Yeah after I read the thread further, it became more clear what you were getting at. A few things: I don't think vgchartz is a random enough sample group, so while it would be interesting to see what the members think, I am unsure how much relevance it would have with things like polls or turnouts. In this thread I've seen Europeans(and other people from former European colonies) mention that the U.S seems more "right-winged" but if we use the classical definition of right-wing, Europe has more true conservatives than the U.S. It is only in the context of economic freedom vs. economic security that the U.S would *seemingly* fall on the right, but the right's idolation of markets is something recent. Historically the right has been much more for national economies based on mercantile systems (what we call keynesians today, pretty much.)  In the 19th century it was predominately a left-wing affair to support free-markets with few regulations(for example Bastiat sat on the left aisle with Proudhon, and while they argued on the specifics of usury and property rights they both supported free markets and considered themselves allies.) So rather than it being that the U.S is more right-winged, it is more a case of a different definition of what is left-wing and right-wing.

It's funny and disheartening how historical context is so frequently overlooked and how party alignments are so often misrepresented. When Republicans toss around the "Libtard" moniker, it is not uncommonly echoed by those who also purport themselves to be "constitutionalists" who want to defend the "principles of the founding fathers." The founding fathers were liberals, and true liberals seek improvement of ideologies, throught the dialectic. By extension, the constitution was designed to evolve, hence the immediate modification via amendments. Their contemporary conservatives were the Tories, who were loyal to the crown. This is a conversation that, sadly, I can have with very few (hence, it's disheartening). 

In current times, we have a "liberal" president who is effectively Reagan 2.0 and barely left of center (I think you'll appreciate this article: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/). Both parties have similar interests and leverage social issues to win elections, but an observant voter would see that states tend to lead socially progressive federal action. What we've lost is the conservative-liberal dialectic that challenges the establishment, broaches debates, and is checked by the pillars of functional democracy. Everyone should want a government that enforces regulations to protect their rights, but they should also want a fiscally responsible goverment that doesn't waste tax revenue: no party owns these agendas!

Democrats and Republicans are both pretty right wing. I would generally consider myself an anarcho-communist, which is pretty much non-existent in the U.S. as a movement.

Every time a Repulican opens their mouth I gag, this only happens about 85% of the time Democrats do the same so I admit I lean left.

Ancoms aren't popular in the U.S, but the American anarchist movements have generally been syndicalist, mutualist, or individualist (with varying branches.) Hell in the late 19th century while Europeans were promoting state socialism (marxism) American socialists were principally syndicalists (so much so they were assasinating top corporate officials and U.S presidents - i.e Mckinley.)

Today it seems as if mutualism is more popular than syndicalism, mostly because the efficiency of markets has been quite honestly proven, and Amercians in general are much more individualistic than Europeans.

Most Republicans are as liberal as Democrats are (per its classical definiton.) Hell many republicans are as progressive (they take Wilsonian democracy as a tenent since the 50's.)

My issue with how Republicans approach free-markets are that they are selective. They are much more pro-business than they are pro-market. And often markets and business combat each other. For example, when a Republican tries to privatize something, they think it should be essentially given to the highest bidder. As a libertarian who believes in lockean property rights, I believe it should be private, yes, but it should only become private through the homestead principle. And private property doesn't necessarily mean only one individual owns it. There is such a thing as collectively owned private property. The private part just means it is excludable.

That is just one example of how Republicans wrongly approach the issue of private property rights.

Conversely I have found the Democratic stance on free-speech and gun rights to be alarming. How can one call oneself liberal if they don't support these crucial liberties? While the intentions of Democrats might be pure, that doesn't mean they aren't still creating institutions that will certainly be abused by future leaders. That is why these protections are there in the first place.

Overall, I don't think ideology drives much of politics. It is mostly about convenience. Even among voters this is true. Voters have bought the myth of "the lesser of two evils" and "sides against eachother."

Recently Rand Paul had a reddit post that echoes his father. 

"People look at bipartisanship the wrong way. Too often in Washington bipartisanship means a handful of people make backroom deals where they "compromise." Real bipartisanship is being open and finding areas where we actually agree and pushing those issues forward. I've worked hard with my colleagues on the left to reform the criminal justice system: https://www.randpaul.com/issue/criminal-justice-reforms"

I think this is an extremely critical position to take. We need to resolve the issues we all agree on before we approach the ones that are in dispute.

Very well put and in line with the thought I had earlier today: people need to start electing candidates that have representative platforms and corrobative records and stop toeing party lines and/or trying to define a political archetype.

For the poll: Left (Non-American Male)

As for which US party I favor or would vote, I'd say the Peace and Freedom Party, The Green Party USA and then the Democrats, in that specific order. Meaning I'd vote for the Peace and Freedom Party if it was available, the Greens if not and the Democrats if I lived in a State where none of the other 2 can be elected.

Ha... Such a sausage fest.

I'm in Canada and our Liberal party is far too liberal. I hope Trump wins in the US as hopefully it might knock some sense to my PM as to what's really going on in the world.

The West does not need Muslims, we don't need more criminals, and the global competition at home drives away jobs and money. Our forefathers are spinning in their graves.