... on a lot of issues the parties platforms are tailored to the voters they want rather than the voters they have.
That crossed my mind when I heard that the NDP's first campaign promise is to hold down credit card interest fees.
Hopefully this plank will be a vote-getter.
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.
Meh, I'd like to believe this won't change voter intentions but I'm not that naive and I guess most of you here aren't either?
I'd love to see a lawyer challenge this.
Democracy is becoming a four letter word.
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.
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.
WOW! Defensive much! I work with lawyers and they acknowledge it could be illegal. I guess strawmen escape the law but is that the democracy you represent?
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?
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?
Worried much?...
There you go folks, VOTE NDP!!!
The Green Party of Canada is not progressive as it uses the market all the time to solve everything. Considering that the former president of the Ontario Green Party was the former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario reveals to me exactly how not progressive they are - like Brian Mulroney for which May worked for when he was in power! So please spare me the propaganda.
And when a former Reform candidate runs for the Green Party in the last election and states publicly that they aren't progressive but conservative well I got to believe he knows what he is talking about too! 
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....
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.
So the GPC's reliance on the market to sort out the environment is total coincidence, huh? That sort of philosophy sounds awfully like greenwashed PCs.
green here as well..... and no, not!
I wonder if ANYONE comes out of there told the NDP is the best fit?
Please keep discussion about the Vote Compass, and keep partisan squabbles to a dull roar, thanks.
By the way, the director of CBC's Vote Compass has contacted rabble.ca because of the criticisms in these threads and we will publish his response shortly.
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.
Fyi I'm one of the few that came out as NDP, with a minor in *gag* Liberal.
I actually answered "no opinion" on a few of the questions that Michelle flagged above as being compound and complex questions, mostly because "agreeing" or "disagreeing" didn't capture my actual thoughts. Go figure.
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 compass was pretty accurate for me (Liberal-NDP). When I started to play around with the important issues at the end though, all three of my vote checkmark, the oval, AND the political parties themselves moved around the grid. How does that make sense? Shouldn't the parties' positions on the grid be static and my vote checkmark move around based on responses? Is this happening for other people? maybe it's a problem with my computer.
Part of the problem with this compass is that parties' election platforms don't always match their actions in office. The responses are based on platform and published positions - not voting records.
I think on surveys, people are often inclined to Strongly agree/disagree. If the question is simply yes/no, it doesn't really matter how strongly or not you agree but on the compass, there can be a difference in strongly or somewhat agreeing.
Like Michelle has said, the questions are not always simple yes or no. I actually think this is a good thing. For example, the option re: child care funding. If people were asked in two separate questions yes or no questions whether (1) The government should fund daycare and (2) The government should give money directly to parents, people would be more likely to answer yes to both than if you asked them to pick one or the other. If you do think the answer is yes to both, then pick the middle option - otherwise, it's a question of priorities. I'm strongly in favour of gov't support for daycare. I also think giving money directly to parents is a good idea if it's done on a progressive basis based on income but is not a good use of resources if it's given to everyone. So I picked somewhat agree. Both the Libs and the NDP have said they will not cancel Harper's ridiculous monthly "childcare" cheque because it's a popular vote-buying program. The Greens, who will never get elected and don't need to vote buy. So my choice puts my inbetween those parties.
I'll be interested to see the CBC response to the criticism. Has anyone read a particularly well reasoned analysis? The most common problem, based on what I've read, is that if you consistently answer middle of the road, you get Liberal and if you consistently answer extreme ends, you get Liberal. This is inconsistent with babblers' problems which is they get Green. Also, the people (including the prof who the Sun has quoted) who have tested the compass by changing all their answers are not testing the compass right. You have to change one answer at a time to see if there's a difference. Otherwise if in question 1, you initially answered Green and question 2. you initially answered NDP and then you switch them both and get the opposite for each question, there will obviously be no change to the overall result.
Also, I don't see how the compass could be doing anything worthy or litigation unless the creators have misrepresented any of the parties' positions.
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.
I did the quiz twice answering from a BQ perspective, and it suggested the best fit for me - both times - was Green. Do the Greens actually support Quebec sovereingty? I think not - but I'm willing to be surprised.
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?
Worried much?...
Answer much? Have information much? Or just make stuff up much?
I am as committed a New Democrat as you can be - and I registered Green!!!!
I also seriously quesion the inclusion of a question on requiring SCC judges to be bilingual. This is a private member's bill from NDP MP Yvon Godin and is clearly being used as an indicator of NDP support even though the NDP has no policy on it whatsoever. So, when people (like me) vote "no" to that, the Compass drives me away from the NDP even though I vote straight NDP on every other issue. This is a false question to use as a gauge of NDP support. Why didn't they use a more standard question that more typifies social democratic politics?
What a load of garbage!!
The "profs" involved should be ashamed of themselves...
By the way, the director of CBC's Vote Compass has contacted rabble.ca because of the criticisms in these threads and we will publish his response shortly.
Is this publication imminent?
I hope so, Caissa, unless circumstances changed. The director contacted us (one of the main sources of criticism early on), so there should be something out soon. I'll post details as I know them.
I am as committed a New Democrat as you can be - and I registered Green!!!!
I also seriously quesion the inclusion of a question on requiring SCC judges to be bilingual. This is a private member's bill from NDP MP Yvon Godin and is clearly being used as an indicator of NDP support even though the NDP has no policy on it whatsoever. So, when people (like me) vote "no" to that, the Compass drives me away from the NDP even though I vote straight NDP on every other issue. This is a false question to use as a gauge of NDP support. Why didn't they use a more standard question that more typifies social democratic politics?
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.
Okay, but I don't see it anywhere in NDP campaign literature. I cannot recall Stephen Harper using it on the campaign trail -"Vote NDP and you will get bilingual judges".
That's a realy good critique, Atlas. Good catch!
So I saw last night and again this morning that George Strombo...is ruining his credibility by promoting this anti-democratic CBC tool.
It is pretty offensive that the CBC would be pulling this pathetic stunt.
That George is shilling for it indicates what type of person he really is.
An employee who values his pay cheque.
In any case, he's an intellectual lightweight. Just imagine if Naomi Klein was hosting that show. woo hoo.
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.
My issue is that somehow it mostly scews the NDP vote to greens, and apprently the bloc vote to there as well. Now of course those of us cinical and hardened over the years are highly unlikely to vote differently, but if you saw the program you could see how it changed the opinion of some 20 somethings taking the quiz. Any shift of NDP to green support outside of a riding where the greens have a shot is pretty much a shift for the cons and libs. Its the old two horse race they are so trying to have. Which ties in nicely with absense of may in the debates. It further marginalizes both the NDP and greens. Win win for the two headed hyrda of capitalism.
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.
To be expected - biased and inaccurate just like the old mothercorp itself. What an embarrassment it's become
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.
And I've been receiving a stream of non-stop plugs for Ignatief's Liberal Party delivered to my email inbox from the CBC over the last couple days. What's up with that?
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.
Ms. C. took it this morning and came up Liberal. Our riding has essentially two conservative candidates (Rodney Weston and Stephen Chase). Trying to persuade her to vote for Rob Moir.
An employee who values his pay cheque.
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.
The Calgary Sun's headline today
[url=http://www.calgarysun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/31/17829926.html]her... was "The CBC keeps things in the family."
The state broadcaster built an online voting tool that's under fire for having a Liberal bias.
And it turns out one of the key people behind CBC's Vote Compass worked as a policy advisor on Michael Ignatieff's Liberal leadership campaign in 2006.
Peter Loewen, assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto, is also the director of analytics for the CBC's online vote selection tool. Vote Compass, a 30 question online tool, is supposed to give voters an idea of what party they are most closely aligned. Critics say it's biased towards the Liberals.
Kinda funny...apparently Conservative voters (who put 0's for iggy and 10's for harper) are being told to vote liberal too
i got Green also even though i've always voted NDP.
double post.
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.
The ratings you give for party leaders have NO effect on where you get rated for the issues. They are 2 different things.
The ratings you give for party leaders have NO effect on where you get rated for the issues. They are 2 different things.
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?
http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/04/guest-post-some-criticisms-of-the-cbc...
Analysis of the compass.
[Posted on behalf of Aristotleded24, who is blocked by the spam filter:]
I have noticed over the last three elections that whenever the NDP gets around 20%, the MSM pours water on us. Of course, with the Libs hovering around 24-26%, you can see why: if only 3 Libs out of a 100 switch to the NDP, the New Dems are the Official Opposition and poised to overtake those useless Con-Lites.
You cannot have a democracy when the media does not fairly and accurately convey information to voters....it is appalling when the MSM chooses sides so partisanly.
Of course, we must remember who owns them....
And the point I've been trying to make is that we need more media that is reflective of what is going on on the ground, and that media needs to reach more and more people than it is currently. The United States is far ahead of us in that regard, and it's the only way Obama could have defeated the Republicans in 2008.
And I agree with the message right above here :)
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?
Let's see if I can't straighten this out. I'll close this thread and we can continue in the other thread.
