who laughs when his countrymen bring up issues that are important to them; and I certainly don't want to vote for the sludge that is Romney.
posted by Malice at 4:06 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Jill Stein 96%, Obama 85%.

But I knew who she was as a dear friend has been a Green Party delegate as long as I've known him (seriously, our very first conversation ever was an argument about how Nader came across during the 2001 elections - he thought Nader was being unfairly blamed for trashing the election, I was saying "I don't actually think that, but I do think Nader mis-handled the publicity he DID get" and I often think that the Green Party is a bit....naive about political process); I have shared the results with him as I think he will be very amused.

I thought Roseanne Barr was running too... how come she ain't on there?

I think Roseanne was the crazypants "oh god I hope people can forget she was a candidate" Santorum-esque candidate in the Greens this year.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:06 PM on August 30, 2012


I didn't even know Chewbacca was running, but apparently we're 8% compatible because I also believe in ripping the arms off people who defeat me at holographic space chess.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 4:06 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


You guys whining about Jill Stein just be glad that the Green Party chose her instead of Roseanne Barr, then you'd have gotten Roseanne instead (maybe -- though hopefully not).

My friend showed me this earlier, and his wife had like Gary Johnson, Obama and then Ron Paul.

I had 11% Romney (which was the lowest on the score).

I actually had the highest match with Rocky Johnson, which really was a "WHO?" and I even knew who Jill Stein was. I caught part of the debate with Jill and Roseanne, and dear god, I'm not sure what Roseanne was thinking. I generally like her as a person, but she is clearly not presidential material (the truther shit doesn't help either).
posted by symbioid at 4:07 PM on August 30, 2012


You know, this thread will probably end up being used as Undeniable Proof the next time someone posts a "This place is hostile to conservatives" MeTa.
posted by Doleful Creature at 4:08 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Germany has the Wahl-O-Mat, which gets answers to a set of questions from the parties and then just tallies your answers against their responses. Thus I know that the only issue on which I agree with the CDU/CSU is referenda/propositions, which, having lived in California, I think are crap.

97% Jill Stein. I'm mildly surprised, but she's on the ballot here. It must be annoying being a Green in Minnesota, given that the DFL uses green. (I have yet to figure out if this some fundamental fact about the DFL or if it's some sort of Wellstone effect.)
posted by hoyland at 4:09 PM on August 30, 2012


I guess I'm libertarian. Anyway, read up on Gary Johnson, and he is a freakin' bad-ass! He vetoed a ton of stuff as Governor of New Mexico and was still popular. Cut a lot of spending. I'll most likely vote for him, or Ron Paul.
posted by PipRuss at 4:11 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Vote for who you like, I'm just saying that a vote for anyone other than Obama in Indiana is a vote for Romney.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:14 PM on August 30, 2012


And a vote for anyone in Utah is probably still a vote for Romney. Yippeeeee!
posted by Doleful Creature at 4:16 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


I guess I'm libertarian.

No, no, this thread is proof you're a unicorn, as you didn't get Jill Stein.
posted by hoyland at 4:16 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Stein, 97%
Obama, 90%

I'm actually a registered Green and already voted for Stein in the primary, so I wasn't surprised.
posted by LionIndex at 4:18 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Vote for who you like, I'm just saying that a vote for anyone other than Obama in Indiana is a vote for Romney.

By that logic, all the people who don't even turn up to vote are a vote for Romney, so why don't you attack their lazy ass, before complaining about those who are active enough to come out and support a candidate they believe in instead of just holding their nose and feeding the machine.
posted by Jimbob at 4:19 PM on August 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


Ah, so what does that mean. Do I have magical powers? And yes, *sigh* Utah is full of "Republican" morons.
posted by PipRuss at 4:19 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


I got 90% Jill Stein, 81% Barack Obama, but I have a really hard time seeing only a 10 percent difference between these two based on the answers I gave and what I know of the Obama administration and what I know of the Green Party platform.

TBH I see much more than a 10% difference between the Obama administration and what I know of the Obama campaign's platform. So there's that.

Surprised nobody here has really mentioned the breakdown of votes-by-website, underneath the map on the stats page. Metafilter, unsurprisingly, skews heavily towards Jill Stein, and SomethingAwful does as well, but Forbes runs 51% with Mitt Romney (not really a shock either - the shock maybe being that's less than Yahoo or AOL), Tumblr and Twitter both apparently go pro-Obama and YouTube and 4chan go with Gary Johnson. Obama only comes in 3rd on Reddit...guess he better go do another AMA.
posted by mstokes650 at 4:20 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Joffrey Baratheon. I'm very distressed.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:20 PM on August 30, 2012 [10 favorites]


Stein 91%
Obama 81%
Anderson 73%
Paul 30%
Romney 7%
California 64%

On the Other Quiz, I got Nader (85%), Stein (83%), Biden (75%), Clinton, H (75%) and then Obama at (68%).

Sorry Ralphie, I'm still bitter from '00.
posted by ApathyGirl at 4:21 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Talking Points Memo Electoral Scoreboard
posted by crunchland at 4:22 PM on August 30, 2012


Wow, Jill Stein's VP is an impressive pick, Cheri Honkala:
* Grew up in poverty and lost her teenage brother to suicide
* Was a teenage mother living out of a car until it was destroyed by a drunk driver
* Lived in an abandoned HUD house
* Co-founded the Kensington Welfare Rights Union and the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign
*In 2000 at the Republican National Convention Cheri was a leader of a march of over 100,000 people and she also addressed 148 governments at the United Nations on poverty
posted by wcfields at 4:22 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


Keep in mind that your test result says "I side with so and so on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election." The key word there is 'most'. So take from that what you will.
posted by PipRuss at 4:23 PM on August 30, 2012


Man, before even taking the test, before even reading your comments, I knew it was going to be like going to a party that you know an ex-girlfriend is going to be at:

"Oh, hi, Jill. Yeah, I remember that Senate race too. Yeah, I had a good time voting for you. I know, we do seem perfect for each other, you're right.

"I don't know, sometimes ..... sometimes things that should be great, would be great ... they just don't happen.

"But good luck! Honestly — I really hope you do well, really.

"Yeah, yeah I am here with him. He's actually a pretty nice guy, if you got to know him.

"No, not like you. No, he's not like you."
posted by benito.strauss at 4:24 PM on August 30, 2012 [11 favorites]


Kos is going for Stein, too.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:27 PM on August 30, 2012


I side 12% with Romney.

No I don't.

Yes I do.

No I don't.

Yes I do.

(89% Stein, 80% Obama)
posted by HotToddy at 4:29 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Are people still talking about Sudan? Is there even a genocide going on anymore in Darfur?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:30 PM on August 30, 2012


Sudan, 12:13 PM today.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:32 PM on August 30, 2012


"Khartoum has violated the terms of the deal by refusing to allow the people in the contested Sudanese border states of Blue Nile, South Kordofan and Abyei to have a say in their future"

So it's not Darfur, or South Sudan, but other regions... is there no southern state that the Sudanese government won't try to harm?!?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:35 PM on August 30, 2012


Voting your conscience is fine if you don't care about the end result. Unless a larger than expected proportion of voters in my state write in "Ron Paul", the republicans don't have to worry about their vote getting split.

This is the way the system is. It sucks but we're stuck with it until we get instant runoffs. I expect that to happen shortly after the twelfth of Never.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:35 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Those who are amazed at how much they "agree" with Romney should keep in mind that this thing can only go by official policy positions and statements. Romney has not actually acted as President, obviously, and he has to say relatively moderate things to prevent them from being brought up in the general election.

tl,dr: Bush was going to be a "compassionate conservative".
posted by DU at 4:37 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Maybe the reason why people aren't aligning with Obama as much as they'd like because Obama isn't as much of a lefty as we think he is, or ought to be? And does this realization come as a shock to anyone, really?
posted by crunchland at 4:37 PM on August 30, 2012


Maybe the reason why people aren't aligning with Obama as much as they'd like because Obama isn't as much of a lefty as we think he is, or ought to be?

Obama is more or less as left as he ran, which is to say not very (he has always been a "centrist").

Most people here didn't score that low with him, really, although these questions hardly encompass all of his policy.

The difference between him and Romney does seem very stark by this poll, given that most people had 70+% Obama and <10% Romney.

Although I think people are less surprised that they dont "align" with Obama and more surprised that (a) Jill Stein exists, and (b) they align with her. (Well, I align more with Obama but obviously thats less common here).
posted by wildcrdj at 4:43 PM on August 30, 2012


Ah crap. Who's Jill Stein?
posted by mule98J at 4:43 PM on August 30, 2012


Voting your conscience is fine if you don't care about the end result.

How much can you really care about the end result if you don't vote your conscience? "Throwing your vote away" is a popular refrain but voting for a candidate you don't believe will make the country better is throwing it away in a much more profound way than exercising your constitutional right on behalf of someone that you believe in.
posted by camcgee at 4:44 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


What if this is a move by the Obama crew to make himself look more conservative for Romney leaning swing voters. After all, all the "libtards" line up with Stein.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:47 PM on August 30, 2012


Said another way "my vote only matters if my guy wins" is pretty much the diametric opposite of true democracy.
posted by camcgee at 4:47 PM on August 30, 2012


If the only question asked were "Based on name alone, which candidate is most likely to be a six gun-totin' lawman, riding the dusty trails in search of frontier justice?" I think we'd all be backing Virgil Goode 100%.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 4:49 PM on August 30, 2012 [11 favorites]


I only got 81% for Jill. I'm clearly not measuring up to the new metric that I didn't even know existed 10 minutes ago.
posted by iamkimiam at 4:52 PM on August 30, 2012


My quiz says "Romney, 3%, no major issues."

I disagree. I have MAJOR issues with the idea that I might have 3% in common with Mitt Romney. (Also, stupid quiz, 3% obviously means I have major issues with Mitt Romney.)

Anyway, Stein 96%, Obama 90%. There's a reason I'm strongly left-handed.
posted by ilana at 4:59 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Where is this true democracy you live in?
posted by double block and bleed at 5:03 PM on August 30, 2012


Did you see the ad from the Jill Stein website? It says they "hired one of the most famous political advertising firms in the country."
I don't know what that says about the credentials of that firm, but the ad is terrible.
posted by Red Loop at 5:09 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Said another way "my vote only matters if my guy wins" is pretty much the diametric opposite of true democracy.

I think totalitarian slavery is more like the diametric opposite of democracy. Also, have they stopped teaching Government in high school, so people don't know a definition of 'democracy' and don't learn which ways the official structure of American government differs from a pure democracy. Also, there's more to democracy than voting in presidential elections, like working in more local politics, or exercising the right to petition the government. Also, it seems I'm feeling pretty damn cranky today.
posted by benito.strauss at 5:09 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Stein 85%, Obama 82%.
Democrat 93%, Green 83%.

Like many of you, it appears, I reported better scores for Stein but flipped for the party. (Thus leaving my status as a Democratic rabble-rouser intact.) The Democratic Party platform can be significantly more progressive than its electeds--a symptom many structural things in American politics like not having a Tea Party of the left hell-bent on chasing irascible Blue Dogs out of districts that could support a more liberal member, or majority-minority districts concentrating liberals, leaving the path to a majority impossible without some Blue Dogs.

(It's single-payer health care, isn't it?)

Any Jill Stein supporter would be poorly served voting for her in the general election, when Romney could win. Primaries are where you express your desire for more liberal Democrats, not the general election.

MetaFilter's results have more in common with Fark than 4chan.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 5:10 PM on August 30, 2012


94% Jill Stein, 74% Rocky Anderson, 73% Obama.
84% Democrats, 77% Green.

a) How difficult would it be to change the voting system into something like preferential voting (see his videos), practically speaking? (I'm aware that changing social acceptance is a harder sell, if gun control & the Metric system are any indication)

b) I'm surprised there isn't a US equivalent to the Australian Sex Party (which has gone past being a fringe novelty party and is gaining traction). You certainly have enough candidates in San Francisco.
posted by divabat at 5:11 PM on August 30, 2012


Is there any material difference between voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win but who I think would do a better job than Obama or Romney on the one hand and just writing in the name of someone even better who is not running or is long-dead? If I'm going to "vote my conscience" by casting my vote for the ideal candidate, I'm not really "voting my conscience" if I restrict myself to people who are actually running for President, am I?
posted by The World Famous at 5:13 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Vermin Supreme!

No, actually, Obama 86%, Rocky Anderson 80%, Jill Stein 74%.

Ergo, all of the MeFites who complain about me being a right winger are totally correct.
posted by klangklangston at 5:14 PM on August 30, 2012


Romney 98%
Ron Paul 87%
No Major Issues w/ Obama, and Jill Stein doesn't show up.

But I tailored my answers to "right-wing nut job" to test to see if the thing was automatically putting Jill Stein up there, b ecause the first time I tried it it was Stein 93% Obama 87%.
posted by Cookiebastard at 5:17 PM on August 30, 2012


Should we expand our offshore oil drilling?
Mitt Romney: YesP4 C4
Your similar answer: Incentivize the private sector to develop alternative forms of energy


I did NOT expect those to be similar! In my head it was like "well one incentive is to not drill offshore, therefore raising oil pricing. Or, we can whip the oil company C*Os until they do it. Either way."

Fucking nuance.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:17 PM on August 30, 2012


Oddly, I got this:

86% Barack Obama
81% Jill Stein
60% Gary Johnson

So I think my Overton window has been successfully shifted. Congratulations, Carl Rove, you slimy fuck.

BTW, I live in Massachusetts, and am thus free to vote for a non-Obama. If there's someone out there in a closer-run state who wants to vote for Jill Stein, I'll vote swap with you. You cast my Obama vote in a state where it will matter, and I'll (happily) cast your Jill Stein vote in MA, where there's very little risk of damage.
posted by benito.strauss at 5:17 PM on August 30, 2012


The World Famous, if all you care about it your conscience, then it doesn't matter which you vote for. But for people who hope that there could be third parties in America that play a bigger role in politics, being able to point to the number of votes they get in elections helps support their efforts. I don't know if that's you or not.
posted by benito.strauss at 5:23 PM on August 30, 2012


I'm a little perplexed by those fulminating about Obama being the lesser of two evils as a result of this quiz. Yeah, Jill Stein's doing better, but Obama's generally getting in the 80 to 90 percent range for most people.

I'm good with 80 to 90 percent. "Pretty close to my views with a decent chance of winning" doesn't strike me as massively inferior to "slightly closer to my views with a much smaller chance of winning".
posted by kyrademon at 5:25 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Jill Stein = Awesome because we agree with her 90% but Obama is evil because only 80%! Yeah!
posted by Justinian at 5:27 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


Vermin Supreme Is Not Some Ranting Old Geezer
posted by homunculus at 5:28 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


This test donesn't even touch on LaRouche's issues.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:33 PM on August 30, 2012


How difficult would it be to change the voting system into something like preferential voting...

Mind-blowingly difficult.

American politics is much more about the candidate than the party or ideology, the direct opposite of party-list systems. Most voters identify with a party, the number of true independents is puny, but forcing something like closed-list PR where you don't have a direct choice in the person isn't going to fly at all. Similarly, voters don't make their choices using issue rubrics. Representative democracy's purpose is for voters to select people to deal with issues for them, issues that they don't have time for or a stake in. We trust our representatives to have the same values as we do, so that the government they implement is roughly what we want.

People decide how they vote through a complex of factors that keep political scientists busy, but more than anything it's a collection of shortcuts that help people determine whether someone, roughly, shares the same values that they do. (I use "values" in the neutral sense, not a Christian Right sense.)

So the average liberal voter that is not one of the heavily-educated political junkie MeFi set wants, for example, someone who will stand up for the middle class and give people a fair shake because their pocketbooks depend on it. Someone who protects a woman's right to choose. Someone who thinks like them, it helps that they're from nearby. Someone who's looking out for them. Maybe the steel mill shut down, they want those jobs back somehow.

These are all shortcuts to other more theoretical things: class relations, feminist theory.

Whereas on MeFi, where people can fill in quizzes like this with great nuance, we want someone who will fight for the working man because corporate robber barons have perverted our system by dismantling healthy labor relations. We protect a woman's right to choose because of tenets of feminist ideology. We support single payer and lambaste (rightly) private insurance.

When you have an issue grid like that, IRV is easy. Give each guy a score, rank them accordingly. But most voters do not work like self-interested policy robots.

Instant-runoff voting has been tried on the local level before. People seem to like instant-runoff voting when the guy who is leading the 1st round wins. Burlington, Vermont experimented with instant-runoff voting. The second time they did it, they elected the guy who was 2nd in the first round, and voters repealed it as soon as they could with a mantra of Keep Voting Simple.

I harbor a dream of IRV, as do many here on MetaFilter, but 90% of voters aren't glued to politics like we are. When the candidate is as important or more important than the issue, any sort of system where your vote becomes something else will confuse the hell out of people and leave then unable to come up with a coherent ranking. Just because you care enough about politics to come up with a Condorcet winner based on the issues doesn't mean that everyone else can or will.

IRV works better when candidate lists are short, but as the number of candidates increases the possible permutations of your ballot increase exponentially. This give voters, who know candidates as people and not discrete blocks of issues, a lot of heartburn.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 5:34 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Stein, 99%. I'm not voting for her though because I live in a swing state and it's too damn important.
posted by fzx101 at 5:35 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


The World Famous, if all you care about it your conscience, then it doesn't matter which you vote for. But for people who hope that there could be third parties in America that play a bigger role in politics, being able to point to the number of votes they get in elections helps support their efforts. I don't know if that's you or not.

No, I'm not above voting for fictional characters or deceased statesmen who I think would be better than any actual candidate, but I understand how the U.S. electoral system works, so I'm not someone who hopes there could be third parties that play any significant role by way of their presidential candidates.
posted by The World Famous at 5:39 PM on August 30, 2012


In all seriousness, though, I got 90% Obama and 89% Stein, then took it again with slightly more nuance and got those numbers roughly flipped. I'm accidentally a registered Green anyway*, and I live somewhere where my vote won't matter even in the remotest possibility, so I don't know what I'll do. But I genuinely like Obama a lot more than some people here.

*a few weeks ago I moved into DC and got my license, and while registering I checked the "DC Statehood" box, because hell, I do want DC statehood. I found out when I got home that DC Statehood is the DC Green Party.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:46 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


I got 97% Jill also, with Obama a close second...but what I'm still trying to figure out is why my alignment was compared to Texas voter's (56% similar, apparently!)

What exactly are they trying to say!?
posted by zinful at 5:47 PM on August 30, 2012


I don't know what that says about the credentials of that firm, but the ad is terrible.


Red Loop, come back in a month, and we can dig up an agency name from her FEC records. Nothing except $210 to a Michael Swartzbeck for "video production" on her last report, but if it was produced and paid for this month it'll show up next month.

(Campaign media is a strange place where everyone has to disclose all their spending...so you know who got hired by who, and for how much...)
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 5:49 PM on August 30, 2012


I believe they compare you to what state they think you live in. I don't know how they extrapolate that data.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:49 PM on August 30, 2012


This could be fun, if the website would have bothered to make itself accessible to screen reader users. Ugh. Another day in the life. Oh well. I don't need some quiz to affirm my own political beliefs for me.
posted by Ephelump Jockey at 5:49 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


93% Jill Stein (Not terribly surprising)
87% Barack Obama (more than I expected, actually, and on most of the issues I weighted more heavily)
77% Rocky Anderson
51% Ron Paul oh god I can't stop vomiting.
10% Mitt Romney, on "no major issues"
posted by kagredon at 6:13 PM on August 30, 2012


Republicans are not "pro-life."

Trust me, I know all too well.
posted by Melee Loaf at 6:15 PM on August 30, 2012


I really wish they had this for local/ state politicians seeing as that's another freaking 1/3 of the government!

(Actually it's just that there's so much national coverage that I know Romney's and Obama's stances- it takes a lot more effort to figure out the views of state politicians. And by a lot more effort I mean some).
posted by raccoon409 at 6:25 PM on August 30, 2012


On my first go-through I got a 94% Stein, 90 Obama, 7% Romney. On my second try, which much more use of other options, I got 86% Stein, 81% Obama, and 11% Romney. At least I can comfort myself with the notion that I'm 90% Democrat, but based on the foreign policy arguments I've been part of here, I half expected my number 1 candidate would be Kissinger.
posted by happyroach at 6:28 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill; Obama; Rocky
posted by flippant at 6:30 PM on August 30, 2012


Since no one else has mentioned it, one of the options you can choose for "Should the children of illegal immigrants be granted citizenship?" is "Yes, if they were born here."

Which is--

I don't even know anymore


I need a drink
posted by thecaddy at 6:30 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Did you see the ad from the Jill Stein website ? It says they "hired one of the most famous political advertising firms in the country."
I don't know what that says about the credentials of that firm, but the ad is terrible.
posted by Red Loop at 5:09 PM on 8/30
[1 favorite −] Favorite added! [!]


Terrible ad, yes, and her message is awkward too - she's promising waaaaay too much ( an "end to climate change" ??!?!? )
posted by Bwithh at 6:31 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein 93% Obama 84% Rocky Anderson 81% Ron Paul 46% Mitt Romney 27%-- which seems like a pretty mixed bag but apparently a majority of American Voters ( 62%) agree with me.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:35 PM on August 30, 2012


I really wish they had this for local/ state politicians seeing as that's another freaking 1/3 of the government!

Wow, that would really make a difference!
I mean, there are almost no undecided voters in this presidential election, so this website is just a curio that changes nothing. But participation in local elections is hamstrung by people not really knowing their candidates, and with so many of them, don't really want to take the time to figure it all out, and so don't bother to vote.
A site like this, people just fill in the questionnaire, and it gives you a list of all the closest fit candidates for each of the govt. positions, and you vote with confidence.

Of course, every politician is going to claim that it's rigged against them, and set up their own biased version, so you need lots of upfront transparency or to become a trusted brand, but this kind of tool could/should make a massive difference in local voting
posted by anonymisc at 6:35 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


93% Stein, 81% Obama, 80% Rocky Anderson. Only 4% Mitt Romney (whew).

But you know what's really sad? I'm 58% in line with the Missouri respondents.

WHERE ARE YOU AND WHY ARE YOU NOT VOTING?
posted by BlueJae at 6:40 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


93% Jill Stein. I never heard of her either, but she is obviously one of us! (Or a lot of us. I love diversity Metafilter!) I did like how you could make your answer a little more more nuanced, though from some of the results, I am not sure how much they took that into account.

You guys, though! I wish we had more than two parties, but we don't. I hope someone will come up with a way to fix this, because it is no way to run a country. However, this is what we have now, and everyone saying, "vote your conscience!" which I wish I could do, is just making things worse. If Romney and Co wins, they will all say, "See! We have a MANDATE from the American people! [No matter how narrow the margin] Let us pass our agenda now! Obviously it's what the country wants!!!" And the media will say "That's what they said! (complete lies, but reporting that would involve fact checking so we won't bother reporting that) and here is what some other people said! Who knows what is truth? It is all too hard!!! And then we will be more fucked than we are now. If that is possible.
posted by mkim at 6:42 PM on August 30, 2012


Also, I'm totally voting for Obama (every vote counts in my state), but maybe we should organize some sort of MeFi moneybomb for Jill Stein.
posted by BlueJae at 6:42 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Romney 81%
Ron Paul 77%
Gary Johnson 66%
Barack Obama 66%
Pennsylvania Voters 56%
American Voters 55%

Republican 78%
Democratic 58%
Green 55%
Libertarian 41%

Yeah, I've always been an outlier.

Think that 55% Green will keep me out the Gulag after the revolution? No, huh?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 6:43 PM on August 30, 2012


I'm a Democrat. 87% Obama. 85% Stein. 11% Romney. I also genuinely like Obama more than most people here. The Republican's really scare me, but it probably won't be as bad as I think if Romney gets elected. It will be interesting to see what he does. He will have to try to create more jobs - and I don't know how he'll do that without "big government." Probably they'll just incentivise companies to hire people and do more incognito "quantitative easing." Cut taxes on the rich even more. Make it look like they repealed the healthcare act but in reality change it slightly and take credit for it all. Reduce welfare and build more prisons. Could they actually try to lower the minimum wage? Hopefully not get too stupid with foreign policy.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:43 PM on August 30, 2012


Huh, I got 92% Jill Stein and 89% Obama, which doesn't quite seem possible from other responses above. I only got 6% Romney, on the other hand.

Given that a vote for Jill Stein is effectively a vote for Romney(and that, in any case, if she were a serious candidate she'd quickly drop a bunch of her positions which are complete non-starters with both the electorate and the Congress--the fringe is a nice place to play perfectionist from) and Obama's only 3% behind her on matching up to my views, I think it's pretty clear who I'll be voting for.
posted by yoink at 6:46 PM on August 30, 2012


It seems I'm one of like 7 people in all of Metafilter that didn't get Stein. Which is actually really fucking depressing, Metafilter often gets criticized for being an echo chamber but, man, proof that there really is like no diversity here anymore is alarming.
posted by mikoroshi at 6:49 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


STEIN Stein stein
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:52 PM on August 30, 2012


I got a rock…

(Okay, actually Jill Stein, but we only agree on economic, foreign policy, environmental, domestic policy, social, science, healthcare, and immigration issues.)

And then I got Barack.
posted by namasaya at 6:57 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Since there's 0 chance of New York electing Romney I think I'll vote Stein in the general and tug the ol Overton window a bit.
posted by Skorgu at 6:59 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


mikorishi - Who did you get? Curious!
posted by mkim at 7:00 PM on August 30, 2012


Stein 96, Obama 86. Romney 0. I AM PURE
posted by gaspode at 7:00 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Java script off-- 98% Stein
Java script on-- 92% Stein. So with a little more nuance not such a close match.

It appears the only thing Romney and I agree on is expanded space exploration and I think he is bullshitting on that.

It breaks my heart that I can't vote for her, she sounds like a dream candidate to me, but I live in NC where Obama's margin over Romney is razor thin-- just a point or so. Of course when I look at the results on this quiz NC sides 51% with Obama and only 39% with Romney. Too bad the voters can't be presented with a blind ballot where you just vote policy and not candidate.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:03 PM on August 30, 2012


To those who are noting Jill and still going to vote for someone else - perhaps a bit of history.

At one time the Socialists were gaining ground because people were voting for them and what ended up happening is the popular planks from the Socialists were integrated into the Democratic platform.

If the BlackBox voting people are right - what makes one think the fix isn't already in? If, say Jill, had a shot at winning why would anyone believe that people within the 2 party system would not work double-hard to make sure the 2 party system stays in place?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:09 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


If the BlackBox voting people are right - what makes one think the fix isn't already in?

That's one big conclusion assumed right there!
posted by Justinian at 7:20 PM on August 30, 2012


I'm going to vote for Jill. It isn't even close here. The only danger is we might vote for an actual socialist.
posted by Ad hominem at 7:23 PM on August 30, 2012


Rough Ashlar - I get what you are saying, but Jill doesn't have a chance of winning. No one is voting Green. We've already shown that a bunch of people on this site who agree with much of her platform have never even heard of her.
The fix is already in! It's been in. If you have a good idea of how to change things, let's hear it.
posted by mkim at 7:23 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein.

No banana for you.
posted by flabdablet at 7:31 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill for 88%

I was awfully surprised how high my Mitt was but then I don't think "Should able-bodied, mentally capable adults who receive welfare be required to work?" answered "yes" means the same thing as Mitt Romney: "Yes, adults who receive government benefits should be required to work."

I think that "able-bodied, mentally capable" part is a Huge difference between what I believe and what Mitt means with his answer.
posted by _paegan_ at 7:34 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


I remember getting voter's guides in 6th grade from Sister Mary Mara and being completely fascinated with the third parties - I asked several times about the New Alliance Party but never got much of an answer. I think they had the best logo or something.

I'm not surprised that I line up with Jill Stein but I'm surprised how strong (92% - otherwise known as 'conservative for Metafilter'). Usually I split much more between Green and Libertarian.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:35 PM on August 30, 2012


We will only ever have two parties if people continue to believe they have to vote for one of two parties.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Memo-to-Progressives-Gree-by-Scott-McLarty-101216-690.html
posted by Foosnark at 7:38 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


This reminds me (a) why I love mefi and (b) that I really need to start working with, hanging out with, and dating you people in the actual world, because facebook is making me feel angry and alienated because of all the fucking right wing idiots that have come crawling out of the shadows in every corner of my existence and made it almost impossible for me to maintain my usual sunshiny optimism about the promise and wonder of the human species.
posted by sonascope at 7:41 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Well, just more evidence that I'm not an Obama apologist, he actually does a pretty good job reflecting my choices. Also, it would be nice if the contest were between Obama and Jill Stein, 90% and over for both.
posted by meinvt at 7:42 PM on August 30, 2012


If you have a good idea of how to change things, let's hear it.

Again, blackbox voting has various proposals for changing the system.

But for the system to change the 2 parties would have to allow it to change - and what are the odds/ways to have the 2 party system people are complaining about will work to break their 2 party control?

Jill doesn't have a chance of winning. No one is voting Green

So what does that say about the courage of one's convictions if you are unwilling to execute on them?

If the voting system is about representation of what you believe - why is there even a consideration about voting in someone that doesn't reflect your convictions? You are getting the system you deserve it seems.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:42 PM on August 30, 2012


Usually I split much more between Green and Libertarian.

Alas they are 404
posted by rough ashlar at 7:48 PM on August 30, 2012


I notice a missing question about the economy....

Should we:
1. Hang the Bankers
2. Shoot the Bankers
3. Trial then Prison
4. Give the Bankers a bonus
5. We need a different execution method not mentioned


Hello, other fellow Hoosiers who got Jill Stein... and had to Google her.
posted by MikeWarot at 7:49 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


If the voting system is about representation of what you believe - why is there even a consideration about voting in someone that doesn't reflect your convictions?

The voting system is not about representation of what you believe. If it was, I'd just vote for Jed Bartlet and have that be the end of it. Surveys to tell you who to vote for wouldn't be restricted to candidates for President - they'd tell you what person - living, dead, or fictional - most closely fits your beliefs and tell you to write in that person's name on the ballot. Hell, if it were about representation of what you believe, the ballot would be a list of questions about what you believe, not a list of names and political parties.

The voting system is about not what you believe but how you wish your vote to be counted in the process of selecting who will be put in office by the electoral college. How do you wish your vote to be counted? As one of many votes for someone with a chance to win but with whom you agree only 85%, or as one of few votes for someone who will not win but with whom you agree a few more percentage points, but still not 100%? If you want your vote to be counted as a symbol of your willingness to take support away from Mr. 85% and give it to Mr. or Ms. 92%, rather than being counted as a weight on the scales keeping Mr. 10% from occupying the Oval Office, that's up to you. But don't step into that booth thinking your vote is about what you believe.
posted by The World Famous at 7:54 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Ok here is my proposal.For Everyone in a swing state who is willing to hold their nose and vote for Obama we find a person in a safe state to send a message by voting for whoever you choose.

What say you metafilter.
posted by Ad hominem at 7:54 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Greg Nog: "I'm honestly surprised I have as much as 7% in common with Romney.

'sup Jill Stein
"

You probably support expanding NASA funding. That was the only way I agreed with Mitt, and I got 7%.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:55 PM on August 30, 2012


So, we have IRV in Minneapolis. I like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person who pays attention to things. On election day when we switched to IRV, I didn't know whether not using all your choices would spoil your ballot. This was after an ad campaign on the buses and a leaflet they mailed to everyone trying to explain how to vote. I believe the conclusion was that this confusion was so widespread that it suppressed turnout.

To be honest, IRV makes little sense to me, at least without an 'all other candidates unacceptable' option, because it creates scenarios where you're given a choice between losing some of your input and making an affirmative statement in favour of a candidate who is unacceptable to you.
posted by hoyland at 7:56 PM on August 30, 2012


96% Stein, 87% Obama, 75% Anderson. I'm a bit surprised I got Stein first - I've never really identified myself as Green, but I do like some of their positions. It'll be interesting...if nothing else, this is definitely encouraging to read up on some of the candidates that I'm not as familiar with.
posted by photo guy at 7:58 PM on August 30, 2012


Ad hominem: "Ok here is my proposal.For Everyone in a swing state who is willing to hold their nose and vote for Obama we find a person in a safe state to send a message by voting for whoever you choose.

What say you metafilter.
"

We tried this in 2000. That year, Virginia was a safe state for Republicans anyway, so I voted Nader.

Truth is, it just didn't work out. People are going to vote for who they're going to vote for. So if you're in a swing state but want to vote 3rd party, you're going to do that even if it might hurt your long term chances.

I never really blamed Nader (heck, even the votes from the Socialist party would have made up the difference). Everyone knows that a bunch of retired Jews in Miami Beach didn't want to vote for Buchanan and Gore. If people had been willing to use common sense and acknowledge what actually happened, Gore would have won. It's super annoying to think that Gore lost due to a user interface error.

This year there's seriously no room for error, though. Unless you live in a dark red state, you can't know. Because in any state that is traditionally blue, there are powerful forces at work to erode the traditional democratic support. In my state of PA the margin by which Obama won in '08 is less than the number of disenfranchised voters from the new ID law. So everyone who can vote Democratic in PA, must. Same goes for places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, etc.

More importantly, conservatives are going to treat this as a referendum on the president. If we can show a significant popular vote majority win for Obama, that's a f-you in the faces of people who are convinced that Obama does not have popular support.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:02 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


rough ashlar: I met Patti Smith at a Green Party rally in 2000. It was awesome. She was awesome. I was all about third party (though I didn't think we would win, I thought maybe it would push...). But then Bush "won" the election and then we got all that. I just think things are too close. I hate the whole system. Do you really think if I vote for my preferred candidates our government will improve? (since my preferred candidates will lose?)
I get what you are saying in principle, and I totally agree! That is how the world should work. BUT IT DOESN'T. Fix it. Tell me how.
posted by mkim at 8:03 PM on August 30, 2012


And this is why we need instant runoff or Condorcet voting. If we had either of those, you would have heard of Jill Stein, because the media would know that Jill Stein had a chance, instead of what they currently know under our current system: she has no chance.

Not that it'll ever happen -- requires a constitutional amendment.

Maybe someone can kickstarter it.
posted by smcameron at 8:04 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Red Loop: "Did you see the ad from the Jill Stein website ? It says they "hired one of the most famous political advertising firms in the country."
I don't know what that says about the credentials of that firm, but the ad is terrible.
"

When they did the fast zoom out to planet Earth I kept expecting it to explode.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:11 PM on August 30, 2012



any major dude: "the only thing I agree with in this poll is that NONE of these issues should be issues at all. It's fucking pitiful that every 4 years liberals allow conservatives to control what "ISSUES" define the differences between the parties. There isn't a single question on that list that the Republicans didn't fabricate some bullshit argument out of thin air in order to make it controversial enough to appeal to the base instincts of the ignorant faction of their base (i.e. those not millionaires)"

Absolutely, like this question: "Should U.S. National Parks and Forests continue to be preserved and protected by the federal government?"

Let me think.

YES, because that's why we set up these fucking National Parks in the first place. It wasn't to wait until oil and other fossil fuels hit an all time high.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:17 PM on August 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


More importantly, conservatives are going to treat this as a referendum on the president

good point. It may be more important to stand behind Obama on principal than to squabble. This time... It's personal.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:18 PM on August 30, 2012


Ok here is my proposal. For Everyone in a swing state ....
What say you metafilter.
posted by Ad hominem at 10:54 PM


Yes.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:27 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


So, IRV is truly better than FPTP in every way unless you have an interest in maintaining a two-party system. Which is why it's unlikely that it'll ever happen on the national level. Yes, it'll be confusing the first time around for those places which do adopt it, but that's what good training for election volunteers is for.

Stein's ad is horrible. It's not just that the sound design and editing and direction and writing are bad - though they all are - because I get that this is what they are blowing their extremely limited funds on. It's also that they half-ass the Network reference which they also appear to not fully understand. Howard Beale was a rapidly-degenerating crazy person unfit for his position and only kept where he was because the powers-that-be were using him to pander to the masses for as long as his gimmick worked. It doesn't really inspire me with confidence for a candidate.

My problem with the liberal third parties (Green and Justice in this case, I suppose) is that they've got great ideas and are doing things exactly backwards, even though they've got a working current model of how to do this effectively.

Green came out in 2000 and became the poster-party for the spoiler effect. And they did it by assuming that they could only make a decent national debut was to launch a high-profile bid for the presidency. TO do so they took advantage of a "Bush and Gore are really the same" media narrative that has proved in retrospect to be grimly and disastrously untrue and ruined their reputation and feasibility among exactly the people they needed to maintain any viability.

In stark contrast, the Tea Party went after congressional seats in the midterms, from within the GOP itself. They kept focus on building caucuses that could do more than just shout at the wind once in congress. And they moved the party closest to their views closer to them. I disagree with them on everything, but they have made themselves into a legitimate force in American politics.

They also had the advantage of an absurd amount of astroturfing and a shameless top-tier "News" Network willing to propagandize for them. But Republicans aren't the only ones out there with media advantages.

Basically, the Cocktail Party or whatever needs to get their message out as an intra-democratic-party movement. Get a high-profile news segment to kick it off, and get the more liberal members of the party in safe seats to adopt the title while not leaving the party, lending it credibility. Then target Blue Dogs, vacant seats, vulnerable republican districts where the incumbent has only been clinging to the seat because of his or her name. Find some television-ready policy wonks (it won't be hard) and have them kick ass on MSNBC and The Daily Show. Get a couple of firebrand sacrificial lambs to light up some suicide-contests against particularly hated GOP mainstays.

The Tea Party has shown us the playbook. It would be good for the country and good for the democratic party, and it wouldn't be that difficult to find people willing to sign up. The current third parties are just doing it wrong.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:46 PM on August 30, 2012 [14 favorites]


proof that there really is like no diversity here anymore is alarming.

I dunno. If you look at the numbers that they've got for MeFi readers, you get

67% Stein
66% Obama
46% Anderson
21% Paul
17% Romney.

The support for Obama is about four times that for Romney, and three times that for Paul, but that's probably about what you'd expect of a fairly liberal website. That alone doesn't exactly scream echo chamber to me.

What's more of an issue I would have thought is that the aggregated statistics on the isidewith.com website are much less one-sided than the numbers that people are reporting in this thread. Sure, there's a few people indicating that they got numbers as high as 17% for Romney, and even a couple saying that they had >50% for Romney, but so far in this thread that's been a tiny minority. Most of us are giving numbers of 80% or higher for Stein and Obama, and few people are above 10% for Romney. That's a big mismatch. So either:

1. The isidewith.com data is wrong. Maybe there's lots of people/bots making random responses, which would artificially push all their numbers closer to 50%. Or maybe people are exploring lots of alternative views to their own just to see what the number look like (but that would have to be a lot of people I'd have said).... or

2. There are a lot more conservative people who read MeFi but don't comment in these threads. That is, the community is more politically diverse than the commenters in political threads.

My intuition is the latter. It takes more effort to try to comment in hot-button threads when you know you're in the minority. I find it physically exhausting to comment on sites that are conservative leaning, even when the people there are trying not to be fighty. A few people thrive on this sort of thing, but I think most people don't. So there's a self selection effect that happens: a liberal majority in the community becomes a very liberal supermajority among the commenters. Maybe that's just a way of saying that MeFi does become a bit of an echo chamber, but I think it's something that will be true of any group of humans who start out with a preexisting bias towards one thing over another: the public face of the group will look more extreme than the actual group itself is. It doesn't have to represent bad faith or deliberate suppression of unpopular views. It's just an expression of the fact that it's easier to talk to people who agree with you than people who don't.

Basically, I reckon that the diversity is actually "here in the community", to an extent; it's just not all that visible "here in the threads".
posted by mixing at 8:51 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


Yes.

Deal!. I was leaning back towards Obama because I want to beat Romney like he owes us money but I think conservatively my district will go 93+ % for Obama due to extra racism from Romney. I suspect the 7% not for Obama are for actual communists. I will vote for Jill in NY 15th for you.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:52 PM on August 30, 2012


[IRV] creates scenarios where you're given a choice between losing some of your input and making an affirmative statement in favour of a candidate who is unacceptable to you

That's one way to look at it.

The other way is to consider that once all the remaining candidates are unacceptable to you, your remaining preferences can't reasonably be held to be affirmative; they merely specify the degree to which you oppose those candidates. If the only remaining options are Darth Vader and Adolf Hitler, what could you possibly gain from giving up any say in which you think is worse?

Even so, there are some IRV variants that in practice allow you to do just that. Albert Langer has long argued that since the Australian federal preferential voting system does specify rules for dealing with duplicated numbers, voters have the option of deliberately disregarding the requirement to number preferences sequentially in order to exercise those rules. The effect of voting "Tweedledum or Tweedledee, 1, 2, 3, 3" would be that if your first and second preferences both got eliminated, then your vote no longer showed a preference and at that point (but not before) must be treated as "exhausted" and eliminated from further counting.
posted by flabdablet at 8:57 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


95% Jill Stein, 90% Obama, 12% Romney.
95% Democratic, 87% Green, 25% Libertarian, 2% Republican.

12% ROMNEY seems high based on most of the mefi posts (I'm jealous of all you 5% Romney people...I'm not sure what did it. Maybe I didn't adjust the emphasis enough. Sigh.)
posted by whatgorilla at 9:12 PM on August 30, 2012


Stein, Obama, Rocky here...like a lot of other mefites it seems.

Thing is this got me looking at 2 people I've never heard about. I've always sympathized with the Green Party, but, like some folks said upthread, their tendency to go a little loopy every now and then is a pain. The Justice Party, though, is something I'm kinda interested in. Rocky Anderson seems like a good candidate and a guy I agree with on a lot of things. I'd really like to see that party start trying to accomplish things on the county, city, and state levels.

Too bad I live in Japan (and probably will for quite some time). I'd be interested in helping these guys out.
posted by snwod at 9:18 PM on August 30, 2012


4chan is for Gary Johnson, 62%
AboveTopSecret.com is for Ron Paul, 66%
AOL is for Mitt Romney, 57%
Facebook is for Barack Obama, 53%
Fark.com is for Jill Stein, 58%
FreeRepublic.com is for Mitt Romney, 80%
Google Plus is for Barack Obama, 52%
HuffingtonPost is for Jill Stein, 72%
OffTopic.com is for Gary Johnson, 61%
Reddit is for Jill Stein, 61%
RightNation.us is for Mitt Romney, 76%
SomethingAwful.com is for Jill Stein, 65%
StraightDope.com is for Barack Obama, 69%
Tumblr is for Barack Obama, 63%
Yahoo is for Mitt Romney, 56%
Yelp is for Gary Johnson, 49%
posted by crunchland at 9:18 PM on August 30, 2012 [6 favorites]


wow. was this thing made by the Jill Stein PAC?

Or is it that people generally have social-democratic attitudes, and they're surprised to find that they share common ground with Stein, a candidate who they have never heard of because of the media blackout of third-party candidates?

I mean, really... there's no astroturfing explanation necessary. The two major candidates just suck, generally.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:04 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


I mean, really... there's no astroturfing explanation necessary. The two major candidates just suck, generally.

The Stein and Obama numbers are pretty damn close, actually. Or are we trusting that the Green Party wouldn't also have to work with other branches of government?
posted by Navelgazer at 10:11 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm with stupid!
posted by mazola at 10:41 PM on August 30, 2012


Jill Stein is my closest match, as well. If I were still voting in Missouri, I'd probably vote for President Obama, just because in most years the state actually matters. But, since I'm in Arizona and it doesn't seem to matter much whether I vote for a Democratic candidate, I may as well just vote for the candidate who is most closely aligned with my actual beliefs.

So, long story short, I might actually vote Green this year.
posted by honeybee413 at 10:42 PM on August 30, 2012


Dang, MeFi is Jill Stein!

I'd never even considered her, but apparently I'm a fan. Just did some reading, and I like what I've read, but I'm not going to vote for her, because there's no way in hell that I want Romney in there. It would be great to have a woman Prez, but the first woman to take office will have to be a saint, because everything she does will be wrong wrong wrong. It's those hormones, dontchaknow.


I really like this interface, where you can accordion more questions and get more response choices if you want them.

Me too. Some of the questions could have been a bit more nuanced, but hey, for a short poll, whatevers. Will be sending this to friends and holding my breath (or not, in some cases.)
posted by BlueHorse at 11:20 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Candidates you side with:

Gary Johnson 83%
Jill Stein 75%
Barack Obama 73%
Mitt Romney 36%

Who you side with by party:

Democratic 78%
Libertarian 71%
Green 69%
Republican 41%

Taking both party and candidate into consideration, it looks like a three-way tie.
posted by dgaicun at 11:32 PM on August 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


If the voting system is about representation of what you believe - why is there even a consideration about voting in someone that doesn't reflect your convictions? You are getting the system you deserve it seems.

Just because you agree with someone's political views doesn't automatically mean they'd be a good President. According to this thread everybody on Metafilter agrees with me about everything but I for one would be a terrible President. If you ever see my name on a presidential ballot do not vote for me.
posted by granted at 11:35 PM on August 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


My intuition is the latter.
Mixing is right. I find a lot of good (and bad) in both Romney and Obama, but stopped commenting on Mefi as it has become a completely uniform chorus. I'm an early Mefi user and like a few others I know from that time, we visit rarely, just to check if interesting links are posted, not to read the discussions unless decidedly academic (for the reason above).

For the record:
Mitt Romney - 80% on foreign policy, economic, domestic policy, and environmental issues
Barack Obama - 70% on science, economic, and social issues
posted by bokononito at 11:49 PM on August 30, 2012


...side with Barack Obama on 96% of issues in the 2012 Presidential election.

Whew. That could have been awkward.
posted by dersins at 12:00 AM on August 31, 2012


I got Jill Stein (and yes, it's the first I've heard of her).

Why would people possibly think this is a fringe candidate propaganda? Which party would benefit most from a substantial percentage of us choosing Stein over Obama? I thought I knew pretty clearly how I'd vote, but I've had to re-think that. And then re-think again. Pluralist voting now, please, because it looks pretty much as though a vote for Jill Stein equates to a vote for the RNC. I'm in Florida, and have never gotten over the Bush/Gore debacle.
posted by theplotchickens at 12:17 AM on August 31, 2012


Jill Stein. I haven't been paying attention to the Green Party, but will take another look. I do not like the current choices, so I may just pull a lever for her unless it comes down to a really close race; then I'd vote for Obama - something I would rather not do, if I can avoid it.
posted by Vibrissae at 12:19 AM on August 31, 2012


I'm in Florida, and have never gotten over the Bush/Gore debacle.

Ah-ha! Then you'd be aware Gore lost because hundred of thousands of Democrat voters failed to get off their asses and vote because his policies were so uninspiring and insipid even to his own alleged supporters, not because of a few thousand Green voters? Carry on.
posted by Jimbob at 3:03 AM on August 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


So my results are 91% Stein, 79% Obama, 75% Rocky Anderson, and 30% Romney. I think 30% Romney may be a record for this thread. Despite that, I am not inclined to diet or cut off a leg or two. Party politics is not religion. You don't have to believe absolutely in Obama the way you are required to believe absolutely in the Pope.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:58 AM on August 31, 2012


Nope, I got 44% Romney and decided to go lie down.
posted by elizardbits at 4:58 AM on August 31, 2012


Fix it.

The closest I can come is to stand along the road, shaking my fist at an empty chair and point out the table with the literature that suggests another way staffed with eager people who'll attempt to answer your questions.

Tell me how.

I won't even attempt MYSELF to tell you how.

I instead will point out this collection of proposed answers and people already working on them.
Election Reform Resources How Corporations Own Your Politicians...

I suggest others who know of better tables with better staffing post the links to them.

My "fix" to date has been to vote for people who never get elected. And writing in people who are on a weak fiscal policy, strong retributive justice/people I know who need a job for local elections when there is 1 candidate or no one I am willing to support on the pre-printed choices.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:14 AM on August 31, 2012


Huh, this is weird: It says I'm 85% Stein, 79% Obama (about what I expected); but then it flips to 88% Dem, 83% Green. I wonder where they got the equations for party affiliation from.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:03 AM on August 31, 2012


UK or Canadian Mefites, is there anything similar to this in your countries? I'd be interested in learning whether I would vote, say, Liberal or NDP.
posted by Cash4Lead at 10:42 PM on August 30 [+] [!]


EU Profiler did something similar for countries in the EU. (requires flash for the last screen). Chances are, for most of them, Mefi would still be largely Green.
posted by rollick at 6:08 AM on August 31, 2012


I've actually dropped a note to my Green-party-delegate friend with a link to this thread, telling him that the overwhelming Jill Stein matches may be a sign he should join (and if you do - Hi, Colin!)

He's actually always been pretty realistic about the Green's chances at actually winning. A lot of times when we all discuss this, he takes the tack of encouraging people to vote not just as an appeal to their conscience, but also as an appeal to "if we get enough votes in a given election, the Green Party will get automatically added to the ballot from now on and we'll get much more exposure - which is exactly what we need." And I'm actually all for that.

Plus, in some of the state races, the Greens have picked awesome candidates; in 2006, when Eliot Spitzer was the Democratic candidate, the Green Party candidate was Malachy McCourt. I actually worked on something with Malachy years and years ago, and then partied with him in Dublin once (long, long story), so the thought of Malachy as governor just tickled me in a place I couldn't reach. Come election day, I realized that I was only "meh" about Spitzer, and I didn't even know who the Republican candidate was, and I was still tickled about Malachy, so I voted Green that year. (And then got to be all smug two years later when Spitzer turned out to be a bit of a skeezeball, because I could say "hah, I didn't vote for him.")
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:09 AM on August 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


I was horrified to discover the only place I aligned with Romney was on "social issues." Then I re-checked my work and noticed I had accidentally clicked the "pro-life" button. That single issue was enough for the app to say I sided with him, despite all other social questions aligning with Green or Democrat.
posted by chundo at 7:40 AM on August 31, 2012


I swear this survey has to be a Green Party plant. I think Jill Stein is a very qualified candidate, but ye gods, I hope nobody actually votes for her in states where it matters. Let's get her into the 2016 polls!
posted by LSK at 7:52 AM on August 31, 2012


Stein-o-miiiite!
posted by wenestvedt at 8:25 AM on August 31, 2012


> I was horrified to discover the only place I aligned with Romney was on "social issues."
> Then I re-checked my work and noticed I had accidentally clicked the "pro-life" button. That
> single issue was enough for the app to say I sided with him, despite all other social
> questions aligning with Green or Democrat.
> posted by chundo at 10:40 AM on August 31 [+] [!]

It would be enought for metafilter too, y'know.
posted by jfuller at 8:41 AM on August 31, 2012


hoyland: "To be honest, IRV makes little sense to me, at least without an 'all other candidates unacceptable' option, because it creates scenarios where you're given a choice between losing some of your input and making an affirmative statement in favour of a candidate who is unacceptable to you."

A lot of IRV systems include a "Re-open Nominations (RON)" option on the ballot for this precise purpose. It's a vote of no-confidence in any of the candidates, and would trigger a new nomination/election process to immediately follow the current election.

Also, most IRV systems don't require you to completely fill out the preference list.

Approval voting is also an alternate (and much simpler) IRV-like system in which you can cast your vote for as many candidates as you like. In this case, you could vote for Obama and Jill Stein; both candidates would receive one vote, and the winner would be determined by counting each candidate's raw total. It lacks some of the nuance of IRV, but also avoids some of the pitfalls.
posted by schmod at 9:06 AM on August 31, 2012


I swear this survey has to be a Green Party plant. -- Then how do you explain the results from other websites?
posted by crunchland at 9:44 AM on August 31, 2012


Also, most IRV systems don't require you to completely fill out the preference list.

Sure, but that creates the issue of equating 'no preference between X and Y, both acceptable' with 'no preference between X and Y, both unacceptable'.

To be honest, I really don't see the attraction of IRV over any of the other non-FPTP options. If I vote for a candidate who's doomed, I'm effectively voting my second choice, which is who I would have voted for in FPTP. IRV makes a lot of sense if you have three or more candidates picking up substantial numbers of votes, but I don't see how it's going to lead to the introduction of viable third party candidates if you didn't have them already.

If one actually wanted the possibility for viable new parties, wouldn't it make sense to switch to a system that attempts to achieve proportionality? Far bit it from me to be a constitutional scholar, but I don't think there's a barrier to this in the US. The Constitution specifies that representatives should be allotted to the state proportionally and that the representatives be elected, but nothing about how they be elected. I don't see how a system aiming for proportionality would fall foul of one man, one vote.
posted by hoyland at 9:54 AM on August 31, 2012


Stein, Johnson, Obama. I would have guessed Johnson would have been #1, but ...
posted by dwbrant at 11:17 AM on August 31, 2012


96% Stein, 88% Obama, 78% Anderson, 4% Romney.
posted by naoko at 12:27 PM on August 31, 2012


What did people do about "how important X issue is?" I'm wondering if our selection of whether or not certain issues like the economy, immigration, or social influences what candidate earns a greater percentage. In addition, the selection of "other answers" appears to correspond to quotes from certain candidates.

Jill Stein 88% on foreign policy, environmental, economic, domestic policy, and healthcare issues.
Barack Obama 85% on social, economic, foreign policy, environmental, and immigration issues.
Rocky Anderson 80% on foreign policy, social, economic, environmental, domestic policy, and healthcare issues.
Mitt Romney 5% no major issues.

95% Democratic, 85% Green, 25% Libertarian, 5% Republican

Environment, more important to me, I side the most with Jill Stein on environmental issues.
Social, more important to me, I side the most with Barack Obama on social issues.
Healthcare, somewhat important, I side the most with Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein on healthcare issues.
Science, somewhat important, I side the most with Mitt Romney, Jill Stein, and Barack Obama on science issues.
Domestic policy, somewhat important, I side the most with Jill Stein on domestic policy issues.
Foreign Policy, somewhat important, I side the most with Jill Stein on foreign policy issues.
Immigration, somewhat important, I side the most with Barack Obama on immigration issues.
the Economy, somewhat important, I side the most with Barack Obama on economic issues.

Unfortunately, I live in a single-party voting state, so I can't pick and choose candidates (ie, if I vote for a Green Party president, I can't vote for a Democratic senator).
posted by CancerMan at 1:11 PM on August 31, 2012


Jill Stein 92% Followed by Obama 88%, Johnson 36%, and Romney 7%

Which is not what I expected as I've generally self identified as Repub-Libertarian, even though I haven't always voted that way. Seems I'm leaning farther left in my old age (or maybe discovering that I've self-mis-labeled).
posted by ElGuapo at 1:33 PM on August 31, 2012


Unfortunately, I live in a single-party voting state, so I can't pick and choose candidates (ie, if I vote for a Green Party president, I can't vote for a Democratic senator).

Er... what? Where are you? Things don't work that way, except in the primaries. Like, the only reason I'm doubting myself here is that it's so bizarre.
posted by hoyland at 1:39 PM on August 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal in a general election.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:41 PM on August 31, 2012


I mean, on our general election computerized ballots, there's a "Democratic" or "Republican" or "Green" button, that automatically selects all the candidates of that party, but a voter doesn't have to press that button, and they can even use that button and then go through and change individual races.
posted by muddgirl at 2:01 PM on August 31, 2012


Whoops, you're all right. This is only limited to the Primary, not the General election. My apologies!
posted by CancerMan at 2:08 PM on August 31, 2012


I don't see how a system aiming for proportionality would fall foul of one man, one vote.

Proportionality is a different beast than transferable preferences. It would require the elimination of single-member districts (you can't proportionally split one representative, after all). Multi-member districts are Constitutional, but rare in American politics. Creating large MMDs can run afoul of the Voting Rights Act if not drawn carefully, which is why they largely disappeared in the South.

MMDs by definition increase constituency sizes, which can have negative effects.

As far as I know there are no examples of proportional party-list systems in the Israeli or Russian sense on any level in the United States. A closed list especially would go over poorly.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 2:12 PM on August 31, 2012


Proportional representation also would increase the power parties have over their candidates. The two big parties don't have the same party discipline power than parties in list-based systems have because so much depends on the individual candidate. Even in primaries where the Powers That Be state a preference it is sometimes overridden, and parties don't have much incentive to defund or kick out wayward moderates for apostate votes.

Whereas elsewhere a party can just chuck the guy off the list or knock him down the rankings.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 2:15 PM on August 31, 2012


Proportionality is a different beast than transferable preferences.

I know. But I'm asking why people are so fixated on IRV as an alternative to FPTP rather than a system that strives for proportionality (which IRV neither claims nor achieves). We just sort of talk like IRV allows everyone to vote their conscience, *insert a bunch of handwaving* and somehow people from more than two parties get elected.

MMDs by definition increase constituency sizes, which can have negative effects.

The places that care about that do mixed member systems, though. It's not like you have to throw up your hands and accept large districts.

Vermont does multi-member districts, I think because they want to keep towns/counties within one district if possible. They're doing FPTP within the districts, though, I believe.
posted by hoyland at 3:24 PM on August 31, 2012


Creating large MMDs can run afoul of the Voting Rights Act if not drawn carefully, which is why they largely disappeared in the South.

I'm having problems thinking this through, but if you're using some sort of proportional system, wouldn't it be much harder to shut down minority voters than if you're just electing people to individual seats?

I understand how Vermont, say, could find themselves running afoul of the Voting Rights Act (if the state weren't 97% white, anyway), but I don't know that the courts have ever considered a proportional system--everything I'm reading about the subject assumes filling n seats using n FPTP races.
posted by hoyland at 3:43 PM on August 31, 2012


rough ashlar, thanks for that link! That is a great list. I knew about some of these, but a lot are new to me. Still voting for Obama, though.
posted by mkim at 4:17 PM on August 31, 2012


93% Obama
81% Stein
71% Johnson
11% Romney

In examining the specific issues, I think my agreement with Stein might actually be higher.

For instance: "Are you in favor of decriminalizing all drugs?" Apparently answering "No" does not count as agreeing with Stein's "Yes, but not all drugs," which is the best yes-means-no I've ever seen.

Also, I expect that Stein and Obama actually agree on healthcare policy, but Obama's official positions have to reflect what he thinks he could actually deliver on.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:37 AM on September 1, 2012


Gary Johnson,
Barack Obama,
Jill Stein,
Mitt Romney,

Who says libertarians are Republicans by another name?

All this talk about third parties reminds me of the time I tried Vote Pairing. What a crock.
posted by Monochrome at 5:48 PM on September 1, 2012


Jill Stein AMA - September 12th
posted by homunculus at 1:22 PM on September 9, 2012


Gary Johnson AMA
posted by crunchland at 1:20 PM on September 11, 2012


Jill Stein AMA
posted by homunculus at 5:19 PM on September 12, 2012


« Older Two weeks ago 34 striking miners were shot dead by...  |  Four years ago, we showed Engl... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments