jeffnz:NZtechfreak:jeffnz: I found this interesting so started the test but thought it was pushing me in a direction that wasn't right for me. Subsequent search found this page which may explain why I was feeling like I was.
I'm not sure that is a good gauge and certainly would question someone that did it and then changed his/her political direction.
The point isn't that it is or isn't a good guide, the point is it made him think. This is a person who for a couple of decades reflexively voted National, and then when he actually thought about and read policy decided National didn't stand for his values at all. Personally, rather than call someone into question as you suggest, someone in more than their fourth decade of life significantly changing their world view on the basis of evidence is something to be lauded in my view. Most people aren't up to changing their mind by that age.
Can you qualify how the Greens are "very dangerous" in your view?
I stand by what I said and by your own admission people at that age aren't up to changing their minds but after doing this test he did which makes me question firstly their understanding of their beliefs and secondly that the test gives you little option in rather pointed questions that most would be hard pushed to not agree with what society would say is right and just.
My view is that the greens stood for policies that were just that, Green, certainly the majority of people I know that vote Green do so for their Green social conscience not economic reasons. This has changed rapidly since Russell Norman took over and I believe that what the Greens used to stand for is being manipulated by the political agenda of those that care little of Green issues and most may not see that, such as the type of person you mention.
Can you tell us what some of those questions you consider to be "rather pointed" are?
(edit) Also, some pointed questions really do need to be asked. I'd love to see the results of a telephone poll of religious conservatives in the USA, asking if they supported abortion (no! the sanctity of life!) and then asking them if they supported the death penalty (of course! that's not the same thing at all!)...
Social conscience and economics are linked. You can't separate them out and pretend they don't influence each other. Labour and National have for most[*] of the last 20 or 30 years been in agreement on the general parameters and lines along which the economy, and country, should be run. So it's not surprising that a party which is credibly different is enjoying some popularity with voters who think we're going in the wrong direction.
[*] Perhaps a bit less recently. But the last Labour government floated the idea of partial asset sales too, and we can't forget Roger Douglas...