A map of priorities.

Start with decisions.

The 30-question route takes roughly 8–12 minutes for the main scenarios. It covers economic, social and environmental choices alongside public health, compulsory service and limits on collective power. The 60-question route explores more policies, principles and exceptions. Both ask one question at a time, let you indicate how much each decision matters, and let you skip a question or revise an answer. Optional reflection adds time.

After the short quiz, you can continue to the full exploration with your first 30 records intact, including skipped questions, notes, importance settings and your starting identity. You answer the remaining 30 questions. You can also choose to start a fresh full quiz.

If none of the options represents your view, choose “None of these fits my view” and optionally explain why. This is saved as a skipped question, with no score; it does not place you in the center. Ownership and public-service questions include voluntary arrangements, and environmental questions distinguish ecological priorities from support for compulsory rules.

An optional first step asks how you currently describe your politics. Choose a reference tradition, add your own label, or skip it. This step is separate from the 30 or 60 scenarios and never influences your score.

Scenarios ask about consent, ownership, responsibility and the use of power without using party loyalty as a shortcut. Question 3 identifies people proposing emissions cuts; it does not assume everyone agrees or that an agency has a right to compel them. You can favor ambitious voluntary climate action, including costs willingly borne, while rejecting compulsory taxes or product bans.

After the main scenarios, two optional questions clarify your general rules about consent and criminal punishment. They receive no score. Any direct conflicts between those rules and your policy choices then appear in a review before your results.

Six dimensions. More room for nuance.

Each scale runs from −1 to +1. Its endpoints describe different priorities; neither end is a better score. The atlas shows economic ownership horizontally and political authority vertically. All six dimensions contribute to your nearby schools of thought.

The atlas is an original interpretation of the familiar political compass. It uses 36 reference profiles from major political families and selected related traditions. Their positions are approximate editorial choices. Every ideology contains internal disagreements, and a two-dimensional drawing cannot represent them all.

What goes into your result?

Each option has a score on the dimensions it addresses. We first average your relevant answers with their weights, then scale each dimension relative to the choices available across the scenarios you answered. Zero stays neutral. Skipping contributes no score; changing an answer replaces the earlier choice.

The importance panel on each question shows weights of 0.8, 1 and 1.2, from lower to higher importance. It starts at “It matters,” with a weight of 1. Foundational-principle questions receive a further ×1.15 weight. This gives principles a modest emphasis while keeping your concrete policy choices in the result.

We compare that profile with the ideology reference points. Each dimension has equal influence in the comparison. The proximity index runs from 0 to 100 within this model; it is not a probability, a scientific confidence score, or a measure of how much of a party platform you support.

Your starting label. Your answer-based result.

If you choose a reference tradition, the results compare its position with yours on the map and across all six dimensions. That reference is our approximate interpretation of the tradition; it is not a prediction of what every person using that label believes.

A party or personal label on its own receives no invented coordinates. Your self-description never changes your answers, their weights or your nearby schools of thought.

When a principle and a policy conflict.

A blanket rule can contradict a specific policy. If you affirm that nonconsensual redistributive income taxes must never be public policy and also support such a tax in the same circumstances, those commitments conflict. The useful next step is to decide whether to qualify the rule or change the policy.

Two optional checks appear after your 30 or 60 scenarios, before reflection: whether a beneficial purpose can authorize coercion against nonconsenting peaceful adults, and what must be proved before criminal punishment is justified. You can leave either undecided or skip the remaining checks. Five further checks on your results cover redistribution, medical refusal, abortion, property rules and public speech. Both routes include scenarios relevant to all seven checks. The checks remain editable on your results when you have answered a relevant policy scenario.

Your first review can already identify a conflict between rejecting all such coercion and supporting a compulsory tax on an innocent person who has not agreed to pay it. It can also compare a requirement for an actual violation with support for criminal penalties against harmless conduct merely because it offends community morals. A direct conflict requires an explicit rule and an opposing policy in the same case. We show the reasoning and distinguish direct conflicts, stated exceptions and unresolved scope. Qualifying a rule does not prove its exceptions justified.

Context matters to the logic. Bodily-autonomy arguments may depend on competing rights, personhood or exceptions for harm; compulsory injection and conditions on access to public settings are different decisions. Rejecting absolute private ownership can be consistent with taxing land. A slogan alone does not settle these premises.

Opposing positions on a numerical axis do not establish a contradiction and do not trigger a review. A review requires a rule you explicitly endorsed and a policy that conflicts with it in the same case. Detecting a conflict does not change your answers or their importance settings.

Work through the difference before your results.

After the two general principle checks, a review shows any direct rule-policy conflicts with the question numbers, your exact choices and the case being compared. You can reopen it from results after editing any principle. You can revise an answer, reconsider a rule, explain a boundary between cases, or leave the issue unresolved. These optional checks are additional to the 30 or 60 main questions and receive no score.

The review never changes your importance settings automatically or asks you to make one answer outweigh another. You control importance on each question. Revising a scored policy changes your result; revising an unscored rule changes its consistency finding.

Explaining a contextual distinction requires a written boundary. A note records your reasoning but cannot clear the conflict or prove an exception justified. The conflict remains until the underlying rule or policy changes so that the incompatible statements no longer apply to the same case. Your results and download include your review decisions and notes. If the evidence changes, the earlier review must be reconsidered.

If a question’s premises or answer choices change while you have saved progress, we ask you to revisit that question. Unchanged answers and your starting identity are kept, so an earlier response is not silently interpreted as agreement with new wording.

If an older review changed your importance settings, we ask you to review the affected answers explicitly. Their original importance before that review was not saved, so we cannot restore it or choose it for you.

Keep the map in perspective.

PoliticalTest.fyi is an exploratory questionnaire, not a psychometrically validated assessment. Wording, weights, scaling and reference positions shape the outcome. The quick route cannot distinguish all 36 nearby profiles equally well. More questions improve coverage, but do not guarantee accuracy. No quiz can reliably defeat someone determined to answer strategically.

Use your result as a reading list and a conversation starter. It cannot determine your vote, predict who you would get along with, or replace your own judgment about a political identity.

Your answers stay in your browser.

There is no account, email form or answer-collection backend. Scoring runs on your device. This application uses no analytics, cookies or local storage, and makes no network requests when you answer.

Progress, answers, your optional self-description, principle clarifications, review decisions and written notes are saved in this tab's sessionStorage, so refreshing can keep your place. Resetting the quiz removes its saved record. Browser session restoration can preserve tab data; use reset when you want to remove your answers.

If you choose to export your result, the downloaded JSON file includes these answers, clarifications and notes. You control that file and whether you share it.

Loading the website still requests its files from the host, which may keep ordinary access logs. Opening a source link contacts that external website. Those requests are separate from your quiz responses.

The context behind the scenarios.

Recent policy debates sit alongside enduring political questions. Most scenarios are hypothetical: a proposed law is not an enacted law, rules in one country are not universal, and a scientific finding does not dictate a single policy response.

Official sources explain their institutions' policies; philosophical references explain ideas. Neither supplies or endorses PoliticalTest.fyi's question weights, ideology coordinates or results. Sources are reviewed manually, rather than updated by a live news feed.