Political Issues and Positions List

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Please help me compile a list of political issues and positions for a political positioning quiz I eventually plan to make.

Feel free to comment on the grouping strategy as well.

Economic
- Ideology
  - Capitalism
  - Socialism
- Taxation
  - Less is more
  - More is more
- Government Size
  - Less is more
  - More is more
- Business
  - Free reign
  - Restricted
- Wealth Distribution
  - Chips fall where they may
  - Mitigate inhereted and self-perpetuating wealth clans
Social
- Government System
  - Libertarian
    - Democracy
    - More variants to be added
  - Authoritarian
    - Dictatorship
    - More variants to be added
- Education
  - Public emphasis
  - Private emphasis
- Religion
  - Religious Ideologies
    - The various religions to be added
  - Freedom of Religion
    - Remove religion from government
    - Remove government from religion
  - Governmental involvement in religion
- Race Relations
  - Issues to be added
- Abortion
  - Unrestricted
  - Regulated
  - Proscribed
- Stem Cells
  - Unrestricted
  - using existing stem cells
  - clone to create stem cells
Foreign Policy
- Immigration
  - Xenophobic (think old Japan)
  - Protectionist
  - Regulated
  - Minimal regulation
  - Unrestricted
- Trade
  - Protectionist
  - Protectionist on weak domestic markets, free on strong
  - Free Market
- National Security
  - Militarism
    - Militaristic
    - Multilateralist
    - Isolationist

It needs a lot of work, but if you can comment (or better yet provide your own list) I can start the slow winding road to making the world's most accurate and comprehensive political quiz.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,794 • Replies: 68

No top replies

It is such a huge undertaking, I'll only start with a few possible ideas.

Under abortion, I think maybe these choices may yeild sharper choices:
on demand
restricted
outlawed

Under stem cell:
outlawed
using existing stem cells
clone to create stem cells

Under govt involvement in religion:
all religious signs, symbols, wordings stricken from all public properties
any religious signs, symbols, wordings allowed at public properties
local control over religious signs, symbols, wordings at public properties

Under education:
Public schools
Vouchers and school choice allowed
Vouchers and school choice not allowed

(Will return.)

(Neat idea.)

0 Replies

Thanks, I'll also be working on getting the verbiage as neutral as possible later on.

I've added all your stuff (with edits) except the education. I'm trying to get my head around it.

The voucher issue is more of a taxation one to me, and I need to analyze the issue of choice (which I had been treating as a given).

0 Replies

I also need feedback on whether foreign policy should really be it's own TLC (top level category) or if it's social and economic issues should be divided and placed under social and economic TLCs.

I'm currently leaning toward the latter.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Re: Political Issues and Positions List
[list]
[*]Ideology
[list]
[*]Capitalism
[*]Socialism
[/list]
On the left you might get a problem through the antithesis within the socialist end of the spectrum: that between the centralist ideal (extreme: soviet communism) and the decentralist ideal (extreme: anarchism). What they share is the wish for equality and communality, but the position/attitude towards the state and state ownership (sharply positive vs sharply negative) might throw in some serious dissonance into your test. That is, if you're going to work this out (as I now realise that I was assuming) through individual questions about what people agree more/less on.

[*]Government Size
[list]
[*]Less is more
[*]More is more
[/list]
Also a concept that might come up against some spokes. Apart from one's abstract, ideological opinion on whether big or small government is good, what really counts is what you want government to do. If you are for more spending on social programs, but against more spending on defence, homeland security, space travel, highway building, whatever, then you could well consider yourself as being against a bigger state, per se - against government bloating, for example - you want the government to be "more efficient" just like the person with the opposite list of priorities does, even while you actually have totally opposite opinions about the role of government.

If you narrow this down purely to, are you for or against bigger/smaller government, and leave it at that like thats the extent of the question, you're going to risk tilting the poll greatly to the libertarian outcome. Thats how they would phrase the question, and with success, cause most everyone will say they're for smaller government.

[*]Wealth Distribution
[list]
[*]Chips fall where they may
[*]Mitigate inhereted and self-perpetuating wealth clans
[/list]
Thats too specific I think. With the other questions you've really just brought it down to for/against, but here's already an indication of the motivation of the for/against, whereas its only one of many possible motivations.

The extreme on one end wouldn't just be, "the chips fall where they may", but: an increased gap in distribution is actually a Good Thing, for it promotes ambition and thus innovation and productivity, it spurs personal responsibility and gives people a reason to work.

On the other hand, the argument you summarise against wealth distribution is more or less merely utilistic: wealth clans are wrong because they close others out (being "inherited" and "self-perpetuating") - blocking/distorting the newspaper boy-to-magnate American Dream, is kind of how I take it. But there's a big heritage, not just Socialist but older, Christian, that holds unequality to be per se morally wrong: no one person deserves more than another, wealth fosters sinful greed, etc. So this is too specific to cover the broader antithesis I think.

---

So - I realise I just pleaded for more specifics, less abstraction on one question, then less specifics, more abstraction on the next. Catch 22: if you leave out the specifics, that means phrasing concrete policy issues as ideological questions, and thus slanting the outcome to an ideological perspective on the matter. But if you're gonna add specifics, you'll soon end up excluding swathes of possible perspectives, so its harder to phrase in terms of bipolar, opposite ends of a spectrum.

More theoretically still, you can wonder whether a system thats based on linear opposites (even if its layer upon layer of complementary/compensatory oppositions) doesnt in itself slant the test towards a certain world view ... many of these issues might not be lines with two ends, but rather triangles with three or squares with four ends, if you get my drift.

[*]Abortion
[list]
[*]Pro
[*]Against
[/list]
[*]Stem Cells

These bring up a question: are you making your political quiz for Americans or the wider web community - I mean, do you want it to be honed to American parameters or should it have a wider validity?

[*]Multilateralist

That used to be called "internationalist", right? :wink:
[/list]

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I also need feedback on whether foreign policy should really be it's own TLC (top level category) or if it's social and economic issues should be divided and placed under social and economic TLCs.

I'm currently leaning toward the latter.

I would definitely keep it top-level. Both because of its prioritisation in political definitions and perceptions and because it is really a dimension of its own, thats not really parallel in any way to the social or economical delineations. I.e. the isolationist/internationalist divide cuts right through the right and left camps you'll find on economic and social issues/values.

Why were you leaning to the latter?

0 Replies

Just another opinion--

I think National Security should be a stand alone issue, or TLC.

0 Replies

Re: Political Issues and Positions List

nimh wrote:

On the left you might get a problem through the antithesis within the socialist end of the spectrum: that between the centralist ideal (extreme: soviet communism) and the decentralist ideal (extreme: anarchism). What they share is the wish for equality and communality, but the position/attitude towards the state and state ownership (sharply positive vs sharply negative) might throw in some serious dissonance into your test. That is, if you're going to work this out (as I now realise that I was assuming) through individual questions about what people agree more/less on.

I'm not sure how anything will be worked out yet, I expect this to take at least months to complete given my schedule.

Right now, I'm just compiling lists, and how the quiz will ask and how it will score is something I have only vague ideas about right now.

Quote:

Also a concept that might come up against some spokes. Apart from one's abstract, ideological opinion on whether big or small government is good, what really counts is what you want government to do. If you are for more spending on social programs, but against more spending on defence, homeland security, space travel, highway building, whatever, then you could well consider yourself as being against a bigger state, per se - against government bloating, for example - you want the government to be "more efficient" just like the person with the opposite list of priorities does, even while you actually have totally opposite opinions about the role of government.

No matter how the scoring works, I'm certain of one thing, it will be done on many many metrics and subsequently broken down.

I agree with you here, typically "small government" types usually are only talking about social government.

In the scoring, it would ultimately be broken down and one big element of the results would be to show spending preferences.

Quote:

If you narrow this down purely to, are you for or against bigger/smaller government, and leave it at that like thats the extent of the question, you're going to risk tilting the poll greatly to the libertarian outcome. Thats how they would phrase the question, and with success, cause most everyone will say they're for smaller government.

If there is one prevailing goal I have, it is to not narrow down anything and go as deep as I have time to go (and the quiz will probably keep evolving to delve deeper).

Quote:

[*]Wealth Distribution
[list]
[*]Chips fall where they may
[*]Mitigate inhereted and self-perpetuating wealth clans
[/list]
Thats too specific I think. With the other questions you've really just brought it down to for/against, but here's already an indication of the motivation of the for/against, whereas its only one of many possible motivations.

Indeed, I'm just trying to get things "on paper" right now and that wording certainly will change (as their subcats are made).

Quote:

So this is too specific to cover the broader antithesis I think.

Rewrite it! Mr. Green

that's what this thread is for, I know where there are deficiencies, telling me is to tell me what I already know. I posted to get the improvements.

Quote:

But if you're gonna add specifics, you'll soon end up excluding swathes of possible perspectives, so its harder to phrase in terms of bipolar, opposite ends of a spectrum.

How so?

Quote:

More theoretically still, you can wonder whether a system thats based on linear opposites (even if its layer upon layer of complementary/compensatory oppositions) doesnt in itself slant the test towards a certain world view ... many of these issues might not be lines with two ends, but rather triangles with three or squares with four ends, if you get my drift.

Not really (re getting drift).

This is both an excercise in politics and a personal exercise in programming.

Right now I have few commitments to how the scales will work, but my initial impressions is that they will be 3d in scale (if not in presentation).

Definitely not linear.

Quote:

[*]Abortion
[list]
[*]Pro
[*]Against
[/list]
[*]Stem Cells

These bring up a question: are you making your political quiz for Americans or the wider web community - I mean, do you want it to be honed to American parameters or should it have a wider validity?

I was thinking about that just now as I was driving home, I was considering adding a "partisanship" scale to teh scoring but then realized it would be difficult to code in all the standard stereotypes.

I considered making two versions a US version and a general version with the US being a bit more comprehensive.

But I dunno yet.

Note that a lot of the issues here are US centric, not just abortion. This doesn't mean the quiz will be US-centric as that can be handled by issue weighing and location disclosure in runtime.

Quote:

[*]Multilateralist

That used to be called "internationalist", right? :wink:
[/list]

Dunno, I'm actually thinking isolationist/internationalist should be a parent cat.

What I was going for was an opposite to militaristic, but that conflicted with the opposite to isolationist.

So there needs to be a breakdown.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I also need feedback on whether foreign policy should really be it's own TLC (top level category) or if it's social and economic issues should be divided and placed under social and economic TLCs.

I'm currently leaning toward the latter.

I would definitely keep it top-level. Both because of its prioritisation in political definitions and perceptions and because it is really a dimension of its own, thats not really parallel in any way to the social or economical delineations. I.e. the isolationist/internationalist divide cuts right through the right and left camps you'll find on economic and social issues/values.

Why were you leaning to the latter?

Because all of the issues in there are either social or economic. And category containment needs to be strictly logical.

In addition, the categorization is not as important to weighing as you seem to think. It's relevant mainly to the logic of the programming I'd have to do.

I need to come up with the spectrums that there will be.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Just another opinion--

I think National Security should be a stand alone issue, or TLC.

IMO, that would only make sense to militaristic sorts in specific countries.

Remember, TLC is not about weighing.

Abortion may be someone's most important issue, that doesn't make it a TLC, it makes it their most imposrtant issue, and issue weighing will be done both in responses and in scoring, the categorization is going to determine how the 3d scale works.

Think of it like this:

Typical scale:

<--left-----right-->

Some quizes split economic from social (in the form of libertarian/authoritarian).

I want to get a handle on a 3d spectrum. How important an issue is to someone will be reflected in the scoring on the spectrum, how inclusive an issue is is what determines the spectrum.

0 Replies

Re: Political Issues and Positions List

Craven de Kere wrote:

Rewrite it! that's what this thread is for, I know where there are deficiencies, telling me is to tell me what I already know. I posted to get the improvements.

Then I'd better get out of here. I'm good at analysing stuff and pinpointing possible problems and alternative directions, but I cant actually write (the lemmas for) a test like this -- thats why I myself would never start such a project.

0 Replies

Possible--?

Under race relations:
Support race-based programs (AA, quotas)
Oppose race-based programs (AA, quotas)
or
Enforced diversity
Natural diversity

I have a question--
Under national security-anybody- How does militaristic contrast with isolationist? Do they have to contrast? Is militaristic the heavy use of military? Would you still have to have a strong military to produce isolationism? Just trying to ensure correct understanding of the terms...

I would submit the following for thought under National Security for the American quiz:
Retain hegemony--
Against ICC
Maintain military spending
Negate hegemony--
Support ICC
Decrease military spending

0 Replies

OK, Craven--

Surprizing, I know, but I don't always understand what you're going for. <embarrassed grimace>

Just ignore me when I'm off in right field. This is quite interesting to me.

If you don't act on my suggestions, I'll understand they weren't applicable to your model... Smile

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I have a question--
Under national security-anybody- How does militaristic contrast with isolationist? Do they have to contrast? Is militaristic the heavy use of military? Would you still have to have a strong military to produce isolationism? Just trying to ensure correct understanding of the terms...

I'm not sure they contrast at all.

IMO it will probably have to be sub categorized like this:

Isolationist
Internationalist
- Militaristic
  - Multilateralist
  - Unilateralist
- Diplomat
  - Multilateralist
  - Unilateralist

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Surprizing, I know, but I don't always understand what you're going for. <embarrassed grimace>

Right now I'm trying to buy a clue.

For e.g.

The 2 dimentional spectrum of left/right then authoritarian/libertarian is an improvement on the on the 1 dimentional ones.

If I add another spectrum (or spectrums) to go 3d what will it/they be?

For this, I need to find the most inclusive metrics so building a list helps that evolve.

0 Replies

Re: Political Issues and Positions List

Craven de Kere wrote:

Please help me compile a list of political issues and positions for a political positioning quiz I eventually plan to make.

Feel free to comment on the grouping strategy as well.

You left out an entire major category of things:

Animals vs People.

The typical leftist feels that the guy who keeps a pit bulldog in a suburban or urban area where it can kill children and domestic animals is a piece of trailor trash while the leftist vermin who release canadian wolves into settled areas of Wyoming and Idaho where they can kill children and domestic animals as well as annihilate herds of deer and elk is some sort of a hero.

Also in this category of things are atrocities such as Virginia's demmunist governor Warner blowing the Rapahannock river dam at Fredericksburg for the benefit of some stupid fish which couldn't deal with it. Thus people driving over the bridge on I95 now see a miserable little creek where the nice river used to be, and where the people used to go boating and fishing (for the fish which WERE bright enough to deal with the damned dam...).

0 Replies

Thanks. I forgot enviroment altogether! And that's a large category.

0 Replies

Re: Political Issues and Positions List

nimh wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Rewrite it! that's what this thread is for, I know where there are deficiencies, telling me is to tell me what I already know. I posted to get the improvements.

Then I'd better get out of here. I'm good at analysing stuff and pinpointing possible problems and alternative directions, but I cant actually write (the lemmas for) a test like this -- thats why I myself would never start such a project.

I'll settle for suggestions for alternate directions. ;-)

0 Replies

You need to break down your discussions into one section or topic and discuss them one at a time. This is too much to discuss at one time. After each one has been discussed then combine them into a whole that can than be inspected in total. I dont believe that you will ever get agreement no matter what your final decision. But you can allow others to see what your ideas are. It should be interesting anyway

0 Replies

Political Issues and Positions List

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know