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

 

Michelle wrote:

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!

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

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 ...

MaryGP wrote:

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 Compas questionnaire seems very similar to the libertarian's World's Smallest Political Quiz.

Is this true?

Quote:

Each party featured in Vote Compass was offered multiple opportunities to provide a self-assessment of its positions on each of the statements in the Vote Compass questionnaire, as well as an opportunity to challenge the assessment of the Vote Compass research team.

Was the NDP "offered multiple opportunities to provide a self-assessment of its positions on each of the statements in the Vote Compass questionnaire, as well as an opportunity to challenge the assessment of the Vote Compass research team."?

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.

thorin_bane wrote:

Yeah but they got some questions completely wrong. For one they said the NDP doesn't support national childcare one way or the other...Um yes they do.

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.