This site has conducted an unscientific survey on various issues since July
of 1998. The results, while interesting in most cases, are to be taken with a
grain of salt - the results can easily be skewed by an individual or group of
individuals; the sample is, by nature, not representative (because it consists
only of Web users who visit my site and bother to view the survey page and
submit an opinion).
This page includes results from 2003. For results from other years, please
go to the Main Results Page.
Question 66, December 2003 Better late than never, our
annual access survey - how did you come to this site today?
The High Road
High School website
Other Search Engine
Question 65, November 2003 Even as we wage the peace in
Iraq, casualties mount. The does not bode well for the President's approval
rating, which goes down as each new death in Iraq is reported. Has the
casualty count in Iraq affected your likelihood of voting for the President a
year from now?
No, I still plan to vote for President Bush in November 2004.
No, I never planned to vote for President Bush in November 2004.
Yes, I have changed my mind and though I planned to vote for President
Bush in November 2004, I am now looking for a better candidate.
Question 64, October 2003 The Free State Project intends to
convince 20,000 libertarians to move to New Hampshire, the goal being the
acquisition of an electoral majority. With such a majority, they intend to
enact rules and laws the espouse libertarian principles, such as repeal of
gambling laws, smoking restrictions, and seat belt laws. Some residents are
alarmed by the news. What are your thoughts?
If they win a majority in the legislature, their agenda should prevail
- that's democracy.
They will probably find that even 20,000 people is not enough to win an
entire state - at best, they can become the minority party.
They are no better than the carpet baggers of old, and current residents
should use all their political might to resist them.
Question 63, September 2003 In Alabama and Texas, there are
disputes currently underway regarding the display of the Ten Commandments on
public grounds or in public buildings. How do you feel about it?
The Ten Commandments are the backbone of our legal system, and to give
historical perspective, every court building should have them on display.
It should be a local issue of whether to display the Ten Commandments,
or any other religious item, on public grounds. People are too uptight about
It is probably a violation of the 1st Amendment, but it is not worth
the time or effort to fight it.
The display of any religious item in a public building is offensive to
the Constitution and must be fought.
Question 62, August 2003 In Texas, there is a legislative
mutiny under way. To prevent a quorum and their forcible return, several
Democratic lawmakers have fled to Oklahoma, in order to prevent a vote on a
redistricting plan. Generally speaking, should quorum rules allow a body to
adjust for such missing legislators, allowing a quorum to be met in their
The Texas lawmakers are just using the rules as a tool, and nothing
Quorum rules are important, but so is getting the work done - if a
quorum cannot be met after a time limit, a new quorum should be automatically
A quorum should not be held up for any length of time for any missing
Question 61, July 2003 Per tradition, the Secretary of
Homeland Defense should be last in line in the presidential line of succession.
However, members of the House and Senate feel the position is too important to
be last, and hope to buck tradition and place the office much further up the
line, after the Attorney General. Is this of any concern?
The line of succession is too important to leave to tradition - the most
important secretaries should be first in the list.
Though the whole line does not need to be rethought, the placement of
the Secretary of Homeland Security above some of the other secretaries seems
The Secretary of Homeland Security should be last in line, just as has
been done for a half a century.
Question 60, June 2003 The Green Party has made it known
that it may end up backing the Democrat in the 2004 Presidential Election. In
2000, the Reform Party's candidate made a dismal showing. What are the
prospects for "third parties" in the future?
Third parties will make significant gains in 2004.
The time is just not yet right for a third party - but within 10
years, I envision a third-party President.
Third parties have never done well, and it will be a long time
before they are a viable political force.
Third parties are a joke in American politics, and have no chance
of ever having an effect on an election.
Question 59, May 2003 Winning a war does not mean winning an
election. Just ask George Bush, Sr. How will the U.S. victory in Iraq affect
the current President Bush's reelection chances?
The victory in Iraq virtually guarantees victory in November, 2003.
The memory of the electorate is short - the victory in Iraq will have no
effect on the elections.
The President's actions in Iraq will hurt his chances to win.
Question 58, April 2003 Though some might consider it too
late to ask, the time is actually ripe for a constitutional challenge to the war
in Iraq. If such a challenge is made, how do you think it would turn out?
A federal court would refuse to hear the case.
A federal court would find for the government; the Supreme Court
would refuse to hear the case.
A federal court would rule against the government; the Supreme
Court would refuse to hear the case.
The Supreme Court would hear the case and rule for the government.
The Supreme Court would hear the case and rule against the
Question 57, March 2003 Should the U.S. invade Iraq, most
predict the following war to be short. Presuming the U.S. is successful in all
of its aims, Iraq will be rid of its despotic government and eventually be
governed by a more democratic and inclusive regime. Undoubtedly, the U.S. will
play a role in post-war Iraq. How long do you think the U.S. will have to
maintain a significant presence in Iraq?
Less than a year.
Less than two years.
Less than five years.
Less than ten years.
Ten years or more.
Question 56, February 2003 According to the 1981
Presidential Records Act, Presidents can restrict release of their records to
the public for up to 12 years after the end of their term. Former Presidents
Reagan and Bush both forced their records into secrecy for as long as possible,
but President Clinton is allowing his records to be released now, except for
personal records and those with issues of national security. Should Clinton's
acts set a precedent for future Presidents?
Future former presidents should follow Clinton's lead and release their
papers as soon as possible.
Future former presidents should again restrict release of their papers
for as long as possible.
Question 55, January 2003 There is lots in store for us in
the United States, politically speaking. Possible war, Supreme Court decisions,
shake-ups in Congressional leadership. The Republican dominance in the Congress
and Presidency. The 2004 presidential elections will start to build up steam.
Will William Rehnquist retire? Which branch of government do you predict will
garner the most headlines in 2003?