Poll: Majority of Americans Prefer 3rd Party

[ellenrr]

A new Gallup Poll conducted for USA Today earlier this week reports that a majority of Americans (52%) say that they would prefer a third party instead of the two parties, Republican and Democrat, that have dominated American politics for nearly centuries.

The poll shows that one third of Democrats say there's a need for a new political party, while 52% of Republicans say the same thing. Meanwhile, 68% of independents say they have no use for either Democrats or Republicans and would prefer another option (no surprise there--that's why they are not registered with either of the two major parties).

Of course, the Third Party envisioned by these various groups is hardly the same. Most of the dissatisfied Democrats are almost certainly in the party's left wing, and are people who would prefer a more left-leaning, socialist party. Most of the reluctant Republicans are probably either libertarians who can't stomach the Republican Party's corporatist stance and its fondness for police state tactics and invasion of personal freedoms, or else they are the rabid right that prefers the kooky conspiracy-driven politics of the Becks, Limbaughs, Bachmans and Palins. As for the independents, there are certainly leftists, rightists, isolationists, globalists, libertarians and kooks among them enough to populate ten new parties.

That's one reason why we still have just two parties winning all the elections. Some of these dissatisfied citizens just hold their noses and vote for the party that is less likely to make them projectile vomit in the voting booth. Others, unable to vote for either major party's candidates without soiling the equipment, just don't vote. And then there are a few stalwarts who insist on doing their civic duty, march in and vote for the Constitution Party or the Libertarians or the Greens or the Socialist Workers, or they write in Mickey Mouse. The rest just don't vote, which is why the US has one of the lowest participation rates in elections of nearly any of the world's nominal democracies.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05132011.html

[Scuba]

1. Well, duh! n/t

[Donnachaidh]

2. real title to the piece - 'Why the Democratic Party is Corporate Lickspittle'

of course, that would get this piece locked down faster than a nun wielding a brand new pointer :rofl:

Good article though -- k&r.

[ixion]

3. And a 4th, 5th, and 6th as well

whatever it takes to get us back to real representation.

[ensemble]

9. yes....

the third party many want is one that is closer to their views, so it's actually going to require many parties.

[F Bastiat]

4. As if we actually had two parties...

[OHdem10]

5. perhaps this is why they want another party. Just how different

are the two parties we have????

Republicans: Cut Cut Cut
Democrats: Me Too, Me Too

[Dokkie]

17. The tactice is also known

as Good cop, bad cop. Democrats are supposed to be different from republicans yet they pass republican healthcare bill, implement republican TSA and continue to fight republican wars

[txlibdem]

6. Two pro-corporate wings of the Elitist Party

Get corporate money out of our election process and allow only public funding (and a 90 day election cycle instead of the current "every day is campaigning day" status quo). Then a third party will stand a chance.

Till then we'll only have a repeat of Ralph Nader giving the win to George Bush.

[ixion]

11. Actually, it was SCOTUS and Kathrine Harris who gave the win to Bush

please be accurate.

[txlibdem]

14. Okay, let's be accurate

Bush won Florida by only a few hundred votes (either 573 or 600 per the data I could find), Nader took over 97,000 voters in Florida. The "hanging chad" votes were only a few thousand (IIRC about 5000). Refer to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3610551&mesg_id=3610566

The question then is: if Nader had not run in 2000, how many Florida Democrats would have just stayed home because they were angry about the DLC, how many would have voted for Bush, and how many would have voted for Gore?

We also know that Nader intentionally spent most of his time in the last days of the 2000 campaign in Pennsylvania and Florida, two key battleground states that cost Gore dearly instead of rallying more support in the more left-leaning states which would have solidified his position for a 2004 election run.

Nader, himself, admits that he cost Gore Florida (and thus the election): Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."<27> (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.)
... ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000#Third_party_votes.2C_or_.22Spoiler.22.2C_controversy_after_the_election

Nader gave Bush the following states:
Colorado, 8 electoral votes
Florida, 25 electoral votes
New Hampshire, 4 electoral votes
...from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Bush got 271 electoral votes, Gore got 266; a difference of only 5 votes. Nader being absent from Colorado alone would have given Gore the Presidency in 2000. Nader's concentration on Florida, in my opinion, marked him a deliberate Bush supporter.

[TransitJohn]

18. Nader had every right to run and campaign as he saw fit.

Gore should have won his home state of Tennessee. Also, he should have ran a better campaign in general.

[txlibdem]

20. I can't dispute that Gore was stiff and wooden at times, too intellectual, all the other criticisms

He (Gore) had the truth on his side but not a convincing delivery. No passion. Then "Dubya" swaggered up to the microphone like he was at another frat house cocaine party declaring good times for all. Sure, we all know all of that. 100% lies, delivered without batting an eye. That's historical fact.

But the numbers do not lie, nor does the statement from Nader himself: Nader cost Gore Florida and therefore cost us all dearly for 8 years.

And then Nader's nephew made the statement, "We wanted to hurt the Democrats" and used the 2000 campaign to do so.

[Fuddnik]

7. I'd settle for a second party right now.

[yurbud]

22. yep--I hope the Democrats noticed what happened in Canada

when the center left party was leapfrogged by a more progressive leftist party into second place.

[Stuckinthebush]

8. Never gonna happen

Unless we move to a parliamentary style government.

A third party is always going to pull from one of the larger two. Take the tea party and the green party as examples. They both have members that, otherwise, would vote for one of the majors. If a sizable amount of voters move to a third party, then they have no chance of winning power and they diminish the chances of their ideologically similar major party. Therefore, the party that is totally opposed to their ideals gets the power.

To insure the viability of a multi-party system, our way of governing must change. The closest thing to that multi-party system was the past election when a sizable "tea party" candidates were elected. There were elected, however, as Republicans which put them in the Republican caucus. If they ran as a third party then it would divide Republican votes and the Democrat would have been elected.

So, a "third party" would really be a strong ideological group that is part of one of the majors. That's the only way a third party would be workable in our system as it stands.

[Heywood J]

15. It doesn't work well in a parliamentary style government either.

Look at Canada and the UK to see the results of vote-splitting.

[Stuckinthebush]

16. Agreed

But third and fourth parties can be incorporated into the process better than here.

[former9thward]

10. We need several parties.

A Green party, Labor party, Liberal party, Socialist party, Conservative party, Libertarian party. All these should have ballot positions. Then they could work together to build coalitions on specific issues without giving up their core principles.

[socialist_n_TN]

21. That's what I was thinking too..........

Well maybe not that many (although I wouldn't mind that many parties), but IF the Republicans split into two parties, then it would be MUCH easier for Dems to split also.

THEN you would get a situation where the more left candidate could run on all those positions that the polls show the American people WANT, but aren't getting from EITHER party. And probably win a plurality.

But then what? With 4 parties splitting the vote, the Electoral college is split too many ways to elect a President. Would you get a parliamentary STYLE coalition for one candidate to win the Electoral College in exchange for Cabinet positions for the coalition partner?

It would be a mess, but maybe we need a mess because we sure aren't getting representation now.

[Keith Bee]

12. Only problem is.....

...which???

[bvar22]

13. I would be happy with a 2nd Party,

one that represents the 98% of us who have to Work for a Living.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
"By their WORKS you will know them."

[Demeter]

19. "None of the Above"

That's who I'm voting for!