Where do your politics lie?

Jeff, I like what you have to say.

I'm not sure how the lobbying would work though... if I start a non-profit, can I lobby? If I'm a rich bastard and DO have the money, can I lobby? What's to prevent companies from paying an exorbitant salary to an "unofficial" lobbying representative?

One thing I would love to see, though I know it's both impractical and not likely to ever happen, is that before any representative can vote for a bill, they have to pass a relatively simple, 10-20 question fill in the blank test about that bill with an 90% or higher score. No passing grade, no passing law.

Centrist libertariatian. I'm a little surprised...

I sit right in the corner of centrist between liberal and libertarian.. which makes sense. I lean left on social issues and right on fisical... but in either case, I do not want my rights or anybody else's trampled

Thanks, Rev. Maybe the answer on lobbying is to have public sessions, like city hall meetings where the public can speak to members of Congress. This could happen in DC or the city you live in when your Representative or Senator is in town. This is off the cuff, but perhaps you request time to speak and have to be approved. You have to disclose what you want to talk about up front. 75% of those chosen to speak must represent non-business interests. This is where business owners could have a forum. The point is to prevent businesses from railroading the public interest.

And here's an idea: Let's say we continue to allow members of Congress to meet with constituents and business owners in their DC offices. These meetings would also be public. Citizens should be able to volunteer to go to DC for, say, a week to observe the meetings of their Representative or Senator. Their travel expenses would be covered by the state they live in. I don't think there would be a shortage of volunteers, and this would be a great way to ensure the people's business is being handled correctly.

Your tool sez I'm a Libertarian, one little bit below and to the right of the top tip. I guess that makes me a CENTRIST Libertarian, way outside of "conservative," according to the tool.

Libertarian, on the top edge straight up from the 'b' in libertarian.

Although that seems about right for me, I agree with the others who noted that the survey is a poor one and is heavily biased to make everyone a libertarian. I have differing views on what I would like to see from the Federal government, my state government, and my local government.

I said the government had the right to supress free speech and track us in Q#1, but had no right to National ID. I still get Centrist. Weird.

Oh, I just picked answers at random to see what I'd get.

Jeff, I think this is a very interesting idea, but I also think that you should be able to talk to your representative in a non-public setting (at least if you're a "natural" person). Some cases are a little bit too sensitive for initial disclosure in a public setting, even though if there is anything coming out of them, there should still be a public record.

I do totally agree on restrictions on lobbying even though companies will find a way to get around them, like getting their employees to lobby for them. But it's a good start.

Liberal but up high and closer to the Libertarian side. I like social services and don't believe anyone should be without healthcare, food, etc. I am willing to be taxed for these services. I also like my freedoms when it comes to speech, privacy, guns, drugs, etc.

Dr. Hess wrote: Your tool sez I'm a Libertarian, one little bit below and to the right of the top tip. I guess that makes me a CENTRIST Libertarian, way outside of "conservative," according to the tool.

Hah, I took the test last night and it looks like my results mirror yours.

Who da thunk?

I think I am going to have to say that this test is probably not very well designed and is probably not taking a very good or true measure. The wordiness of the answers would seem to invite a lot of variation of interpretation. The range of selection in the answers seem very strange in some cases (which may be just the wording).

The national ID card question is bit of strange one to me also. Is this really any different then a SS card, drivers license card, or a tax return. What exactly are we talking about / worried about here? (this is the type of interpretation I am noting). The use of "Global Warming" in the answers also seem inappropriate (as noted previously), that is clearly a bit of an emotional topic (in the context of it being in the test, not in the terms of free speech) and really should not be in the free speech section, although it has some relevance to the foreign policy section it probably should not be mentioned there either.

The test also allows you to take pretty contradictory stances (i.e. strong foreign involvement, social net and slash government expenses). Do you get a rating of "stupid" if you choose these?

I would tend to guess (it seem to be already shown) that the test steers you towards a more non-liberal / conservative / libertarian answers. That's just a guess though.

"Occasional, temporary tax cuts should be offered in token amounts to keep the taxpayers mollified." - Really? Is this really something someone is likely to want to check as their answer, its seems a bit condescending to me.

The use of the term "Corporate Welfare"!? As a main topic!? Really?!!

The "guns" section: "...it is prudent to have government regulate arms via registration requirements and other regulations to ensure that mentally unstable people can't get guns and go on shooting rampages." Really?! How is regulation going to keep a mentally unstable person from ever getting a gun? And what am I supposed to answer on this if I believe gun ownership is not a problem, but I don't want people owning .50 machine guns, flame throwers, antipersonnel mines, rocket launchers etc. Is that "gun control" or is it "free ownership" (since almost no-one has or want such things). And if I think it is OK that felons have little or no gun rights (regulation) but am well aware it does little to keep them aware from them (reality)?

This test kind of reminds me of a similar "test" I got in the mail a few months back. The questions where OK, then got very strange (something along the lines of "do you agree with the president running the country into the ground" kind of questions). Of course, on turning the "test" over I see it was BS test that was really an attempt to raise money for the Republican party! I was not amused, so I wrote in large print on the test "IF YOU WANT MONEY, MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST ASK FOR IT! SKIP THE BS TEST!"

I think the test is kind of BS. I don't have a score since I really could not honestly answer some of the questions.

This "test" shows me as a centrist just a little to the right of center. Like Aircooled, a lot of the choices didn't really capture my views on the subjects. So I picked that which was closest. However, some of the distinctions seem to be designed to push you in a particular direction. I consider myself centrist leaning just a little to the left.

This test is way too America-centric for me to fill out...But I did something like this before, got something around 90% libertarian 85% liberal.

I am also a slightly conservative Libertarian.

This poses an interesting question...

If we're all Libertarians, why do we only have Democrats and Republicans "representing" us?

93celicaGT2 wrote: I am also a slightly conservative Libertarian. This poses an interesting question... If we're all Libertarians, why do we only have Democrats and Republicans "representing" us?

Douglas Adams answered that perfectly:

"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

"What?"

"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

Ford shrugged again.

"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

I think i saw that coming a mile away. I knew i wasn't the first person to realize this was a problem.

I would bet good money that 90% of the american people that think they're either Democrats or Republicans are truly neither, and that they just vote one way or the other based on what they DON'T like about the other candidate, rather than focusing on anything that they actually want.

Come to think of it, that was ALSO illustrated perfectly by Douglas Adams.

This country drives me batE36 M3 insane. The only way it seems i could TRULY make a difference would be to run for an office myself. Which, i would never get, because i'm neither Democratic, or Republican. And once i got there, if i got there, i wouldn't get anything done, once again, because i'm neither Democratic or Republican.

I think i saw that coming a mile away. I knew i wasn't the first person to realize this was a problem.

I would bet good money that 90% of the american people that think they're either Democrats or Republicans are truly neither, and that they just vote one way or the other based on what they DON'T like about the other candidate, rather than focusing on anything that they actually want.

Come to think of it, that was ALSO illustrated perfectly by Douglas Adams.

This country drives me batE36 M3 insane. The only way it seems i could TRULY make a difference would be to run for an office myself. Which, i would never get, because i'm neither Democratic, or Republican. And once i got there, if i got there, i wouldn't get anything done, once again, because i'm neither Democratic or Republican.

The reason we have only two parties in most places is structural. Congress and the Senate get elected to single member districts. As long as there is only seat and the person who gets it has to get 50.XXX% of the vote to win. People are going to naturally going to line up behind home they think can get a majority. Voting for a third pary that gets 20% of the vote gets you nothing.

In other democracies there are multiple seats per district and they get assigned proporationally based the votes. These have thriving third and fourth parties.

mtn wrote: Almost all the way on the top of the chart, slightly to the right.

me too.

Just a sampling or stuff that I think about:

Gays should be able to marry- it's not like heterosexuals are doing so awesome at upholding the "sanctity of marriage" (I can't roll my eyes big enough here...) what with all the cheating/wife-beating/abortion as birth control/etc. that goes on. Besides- legal marriage and church marriage are different anyway.

Guns should be legal, easy to own (provided you're not a convict), and not a problem to shoot for sport, no matter what your sport happens to be. Gun CRIME, however, should be extra-harshly and immediately punished. With the exception of self defense, if you kill somebody with a gun, you should be ready to head straight to the hot seat. I'm OK with the current state of gun control where it relates to missiles, tanks, jet fighters, atom bombs, etc. Everything else should be fair game if you want to pay.

Government spending needs to be curtailed to fit whatever taxes we bring in (and those need to go way, way down), minus a big percentage to cover repayment on the already ridiculous national debt. That'll mean cancelling some programs, and we'll just have to do without on those things. Might even have to shrink our military some and quit being the international police. Whataconcept.

Congress: term limits, you can has. plzkthxbye. It's public service, not a career. The career is what you had BEFORE you served that got you elected because you were a pillar of your community. Right?

OK, now my gears are all ground.

Type Q wrote: The reason we have only two parties in most places is structural. Congress and the Senate get elected to single member districts. As long as there is only seat and the person who gets it has to get 50.XXX% of the vote to win. People are going to naturally going to line up behind home they think can get a majority. Voting for a third pary that gets 20% of the vote gets you nothing. In other democracies there are multiple seats per district and they get assigned proporationally based the votes. These have thriving third and fourth parties.

I'd like the parties to just go away. Period. Because really, who gives a berkeley?

The way the system is designed is that the people should elect someone who shares their views. And that person should represent those views in congress/senate/whatever. And if they don't, then get them the hell out of there. Parties be damned. All parties do is make sure that there's always those shiny happy people that will vote one way because Joe Blow voted the other, simply because he's "The Enemy."

The system is so bastardized that it's become a joke. These people are NOT representatives, that much is obvious.

When was the last time "we" really got ANYTHING major done? Elections don't count. Certain people getting elected are not victories until a major improvement comes of it.

maybe congressmen and senators should get a single term after which a vote is held to either let them remain in the country or be permanently exiled.

GlennS wrote: maybe congressmen and senators should get a single term after which a vote is held to either let them remain in the country or be permanently exiled.

Perfect. If that vote is cast by the same people who elected them and they were supposed to represent, you know damn well they'll at least attempt to do what the people want.

OR:

This too, will become bastardized, and the "smarter" politicians will realize that this is a free ticket to leave the country. They will then pass a bill that requires the US to pay for their move to the country of their choice, buy them the house of their choice, and recieve a nice fat pension for the rest of their lives.

Oh, and they'll recieve secret service security for the rest of their lives.

Libertarian with a conservative slant. I'm not surprised.

I feel the government has stuck its nose into far too many things already. The 'trust busters' of the past have been replaced by those who feel the government should run every damn thing and that is dead wrong.

We also are faced with a ruling class of our own creation. We keep electing the same jerks over and over mostly because the mouth breathers among us find that easier than having to actually think. The jerks have figured this out and provide the bread and circuses to keep themselves in office. It's long past time to break that little party up by demanding term limits.

This country needs to worry less about what other governments are doing and stick to fixing what needs fixing within our own borders. Notice I said our COUNTRY, not our GOVERNMENT, needs to do this.

There are some common sense things that government should handle and they are spelled out in the Constitution. However over the years lawyers have provided tortured interpretations of all KINDS of crap which have led to the current massive bureacracy and intrusion into our lives. People are getting really torqued with that; witness the guy who flew the small plane into the Texas IRS offices today. I'm not saying he was right or condoning that type of action, just that I understand the frustration of being a citizen who is sick of being ignored.

Government governs best when it governs least. There's lots more in my skull but it's getting busy so I might continue this later.

my star is right on top of the n in libertarian

93celicaGT2 wrote: ...All parties do is make sure that there's always those shiny happy people that will vote one way because Joe Blow voted the other, simply because he's "The Enemy."...

Currently yes, mostly. But parties are essentially WHAT gets people elected (in higher offices), by legitimizing the person and more importantly providing and hooking up connections to the MONEY to get elected. This is primarily why 3rd party types never get elected.

A great potential for the next few elections might be to get a significant number of non-two party types in. Won't happen. Why? No money... no advertisement... no exposure...