Republicans are a bit more diverse than Democrats. They have the religious fundamentalists in their voting demographics, but also have more moderate individuals. They are also typically more the proponents of the "American Empire", but it seems to me that Democrats of this era are quite similar in that area. Republicans are rightists and believe in the Austrian school of economics (Libertarian-Republicans) or the Keynesian school of economics, depending on the Republican. 

Democrats are a bit more homogenous than Republicans, basically they want to bring the social democracy found in Europe to the United States. They are socially liberal, and overall less accepting of religious fundamentalists. Generally, somebody who denies evolution would be a religious fundamentalist, and hence in the Republican category. However; they are a bit more authoritarian in some areas as a whole and they demand more positive liberties at the expense of negative liberties.Modern democrats are leftists/moderates and tend to believe in the Keynesian school of economics more rigorously than republicans. 

Both groups are proponents for larger federal government (although the Republicans like to say otherwise.) Both groups believe in the influence of large corporations on government, and vice versa, but in different ways. Both groups are expansionist. And for a billion other policies, they're the same. The Republicans of course are more diverse and allow more influence from third parties, hence a lot of grassroot movements affect Republicans more than Democrats who can typically be called liberal and progressive without any issue. 

In reality though, for all the important things they're one party and they've corrupted the system with laws that make any alternative to them on any matter that is important non-viable. 

76% republican and 6%Democrat.

Part of the problem with a 2 party state is that most people have a wide variety of views on a variety of issues that neither party really represents well. For the most part they vote for the party they side with most often but rarely do they really support the party whole-heartedly, and when you see someone who blindly supports one party it is easy to demonstrate that they are hypocritical with their support; essentially, they blindly hate one party for something while supporting the other party who is (generally) just as bad.

o.O We almost match perfectly^^

Oh, and by the way... as it turns out, this isn't actually an American test.  It's a British one.

I'm 61% Democrat and 56% Republican.....wait a second....

I'm not American, so is Obama a Democrat? In Canada we have a Liberal and Conservative party, and I believe Liberal is similar to Democrat (Down with companies, help the homeless, etc) and Conservative is similar to Republican (Big Companies -> More Jobs). I'm pretty Liberal here.

Some of those questions are just terrible though.

Wealth should be redistributed from the wealthy to the poor? Hell no, the poor need to work for their $$$. However people with more $$$ should be responsible to pay more for road repair, free public health care, and rehabilitation institutions. It's not redistribution since the money doesn't go to the poor, but the rich should be responsible for more since they can provide more.

For the second test I'm 80% Democrat.

Question: Who is pro-gun? Who does anyone need a handgun? In Ontario, Canada Handguns, Shotguns, and Rifles are illegal, but there is a big push to ban handguns outright. This makes sense to me. If someone robs your house, a rifle is far more intimidating then a handgun. Rifles are much more difficult to conceil, making it harder to commit a crime with one, and well Hunting is uneffected. My gf is Korean, and South Korea has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Why? Guns are banned, almost all murders are done with a knife. It's much harder to kill with a knife, and no accidents involving children shooting each other.

I'll eventually take this quiz, but I'm going to say this, it sucks going out to vote when you are socially liberal but economically conservative.

Whoah!!!! I'm f***ing Gandhi!

A) Lots of people are pro gun.

B) There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicde rates.  In fact, there tends to be a slight negative correlation.  IE Higher ownership rates = Less homicdes.

A) Why? why do you need a handgun, does a rifle not serve the exact same purpose?

B) Compare countries, not populations. Countries with stricter gun regulations have lower homicide rates. Great example, Canada, Toronto's Homicide rate is in less then 5% of Manhattan New Yorks, despite only a 25% smaller population. It's an 8 hour drive between cities, and I have family in both cities, the culture isn't that different.

South Korea, Japan, Finland, all have heavy gun regulation and low homicide rates as well. They also serve very minimal jail sentences compared to USA and China and are all about rehabilitation.