More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Master's Degree voters
Last answered 4 hours ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Master's Degree voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 12, 2011. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Education data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
- District of Columbia
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
8 years ago by sciencealert.com.au
9 years ago by deccanchronicle.com
9 years ago by youtube.com
9 years ago by youtube.com
10 years ago by youtube.com
10 years ago by cnsnews.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
I don't have enough information to make an educated guess. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Denver, CO
Yes, to create jobs- but no, and maintain our current ones but keep a limit to up keep the environment. 9 years ago from a Republican in Wooldridge, MO
No, because we already have a huge oil supply that is nowhere near empty and the idea of running low on oil is only there as an excuse to drastically increase the price of oil. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Richland, WA
No, because we have enough oil already in the country. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in East Petersburg, PA
Incentivize the private sector AND encourage federal development of alternative energy sources that are PROVEN SAFE for people and the environment. i.e., no tracking or nuclear power. Go solar and find other safe clean sources. 9 years ago from a Democrat in New York, NY
YES, but in shallow water, not too deep. 9 years ago from a Republican in Brookline, MA
We studied all the ethanol, we dont need to disrupt the natural world. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Columbia, MO
No, we should end off-shore drilling- it clearly has a terrible impact on the environment. Incentivize schmentivize, energy companies should be smart enough to invest in exploring alternative energy sources. The government should be working with... 9 years ago from a Democrat in Ingomar, PA
Eliminate all subsidies and caps on liabilities, increase safety standards and regulation and require insurance to cover losses. 9 years ago from a Green in New York, NY
We should re-energize the EPA more diligently appreciate environmental impact and to balance those risks against the incremental benefits from particular environmental invasions while also significantly incentivizing development of alternate energy sources. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Bellaire, TX
Yes, but with regulation that makes oil companies fully responsible for any big oil spill doesn't happen again. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Chevy Chase, DC