A political spectrum is a system to characterize and classify different political positions in relation to one another upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions. The expressions political compass and political map are used to refer to the political spectrum as well to popular two-dimensional models of it. Most long-standing spectra include the left–right dimension, which referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution, with radicals on the left and aristocrats on the right. While communism and socialism are regarded internationally as being on the left and fascism are regarded internationally as being on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts: sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right; those with an intermediate outlook are sometimes classified as centrists. That said and neoliberals are called centrists too. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is known as syncretic politics, though the label tends to mischaracterize positions that have a logical location on a two-axis spectrum because they seem randomly brought together on a one-axis left-right spectrum.

Political scientists have noted that a single left–right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and included other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, the axes of popular biaxial spectra are split between economic issues and socio-cultural issues; the terms right and left refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799 and referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. As seen from the Speaker's seat at the front of the Assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms right-wing politics and left-wing politics; the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the Ancien Régime. "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests and the church, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism and civil liberties. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was narrow, the original "Left" represented the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class.

Support for laissez-faire commerce and free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy, but outside parliamentary politics these views are characterized as being on the Right. The reason for this apparent contradiction lies in the fact that those "to the left" of the parliamentary left, outside official parliamentary structures represent much of the working class, poor peasantry and the unemployed, their political interests in the French Revolution lay with opposition to the aristocracy and so they found themselves allied with the early capitalists. However, this did not mean that their economic interests lay with the laissez-faire policies of those representing them politically; as capitalist economies developed, the aristocracy became less relevant and were replaced by capitalist representatives. The size of the working class increased as capitalism expanded and began to find expression through trade unionist, socialist and communist politics rather than being confined to the capitalist policies expressed by the original "left".

This evolution has pulled parliamentary politicians away from laissez-faire economic policies, although this has happened to different degrees in different countries those with a history of issues with more authoritarian-left countries, such as the Soviet Union or China under Mao Zedong. Thus, the word "Left" in American political parlance may refer to "liberalism" and be identified with the Democratic Party, whereas in a country such as France these positions would be regarded as more right-wing, or centrist overall, "left" is more to refer to "socialist" or "social-democratic" positions rather than "liberal" ones. For a century, social scientists have considered the problem of how best to describe political variation. In 1950, Leonard W. Ferguson analyzed political values using ten scales measuring attitudes toward: birth control, capital punishment, communism, law, theism, treatment of criminals and war. Submitting the results to factor analysis, he was able to identify three factors, which he named religionism and nationalism.

He defined religionism as belief in God and negative attitudes toward birth control. This system was derived empirically, as rather than devising a political model on purely theoretical grounds and testing it, Ferguson's research was exploratory; as a result of this method, care must be taken in the interpretation of Ferguson's three factors, as factor analysis will output an abstract factor whether an objectively real factor exists or not. Although replication of the nationalism factor was inconsistent, the finding of religionism and humanitarianism had a number of replications by Ferguson and others. Shortly afterward, Hans Eysenck began researching political attitude

Rob Sampson is a former politician in Ontario, Canada. He was a Progressive Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1995 to 2003 and was a cabinet minister in the government of Mike Harris. Sampson has an MBA from Queen's University. Sampson worked at the Toronto branch of the Toronto Dominion Bank from 1980 to 1987, at the Toronto branch of Chase Manhattan from 1987 to 1995, he worked for Brays Lane Consulting in 1995, is a Fellow in the Institute of Canadian Bankers. In 1992-93, he was an Executive Member of the Planning Advisory Committee for the City of Toronto, he was elected to the Ontario legislature in the provincial election of 1995, defeating Liberal Steve Mahoney by about 3,000 votes in the riding of Mississauga West. This was considered an upset, he was named a Minister without Portfolio in Mike Harris's government on 16 August 1996, with responsibility for privatization. During his time as Minister of Privatization, he was best known for sale of the 407-ETR Major Highway for $3.1 billion.

The highway was sold to a consortium including the Spanish company Grupo Ferrovial and its subsidiary Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, SNC-Lavalin, Capital d'Amerique CDPQ, a subsidiary of the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec. The sale was criticized as being well below value, it was estimated. Sampson was re-elected in the new riding of Mississauga Centre in the provincial election of 1999, defeating Liberal George Winter by over 4,000 votes, he was promoted to Minister of Correctional Services on 17 June 1999. He stepped down from this position on 4 December 2000 to demonstrate ministerial responsibility after a backbench Tory named Doug Galt listed the names of several young offenders in the legislature. Sampson is a committed Neo-conservative, supported numerous right-wing economic policy initiatives during his time in government, including the controversial privatization of Highway 407; as Correctional Services minister, he promoted the privatization of Ontario's prison system despite warnings that this could result in decreased safety.

Sampson was dropped from cabinet when Ernie Eves succeeded Mike Harris as party leader in 2002. In the provincial election of 2003, he was defeated by Liberal Harinder Takhar by fewer than 3,000 votes, amid a general decline in support for the Tories in Mississauga. Ontario Legislative Assembly parliamentary history

James M. Lloyd was an American politician from South Dakota who served as a delegate to multiple Republican national conventions, he served as a delegate to the 1940 and 1944 Republican National Conventions.. From 1959 to 1963 he served as a state Senator and in 1960 he was appointed by Governor Ralph Herseth as a member of the Dakota Centennial Commission, he is best known for winning, without any opposition, the 1960 South Dakota presidential primary and did not run in any other state. Lloyd, alongside that year's Republican nominee, Vice President Richard Nixon, Governor of West Virginia Cecil H. Underwood, were the only candidates to win primaries in 1960. On March 10, 1969 he died in hospital in Yankton, South Dakota after suffering a stroke two weeks earlier. 1960 South Dakota Republican presidential primary: James M. Lloyd - 48,461 1960 Republican Party presidential primaries: Richard Nixon - 4,975,938 Unpledged delegates - 314,234 George H. Bender - 211,090 Cecil H. Underwood - 123,756 James M. Lloyd - 48,461 Nelson Rockefeller - 30,639 Frank R. Beckwith - 30,639