Perceived Need for Third Party in U.S.?

[thegreekdog]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perce ... -high.aspx

Question: In your view, do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed?

60% - Third party needed
26% - Parties do an adequate job

Also from the article:

However, the desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be one. Structural factors in the U.S. election system and the parties' own abilities to adapt to changing public preferences have helped the Republican and Democratic parties to remain the dominant parties in U.S. government for more than 150 years. Third parties that have emerged to challenge their dominance have not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success

[nàme]

Look at their government now. Anyone who says there does not need to be a change is a fool.

[isaiah40]

I was reading the same article just a couple of minutes ago.

I agree with the following:

However, the desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be one. Structural factors in the U.S. election system and the parties' own abilities to adapt to changing public preferences have helped the Republican and Democratic parties to remain the dominant parties in U.S. government for more than 150 years. Third parties that have emerged to challenge their dominance have not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success

The problem lies in that the Republicrats keep telling people that a third party can not win to get people to vote for them. As a member of the Constitution Party, I hear this every election. Well you know what, the Republican party was a third party at one time as well, so don't tell me a third party can't win!

[Night Strike]

Don't need a third party if enough conservatives and libertarians get out there to vote for people who actually hold those values in order to restore the Republican party to those values. It's already been achieved in some capacities, which is why establishment Republicans fight harder against them than Democrats. They're scared that the people will vote them out of power and return the party to actual limited government values.

[isaiah40]

Don't need a third party if enough conservatives and libertarians get out there to vote for people who actually hold those values in order to restore the Republican party to those values. It's already been achieved in some capacities, which is why establishment Republicans fight harder against them than Democrats. They're scared that the people will vote them out of power and return the party to actual limited government values.

But why only give the people 2 choices?? I mean what if I don't like either candidate? Are you telling me that I should be forced to either vote for one of the "lessor of two evils", or forced to not vote at all? Give me choices! Telling me that I can only choose between Dr. Pepper or Dr. Thunder is just ridiculous!!

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx

Question: In your view, do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed?

60% - Third party needed
26% - Parties do an adequate job

Also from the article:

However, the desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be one. Structural factors in the U.S. election system and the parties' own abilities to adapt to changing public preferences have helped the Republican and Democratic parties to remain the dominant parties in U.S. government for more than 150 years. Third parties that have emerged to challenge their dominance have not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success

That's odd. If so many people want a third party, then what prevents that third party from gaining traction?

E.g. what exactly are the structural factors in the US election system? Certain rules which increase the costs of running as a 3rd party?

[thegreekdog]

BBS - Are those questions rhetorical?

[Frigidus]

I am baffled by the number of people that wish we could have a third party while continuing to vote for the duopoly.

[isaiah40]

That's odd. If so many people want a third party, then what prevents that third party from gaining traction?

E.g. what exactly are the structural factors in the US election system? Certain rules which increase the costs of running as a 3rd party?

As I mentioned, the Republicrats keep telling us that a third party CAN'T win.

Certain states require third parties to get a large number of certified signatures of "registered" voters to get ballot access. Most states allow write-ins, while such as Oklahoma and Arkansas don't allow write-ins. If a third party gets a certain percentage of votes - varies by state - they can get ballot access without signatures.

These are the two main reasons why a third party can't gain ground.

I am baffled by the number of people that wish we could have a third party while continuing to vote for the duopoly.

+1

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS - Are those questions rhetorical?

Mostly, but I wonder if a third party is being prevented from gaining traction more so due to the laws imposed by the dominant parties--as opposed to other reasons: 'not enough interest' (which is incorrect accordingly to the poll), 'campaign finance rules' (which really goes into the former reason), ..., I can't think of too many other non-law reasons.

[isaiah40]

BBS - Are those questions rhetorical?

Mostly, but I wonder if a third party is being prevented from gaining traction more so due to the laws imposed by the dominant parties--as opposed to other reasons: 'not enough interest' (which is incorrect accordingly to the poll), 'campaign finance rules' (which really goes into the former reason), ..., I can't think of too many other non-law reasons.

See my post above yours!

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, I read them. That fits into the 'rules' explanation.

[mrswdk]

American citizens basically have as much choice over the direction their country is going in as Chinese citizens do theirs.

[BigBallinStalin]

American citizens basically have as much choice over the direction their country is going in as Chinese citizens do theirs.

False.

[mrswdk]

Americans currently have a Congress that only 10-20% of the country actually approve of. And yet, instead of heeding this and changing track, Congress is actually engaging in even more of the behavior that its citizens despise so much.

Even when dissatisfied Americans get organized and, say, entire states formally vote in favor of legalizing Cannabis, central government actually promises to do everything it can to prevent the democratically identified will of the people being realised.

But hey, at least you get to vote for your president, right?

[Phatscotty]

If there was not the perception of a 100% 'shutdown' or the 3rd party question was asked 2 weeks ago, the answer would be the same as it always has been.

which is 'meh'

When 3rd party candidates start winning more than a few isolated primaries and caucuses, then we can start talking seriously about America being ready for a 3rd party. My state has had a lot of success with 3rd party politicians who win and regularly get double digit support, and my vote tally's have been 3rd party all the way down over 90% of the time, but it really is a Herculean effort to make in impact and actually punch through the 2 party system. Tri-partisanship was pretty cool when Jesse Ventura was governor here (first vote I ever cast) When the 3rd party fantasy starts turning into a reality I hope Minnesota is a major part of it.

p.s. 'the need for a 3rd party' is the first thread I ever made here! Would be cool to compare answers from 2009 to today

[muy_thaiguy]

Just re-establish the Bull Moose Party and put Teddy Roosevelt as the candidate for Presidency. Garunteed he would do a better job dead then most people in Washington do now alive.

[Phatscotty]

I was reading the same article just a couple of minutes ago.

I agree with the following:

However, the desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be one. Structural factors in the U.S. election system and the parties' own abilities to adapt to changing public preferences have helped the Republican and Democratic parties to remain the dominant parties in U.S. government for more than 150 years. Third parties that have emerged to challenge their dominance have not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success

The problem lies in that the Republicrats keep telling people that a third party can not win to get people to vote for them. As a member of the Constitution Party, I hear this every election. Well you know what, the Republican party was a third party at one time as well, so don't tell me a third party can't win!

Yup, when it comes to 3rd party's, the 'one party system' could never be more transparent. Whenever I see Democrats and Republicans join together to smear a 3rd party candidate or someone who does not subscribe to their corrupt power structure, there is a good chance I will be sending that person $$.

What do you think about a member of the Constitution party beating a Democrat or a Republican in the primary, and then at least going into the main election as a major candidate who gets to debate and promote their ideas and access to that big money that is (like it or not) necessary to win almost all of the time.

I mean, if the Constitution party member wins the election and gets to be say, Governor, isn't that still the best thing realistically that you could hope for? Sure he/she might have an R or D in front of their name and might have to struggle within their own party and be pressured by their own party, but that is also part of governing, they will have to work with Republicans and Democrats in the senates and houses whether they like it or not. it's not like they are just going to ram a hardcore constitutionalist agenda on full blast; both parties would unite and the media would be fully on board and a recall would be looking likely not to mention a tremendous amount of damage would be done for the future of not only other consitutionalist party members but 3rd party candidates in general all over the country.

anyways, what ya think about your preffered party's guy running with a major party and trying to win through the primary? in other words use their own hated party system against them?

[Phatscotty]

Another MAJOR tool they use to impress the 2 party system is the Commission on Presidential Debates. The two party's have a say and have to agree to let a 3rd party debate to even be seen or heard, and that's why we only get a Ross Perot when each candidate from the dominant parties thinks the 3rd party candidate will hurt their opponent more than them.

show

[BigBallinStalin]

Americans currently have a Congress that only 10-20% of the country actually approve of. And yet, instead of heeding this and changing track, Congress is actually engaging in even more of the behavior that its citizens despise so much.

Even when dissatisfied Americans get organized and, say, entire states formally vote in favor of legalizing Cannabis, central government actually promises to do everything it can to prevent the democratically identified will of the people being realised.

But hey, at least you get to vote for your president, right?

None of that confirms that "American citizens basically have as much choice over the direction their country is going in as Chinese citizens do theirs."

I'm not denying that the federal government is a grand road toward incompetence and waste, but the formal and informal rules of the US are different from China's. To support your claim, you'd have to compare how similar China and the US are--in terms of civil society/'the people' in influencing their government.

[fadedpsychosis]

American citizens basically have as much choice over the direction their country is going in as Chinese citizens do theirs.

False.

Americans currently have a Congress that only 10-20% of the country actually approve of. And yet, instead of heeding this and changing track, Congress is actually engaging in even more of the behavior that its citizens despise so much.

Even when dissatisfied Americans get organized and, say, entire states formally vote in favor of legalizing Cannabis, central government actually promises to do everything it can to prevent the democratically identified will of the people being realised.

But hey, at least you get to vote for your president, right?

None of that confirms that "American citizens basically have as much choice over the direction their country is going in as Chinese citizens do theirs."

I'm not denying that the federal government is a grand road toward incompetence and waste, but the formal and informal rules of the US are different from China's. To support your claim, you'd have to compare how similar China and the US are--in terms of civil society/'the people' in influencing their government.

mrswdk may have a point though... the power of the ruler always comes from the consent of the ruled. the methods used to obtain and keep that power are wildly different, and the actions they do with that power are different too, but in both cases the 'average' citizen of each has no direct say over what the rulers make into policy... and as evidenced by recent events, those in power in the US are listening less and less to what their constituents actually want

[Phatscotty]

Americans currently have a Congress that only 10-20% of the country actually approve of. And yet, instead of heeding this and changing track, Congress is actually engaging in even more of the behavior that its citizens despise so much.

Even when dissatisfied Americans get organized and, say, entire states formally vote in favor of legalizing Cannabis, central government actually promises to do everything it can to prevent the democratically identified will of the people being realised.

But hey, at least you get to vote for your president, right?

That isn't the whole story though. Basically that questions asks how you feel about everyone else's representative as a body.

You have to also include the approval rating of people's representative. Many representatives are over 40%, 50%, and even 60% in their own districts.

[isaiah40]

I was reading the same article just a couple of minutes ago.

I agree with the following:

However, the desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be one. Structural factors in the U.S. election system and the parties' own abilities to adapt to changing public preferences have helped the Republican and Democratic parties to remain the dominant parties in U.S. government for more than 150 years. Third parties that have emerged to challenge their dominance have not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success

The problem lies in that the Republicrats keep telling people that a third party can not win to get people to vote for them. As a member of the Constitution Party, I hear this every election. Well you know what, the Republican party was a third party at one time as well, so don't tell me a third party can't win!

Yup, when it comes to 3rd party's, the 'one party system' could never be more transparent. Whenever I see Democrats and Republicans join together to smear a 3rd party candidate or someone who does not subscribe to their corrupt power structure, there is a good chance I will be sending that person $$.

What do you think about a member of the Constitution party beating a Democrat or a Republican in the primary, and then at least going into the main election as a major candidate who gets to debate and promote their ideas and access to that big money that is (like it or not) necessary to win almost all of the time.

I mean, if the Constitution party member wins the election and gets to be say, Governor, isn't that still the best thing realistically that you could hope for? Sure he/she might have an R or D in front of their name and might have to struggle within their own party and be pressured by their own party, but that is also part of governing, they will have to work with Republicans and Democrats in the senates and houses whether they like it or not. it's not like they are just going to ram a hardcore constitutionalist agenda on full blast; both parties would unite and the media would be fully on board and a recall would be looking likely not to mention a tremendous amount of damage would be done for the future of not only other consitutionalist party members but 3rd party candidates in general all over the country.

anyways, what ya think about your preffered party's guy running with a major party and trying to win through the primary? in other words use their own hated party system against them?

Right now we are focusing in on local and state elections considering that no one is going to change Washington. The best chance we have of changing Washington is at the local and state levels. Right now we have two members running for governor; one in Nevada and the other in Alaska. In West Virginia we have a couple running for major offices and the others have declared themselves as basically "other' so the Rebublicrats don't know which party they are aligned to. In Wyoming we have someone running for Secretary of State.

As for running under either the "R" or "D" words, I don't think anyone would do it.

As an aside, we are the "ONLY" party that actually vets their candidates before they can be accepted to run under the Constitution Party flag. We do this so we don't get RINO's or DINO's. LOL!

[BigBallinStalin]

American citizens basically have as much choice over the direction their country is going in as Chinese citizens do theirs.

False.

Americans currently have a Congress that only 10-20% of the country actually approve of. And yet, instead of heeding this and changing track, Congress is actually engaging in even more of the behavior that its citizens despise so much.

Even when dissatisfied Americans get organized and, say, entire states formally vote in favor of legalizing Cannabis, central government actually promises to do everything it can to prevent the democratically identified will of the people being realised.

But hey, at least you get to vote for your president, right?

None of that confirms that "American citizens basically have as much choice over the direction their country is going in as Chinese citizens do theirs."

I'm not denying that the federal government is a grand road toward incompetence and waste, but the formal and informal rules of the US are different from China's. To support your claim, you'd have to compare how similar China and the US are--in terms of civil society/'the people' in influencing their government.

mrswdk may have a point though... the power of the ruler always comes from the consent of the ruled. the methods used to obtain and keep that power are wildly different, and the actions they do with that power are different too, but in both cases the 'average' citizen of each has no direct say over what the rulers make into policy... and as evidenced by recent events, those in power in the US are listening less and less to what their constituents actually want

The direction of a country is not only steered by the political but also by the market and civil society (i.e. the non-political and non-economic, e.g. charity, religion, quasi-education). Compared to China, the US is very economically free and more free in the civil society sense, thus people have a greater ability to steer their country.

This is why mrswdk's position doesn't make sense. If it's modified, then my response may differ. For example, if we limit power/influence only to the political, I'd still argue that the Americans have greater ability to yield influence than Chinese--in general.

Most Americans for most elections do not vote; they choose not to exert influence because it's not worth it--it's somewhat of a luxury to do so. I'm not sure what the voter participation rates for very local elections in China are, but from what I recall the Head Directors/Whatever and the Provincial Governors 'elect' themselves. In regard to voting, the Chinese generally have hardly any influence over the selection of politicians while the Americans have a significantly higher influence over the selection of politicians.

The US has a freer press, which allows greater range of opinion (and influence) from the intelligentsia to 'laypersons' and ultimately to politicians. A freer internet in the US allows easier mobilization for activism and for becoming more aware of public policies at a lower cost--the Chinese have a less free internet and face much higher costs for activism and for attempting to uncover the opaqueness of their government.

I can keep listing more examples, but it should be clear how many more avenues of influence the Americans have compared to the Chinese.

as a tangent: If the Chinese government become much more democratic, their politicians would then have a greater pie to confiscate, so it's win-win for them.