That’s an opinion and, like I said, is philosophical. Subjective truth is also philosophy and therefore opinion.
As others have already said, some of the questions were poorly worded or loaded and more choices are needed for some questions.
It is not objectively and absolutely true. It really does depend on your perspective. There is an underlying assumption there that “delay” is a bad thing, otherwise it wouldn’t be an “advantage”.
The questions are ridiculously loaded. I can’t even answer the questions the way they are phrased. They don’t ask the questions necessary to properly determine one’s political point of view.
I would not put much credence in this particular political test.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21
Just about where I expected to land.
Makes sence… I never thought of myself as a conservative when it came to social issues, but I do when it comes to the economy.
I thought that question was especially interesting for the reasons you stated.
“A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.”
Technically this statement is true. A one party state would technically avoid arguments that delay legislation from progressing through the system.
But do I agree with one party rule, and do I want all legislation to move with through the system unopposed, and do I regard such a process as a good thing No, of course not. Therefore I can only disagree with the statement.
At any rate, I know I am more of a centrist and the results seem to agree with my self assessment.
Anyone here get an outcome they felt was completely off base?
Funny you should mention this book as it is currently on my night stand. Definitely a thought provoking read.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.41
I figured I would be more right than this…oh well
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.62
Not to belabor this, but the outcomes of the decisions that are made in this system are irrelevant to the point I was making. It is an organizational/procedural question and the truth lies in that. The truth is that one party systems are more efficient at making decisions compared to party systems due to the lack of friction between parties slowing things down. The goodness or badness or efficiency of the actual decisions is irrelevant – it is related to the procedural efficiency.
No, but that is ok.
Yes, it is. It’s even classified as a major sub-section of philosophy.
Single party systems are NOT more efficient at making decisions, only in passing them (unless it’s a monarchy or dictatorship, wherein there really isn’t a “party”). Secondly, the original statement is not a fact. It’s a fact if and ONLY when preceded by “If speed of legislation is an advantage.” Otherwise, the very act of saving time is subjective. Who’s to say saving time is an advantage? See what you’re doing? You’re implying value where none was given.
You’re flip-flopping between proofs of argument. You’re trying to validate a subjective statement through objective means when the only objective means can be measured by a subjective value. It’s an infallible argument that uses circular reasoning and is logically flawed.
About where I was, definitely some loaded questions…
Maybe I’m splitting semantic hairs here, but the statement went “A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.” The word advantage implies that it is favorable or desired for whatever reason. If the statement used a neutral phrasing like “A one party system is more efficient than a multi-party system”, that would be quantifiable and objective; but the assertion of advantage inherently suggests a subjectivity that I don’t think you can simply ignore. The statement has a clear context of “a one party system is better than a two party system because…” You can’t separate that subjectivity from the statement being discussed.
–noun
1.
any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success, interest, or any desired end: the advantage of a good education.
2.
benefit; gain; profit: It will be to his advantage to learn Chinese before going to China.
3.
superiority or ascendancy (often fol. by over or of ): His height gave him an advantage over his opponent.
I don’t disagree with you. That still ignores the outcomes of the decisions. The advantage is that decisions get made without all the inter-party frictions like gridlock that happen. So the decisions actually get made. That is an advantage to the system to work with less friction. It does not rely on the outcome of the decisions. Both one party and two party or multi party systems can make good and bad decisions.
If the statement used a neutral phrasing like “A one party system is more efficient than a multi-party system”, that would be quantifiable and objective; but the assertion of advantage inherently suggests a subjectivity that I don’t think you can simply ignore. The statement has a clear context of “a one party system is better than a two party system because…” You can’t separate that subjectivity from the statement being discussed.
Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.10
And yes, the questions were poorly written. In many cases the uterior motive of the question was easily discernable.
It is an eye opener. It does a great job of getting you to look at the base motivators.
Hmm, out of curiosity, can you isolate a particular question you thought had an ulterior motive, and do you feel the results do not represent your political point of view
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74