Survey design is terribly difficult. Too simple, and respondents can't give you accurate replies. Too complex, and you end up with something that is absolutely monstrous to analyse. In the end you do end up having to restrict the number of boxes available for people to tick. That's why, in every survey I've ever had a hand in, there has been space for free comments. You can never devise a survey that covers all possible reponses, and the things people write that you hadn't thought of asking are often the most interesting bits.

I had a role in designing a consultation/survey for Cambridge City Council, all about the ways we might change the waste and recycling system. There were five potential changes on the table: they were not mutually exclusive, though some options did exclude certain other options. It was an absolute nightmare trying to design the questions so that we would get useful information back when the responses were analysed.

In the case of the survey you're talking about, it looks like the approach is to ask (in effect) "Do you agree with our party policy on this issue?", and to provide free space for you to elaborate if you want to. That's probably reasonably effective in terms of getting the basic information easily, without preventing people from giving more sophisticated answers.

I would take issue with all systems of taxation are considered unfair by those who pay more under that system than the alternatives, insofar as my parents opposed the introduction of the poll tax in Scotland, despite the fact that they personally paid far less in poll tax than they did in local rates.