Time and again in American politics, Republicans have voted as a unit to frustrate our disorganized Democratic majority. No matter what's on the table, a few Democrats will peel away from the party core; meanwhile, all Republicans will somehow manage to stay on-message.
Thus, they caucus block us.
Articles noting this phenomenon anecdotally appear all the time, and despite the recent hopeful spate of Democratic victories, it's undeniable that the Republicans form an exceptionally effective opposition party. Today, we're going to perform a data-driven investigation of why this might be—and discover some fascinating things about the American electorate along the way. Our data set for this post is 172,853 people.
I should start off by pointing out that the Left/Right political framework we're usually handed is insufficient for a real discussion, because political identity isn't one-dimensional. For example, many Libertarians have Left-leaning ideas about social policy, and Right-leaning ideas about personal property. Where do they fit on a single ideological line?
There are many methods of looking at the political spectrum, but the best way I've come across is to hold social politics and economic politics separate, and measure a person's views on each in terms of permissiveness vs. restrictiveness on a 2-dimensional plane. Like so:

As you can see, I've superimposed some 'party' labels, to add some real-world context. One could quibble with the names I've chosen, but I feel that, in a broad sense, they fit: Democrats have a permissive social outlook and believe in restricting the financial sector (through regulation); Republicans essentially believe the reverse. In their corner, Libertarians would like to end restrictions across the board, and, down in the lower right, we have people who prefer that all aspects of life be guided by some authority: religion, the government, whatever.
Now, with the definitions out of the way, we can get to some information. We'll begin with the most basic measurement: people's economic and social values. Because our data set is so comprehensive, we can even measure the change in these values with age.

If these lines were of a single person's lifespan, they'd contain a neat little story:
- Both socially and economically, teenagers prefer an anything-goes type situation.
- But as these teenagers grow up a bit and enter the job market, they quickly develop progressive economic ideas: perhaps a bit of "levelling" seems pretty good when you're staring up the professional ladder from the bottom rung. Meanwhile, their youthful live-and-let-live social philosophy begins to fade.
- In their late 20s, they start making real money. Economic progressivism goes out the window, preferably out the window of a building with a doorman. As the adult mind turns to more material matters, social views don't change that much.
- Finally, after the mid-40s, retirement looms. Our former teenagers check their collective 401(k)s and think, you know what, let's all get checks from the government. Social views take a hard turn for the more restrictive. At the end of the journey, economic and social views are again in agreement—only this time on the other side of the philosophical line!
I realize I'm taking a bit of poetic license with this stuff, but the above sketch still illustrates generational differences very well.
Either way, the numbers really come alive when we take a more solid intellectual step and plot social and economic beliefs together as an ordered pair. So doing, we can get a picture of how a person's total political outlook relates to his age.

With the above plot in hand, we can go even further with our data. The American two-party system creates an interesting mathematical situation: we can bisect our political planea two-party system allows us to bisect the political plane and see which party more closely reflects a given age group's ideology simply by asking which side of the line the group lands on. People sitting in the upper right half should vote, in theory, for Democrats. People in the lower left, for Republicans. Like so:

But of course this line assumes that social and economic values are equally important to a person and that his priorities don't change as he gets older. Obviously, neither is the case in real life. So let's see exactly how those political priorities change with age and do even more with our graph.
Digging deeper into OkCupid's matching database, we find the following new information on people's political priorities:

The way this data bears on our political plane is mathematically cool, but arctan(x) really has no place in a political discussion (except in Flatland!), so I'll just summarize bya change in political priorities causes our
dividing line to rotate saying a shift towards either social or economic issues causes our Democrat/Republican dividing line to rotate about the center of our political plane. Here's exactly how it happens; this chart is basically the sum of all the information we have shown so far. Use the slider to step through the people's ages.

From this animation, we can consolidate all that we've learned about each group into a single plot. The blue dots are the ages likely to vote Democratic, the red are the Republican ones. In case you're keeping score, there are 21 blue dots and 22 red ones.

This detailed portrait of the electorate jives well with the actual exit poll numbers from the last few Presidential elections. The New York Times has collected this data and present it very well, if you have time to take a look. Here's the part that concerns us:

To wind up this section, I'd like to take one last look at our political plane, with a final set of overlays that I think are most illuminating:

The polygons I've drawn over the dots are called convex hulls; they are a geometric way to measure the spread of a set of points. In this case, the hulls tell us the size of the ideological/age base of our political party.
As you can see, the Democrat's base is much larger. And the range of political values it encompasses is vast. Here's party-to-party comparison in tablet form, for easy digestion:
Unlike in many things, size here is a liability. Yes, a political party that's this wide-open is probably a more intellectually stimulating organizationideological size is a liability to be a part of, and it has a lot more potential power. But bigger base is also just that many more competing viewpoints Democratic politicians must cater to and that many more different viewpoints in play among the actual elected officials themselves.
Also, well over half of the Democratic party's hull lies outside of its upper-right-hand ideological home, implying that you've got many groups of people who might tend Democratic, but who have disagreements with the party on particular issues and could defect, should the slant of the party or the country tilt the wrong way. On the other hand, the Republicans are concentrated in the lower-left-hand corner. This red cluster has multiple, apparently self-reinforcing, reasons to vote with their party, giving the Republicans both a more fervent power base and a little more ideological wiggle-room along either the social or economic axis.
So when you read about the thousands of Catholic nuns who recently came out in favor of health care reform, it's easy to get excited about being a Democrat. But do you think those same people will side with us on things like gay marriage? Or abortion rights? Hull no!
That's the crux of the problem: Republicans cohere, Democrats don't. After the above mathematical dissection of the political plane, let's take our conclusion in hand and see how it plays with other dating data we have.
This whole Republican/Democrat situation reminds me (as it surely reminds you) I think of Mamluks sometimesof when Napoleon and his few French divisions dispersed the vast Mamluk horde by the banks of the Nile. Like an army, a political party must be coherent and disciplined to be effective, and these qualities alone can carry the day, even against greater numbers.
Let's look at ideological distributions on a few hot-button issues and see how the Democrats are spread out and exposed. We'll start with views on abortion. This chart shows the opinions of social conservatives and social liberals. Everything is as you'd expect: liberals are pro-choice; conservatives pro-life.

Now let's look at how economic liberals and conservatives view abortion:

Again, the conservatives are strongly pro-life. But the economic liberals have widely distributed views. A solid portion of the Democratic economic base actually sides with Republicans on this issue. It's those nuns again!
While the two conservative curves are nearly congruent, the liberals ones are totally different. The takeaway, the Republican advantage, is this: economic conservatives and social conservatives agree, while the liberal halves of these spectra don't. Furthermore, the purple overlap—in a sense "the swing vote"—is largely on the conservative side!
We see same pattern repeated again and again. Here, for example, is a look at the 'Gay Marriage' issue:


Finally, I want to wrap up this jam with a look at OkCupid's specialty: matching people up. Our final analysis will be to exclude explicitly political questions and see how groups of different ideologies match with themselves; i.e. how compatible they find each other.
Below is a matrix showing person-to-person match percentages for the various points in the political plane:
Match With Themselves

As you can see, Republicans get along with each other quite a bit better than Democrats do, even on non-political issues. We've used match percentages like these to facilitate over 100,000 marriages in the last few years; their accuracy is pretty well-tested. If you're wondering, the site-wide average is 60.
Anyway, we calculate these numbers by posing a series of questions to our users. Just to give you a sense of what these questions are like, here are the top three most important (by user vote):
1. If you had to name your greatest motivation in life so far, what would it be?
- Love
- Wealth
- Expression
- Knowledge
2. Which makes for a better relationship?
- Passion
- Dedication
3. Are you happy with your life?
- Yes
- No
I find groupthink frightening. But that fact that Democrats can't get together on some multiple-choice Q & A speaks volumes about why they struggle with the infinite possibilities of government.
Excellent post as always. I wish we got more than one a month, though.
This post is brilliant. My one quibble is that the “neat little story” you describe towards the beginning assumes that the variability in your data represents changes that occur within individuals over time. The alternative explanation is that some of that variability actually reflects *generational* between-individual differences. Of course it’s most likely that both of these are true to an extent — the pattern of data captures both stable between-generation differences, and dynamic changes within individuals as they age. But I think the possibility that maybe these opinions are more stable over time than you assume raises some hope for liberals (or libertarians) — namely, that people who are teenagers or young adults now are more permissive than previous generations, and will to an extent continue to be so as they age. Assuming that future generations continue this trend (a big assumption, granted), this could move the whole population left. More leftists could make for a more cohesive progressive movement in the United States.
Well that is one of the scarier phrases in the language: “the infinite possibilities of government”.
You might want to change the terms of that “help wanted” notice. No conservatives allowed, right? How broad minded.
Now, what you should do is splice this data with estimates of the changing age demographic to predict the presidential election results for the next 50 years or so
It’s been shown that people who believe in absolute truths tend to vote conservative, and people who believe in shades of gray tend to vote more liberal. That would explain your last point about republicans clumping, and democrats having more diverse answers. Liberals, who are open to many interpretations or valid answers, are less likely to clump at the “right” answer.
Keep up the great work! I’m a big fan and would love to collaborate on a visualization at some point.
Cheers, Noah
Have you ever thought about publishing this stuff? Like, outside a blog?
With Casey on the fact that your correlation seems to reflect “year of birth” rather than age — which would make sense with the NYT illustration of a same “age bracket” voting significantly differently in time.
Also, the Catholic Church actually accepts evolution — though they are, indeed, just as progressive as most American Christians when it comes to abortion rights.
A few issues with your age vs. ideology charting.
The definition of permissive and restrictive in both economic and social realms evolves. It isn’t that people tend to get more restrictive, socially, as they age so much as what they permit gets locked at a certain age and society gets more permissive around them.
Second, as far as I can tell you are using a single time-point to draw these conclusions. There is good political science research to say that the classic “people are liberal when they are young and conservative when they are old” conventional wisdom is not very accurate. There are liberal generations and conservative generations and mixed generations.
Your demographic breakdown of the last three elections shows this. The eldest generation was Democratic but (as it dies off and is replaced by the next generation) is becoming more conservative. The younger cohorts are getting more democratic (having voted Republican in the 80s) while the middle cohort (that was that young Republican cohort) is more conservative than the one it replaces. Generally speaking the GI Generation was more liberal, the Silent Generation more conservative, the Baby Boomers fairly mixed, Gen X more conservative and the Millennials more liberal. The Baby Boomers and Millennials are the largest generations (though the Millennials are not all adults yet and do not yet vote at the same rate as others).
So I think your post works fine at capturing the present moment and about the “big tent” problem but it shouldn’t be seen as an indication of ideological shifts a cohort ages.
sorry, love the series but a quick note:
the official catholic position is evolution…. the church roundly rejects creationism as an explanation of the life on this planet.
not an apologist. I actually think it reinforces your point a little better.
There’s a huge problem with yr assertions about people’s views changing over time; yr taking the current positions of people at various points, and imposing these onto an individual lifespan. Whereas in fact, much of this is massively better explained by historical context. For example, on yr social axis, people today in general are much more likely to support queer rights, “interracial” marriage etc.; for the most part, the people in the older cohort who are more reactionary on such matters haven’t become so, they’ve just retained opinions which have become increasingly anachronistic. Similarly, on the economic axis, those below a certain age have grown up entirely in the neoliberal, post-Reagan era, and the relatively social-democratic consensus (while never as strong in the US as in other advanced industrialised countries) that existed before then now seems unthinkable to many of these people. Their older counterparts, on the other hand, came of age in a time when both parties were substantially to the left economically of the contemporary Democratic party.
It would be interesting to know what the compatibility bifurcation for socially liberal men and women (assuming the heteronormative signal is dominant) is. Is there some particular difference in what it means to be socially liberal and male versus socially liberal and female? And if so, how does this play out in these “non-political” questions?
This valley in the lower-right hand corner of the matrix is actually the most potentially scary part of any of this given other commonly-cited sociological correlations, such as level of education vs. political orientation.
You need panel data to say the things you’re saying, like others have commented.
Dave said: “You might want to change the terms of that “help wanted” notice. No conservatives allowed, right? How broad minded.”
Actually, the help wanted notice says they’re looking for people who aren’t intimidated by sprawling, complex problems. If you think that means “no conservatives allowed”, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
I agree with the general consensus that the correlation between ages and political orientation is not necessarily indicative of a pattern over individual life spans, but might just indicate generational factors that change gradually over longer periods of time.
Great post. However, I’m disappointed to see no reference being made to the Political Compass, something that you’ve based your 2D social/economic analysis on. Would be nice to give them the props where due
I truly love this blog! The use of visual depictions of the data is truly stunning!! And insightful!!!
But – there’s always a ‘but’! – as one with “a rigorous math background”, I must point out that any statistical analysis is pretty much useless without taking account of confidence intervals around estimates.
“I should start off by pointing out that the Left/Right political framework we’re usually handed is insufficient for a real discussion, because political identity isn’t one-dimensional. For example, many Libertarians have Left-leaning ideas about social policy, and Right-leaning ideas about personal property. Where do they fit on a single ideological line?”
Oh god. Don’t you realize you’re just parroting Libertarian propaganda? They *invented* the social/personal liberty distinction so that they could position themselves as the moral counterpoint of Hitler.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Give me a break. You can make up any two types of “freedom” to make a plot of where your group stands, in order to maximize your distance from a popular enemy and make yourself look good by comparison.
The Nolan chart was invented by a Libertarian to sell Libertarianism. Every time you plot things on a “political compass” invented by Libertarians, you’re marketing Libertarianism.
Think moar.
I’d like to agree that this shows a mostly generational gap. Peoples economic views may be a bit more fungible, but I see very few people change their mind on social issues as they age. It will be interesting to see how this changes in the next 20 years as the tail dies off.
Christian, another fantastic research-with-a-cultural-analytics-edge showing. Well-argued insights substantiated by well-curated data.
But please indulge me as I play devil’s advocate for a second:
Those of us who turn to online dating do tend to fall much more heavily on the socially permissible end of the spectrum – that’s implicit to making this choice. At the same time, this particular choice isn’t necessarily representative of our general political outlook in and of itself as it’s is driven by very different and concrete emotional triggers and behavioral needs than our abstract political beliefs – finding a mate, falling in love, achieving personal happiness. So, in theory, a number of people who may not otherwise be socially permissible may be experiencing these emotional and behavioral needs, and turning to online dating as a convenient and science-tested answer to them, even though they are normally socially restrictive in their beliefs. The second they do that, however, they experience severe cognitive dissonance. (I don’t mean to talk down to anyone, but a quick recap if you’re slightly fuzzy on it: Cognitive dissonance is the idea that we hate being inconsistent with ourselves, so when we engage in behaviors contrary to our deeply held beliefs, we experience extreme mental discomfort and anxiety, going to all kinds of lengths to rationalize things and convince ourselves that the behaviors were indeed consistent by readjusting our “beliefs” post-factum, thus alleviating the discomfort.)
So, once these otherwise socially restrictive people engage in a socially permissible behavior (online dating) and end up in your sample, cognitive dissonance could lead them to alter their answers to the questions – in true cognitive-behavioral fashion of what-I-do-becomes-who-I-believe-I-am – to accommodate a more socially permissive representation of themselves consistent with the behavior of online dating, although their true, core beliefs fall on the socially restrictive side.
And, if this were the case, couldn’t this explain the inconsistent and wide-spanning range of beliefs on the liberal side of the scale?
Just a potential grain of salt I enjoyed sprinkling on this absolutely delicious data sundae.
now i want to know whether economic liberals and social liberals are open-minded to interracial dating. let’s mashup previous topics!
Freakin LOVE these posts guys – keep up the great work.
You’ve found a great formula and I like seeing the geeky side of OkCupid (both on the blog and amongst it’s users).
Fantastic work. Keep these coming!
I’m not sure that this accounts for historical effects and the fact that a sixty year old today might think differently from the sixty year old of tomorrow. My main support for this piece of criticism is the people who lived through Roosevelt’s New Deal and have been Democrats ever since.
I hope you keep up this type of analysis over time and we’ll get this whole other dimension of the changing generations.
As a 49 year old male Libertarian, this chart shows that I will have a hard time finding women my age that are also Libertarians.
The next blog which deals with age and dating prefereances says that older men will date much younger women.
The reason, at least for me, is that younger women are more likely to be libertarians.
But, if I can find libertarian women my age in Atlanta, I would prefer to date them.
Just an observation on data presentation.
In the last two user match percentages graphs you switched the axes from the first graph, i.e. I was expecting liberals on the top left corner. This made it a little confusing at first sight. That is all.
I also find it interesting that just one block (diagonally) from the most liberal corner is your worst matching possible. Why?
By the requirements for your blog hires, I think I’m more excited than ever to see what will happen to this blog. It is, by far, the only interesting analysis of the numbers I’ve seen in years and really pushes the fold. I’m glad blog will grow rather than die out over time. The biggest thing that seems notable is the fact that you’re looking for people interested in the numbers. I believe it’s crucial to find people more interested in the numbers than the most interested reader so hopefully this will be fulfilled.
Don’t forget to modify the copyright to 2010.
Another great read from the folks at OkCupid. I wonder: do you have longitudinal data on how political preferences change over time in individual users? That would help lend some weight to your argument, which may — as others have pointed out — be subject to birth year effects.
This does point out some of the problems of a two party system.
(although in the UK we have about 2.5 major parties and then some smaller ones, not a big improvement)
You hit on some really good points here. Unfortunately, the “two party” system we’re working with offers some questions of substance (or lack thereof) that feed into this.
In dealing with Republicans (as a party, not as individuals), you typically find that they use alarmist speech to unite their base. Something threatens this, something is an enemy to that, etc. It brings out the worst in the mass that coheres to the party line, but it certainly serves the purpose of unity. A lot of right-wing groups throughout history have had a major love affair with that tactic.
Unfortunately, the Dems have two factors working against them. One, a lot of liberal ideas exist in the realm of the idealistic – which means they appeal to idealists, of which I believe there are many. Unfortunately, to make their ideas pass, they don’t try to educate their base to earn their support. Instead, they pander and make deals. This serves to water down the purity of the idealistic notion and lose the support of just as many of these idealistic folks (easily disappointed) as it may gain through pragmatic thinking. So, the combination of the poor communication of and adherence to their stated ideals along with their penchant for hopping in bed diplomatically with any and all comers tends to weaken support in ways you’d never really have to worry about with the Repubs.
Maybe a gross oversimplification, but it certainly seems to fit if you look at the ebb and flow of these movements.
The article is fascinating. However, you claim a data set of 170,000 but don’t explain how you use that set to arrive at your conclusions. If it was questionaires waht were some sample question sets that lead to your conclusions. If they were to do with people seeking partners (where being economical with the truth is rampant), how reliable is it for you interpretation.
Intuitively what you say about the democrats and republicans seems sensible, in terms of a large tent versus a smaller one. I question some of the variations you claim arise as people age, as it seems counter-intuitive based on my own experience. It may be more related to when people are born and the contempraneous culture in which they develop.
I can understand that views on economics may change as people earn more, I find the change you claim in social views less convincing without an explanation of why?
The description of Democrats comfort with the economically restrictive beliefs being in “restrictions on the financial sector, through regulation” is the most important item in this illuminating piece of great work.
Democrats fondness for restricting economic freedom doesnt simply impose authoritarian restrictions on “the financial sector”, or “some other guy” — it imposes economic restrictions on citizens, via higher taxes on individuals and businesses, and via regulations on businesses that cause those businesses not to create jobs, which again comes back to restrict citizens economic freedom by reducing their gainful employment.
This is the central point that is discovered by Democrats as they get older, that the restrictions on freedoms are not “on the other guy”, or “on evil corporations”, but actuallly on ourselves, the citizens, who give up our economic freedom to the government. The authors of the piece clearly have not yet learned enough in life to grasp this, as evidenced by defining economic restrictions as simply being “on the financial sector”. Utopian equality sounds really good when you are 18, but then you realize that for every hand-out, somebody’s pocket had to be picked and somebody’s freedom had to be restricted. Once you realize that somebody is you, things change and you become a Libertarian or a Republican, that is the root of the transformation.
What graph software do you use?
I thought the most interesting outcome of this (and arguably most relevant since we are looking at a snapshot in time of present) is that Republicans tend to get along with one another better than Democrats, averaging over the 60 base mark site-wide. Another great post; thanks, OKC
Excel.
Sadly, that “person’s political evolution from age 18-60 ” chart shows how narcissistic human nature is.
Every stage of it coincides with a person’s own insecurities (and/or what’s best for them) around that particular age range. Though I did get a laugh seeing “authoritarian” for the elderly. Didn’t need a chart to know that!
I was going to say exactly what Bondo said. There has been much research on this subject.
The way you match people up, is that with the user generated questions? Because I’m guessing that okcupid has more liberal leaning people than republican leaning people and thus the user generated questions are going to more closely parse liberal issues making it look like liberals are more different than conservatives are.
Re: Abt Freedom
Republicans too have their own vision of utopia. It’s called the free market. They have a strange belief that the lack of regulation and the lack of oversight will somehow create a better society, when in fact, it is regulation that keeps the free market’s worst abuses in check.
I ask libertarians this all the time. If free market is so good, why don’t we free market the military? Why can’t our national security be handled soley by private corporations if its good enough for everything else? The answer is because a private military corporation is driven purely by a profit motive, where as a national army is driven purely by national defense.
In the end, the reason why I, as a democrat, trust the gov’t over the free market is because the gov’t is elected, and accountable to us. Corporations are beholden to nobody but shareholders, and that’s if they decide to issue shares.
Your charts seem kinda wrong… how did you came up with the conclusion someone is conservative and someone else is liberal in order to draw that abortion chart for example?
Franklin Roosevelt answered your question (and, no, I am not old enough to remember his presidency). He was asked why the Dems always seemed so disorganized while the GOP was united (sound familiar?). He replied, “There are many ways of moving forward, but only one way of standing still.”
I am all for no conservatives allowed. Who the heck needs to work with anyone who believes in one absolute truth when it comes to social and economic issues? It simply isn’t the case. Conservatives are also more likely to be fear mongers.
Correction: “How beliefs change with age OF THE RESPONDENT”. I don’t believe you can extrapolate the data you have here to any kind of longitudinal statement about peoples’ changes over time.
A two-axis chart may be all that fits in a planar graph,but there’s potentially a “dimension” for every issue.I strongly hold both a “liberal” position on abortion rights and a “conservative” position on homosexuality,have done so since forming my views in the first place,and am a lifelong Democrat who sees red as the color of Communists,not Republicans.To me it’s not a matter of being “permissive” or not,but of right not being equal to wrong and claims of equality (foetus to person or same-sex relationship to opposite-sex) being nonsensical.”Do your own thing” must yield to “Do the right thing”.
You have managed to show that Republicans are more homogeneous in their beliefs and attitudes, but that does not translate into getting along with each other. The thing about being socially permissive is that one is more likely to tolerate, accept or appreciate difference, which, I think, is a great advantage on a dating site. Yes, it’s a big tent, but that doesn’t mean we can’t all LOVE each other! Okay, that was sappy… And no, this isn’t to deny that there are some huge fissures between different “permissive” groups.
Perhaps a level of objectivity could be injected here. When you use terms like “us” with Democrats, then you tip your hand and your journalistic integrity goes out the window. Also, words like “progressive” always make me just cringe. So condescending, implying that any other idea beyond the liberal lockstep is stagnate or “backwards.”
It’s funny the use of the word “liberal” in reference to stifling, law-oppressive ideas in business. In this area, it would seem the libertarian or Republican ideas would be the most “liberal,” in that they most liberally apply freedom to people.
That said, it’s an interesting look into the demographics of the users who choose to be on this website.
What’s so fascinating about this is that it makes no representations of the content of the ideas that are considered permissive/restrictive. Like, I doubt that many people consider interracial marriage “permissive” anymore. It seems the real science here would be in the positioning of new political and policy ideas. If a smart Democrat can make something seem middle-of-the-road that is actually socially permissive or economically restrictive, then society would change faster than if it’s badly positioned/marketed.
I thought it was a great read. Although interesting to see le results laid out graphically, they really come as no surprise.
@”ayn”
“Oh god. Don’t you realize you’re just parroting Libertarian propaganda? They *invented* the social/personal liberty distinction so that they could position themselves as the moral counterpoint of Hitler.”
— Or maybe it was invented because the traditional two-dimensional graph excluded them entirely, labeled them radicals, or at best labeled them centrists. All are undoubtedly incorrect. I’m sure members of the two-party system had no problem with the status quo when it benefited them by effectively labeling everyone not on the graph as a radical. Also, why would the mainstream media complicated the issue when their goal is to simplify news to a grade-school level in order to sell more subscriptions?
“Give me a break. You can make up any two types of “freedom” to make a plot of where your group stands, in order to maximize your distance from a popular enemy and make yourself look good by comparison.” “The Nolan chart was invented by a Libertarian to sell Libertarianism. Every time you plot things on a “political compass” invented by Libertarians, you’re marketing Libertarianism.”
— So would it be more correct to use a one-dimensional graph? (which shows less or incorrect information) or a three-dimensional graph? Are you just dismissing this because it was created by a partisan organization, or because you think it is wrong? The general consensus among political researchers now is that the Nolan chart is a more accurate representation. If it is wrong, then what is right? (Personally, I’d love a three axis graph even better. The more visual information the better. But I don’t know what you’d use on the third axis.)
you’re implying that people really care or know what the hell they’re talking about politically. most people don’t know their own ass from the state of california.
Regarding “…and a couple summer interns…”. Wouldn’t it be easier to employ 2 individual interns rather than trying to find a couple who both know python? Also, great post!