It makes no sense for you to fall on the center-right of all American adults (according to the survey's placement) and then suggest that you'd be on the center-left in Australia if the Australian median person is to the left of the median American person. 

If you are center-right on the American spectrum, and the median Australian is to the left of the median American, then you'd be at least center-right on the Australian spectrum. 

Notice that 60% of Americans are to the left of the "Ambivalent Right" and you got "Ambivalent Right" as your result.

A person who is center-left in Australia, if we are to assume that the median Australian is to the left of the median American, would probably get something like "Establishment Liberals" or "Progressive Left" as their result.  

How did you answer the first question? Also, the last one? : p

I ended up as a stressed sideliner lol

All in all, besides being obviously american-centric, I'm always a little letdown by how little room there usually is to any radical position in these tests.

They did :)

They went more the pop quiz route rather than the actual nitty and gritty. I am for "big" government as long as the government is serving the people and not causing wars. The "big" government argument is stupid to begin with because it matters what the government does, not how "big" or "small" it is. 

Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics.

What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. 

I didn't say moderate people get things done. I said taking what works from both sides, disregarding what doesn't and forming an official position based on that allows for things to get done.

But I know how things are. Red team. Blue team. Pick a side and fight! It's sad.

That only works under the assumption that both sides are equally likely to have a position which is supported by evidence. I have seen little evidence of that. 

Further, again, being moderate is a political position in and of itself. It is not simply an empty vessel, there is moderate policy and moderate politics that exist outside of simply looking elsewhere and seeing what works. 

You are right. It's just red Vs blue and you either believe this whole blue list of things or this whole red list of things.

Having two sides is ridiculous.

Our last president openly threatened to use nuclear weapons on more than one occasion. I think it's a good idea to know just how insane someone is before you elect them.

But yeah, the SNP's cause of course isn't something I see happening in the near term either. But it's something distinguishing about them and a good cause, IMO.

Almost none of the questions are worded the way I would word them and the one you cite, the very first question of the quiz, is a perfect example. Nobody on the left actually cares about "the size of government". That's a conservative, right wing framing of the matter that's intended to make public welfare sound like a scary, Orwellian thing. What those of us on the left actually care about is what governments do and how well they do those things. Of course though, I also understand what is meant by the question and answered according to that knowledge. The same principle applies to lots of the questions.

What I like about the quiz more the questionnaire itself, which often SEEMS silly itself on the surface level, is the believability of its results. I can fully believe the categorizations everyone has gotten so far. It's not shocking to me that we get lots of "progressive left" and even more "ambivalent right" (the libertarian category) here when you consider that like the hardcore gamer demographic on this forum, if not in general, is composed disproportionately of relatively young, affluent, highly-educated white men from North America and western Europe. That is indeed the general range of debate I'd expect from that demographic. Outside of the color of my skin, there's very little overlap between those characteristics and my own, which might help explain why my result contrasts with the dominant sorts of opinions.

I posted this quiz over on another forum I go to that's dominated by older Americans (as in mostly people over the age of 60) rich enough to flip out over the prospect of an estate tax hike and there the overwhelmingly dominant result so far is "committed conservative", which, as you can see at the link, as basically the Reaganist neocon category. That result for them also makes perfect sense when you consider the demography of this group described at the bottom of the article. It also aligns with their relationship to Trump, which has been a supportive one, but also one of...you know, not volunteering the subject.