This document presents a 20-item political diagnostic instrument (The Poli Map) that addresses critical limitations of existing political tests. The instrument employs a dual-axis framework measuring economic (Left–Right) and socio-cultural (Authoritarian–Libertarian) dimensions, with 10 propositions per axis addressing contemporary political cleavages including digital governance, AI infrastructure, globalization, identity politics, and post-industrial economic models.
The methodology implements a 4-point forced-choice response scale (Strongly Disagree, Somewhat disagree, Somewhat agree, Strongly Agree) to maximize ideological discrimination and eliminate the measurement noise associated with neutral responses. All propositions are uniformly weighted, ensuring methodological transparency absent from predecessor instruments.
Responses are converted to ±10 coordinates through a mathematically explicit normalization procedure: each response contributes an input score ranging from -2 to +2 based on proposition polarity, summed to create Axis Raw Scores (ARS) ranging from -20 to +20, then multiplied by a scaling factor of 1/2 to yield final coordinates in the ±10 range. This transparent transformation resolves criticisms regarding opaque scoring methodologies while maintaining high discriminatory power for accurate political placement.
The creation of a political diagnostic instrument requires a rigorous approach rooted in political methodology and psychometrics. Existing political diagnostic tests suffer from several critical limitations: they often use non-uniform, opaque weighting factors that render their methodologies difficult to replicate; they rely on outdated questions that fail to capture contemporary political cleavages; and they employ scales that allow neutral responses, reducing their ability to measure latent ideological direction. This instrument addresses these deficiencies by establishing a concise 20-proposition format with uniform weighting, contemporary high-impact political cleavages, an optimized forced-choice response scale, and a complete, mathematically explicit methodology for score normalization to a ±10 range.
The underlying structure of this instrument relies on the established theory that political ideology is inadequately measured along a single left-right spectrum.1 The Political Map model utilizes two separate, independent dimensions: the economic (Left–Right) axis, measuring attitudes toward market control and resource allocation, and the socio-cultural (Authoritarian–Libertarian) axis, measuring attitudes toward hierarchy, tradition, and personal freedoms.2
Contemporary research strongly supports this decomposition, particularly noting that political polarization often exhibits substantial independent effects along the social or cultural dimension, even when accounting for economic policy differences.3 Recent political dynamics, characterized by incumbents exploiting deep societal conflicts—often by offering attractive partisan policies in exchange for tolerance of increasingly authoritarian tendencies—underscore the necessity of accurately mapping these socio-cultural tensions.4 This phenomenon necessitates that any modern political instrument move beyond generalized social issues to capture acute conflicts related to identity, democracy, and surveillance.
Since the early 2000s, definitions of Authoritarian and Libertarian positions have shifted significantly, particularly concerning digital governance and globalized power structures.5 Many existing tests rely on outdated questions that fail to capture these contemporary shifts, rendering them less effective for modern political placement. A robust, modern instrument must capture these high-stakes ideological conflicts rather than relying solely on legacy debates. The utility of this test lies in its ability to demonstrate the gap between popular values and the positions of political elites, thereby explaining public alienation.5
Many existing political diagnostic tests feature numerous propositions (often 60+ items) with non-uniform, non-transparent weighting factors (e.g., weights ranging from 0.4 to 1.4). This approach, while potentially optimized through internal validation, renders the methodology opaque and difficult to replicate, contributing to controversies surrounding test validity.5 Respondents cannot understand how their opinions translate into charted positions, undermining trust in the results.
To create a concise, high-fidelity short-form instrument (20 items), the most psychometrically defensible strategy is to implement uniform weighting across all propositions. By limiting the test to 20 items—split equally into 10 Economic (E) propositions and 10 Social (S) propositions—the instrument ensures adequate thematic coverage for both axes while guaranteeing that both dimensions contribute equally to the potential variance in the final score. The uniform weighting approach significantly improves methodological clarity and addresses criticisms regarding the difficulty in understanding how opinions translate into charted positions.5
A crucial design principle involves maintaining a careful balance of polarity within the propositions.6 For each axis, the propositions must be balanced such that approximately half are coded Left/Libertarian (Negative Polarity) and the other half are coded Right/Authoritarian (Positive Polarity). This balancing minimizes intrinsic bias toward any single quadrant and ensures that disagreement with one half of the propositions forces latent preferences to be measured through agreement with the other half. The reduced length mandates that each proposition be highly effective in ideological discernment, focusing on contemporary, polarizing trade-offs.
The new instrument must reflect current political fault lines that have emerged or intensified since 2000:
Economic Axis (Left/Right): The focus shifts from historical arguments about industrial ownership to issues concerning globalization fatigue, protectionism, and the political economy of the post-industrial era.7 New propositions address critical infrastructure control, corporate responsibility (stakeholder versus shareholder primacy), the feasibility of post-capitalist welfare models like Universal Basic Income (UBI), and the state's role in managing geopolitical risk.8 Questions must probe the inherent conflict between market efficiency and national sovereignty or security.
Social Axis (Authoritarian/Libertarian): The emphasis moves from generic morality questions found in many existing tests (e.g., questions on astrology or spanking) to high-impact socio-cultural conflicts. These include the tension between civic universalism and identity-based political claims, the regulation of digital speech and surveillance, and the acceptable limits of state power during periods of perceived internal or external threat.11 This approach ensures the propositions accurately gauge support for state authority concerning individual autonomy in the modern digital and culturally diverse environment.
The selection of the response scale directly impacts the variance and discriminatory power of the instrument.
We considered whether a neutral option ('Neither Agree nor Disagree') is necessary for this instrument. While standard Likert scales often incorporate a neutral midpoint to capture genuine ambivalence13, the primary function of a political map is not descriptive measurement but ideological classification—pinpointing a respondent's exact coordinates on a directional spectrum.
In the context of ideological diagnostics, the inclusion of a neutral option often serves as an easily accessible choice for respondents who possess latent preferences but are unwilling to commit. This phenomenon, known as "fence-sitting," reduces the measurable variance within the dataset. Given the current reality of pronounced political polarization4, genuine ideological centrism defined by a lack of preference is statistically less common than neutrality driven by apathy or avoidance.11
Therefore, the use of an even-point, forced-choice scale is methodologically superior for this instrument.14 This approach requires respondents to express a directional preference, even if slight, for or against the proposition.
Recommendation: A 4-Point Likert Scale is utilized: Strongly Disagree, Somewhat disagree, Somewhat agree, and Strongly Agree. This forced choice maximizes the ideological signal elicited by the propositions, improving the test's overall ability to accurately place respondents away from the (0, 0) center of the map.
| Scale Type | Discernment of Ideology | Risk of Measurement Skew | Psychometric Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-Point (Even) | High (Forces directionality) | Low (Maximizes directional signal) | Optimally designed for ideological mapping in polarized contexts.14 |
| 5-Point (Odd) | Moderate (Allows non-directional response) | Moderate (Encourages fence-sitting) | Weakens the instrument's ability to measure latent directional preferences.11 |
The inclusion of a 'Don't Know' (DK) option presents significant methodological challenges for instruments designed for ideological classification. While capturing information deficits may serve valuable purposes in general opinion polling, its incorporation into a diagnostic tool intended to measure political positioning introduces substantial risks to score validity and reliability. Empirical research demonstrates that actively encouraging DK responses can systematically bias key statistical outcomes by 10 to 15 percent.15
A respondent who selects 'Don't Know' fundamentally lacks a defined ideological position on that specific issue. Assigning a numerical value to a DK response—whether zero, the neutral midpoint, or any other arbitrary value—introduces measurement error and misclassification. This occurs because a respondent who is genuinely ideologically neutral is scored identically to a respondent who simply lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form an opinion, despite these representing fundamentally different psychological states.
Consequently, the 'Don't Know' option is excluded from the final scoring calculation in this instrument. If the test interface incorporates a DK option for data collection or analytical purposes, these responses are treated as null or missing data and excluded from the summation of the Axis Raw Score (ARS). This methodological protocol ensures that the final calculated position reflects only the opinions a respondent actively holds, thereby maintaining the psychometric integrity necessary for reliable spatial placement on the political map.15
The following tables present the 20 propositions, divided equally between the Economic (E) and Social (S) axes. Each proposition is designed to act as a high-stakes trade-off to maximize ideological differentiation. Polarity is defined relative to the axes: Negative (-) indicates a Left/Libertarian alignment when agreeing; Positive (+) indicates a Right/Authoritarian alignment when agreeing.
The 20 propositions maintain a balanced polarity structure: 5 statements coded positive (+) and 5 coded negative (-) for each axis. The phrasing is intentionally declarative and strong ("propositions," not questions) to trigger immediate, directional reactions, which is necessary for accurately capturing political leanings.6
These propositions focus on AI infrastructure regulation, post-globalization issues, welfare state models (UBI), corporate accountability, climate finance, and the role of the state in financial and strategic markets.
| ID | Polarity | Proposition | Core Economic Cleavage |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | - | Core AI technologies, like large foundation models, should be placed under public ownership or state control. | Digital Nationalization vs. Private Innovation |
| E2 | + | Government regulation should be drastically reduced to allow businesses to maximize efficiency and global competitiveness. | Laissez-Faire vs. State Intervention |
| E3 | - | Companies must be legally required to prioritize environmental and social welfare over maximizing shareholder profit. | Stakeholder Capitalism vs. Shareholder Primacy |
| E4 | + | Governments should focus primarily on achieving fiscal surpluses and strictly limiting public debt. | Austerity/Fiscal Conservatism vs. Keynesian Spending |
| E5 | - | The state should use massive borrowing and guaranteed investment to fund the necessary climate transition, regardless of national debt. | Climate Finance: Public Risk Bearing |
| E6 | + | State welfare should be conditional and strictly temporary, requiring recipients to actively seek available work. | Conditional Welfare/Meritocracy vs. Unconditional Safety Net |
| E7 | - | Billionaires and the ultra-wealthy should face immediate, substantial taxes on their total accumulated wealth. | Radical Wealth Redistribution vs. Capital Rights |
| E8 | + | Protecting domestic strategic industries through tariffs and subsidies is necessary for national security. | National Security Protectionism vs. Globalization |
| E9 | - | Universal Basic Income (UBI) should replace most existing means-tested welfare programs. | Post-Industrial Welfare (UBI) vs. Status Quo Welfare |
| E10 | + | The financial sector should be lightly regulated to promote necessary financial risk-taking and global competitiveness. | Financial Deregulation vs. Anti-Speculation State |
These propositions address state authority in the digital sphere, cultural conflicts, freedom of expression, trust in authority, and the balance between civil liberties and national security.
| ID | Polarity | Proposition | Core Social Cleavage |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | + | National security justifies widespread, digital surveillance of all public communications by the state. | Digital Surveillance vs. Privacy/Anonymity |
| S2 | - | The government has no authority to regulate personal lifestyle choices, such as drug use or private medical decisions. | Total Personal Liberty vs. Paternalistic State |
| S3 | + | Educational institutions must prioritize teaching traditional national values and celebrating historical achievements. | Traditionalism vs. Cultural Critique |
| S4 | - | Societal progress requires actively challenging and dismantling historical power structures based on race and gender. | Identity Politics/Critical Theory vs. Civic Universalism |
| S5 | + | Publishing politically critical or sensitive information that undermines trust in government should be a criminal offense. | State Control over Truth/Censorship |
| S6 | - | There is no objectively superior culture; all cultures are equally valid and should not be morally judged. | Cultural Relativism vs. Hierarchical Culture |
| S7 | + | The main purpose of the justice system is delivering strong punishment to ensure retribution and public deterrence. | Retributive Justice vs. Restorative Justice |
| S8 | - | Citizens should have the absolute right to form political organizations based on specific identity, ethnic, or religious affiliations. | Freedom of Association vs. Universal Civic Duty |
| S9 | + | When faced with conflicting accounts of political events, citizens must generally defer to the official government position. | Trust in Authority vs. Media/Skepticism |
| S10 | - | All citizens must have the unrestricted right to possess personal firearms for self-defense. | Civil Gun Rights vs. State Control |
To translate the raw responses into ±10 coordinates, a structured methodology based on uniform weighting and linear transformation is required.
Each of the four possible responses on the Likert scale must be assigned an input score ranging from -2 to +2. The scoring is dynamically reversed based on the proposition's inherent polarity.
| Response | Input Score for Negative Polarity (-) (Agreement → Left/Libertarian) | Input Score for Positive Polarity (+) (Agreement → Right/Authoritarian) |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree (SD) | +2 | -2 |
| Somewhat disagree (D) | +1 | -1 |
| Somewhat agree (A) | -1 | +1 |
| Strongly Agree (SA) | -2 | +2 |
The methodology ensures that a response reinforcing the defined pole (Left/Libertarian for Negative Polarity, Right/Authoritarian for Positive Polarity) yields a negative score (-1 or -2), while a response opposing the defined pole yields a positive score (+1 or +2). This structure dictates that the final raw score must be correctly signed before normalization.
The Axis Raw Score (ARS) is the sum of the input scores for the 10 propositions belonging to that dimension. Given 10 questions, where each question carries a weight between -2 and +2, the maximum theoretical range for the ARS is [-20, +20].
The ARS_E is calculated by summing the input scores for the 10 economic propositions (E_i):
The possible range for ARS_E is [-20, +20]. A score of -20 represents the absolute extreme Left, and +20 represents the absolute extreme Right.
The ARS_S is calculated by summing the input scores for the 10 social propositions (S_j):
The possible range for ARS_S is [-20, +20]. A score of -20 represents the absolute extreme Libertarian, and +20 represents the absolute extreme Authoritarian.
The final requirement is to normalize the Raw Score range [-20, +20] to the target coordinate range of [-10, +10]. This process relies on a linear transformation that scales the raw range to the target range.16
The Maximum Possible Absolute Raw Score is R_max = 20.
The Target Maximum Absolute Normalized Score is N_max = 10.
The scaling factor is determined by the ratio of the maximum target score to the maximum raw score:
Using a fractional representation (1/2) ensures maximum accuracy in the final calculation.
The Final Normalized Score (Final_N) for each axis is computed by multiplying the respective Axis Raw Score (ARS) by the scaling factor K.
Final Economic Axis Score (Left/Right, E_final):
Range: [-10.0, +10.0] (Negative = Left, Positive = Right)
Final Social Axis Score (Libertarian/Authoritarian, S_final):
Range: [-10.0, +10.0] (Negative = Libertarian, Positive = Authoritarian)
This methodology ensures that a respondent who consistently chooses the extreme ideological pole (e.g., Strongly Agree with all + propositions and Strongly Disagree with all - propositions) will achieve the maximum possible normalized score of +10, and vice versa, providing a transparent and quantifiable transformation across the entire spectrum.
The 20-item instrument (The Poli Map) adheres to the foundational structure of the two-dimensional political spectrum while significantly enhancing its relevance and methodological rigor.
By implementing a 4-point forced-choice scale, the instrument avoids the noise and ambiguity associated with neutral midpoints, maximizing the ability to measure latent ideological direction, a critical function in an era characterized by acute political conflict.4 The deliberate exclusion of 'Don't Know' from the scoring procedure prevents systematic skewing of the results, ensuring that the computed coordinates accurately reflect held ideological positions rather than information deficits.15
The 20 propositions address modern cleavages across economic policy (AI infrastructure, UBI, geoeconomics, climate finance) and socio-cultural issues (digital surveillance, identity politics, trust in authority, cultural universalism), ensuring the test is a robust diagnostic tool for contemporary political placement. The uniform weighting of these propositions, combined with the explicit linear normalization formula (multiplication by 1/2), provides complete transparency, resolving key criticisms related to the opaque methodologies of existing tests.5
This instrument is designed to provide high discriminatory power with maximum theoretical clarity, resulting in an accurate and methodologically sound placement on the ±10 Economic and Social axes. The final result is a Cartesian coordinate pair (Economic, Social) that reliably locates the individual within the four political quadrants.
The methodology for calculating the final coordinates for The Poli Map is derived from the established principle of uniform weighting and linear normalization using the scaling factor K = 1/2.
The Axis Raw Score (ARS) is the summation of the input scores for the 10 respective propositions in that dimension, where input scores range from -2 (Strongly Agree with negative polarity statement/Strongly Disagree with positive polarity statement) to +2 (Strongly Disagree with negative polarity statement/Strongly Agree with positive polarity statement).
The calculated ARS is multiplied by the definitive scaling factor of 1/2 to yield the final coordinate, thereby mapping the raw range of [-20, +20] to the target range of [-10.0, +10.0].
Final Economic Axis Score (Left/Right):
Final Social Axis Score (Libertarian/Authoritarian):
This mathematically explicit process ensures that the final coordinate pair (E_final, S_final) accurately and transparently positions the respondent on the standardized political map.
1 Limitations of single-axis political measurement models - Political spectrum - Wikipedia
2 Two-dimensional model of political ideology - The Political Compass - Wikipedia
3 Contemporary political polarization research - Does polarization have economic effects? - SUERF
4 Analysis of modern political dynamics and authoritarian tendencies - Polarization versus Democracy
5 Critiques of existing political diagnostic instruments and methodological transparency - Political Compass - The Decision Lab; Before taking the test - The Political Compass
6 Psychometric principles of forced-choice scales - Likert Scale Guide - Innerview
7 Post-globalization economic policy debates - The Political Economy of Economic Policy - IMF F&D
8 Geoeconomics and strategic market control - Top Geopolitical Risks of 2025 - S&P Global
11 Modern socio-cultural political conflicts - Identity Politics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology - Pew Research Center
13 Likert scale design and neutral midpoint research - Likert Scale Response Options - MWCC; Likert Scale Guide - Innerview
14 Forced-choice scale optimization for ideological measurement - Likert Scale Guide - Innerview
15 Impact of "Don't Know" responses on survey validity - Asked and Answered: Knowledge Levels When We Won't Take "Don't Know" for an Answer - American National Election Studies
16 Linear transformation and normalization methodologies - Handling 1-10 scale survey questions in regression - Reddit