Are you really in favor of who you should be?
October 26, 2000 12:08 PM   Subscribe

Are you really in favor of who you should be? Not having seen this in a quick scan, I'll point you to SpeakOut's VoteMatch quiz. It correctly pegged me as a Browne voter, but I was surprised that Bush came in second, Gore fourth, and Nader 7th. Hmmm...
posted by baylink (46 comments total)
This link is working. ;-) FYI, this is the most thorough and accurate candidate selector I've taken. You can save your results for later and you can click on issues to get more information about them.
posted by veruca at 12:26 PM on October 26, 2000

Funny, Bill Bradley still comes up as my first choice. Why on earth did he quit so early?

Another funny note is that Bush comes in 11th for me, behind (*shudder*) Pat Buchanan. Can you believe that? Buchanan is closer to my views than Bush.
posted by mathowie at 12:35 PM on October 26, 2000

i got browne first and nader 4th. and buchanan was behind bush for me, too.

posted by sugarfish at 12:42 PM on October 26, 2000

I got nader, bradley, gore, lieberman.

posted by rebeccablood at 1:01 PM on October 26, 2000

Browne's stance on weed matched him up with me 103% !!

ya know, I might vote for him if he didn't want to auction off the national forests to the highest bidder. Go Ralph.
posted by snakey at 1:01 PM on October 26, 2000

Keyes, Phillips, Bush, Browne. Last three were Gore, Bradley, and Nader.
posted by gyc at 1:06 PM on October 26, 2000

I got the same results as Rebecca. I, too, wish Bradley had won the Democratic primary. Which reminds me. A couple weeks ago on Living on Earth, they were interviewing Nader and they asked him this question: "Why did you decide to run with the Greens instead of running within the Democratic Party itself? The concept of reforming the party from within?"

He answered: "Bill Bradley tried to do that. And I don't think this party is internally capable of reform. I think it has to be provoked and challenged from outside. And I wanted a political campaign that went all the way to November, because after November we will have millions of voters for the Green Party ready to build an even stronger party, and ready to be a watchdog on the two parties in Washington."
posted by veruca at 1:11 PM on October 26, 2000

Nader, Bradley, Gore, Brown, Lieberman, Hagelin, Keyes, Phillips, Buchanan, McCain, Bush, Cheney.

Pat Buchanan's positions on free trade probably bumped him up for me.

It's interesting to see the "Who's in the Lead" page after you have completed the quiz- when I took it there was a very narrow margin between all the candidates (Al Gore was in the lead with 1405 and Buchanan last with 1093) . Wouldn't national elections be more interesting if there were this many candidates who were actually allowed to express their positions and reach the apparently large number of people who share their opinion?
posted by kidsplateusa at 1:24 PM on October 26, 2000

skallas, but in a lot of ways, Bush and Browne are different kind of righties. Sure, Browne is for limited (okay, very very limited) government like a good conservative. But he's for limited government in every way. Including keeping it out of religion, schools, and abortion.

Anyway, to prove it, I guess, here are all my results:


The oddest thing, I thought, was that McCain came in dead last. I kinda liked the guy. But anyway, I guess I didn't pay enough attention to the issues. More recently he's kinda been hacking me off, though, with the censorship junk. Anyway...
posted by daveadams at 1:44 PM on October 26, 2000

By the way, this would be an interesting way to actually hold an election, by giving people a survey of issues important to them and then selecting the candidate for them based on published views and promises. Of course, in the real world you can't trust a computer (or a politician) that well, but in theory, it would do a better job of selecting a president instead of having to wade through all the junk the two lucky (and most boring) candidates spew at the debates.
posted by daveadams at 1:49 PM on October 26, 2000

Isaac, that would indeed be wonderful (i.e. people voting for the person they were really closest to in ideology)! Maybe a little bit of that will happen in this election because of these candidate selectors being available now. Never before has it been so easy (5-10 minutes?) for people to pick a candidate.
posted by veruca at 1:49 PM on October 26, 2000

Just to keep monopolizing this thread, I found the "Your Political Philosophy" Page to be highly interesting... especially the "where you fit in" section with the two-dimensional political continuum. I'm a "liberal-leaning libertarian." My scores were 90% personal self-governor and 60% economic self-governor. I think they do a good job of explaining the differences between the "conservative" Republican viewpoint and the "liberal" Democratic viewpoint and how libertarians and authoritarians differ. I love this site!
posted by daveadams at 1:55 PM on October 26, 2000

Wow. I am the odd duck here. My results came back: Cheney, Bradley, Gore, Bush. I only wish I could vote for Cheney...where did Colin Powell go anyway?
posted by Brilliantcrank at 2:17 PM on October 26, 2000

Thank goodness I'm not American. My top was, as I suspected, Browne, but only a 53% match. Next highest was Reform at 43%. I've got no idea what they stand for though.

That being said, I wish there were one of these for us Canadians. It's a great way to at least get an introduction to the different parties and different party members.
posted by cCranium at 2:24 PM on October 26, 2000

Yay! I've been labeled!

Based on the above score, you are a Moderate Liberal Populist.

Ehhh heh. See? MODERATE! That's the first word.

I'll take my collective apology from society off-air.
posted by ethmar at 2:33 PM on October 26, 2000

No shockers here:
I’m a moderate liberal and Nader, Bradley, Gore and Browne scored over 50% a match.

You will likely agree with Ralph Nader on issues like taxes, budget, and spending issues, but will not agree as well on issues like drugs, morality, and civil rights.

So, so true.

It’s a tight race here, too. Gore: 1405, Bush: 1352.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 2:36 PM on October 26, 2000

Of course I had to take it too.. not totally surprising, results-wise. Too bad Bradley's not around anymore.

..& then a bunch of others with low percentages :)

posted by zempf at 2:40 PM on October 26, 2000

I got Nader, Bradley, Gore, Browne... Bush and Keyes were dead last. But it pegged me as a "moderate liberal", which is just a bit funny and certainly not how I would define myself.

They have a religion selector, too, which I took mostly for laughs but actually turned out to be kind of interesting.

posted by Mars Saxman at 2:44 PM on October 26, 2000

For me: Hagelin, Browne, Bradley, Keyes, Buchanan, Gore, Lieberman, Cheney, Philips, Bush, Nader, McCain.

I'm not sure I agree with some of the categorizations. When I looked at the analysis comparing my votes to the "hardcore libertarian" column, there were some cases where I didn't understand why they believed a libertarian would have certain beliefs (e.g. sexual orientation civil rights: a libertarian certainly wouldn't support laws discriminating against homosexuals, but wouldn't necessarily support laws forcing corporations to pay insurance premiums to cover unmarried gay partners). And would a hardcore libertarian really support linking China trade to human rights?

posted by seitz at 3:12 PM on October 26, 2000

Hmm.....It labeled me as a "Neo-Maxi-Zoon-Dweebie". With tendencies that were "Demented and Sad, but Socialist".
posted by Optamystic at 3:20 PM on October 26, 2000

Mine was Centrist. God, I'm like the rest of America?
posted by owillis at 3:27 PM on October 26, 2000

There's also the President Match thing. It asks some more specific questions.
posted by gluechunk at 4:12 PM on October 26, 2000

The AOL version left out some issues that are important to me, such as an approach to poverty and the "drug war" and what about education? I think the selector is much more thorough.
posted by veruca at 5:25 PM on October 26, 2000

Populist-Leaning Liberal...with 81% match for Nader...
guess i'm exactly what i thought i was...hehehe.
posted by th3ph17 at 8:03 PM on October 26, 2000

Damn, just what I thought, a "hard-core liberal".

Somehow, I feel like Opus the Penguin when he was literally "labelled" a liberal.

Hmmm... tongue twister anyone?
posted by Avogadro at 8:44 PM on October 26, 2000

Oh, and if you liked the vote match quiz, you'll LOVE the religion selector.

I wonder if rastafarianism is one of the choices...
posted by Avogadro at 8:56 PM on October 26, 2000

I tried three times: the winners were Lieberman, Browne and Bradley (Buchanan dead last every time).

(I'd vote for Liebrowdley, if there was one.)

Capt.: it sounds like we have opposite viewpoints (vis-a-vis Nader) -- how come you're not a Buchanan supporter? ;)

(And where did you find that summary? I wanted to find mine for the various candidates.)
posted by sylloge at 9:44 PM on October 26, 2000

Guess I'm more libertarian than I thought, given that Browne came in 4th.

Here's my tally:

1. Nader
2. Bradley
3. Gore
4. Browne
5. Lieberman (ick!)
6. Hagelin
7. McCain (oh really?)
8. Philips
9. Pat Buchanan (WTF?)
10. Keyes

Personally, I have a big problem with Buchanan being in the top 10. But then who said this poll was accurate anyway? :)

posted by ed at 10:41 PM on October 26, 2000

Oh Sylloge, it was a toss-up. Buchanan-Nader, Buchanan-Nader. I flipped a coin.

No environment! No immigrants! No idependent thought!

Heads. Okay, screw all that.

If you click on “Your Ranking” then “Personal” or “Economic,” which is next to the candidate’s lil heads, a pop-up, you know, pops up with the synopsis.

Pat Buchanan is not for you. You disagree on all important issues.

I did not need a computer to tell me this.

For kicks, Pat Buchanan kissing a child:

I didn’t know politicos still did this.

posted by capt.crackpipe at 11:54 PM on October 26, 2000

Actually if you look closely, he's sucking the brains out of that baby's head.
posted by leo at 1:04 AM on October 27, 2000

Pat doesn't look all that into it either.

Sorry, what I meant was I knew I'd get something like this:
You agree with Ralph Nader significantly more on personal issues than on economic issues. You will likely agree with Ralph Nader on issues like morality, lifestyle, and civil rights, but will not agree as well on issues like taxes, budget, and spending issues.
And that's what I did get (thanks for the link).

Fourth time I got Hagelin in #1 spot -- I never get any higher than 52% with any of these candidates, but after following the links and reading up on Hagelin, I wish I'd registered to vote in this election.
posted by sylloge at 1:14 AM on October 27, 2000

Populist-leaning liberal, thank you very much (and thanks for the link, too).

In order: Nader (106% personal, but 86% economic), Bradley, Gore (66% personal, but 87% economic), Lieberman, Browne, Hagelin, McCain, Cheney, Bush (0% personal), Buchanan, Keyes and Phillips. (Whew!)
posted by allaboutgeorge at 2:09 AM on October 27, 2000

No parent should allow their child's head to come that close to Buchanan's lips. That's....that's scary.
posted by ed at 6:38 AM on October 27, 2000

leo, ed: Funny. “After sucking the man-child’s brains I am twenty times smarter!”

Oh, oh. You mean we were flipflopped (flyin!) on issue categories. You and me, man. We must just differ philosophically on the purpose of public policy.

You aren’t Canadian by chance?
posted by capt.crackpipe at 7:05 AM on October 27, 2000

Funny, Bradley came up as my first choice when he never really was. Gore used to be until the first debate, then I decided to "go green for the cause". It's nice to know that I now have a label: I'm a populist leaning liberal. Somehow, I don't think that'd look too good on a T-shirt.
posted by likorish at 7:28 AM on October 27, 2000

Skallas: you think Brown, a Libertarian, is a *conservative*? That's what "right" means in America...

Libertarians, general, are liberals.


Damn, a hit! Cool. Glad everyone liked it; I must give credit where I forgot to when I posted this one: Thanks to John at Genehack, where I found this yesterday afternoon.
posted by baylink at 8:15 AM on October 27, 2000

Geez, no surprises for me. I'm a liberal (a Libertarian-Leaning Liberal) and Gore's my guy. At the bottom of my list is Buchanan.

Of course, even if I wanted to vote for Nader, I can't. Not on my ballot.

posted by Jart at 3:25 PM on October 27, 2000

You could write him in Jart. It’s your right, so write. Right?

posted by capt.crackpipe at 3:37 PM on October 27, 2000

Citizenship-wise, dual US-Canadian, but I've never lived in the US.

On the purpose of public policy: that'd be an interesting debate. I'm liberal-libertarian according to this scheme, but I am pretty pliant (I think that's why none of the candidates really do it for me, why I can't get a 100% or even a 60% match).

I assume that all public policy ultimately aims towards some utilitarian goal; I just can't see how it could otherwise in a democracy. We all want The Good. The greatest average amount of good. Seems like 80% of the disagreement is on how we get more Good and 20% is on what The Good is.

But Nader my agreements with Nader, on that Select Smart thing, were the basic liberal bag: pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws, anti-war on drugs, anti-death penalty, anti-Star Wars. (But note that, with the exception of gun control, those are all libertarian positions too.)

If you disagree with that stuff, why would you want Nader? Stricter environmental laws? Fair trade? Income redistribution? Is there something else?
posted by sylloge at 5:36 PM on October 27, 2000

AH! That’s it. You’re Canadian. You’re more theory, I’m more practical.

Yeah, labor laws, income redistribution, universal health care, dropping the military budget by about half. If we did that the US would still spend twice as much as the leading NATO country. The UK, I think. Anti-NAFTA, anti-GATT, anti-WTO. Ending corporate welfare which has always been a problem. Companies contribute 15% of the tax base, while citizens make up the rest. I’m supposed to be happy about a tax cut? Give me an AT&T style tax cut, you hyprocritical bastards!

Pro-environment means tighter control of polluting corporations and alt-fuel. Plain and simple.

As you well know, I’m anti-legalisation (willing to bend on medical mary-j in extreme cases, but otherwise, no way), the only gun control I’m in favor of is licensing owners. My extended family supports that, thought it was a good idea in fact, and except for my parents they’re all gun owners. Other than that I think most gun laws are infringements. I’m wary on handguns and nobody should own an ak47. That’s just stupid.

It pisses me off that sexual orientation is even an issue. All you intolerant fux get off the bible already. No praying in schools, abortions for some, little flags for others.

With all that, Nader is the best match. Not perfect, only ~70% if I remember correctly, but close enough.

In my mind, all issues need to take a backseat to class politics, otherwise we’ll end up with an economy and environment like Mexico’s, which, you know, ain’t that hot.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 6:44 PM on October 27, 2000

Re: my first sentence. Not meant to be demeaning, they both have their plus and minuses.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 7:13 PM on October 27, 2000

Moderate Libertarian
Boy is my list a mixed bag. Harry Browne, Alan Keyes, John Hagelin, Al Gore(??), Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, George W. Bush, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, Bill Bradley, Ralph Nader, Dick Cheney.
I thought I liked Nader way more than that, and Gore and Bush way less. Very strange.
posted by thirteen at 7:57 PM on October 27, 2000

Crackpipe: Not Canadian. Just frightened at the populist stance in Buchanan's campaign. Of course, it could very well be that the science of Buchanan's lips upon the innocent baby's head could represent a deranged science (populism by osmosis?). Remember '96 and Buchanan's decidedly National Socialist-like stance on NAFTA and GATT. He's taken more than a cue from Hitler...but it can't happen as effortlessly in the 21st Century.

Nader all the way.
posted by ed at 9:34 PM on October 27, 2000

You could write him in Jart. It’s your right, so write.

No write-in votes in my state, buddy. Not that I'm missing anything. I wouldn't vote for Nader because he'd make a horrible president. It's that simple.
posted by Jart at 8:35 PM on October 28, 2000

Obviously, I disagree with you your second point, but I think write-in votes are protected as form of free speech.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 9:34 PM on October 28, 2000

Oh, good. Finally; some topic drift.

I was getting worried. :-)

Are there really states where write-in votes cannot be case for the US Presidency? Please try to quote statues if you can...
posted by baylink at 10:36 PM on October 28, 2000

« Older GW Hits The Bong!   |   Slashdot Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments