Honestly, which is more important to you?
That people vote.
That people vote for my candidate.
If you're unsure/uninformed on a particular topic, you will most likely:
Abstain from the vote.
Vote along party lines.
Vote for the incubent.
Make a quick assessment based on information in the voter pamphlet.
All of these play a role, but an individual’s values, beliefs, and behaviors are driven primarily by:
As such, you believe the government should manage people primarily through:
Education, conditioning (proactive).
Punishment, consequences (deterrent).
In general, you believe that people are:
Intelligent, Responsible (and should be treated this way).
Ignorant, Cattle-like (and should be treated this way).
These two things are not always inter-compatible. When it comes down to it, which is more important to you?
Which do you favor more?
Supporting your interests but sacrificying democracy (e.g.,: a benign dictatorship).
Supporting democracy but sacrificying your interests (e.g., tyranny of the masses).
Are there any issues that you believe should be pushed through, regardless of the “popular vote”?
Gay marriage (for or against).
Abortion (for or against).
Right to bear arms (for or against)
Deployment of troops (for or against)
If so, with regard to the above, who/what do you believe defines these “inalienable” rights?
Religion (God, Church, Bible).
Politicians (President, Congress, and/or Judges).
No one - they're common sense.
No one - values are relative (e.g., there is no such thing as "inalienable rights").
A wider tax scope means a leveler playing field while sacrificing representation; e.g., tax payers may be paying for services (schools, roads, etc) in areas they don’t live. At what level do you feel the majority of taxes be assessed?
National (status quo).
Individual (opt in services).
A wider scope of legislation means consistent baseline values in favor of geographically diverse values; e.g., if gay marriage is permitted or denied in one place, then it’s permitted or denied in all places. At what level do you feel the majority of legislation apply?
National (status quo)
Individual (extreme libertarian)
“New Home, New Life” was a BBC show broadcast into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. It’s popularity prevented the Taliban from being able to ban radio (as they had with TV, music, theatre and dance). It wrapped up health and social issues in an entertaining format and had a huge impact on morale, cultural values and health conditions. Similar things might be said about the NEA. At what level(s) do you believe these types of programs should be supported:
Non-Profits (Charities, Churches).
None; this is an inappropriate use of media.
While “New Home, New Life” was considered to have a positive impact on the Afghan people, the underhanded approach combined with its subjective nature (cultural values) could be used for less positive purposes such as political propaganda, product marketing, religious evangelism, cultural conditioning, etc. Keeping this in mind, do you think this is an appropriate use of media?
Yes. Biases and self-interest cannot be avoided, but it’s up to the listener to decide how the information is used.
Yes. However, governments should require that the funders/sponsors be clearly identified.
Yes. However, governments should maintain the right to alter (censor) messages deemed negative or manipulative according to predefined standards.
No. The potential for abuse greatly outweighs the benefits of the system.
Keeping the above in mind, are there any organization that should be prevented from (directly) contributing to such programs, due to the potential for abuse?
Non-Profits (Charities, Churches).
All; this is an inappropriate use of media.
Which political label do you most identify with?
Liberal (Democratic, Socialist, Neo-Conservative, etc).
Conservative (Libertarian, Separatist, Anarchist, Confederate).