CBC's Vote Compass

I second that, totally skewed and screwed. I couldn't find any way to register my objection to it. Disinformation for sure.

I came out NDP, although according to the compass, I was further into the corner than them. Weird!

http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/contact.html

I agree with the general sentiment that this survey is useless. For instance, why do they even ask the party and leadership questions, when the point of the test is to determine, based on your answers to the 'issues' questions, who you should vote for? As a joke, I re-calibrated my answers and pretended to be in favour of Quebec getting more power, essentially making it look like I was a separatist, and it still told me I should vote Green.

Out of curiosity I clicked on the party positioning links to see where they assigned each party and I have a few qualms about it.

With regards to the Conservatives they were positioned as somewhat agreeing with increasing Canada's military presence in the Arctic, and only wanting to spend somewhat more on the Military. Both of these positions seem somewhat untrue as they strongly agree with both.

As for their position on government spending, apparently they neither agree nor disagree with the assertion that "when there is an economic problem more government spending usually makes it worse." That's news to me! They only somewhat agree with the assertion that, "The federal budget deficit should be reduced even if it leads to less public services." Again an interesting though debatable claim. As for their position on whether or not "It should be easier to qualify for Employment Insurance" they neither agree nor disagree. I'd say they at least somewhat disagree!

They only somewhat agree with the assertion that young offenders should be sentenced as Adults, which seems surprising considering their emphasis on "law and order." They neither agree nor disagree on the, "If they so wish, terminally ill patients should be able to end their own lives with medical assistance" question. Again, this is news to me that they are so neutral on doctor assisted suicide!

On, "The Senate should be abolished" question they somewhat agree. This is incorrect, as Harper has clearly stated that he prefers reform, and though he used to threaten to abolish the Senate if the Senate refused reform, he's also flip-flopped on abolition as he's indicated that it would be too constitutionally difficult (IHO) to abolish the Senate. The Conservative position should at least be neither agree nor disagree, if not somewhat disagree.

As for taxes, I don't see why they're only rated as somewhat less on the question of "How much should wealthy people pay in taxes."

Ditto.  Also green.

Actually I went through the list of what is suggested is the NDP position - says who? Sorry about some of those positions are not the official policy of the NDP, so who ever decided those were the NDP position is wrong.

Actually, the problem is that the questions are very poorly designed.  Some of them break the most basic rules of questionnaire-making, and put this survey into the realm of push-polling. I've been fuming about this questionnaire since completing it last night.  I actually got NDP as my result, but the Green Party was almost even, and a bunch of my NDP-supporting Facebook friends were pegged as "Green Party".

They have compound questions in the survey - that is, questions with more than one question in them, but that you have to answer with only one answer.

Example: "The government should fund daycare instead of giving money directly to parents."  That's actually two statements, not one, and should be separate questions: "The government should fund daycare" and "The government should not give money directly to parents."  Because if you believe the government should fund daycare AND give money directly to parents, there is no way to answer this question.  And if you believe the government should not fund daycare AND they should not give money directly to parents, there is also no way to answer it.

And that makes it a trick question.  Because anyone who votes NDP will answer this question "Strongly agree" or "Somewhat agree" since we all agree that the Conservatives giving a hundred bucks a month to parents was no fit replacement for universal day care.  But they have placed the NDP into the "neither agree nor disagree" choice because the NDP supports both universal daycare AND giving money directly to parents.  But if forced to make a choice, you can bet that the NDP would support universal day care over $100 per month payments to parents, which they roundly criticized at the time.  This question makes it seem like the NDP has no position on daycare at all.

It's a scam question.  Only the Green Party position (fund daycare INSTEAD of payments to parents) or the Conservative Party position (Give payments directly to parents instead of funding daycare) can be reflected in the answer to the question.  The likert scale they use doesn't adequately represent the position of the NDP or Bloc on this question.

Another question that's like this is this one: "Environmental regulation should be stricter, even if it leads to consumers having to pay higher prices."  This is another compound question because it assumes that the effect of stronger environmental regulations is that consumers will have to pay higher prices.  This is mirroring the Green Party's position of using market solutions to environmental problems.

So, again, the only answers that you can agree or disagree with are the Green Party's (increase environmental regulation and increase prices), or the Conservative Party's (do not increase environmental regulation so that prices will not increase).

Whereas NDP supporters are likely to support strict environmental regulation, but do not necessarily think that increased prices always have to follow.  I, for instance, support strict environmental regulation, and also support cost controls on basic levels of consumption of necessities, and increased funding for social programs and subsidies for people who cannot afford the necessities.

So anyone who votes NDP either has to put "somewhat agree" or "strongly agree" with this statement to reflect their support for increased environmental regulations, but then they get counted as a Green Party supporter because this survey doesn't give the NDP credit for their support for increased regulation.  This is due to the question being a compound question that also assumes that all people should have to pay higher prices for everything as a result of increased environmental regulations, something the NDP does not support.

Not to mention that they soft-pedaled the positions of the Conservative Party on many of the questions too, as outlined by Vansterdam Kid above.  I think it's a travesty that this survey is being touted by the CBC as a guide for people to help them figure out who to vote for.  It is an extremely poorly-designed survey that skews the results for progressives in favour of the Green Party.  And call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think that's an accident.  I doubt that highly-trained research academics somehow don't understand the most basic rules of creating unbiased survey questions!

I'm apparently closest to NDP.  And, gee, there are so many scienticians involved it must be true. 

I don't think there's any conspiracy afoot here, but this survey is about as close to being a compass as my middle finger.  Kudos to the CBC for sponsoring something so obviously flawed and misleading .

CBC is really pushing this BS - said 200,000 had tried it as of last night, and it has been on every CBC newscast I've seen in the past 36 hours.

I wonder if this was actually meant to be rolled out on Friday morning?

Hopefully you wrote this to the ombudsman for CBC. The link is above Michelle! They need to hear this and request that your email be sent directly to the researchers.

I agreed to be phoned by the researchers and I most definitely will be giving them an ear full

I just got off the phone with CBC "listner relations". A woman told me they "were aware there were issues with the website and were working on it". I told her I am a life long New Dem and the compass said I should vote Green. I'll check in a couple of days if thing don't change. Hope this helps.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

PS. Please call the CBC to lodge a complaint.

I agree - it was right at putting Conservative furthest away but I was identified with Green Party - I would think I would have been NDP or Liberal ... not Green for sure.

Someone tweeted yesterday that if you answer no opinion/don't know to all questions you turn out Liberal ...

Funniest thing I've read/heard all day.

Mary Hilarious -

The quiz puts the NDP to the left of the Greens.

The questionnaire has two variables:

1 - economic position (left or right)

2 - personal/social position (conservative or liberal)

The NDP is placed placed on the left side of the economic axis and on the top side of the social axis. If you score high with these two variables, you are considered NDP. If your answers are socially liberal and economically leftist, the questionnaire considers you NDP.

The Greens are also placed toward the left side of the economic axis but they are much closer to the centre of the social axis than the NDP is.

The reason people here are being considered Green and not NDP is that they score toward the centre of the social conservative/liberal paradigm where the Greens have been placed.

If you want to be considered NDP by the Compas questionnaire, switch your answers on the personal/social questions. If you take less conservative positions on social issues and more liberal ones, you'll be considered NDP.

I switched my answers to make them more socially conservative and suddently I became a Green too.

Just to make sure I switched them back to my honest answers and the Compas questionnaire put me back firmly into the top left quadrant where they situate the NDP.

Disclaimer

JKR I don't think you could have been more socially liberal than what I put and when it showed the map the NDP was to the right of both the Bloc and the Green. Green was as far left as you could get then the bloc hiher and further right, followed by the NDP still higher and further right. Hell they had the libs about halfway on the left and the cons almost falling off the right. Seems odd doesn't it. Unless they have changed it in the last 3 days.

Looking at this from the viewpoint of the people who made this "voting compas", it does seem like it would be pretty difficult to make a multi-party questionnaire that distinguishes the NDP from the Greens. The only major differece between the Greens and the NDP seems to be that the Greens have more faith in the free market to reduce environmental problems. In practice this means that the Greens support a carbon tax while the NDP supports cap and trade. However, the questionnaire did account for the difference between cap and trade and the carbon tax.

What other differences do the parties have?

- Increase income taxes on the rich (NDP for, Greens against)

- Senate abolition  (NDP for, Greens against)

- Increasing public pension contributions (NDP for, Greens against)

But the questionnaire also seemed to have taken these differences into account too.

The problem with the questionnaire seems to have been the presence of too many questions in areas where there is little or no difference between the NDP and Greens. But these questions had to be asked because parties other then the NDP and Greens were part of the questionnaire. If the questionnaire would have only had to differentiate between the Greens and NDP, it would have been very easy to create a questionaire that asked a few simple questions. But because the questionnaire included other parties, there had to be too many questions where the differences between the NDP and Greens is negligible.  It may be this tool is inherently defective within a 5-party system where two parties are more similar to each other then the other parties.

Is there a way that this "compas" could have clearly distinguished between the Greens and NDP while still having many questions where the parties share the same similar answers? (Another problem is that many political questions are not cut and dried).

One way the makers of the questionnaire could have solved this problem was to just eliminate the Greens from the questionnaire on the grounds that they are a fringe party that has no seats in Parliament. Our FPTP system can't fairly deal with many parties, so maybe its fitting that this compas can't also?

A lot of Green supporters must have been designated as NDP'ers. But many Greens must like this confusion as they must know that since there are more NDP supporters then Green supporters, the questionnaire designates many more NDP'ers as Greens then vice a versa.

And they had the Greens supporting national childcare. So all things being equal, this question put a lot of NDP'ers into the Green category.

But since both parties approve national daycare, this is also an example of how this type of simplistic questionnare will likely always put lot of NDP'ers in the Green category and vice a versa.

I think the problem isn't with this specific questionnaire. I think the problem is that these simplistic questionnaires are inherently flawed. A simple questionnaire can't fulfill the goal of distinguishing the many parties from each other when some parties share a lot od policies with each other and one party is an outlier.

The media should avoid these kinds of simplistic questionnaires that may help their ratings but confuse the voters. It's unethical to have these kinds of confusing electoral "compases" during an election.

If I was to make a survey I would not just have the parties stance on the issues but also their relative importance.  I think this would be truly useful even to party members.  Even if you asked a simple question like:  If you had one bill to bring to the house would it be on poverty, international affairs, the environment, or the economy?

As a software developer, I see this fiasco as a result of totally inadequate testing before releasing this monstrosity on the Canadian public. Apparently, the CBC simply retained some so-called experts to make the questionnaire, and assumed that since they are EXPERTS, what they did must work. They should have at least tested it out on a few hundred people before putting it on their web site, and they would have discovered that their experts had utterly failed to make an accurate test. But instead, they just plopped it out there, and are now promoting the hell out of this worse than useless piece of trash.

How many are those are multiple times the same person going WTF??? though.   I would guess a fair number.   Maybe it's only really been about 500 of us- thinking no that can't be right.

By the way I just took the thing again.   The more I read the questions the less clear they are.   When I try to re-calculate the important -not important stuff is so simplistic it is laughable.   Really the economy is not important or important?  Really?  The question is not whether it is important or not but who benefits.   And what does moral values mean? I think lying and cheating violate moral values.   But if I say they are unimportant does that make me more or less Conservative.   It is a piece of junk.

LOL the greens are to left of my left foot. There is almost no issue that they don't think a volountariy business solution is the exact prescription. By that very definition it is right wing policies.

I think you guys are getting bent out of shape for nothing.  The chances that this tool will significantly alter voter behavior is roughly zero.  Very few people would take this seriously.

And melovesproles hit the nail on the head.  A lot of you diehard dippers like to believe your party is extremely progressive and the Green Party is made up of neoconservatives who feel guilty about the enivronment.  Successive provincial NDP governments have shown the first to be false and I've never seen any evidence of the second.  Maybe the Green Party is actually closer to representing your views than you'd care to admit.

On what basis would a lawyer challenge it?  Because you don't like the results?  On paper, at least, their methodology looks fairly strong.  I'm no lawyer but I think this falls under freedom of expression. I doubt a judge would order it removed because a bunch of dippers don't like to be told that their party isn't what they think it is.

Could be illegal??   Illegal on what grounds?  What law is (allegedly) contravened?

Or is that could be illegal in the same way that Jack Layton could be our next Prime Minister?

There you go folks, VOTE NDP!!!

Well I finally broke down and took the test for a laugh. 3 times.

First time I answered quite honestly in line with my social liberal with fiscal conservitive views. Even though I rated Iggy and Harpo 2 & 0 in all the ratings and Jack as a 9-10 I am apparently a stong Liberal.

Second time I removed my fiscally responsible views and replaced them with a more NDP like tone and hey, I am Green.

Third time I answered completely in line with all of what it showed for Jacko and gave him perfect 10's, guess what, Green again.

What a crock....

3 tries for the NDP and not 1 hit. guess the fix really is in on this test. Talk about your media manipulation when they start releasing the results....

green here as well..... and no, not!

I wonder if ANYONE comes out of there told the NDP is the best fit?

If this quiz sways any votes, it by definition is manipulative, and any lawyer should be able to build a case against it on those grounds.

Facebook Group - CBC - Take Down the Bogus "Vote Compass"

CBC are planning to do a story on the criticisms.

I wonder if the criticisms will be broadcast on every national and local broadcast for three solid days.

The basic political emotion for most people is a negative one. This is noteworthy because many of the questions in the vote compass were phrased in terms of policies that the NDP might support. This would evoke and reinforce strong negative emotions in right wing voters.  I found it a little different  because such questions are typically posed differently. It surprised me a little and makes me wonder about the effect on the results. 

Anyway, the results for me confirm what everyone has been saying here in regard to pointing to Green support. Jack Layton would have been called a Green supporter in this questionaire. lol. FIX. Pretty obvious.

Answer much?  Have information much?  Or just make stuff up much?

Is this publication imminent? 

It may have been a private-members bill but it's a bill that passed third reading in the HOC and a bill that not one NDP MP voted against.  http://openparliament.ca/bills/votes/40-3/20/. 

I think that a party's actions and vote record are fair game and are equally (if not more) important than their current platform - unless, of course the NDP has reversed course.

I don't know what you mean by "more standard question that more typifies social democratic politics" but I think that a question about the importance of bilingualism in our federal institutions and to what degree biligualism trumps other factors such as regional representation and other qualifications for the positions is a perfectly valid question.

That's a realy good critique, Atlas. Good catch!

An employee who values his pay cheque.

I tried it twice and came up Green twice.  There was something similar last election but the questions were taken from ACTUAL campaign platform literature.  I was not shocked last time to find that I and many of my friends who normally vote NDP were closer to the Bloc.  

This appears to have major internal biases and the main problem with that is the promotion the CBC is giving and will give to the skewed results.  Once again our state broadcaster coming up very short.

I think someone must have duct taped a chunk of magnetite to the CBC's vote compass. It's either that or they dropped it over a cliff onto a rocky shore 100 metres below beforehand. Someone at the Ceeb should look into it like real soon.

What ticks me off is that one of the authors of this survey (an academic from the U of T who's name I forget) said something to the effect that this wasn't designed to influence how people vote, but rather to start a discussion.

But that's obvious bullshit because the CBC brass have ordered the CBC minions to hype this turd of a survey at every possible opportunity.

An online survey like this could have been interesting if it had been done right.   This wasn't.   A high school math class could have done a better job of it.

Exactly Rad, Just like watching their political show. There was an NDPer on yesterday that totally destroyed the the lib and cons and Good Ol Evan did his best to talk over her her and to ignore her points. CBC and their "horse race" is a disgrace. Its to the point I am ready to say "to hell with them". The TV side is so bad and The House with dirtbag hall and petty and their anti-ndp rage is ridiculous. Look at the difference in the way they interview the NDP "Look you are interfering with what the adults have to say so get it over with" Type of mentality.

Well, what a sad statement, though I agree with you.

And with NBeltov about Strombo...being a light weight.

However, given his recent appointment as Canadian Ambassador for Food at the UN, one would think he would be less of a corporate shill.

But perhaps George Strombo is as bobble headed as the bobble headed politician novelty itemss he had on last night. Actually strike the perhaps and just read in place that he is as bobble headed.

i got Green also even though i've always voted NDP.

i was avoiding it, knowing the criticisms, but did it on wednesday in a blatantly pro-NDP fashion.  all 10's for Jack, all 0's for the others.  strongly agree for all the NDP positions, strongly dissagree for everything else.....

and i came up Green.   i had to go have a shower to wash the the stink off.

wow quite the methodology.  I think that various legislatures should pass resolutions condemning the shoddy nature of this academic venture.  Are there no standards left at our universities?  

[Posted on behalf of Aristotleded24, who is blocked by the spam filter:]

They were flogging vote compass again this morning on CBC radio... so I came back to check if that response from CBC that Catchfire mentioned in posts #63 and #73 ever materialized... and unless I really neeed new glasses, still a whole lot of nuttin...

Oh, and why is there a second thread about this when this first one is still open? Can they be merged?