Description
A whole lot of the questions are ambiguously worded, incorrectly valued, or just plain silly. No offense.
I also have a problem with your 'tradition' bar in general. Generally, the political spectrum is 'change' versus 'stability'. However, you make it out to be 'science and climate change' versus 'religion and morals'. You also conflate 'Christian traditions' with the general concept of traditionalism, and progress in a particular direction with the general concept of progressivism. This doesn't do the political spectrum justice at all. I won't accuse you of agenda pushing, but it's definitely a bias showing.
Figured I'd say it up here to point out the pattern. I'll still mention it down below.
There's also the fact that nearly every question is a 10 to something. I'll point out the most obvious examples of this, but in general this really needs a rework to determine which answers split farther down the scale than others.
Anyway, on with the questions.
"It is necessary for the government to intervene in the economy to protect consumers."
Which level of intervention? Which level of protection? The question will get different answers depending on the interpretation.
"Publicly-funded research is more beneficial to the people than leaving it to the market."
This is not a tradition vs progress question. It's not even directly a progress question. By making it increase towards 'progress', and having the question itself ask which one results in more progress, you insinuate that public funding is the 'correct' answer.
"International trade is beneficial."
Nobody would possibly argue that the USA should produce all the products it would ever need on its own. I think a better question would be 'Tariffs on international trade are important to encourage local production', with inverted values, because you'd get much more of a split there.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Again, not really a progress vs tradition question.
"It would be best if social programs were abolished in favor of private charity."
Same complaint as above, and this isn't a question likely to have a high split (whereas asking which of the two things you would prefer to err on the side of would produce a better one).
"Public utilities like roads and electricity should be publicly owned."
That is more or less the definition of a public utility. I would replace 'public' with 'basic'. I'd also increase the point value or knock off roads, because public ownership of roads splits farther to the right than public ownership of electricity.
"Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy."
I guarantee you very very few people have ever answered 'disagree'. Where political views really split is not whether excessive government intervention is a threat, but what level of government intervention constitutes 'excessive'.
"Quality education is a right of all people."
Not a progress vs tradition question. Not even by the strange scale you used.
"The means of production should belong to the workers who use them."
I would increase the point value for this, since it splits farther to the left than the other economic questions.
"The United Nations should be abolished."
This isn't really a civil rights question, since it's about authorities governing other authorities rather than authorities controlling humans. The UN doesn't have any say in my day to day life. And I'd increase the point value slightly.
"Military action by our nation is often necessary to protect it."
Similar issue. That is definitely not a +10 to authoritarianism. We're not controlling other countries for the sake of power, we're trying to protect our own interests. It's definitely militant over pacifist, but it's not authoritarian over libertarian. It may be what the words mean, but it's not what the scales mean.
"I support regional unions, such as the European Union."
Not a progress question. Iffy on whether it's an economic question.
"It is important to maintain our national sovereignty."
This one's going the wrong way. It should be a +5 instead of a -5 (liberty of nations vs authority of other bodies).
"A united world government would be beneficial to mankind."
This should probably have increased points since it splits farther to the left.
"Wars do not need to be justified to other countries."
I don't know whether this should be a couple of points in the positive or not, but it certainly isn't authoritarian, for the same reason as the 'military action' question.
"Military spending is a waste of money."
And again here. I'm also curious why this isn't econ+5.
"My nation is great."
This is one of the aforementioned 'silly' ones. I like the country I live in. That does not affect whether I support international unions or accountability. It just means I don't think my country sucks.
"Research should be conducted on an international scale."
Not a progress vs tradition question. And I'd cut that point value in half, as that splits closer to the center.
"Even when protesting an authoritarian government, violence is not acceptable."
This doesn't really fit across either of the axes you put it on. It's not related to nationalism vs internationalism, and libertarianism doesn't make violence acceptable. If anything, this would be the first one I'd actually put on the progressivism axis, since it's directly 'change vs security'.
"Our nation's values should be spread as much as possible."
Not really a libertarianism question. Or if so, then probably -5 instead of -10. The implication in this one that's different from the religion one is that in the religion one, it's a value that you hold, vs in this one, it's a value that the whole nation holds.
"It is very important to maintain law and order."
Without context (like, as opposed to?), this doesn't fit on any axis, especially not nationalism vs internationalism.
"The sacrifice of some civil liberties is necessary to protect us from acts of terrorism."
Which ones? This has no context. This is less egregious than the 'excessive government intervention' thing, but the same concept.
"Government surveillance is necessary in the modern world."
To which level?
"The very existence of the state is a threat to our liberty."
The only way this would be a relevant question to any of them is if you defined anarchy as the farthest reach of libertarianism, in which case that point value should be seriously increased.
"Regardless of political opinions, it is important to side with your country."
This is nationalism, but it isn't nationalism at the expense of internationalism. And it's also not progressivism - the idea is that you put aside your values for your country, whether they be traditionalism or progressivism.
"A hierarchical state is best."
As opposed to what? I think this is actually less authoritarian, since it's different levels of delegation instead of one big ruling body.
"The stronger the leadership, the better."
This is not nationalism vs internationalism. Unless you were talking about international unions, in which case the point value would be in the other direction.
"Democracy is more than a decision-making process."
This is incredibly vague; certainly not worth ten points for libertarianism.
"Environmental regulations are essential."
Context of extent is missing, and it's not progressivism. Climate science is not politics.
"A better world will come from automation, science, and technology."
There is no way this is +10 for progressivism. The alternative is the Amish. The split is way farther to the right than 10 points.
"Children should be educated in religious or traditional values."
Not 10 authoritarianism. More like 5. There is not a difference in the level of government intervention in schools in these sides.
"Traditions are of no value on their own."
Vague, and not worth 10. Generally traditionalism is done for an actual purpose, even if the purpose is simply the morals the traditions teach you.
"Churches should be taxed the same way other institutions are taxed."
This isn't the socialist end. Churches, as nonprofits and seriously altruistic ones at that, should not be taxed if you're redistributing money based on need. Taxing them would actually be more towards the capitalist end.
"Climate change is currently one of the greatest threats to our way of life."
Climate science is not politics. Interpretation of a nonpolitical threat to our way of life as being more or less important than others is extremely not politics.
"It is important that we work as a united world to combat climate change."
Climate science is not politics. And if it were, then it wouldn't really affect your views on internationalism, since what everyone else does affects you, so it'd generally be something you'd put aside your differences for.
"Society was better many years ago than it is now."
This doesn't relate to traditionalism. It can, but it's more about whether it's change in the wrong direction than whether it's change at all.
"It is important that we maintain the traditions of our past."
Which ones are those? In which context? Stuff like Thanksgiving or Christmas splits in a completely different place than stuff like religious ceremonies.
"It is important that we think in the long term, beyond our lifespans."
That's not progressivism. Progressivism is about making change and traditionialism/conservatism is about not making change; whether you flex towards recognizing the eventual outcome of your decisions is beside the point.
"Reason is more important than maintaining our culture."
Not worth 10 IMO. Phrased like that, few would disagree - just like with 'excessive', the definition of reasonable is what counts here, not the importance of reason vs culture.
"Drug use should be legalized or decriminalized."
You already asked that, so it effectively becomes +20 for libertarianism instead of the sensible +10.
"Same-sex marriage should be legal."
This entirely depends on whether this is interpreted to mean governmental pairing for purposes of tax and representation or to mean the cultural ceremony of wedding.
"No cultures are superior to others."
This isn't a libertarianism question. No part of this implies requirement.
"If we accept migrants at all, it is important that they assimilate into our culture."
Not authoritarian. The government isn't getting involved in the assimilation.
"Abortion should be prohibited in most or all cases."
To the untrained eye, this may seem like a libertarianism question. However, it's important to remember that the other side comes not from a position of control, but simply a religious belief that life begins at conception. The point of libertarianism which would allow human murder wouldn't be even on this graph; the argument is simply whether a fetus constitutes a human.
"Gun ownership should be prohibited for those without a valid reason."
This has nothing to do with internationalism vs nationalism.
"Governments should be as concerned about foreign citizens as they are about those within their borders."
This certainly isn't a capitalism vs socialism question, and I'd say the point value on internationalism should be higher because the entire point of paying for a government is generally considered to be for it to look out for you.
"All people - regardless of factors like culture or sexuality - should be treated equally."
That's not progressivism, that's not socialism, that's only barely libertarianism, and that's just slightly more internationalism than it is libertarianism.
"It is important that we further my group's goals above all others."
That's not capitalism, that's not nationalism, that's not traditionalism, and I'd question the point value of the authoritarianism simply because the question doesn't say whether it's important to you or important to your country or important to all of humanity.
All in all, I would say that this was definitely written by someone with a socialist, internationalist, progressivist bias. It often fails to represent the other side accurately, and the point values don't reflect the actual political values. It's a great concept and the website was clearly designed well, but the questions definitely need more research and thought put into them.