This site has conducted an unscientific survey on various issues since July of 1998. The results, while interesting in most cases, are to be taken with a grain of salt - the results can easily be skewed by an individual or group of individuals; the sample is, by nature, not representative (because it consists only of Web users who visit my site and bother to view the survey page and submit an opinion).
This page includes results from 2007. For results from other years, please go to the Main Results Page.
Question 113 (December 2007): With the first primaries and caucuses right around the corner, it is time for our first Presidential straw poll. Which candidate would you vote for to run for President if you were asked to vote today?
|Response||Count||% Total||% In Party|
|Alan Keyes||Due to an oversight, Keyes was not included in the straw poll.|
|Diane Beall Templin||5||0.19||38.46|
|"Average Joe" Schriner||11||0.41||61.11|
|None of the Above||49||1.83||—|
Question 112 (November 2007): On November 3, 2007, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf declared martial law, suspended the constitution, and invoked emergency powers across the country. This move follows the return of popular opposition figure Benazir Bhutto and associated unrest and terrorist acts. Additionally, when the Pakistani Supreme Court refused to endorse the emergency measures, he dismissed the Supreme Court. What should the U.S. response be?
|The U.S. has no business butting into Pakistan's internal affairs. Pakistan is a key ally in the war on terror and we need their full cooperation - now's no time to rock the boat.||117||31.62|
|We believe in the supremacy of the law, and we should seek allies who agree with that principle. We need to pressure Musharraf to end martial law quickly and work with him to restore order.||105||28.38|
|Pakistan differs from North Korea only in its rhetoric - we should cut them off just as we have North Korea, at least until free and fair elections are held.||60||16.22|
|I don't really care about Pakistan.||88||23.78|
Question 111 (October 2007): [Note: this survey ran until November 7] In March 2007, a federal appeals court struck down a highly restrictive set of gun laws in Washington DC. The laws, in general, restrict private ownership of guns within the district. The city defended the law by saying that the protections of the 2nd Amendment applied to state militas only. The District appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear the case in its current term. This could be the most significant gun case to reach the Court in over 70 years. What are your feelings about regulation of gun ownership?
|States should be able to regulate guns in any way they wish, from complete bans to unfettered access.||100||11.90|
|The 2nd Amendment should be incorporated as a protected "privilege or immunity", but the point of the 2nd was to protect militias from government interference, so private ownership can still be banned.||71||8.45|
|The 2nd Amendment should be incorporated as a protected "privilege or immunity", and the point of the 2nd was to protect individual ownership, so the Court should use this opportunity to overturn all restrictive gun laws.||562||66.90|
|Regardless, the 2nd is an anachronism. It should be replaced with a new constitutional amendment that is written by and for a modern citizenry.||107||12.74|
Question 110 (September 2007): New Hampshire has held the honor of holding the first primary in the nation each presidential cycle since the 1950's, an honor its law requires it maintain. Iowa's caucus, typically held a week before New Hampshire's primary, has been a "first hurdle" since the 1970's. More and more states are jockeying for a position in the early process, and are moving their primaries into January, which could cause New Hampshire to move its primary into December. Is the current primary system healthy?
|New Hampshire and Iowa got there first, and they should be able to maintain their first-in-the-nation status.||24||10.26|
|All states should hold their primaries on the same day, just like the final elections.||90||38.46|
|The country should be divided into geographic regions, and the primaries in each region should be held a few weeks apart. Each cycle, a new region could be first.||47||20.09|
|The country should be divided into classes of roughly the same number of electoral votes, and each cycle, a new class gets to go first, with the others following a few weeks behind, one class at a time.||23||9.83|
|The parties and states should be allowed to do whatever they want - New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation law is stupid and should be repealed.||50||21.37|
Question 109 (August 2007): Criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, from both Democrats and Republicans, is mounting. The President, however, is resolute in his support for Gonzales. What would you like to see happen? Note: Gonzales announced his resignation on 08/27/2007.
|Nothing - the President is doing exactly the right thing standing by his AG.||108||22.41|
|The President should see the light and fire Gonzales||75||15.56|
|The Congress should hold more hearings||19||3.94|
|The Congress should impeach Gonzales||280||58.09|
Question 108 (July 2007) Each July, this survey will be offered, allowing us to track, over time, the political persuasion of our visitors. Questions are asked about party affiliation as well as economic and social ranking on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 being very conservative and 9 being very liberal).
|Response||Count||Percentage||Avg Econ||Avg Soc|
Notable "Other" parties: Ethical, American, Anarchist, Orange
|1 = Very Conservative||126||18.92||44.44|
|5 = Moderate||117||17.57|
|9 = Very Liberal||54||8.11|
|1 = Very Conservative||99||14.86||31.98|
|5 = Moderate||78||11.71|
|9 = Very Liberal||161||24.17|
Question 107 (June 2007): The next major election is not until November 2008 - but already, all parties are struggling to decide who to put up for a candidate. This made us wonder - do you vote? And if not, why not?
|I vote in almost every election I can, national, state, or local.||216||86.06|
|I only vote in state elections.||2||0.80|
|I only vote in national elections.||5||1.99|
|I refuse to vote as a political statement.||8||3.19|
|I don't vote because it is inconvenient.||2||0.80|
|I don't vote because my vote does not matter.||10||3.98|
|I'm too lazy to vote.||8||3.19|
Question 106, May 2007 In March, 36 Vermont towns voted to request that the state's congressional delegation start impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. In April, the Vermont Senate voted to request the same, and similar measures were being debated in other states. U.S. Representative John Murtha mentioned impeachment as one option available to the Congress. Impeachment - what do you think?
|There are absolutely no grounds for impeachment. Any calls for impeachment are pure politics.||189||26.00|
|Though the people and states have the right to call for impeachment, there are many other things that can be done to check the power of the president, and calls for impeachment are premature.||53||7.29|
|Impeachment is a valid tool to put pressure on the president to listen to the public. It should be used as leverage.||88||12.10|
Question 105, April 2007 What's your opinion of the current White House scandal surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the firings of United States Attorneys?
|The president has the right to fire any US Attorney for any reason at any time, and that should be the end of the discussion.||231||41.92|
|Though US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, the conflicting statements coming from Gonzales and other Justice Department officials show the department is in serious turmoil, and the Congress is right to look into that.||90||16.33|
|Whether the firings were legal or not, the way it was handled shows that Gonzales has no control over his own department - he should resign immediately.||54||9.80|
|This is just another example of the incompetence of this administration. I can't wait until January 20, 2009.||176||31.94|
Question 104, March 2007 The Supreme Court heard arguments against the President's Faith Based Charity Initiatives in February. The plaintiffs argue that the diversion of taxpayer money to religious organizations for charity outreach is an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. The government did not try to defend the program, instead arguing that taxpayers don't have standing to sue. What do you think?
|The government should not pass any public funds to any religious organization under any circumstances.||157||49.53|
|The government should not give any public funds to a religious organization that uses those funds to proselytise its message.||50||15.77|
|If a religious organization can do a better job of social services than the government, we should support that.||85||26.81|
|The government must support religious organizations to ensure the country's collective soul is saved.||25||7.89|
Question 103, February 2007 The House quickly approved a bill mandating a rise in the national minimum wage, but several proposals are making their way through the Senate. What's your opinion of the minimum wage?
|There must be a federal minimum wage.||234||46.89|
|The federal government should not set minimum wages, but the states should, if they choose to.||83||16.63|
|The government should stay out of the minimum wage business. Wages are between employer and employee.||182||36.47|
Question 102, January 2007 At the end of December, 2006, the Iraqi government executed Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. The capture and prosecution of Hussein was one of the primary aims of the Iraq War. Just a day later, news reports noted the 3000th American death in Iraq. Has it been worth it?
|The world is a better place and the death of Saddam was worth the price.||436||37.55|
|The death of Saddam is good, but not worth American 3000 lives.||302||26.01|
|Saddam was not worth a single American life. He was not our problem.||423||36.43|