From the WSJ Washington Wire, via Memeorandum, a new WSJ/NBC poll due out today finds that a record high number of those surveyed, nearly one in three, desire a third party alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. From the Washington Wire:
More Americans believe it is time for a third party than at any other point in the previous 15 years, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.
Nearly one in three, 31%, said the two-party system is broken and that a third party would be good for the country. It’s the highest mark for that question, which has been asked in 2007, 1997, and 1995 (with 29%, 28% and 27% respectively).
d.eris @46,
That answer doesn’t account for turnout going *down* when third-party candidates like Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912 (or G. Wallace in ’68, or Anderson in ’80, or H. Wallace in ’48, etc.). The only quasi-noticeable bump of significance was for Perot in ’92, and even then the vote % doesn’t jump above the line of best fit from 1840-2004.
All I’m saying is there’s no study to back up this quote of yours @13:
“In many cases, it seems like we’ve really reached a point at which a third party or independent candidate would easily win if all the people who stayed home out of disgust with the Republicans and Democrats went out and cast their ballots for alternatives.”
There’s simply nothing within a cursory glance of the data to suggest this. Moreover, to my knowledge, there’s no study to assert this either.
Voter turnout has been declining in most of the ‘established democracies’ (I hate that term) for over 40 years – this isn’t a problem unique to America and its electoral system.
Other countries, with other systems, have seen similar declines. This is also a tricky topic, as trend analysis of voter turnout isn’t an easy thing. Most of the data (for nearly all countries) is littered with increases in suffrage, which, believe it or not, increased voter turnout at various points before turnouts could settle into decline. There are also few nations with enough long-term analysis available other than the U.S.
If anything, most political scientists believe that voters stay home out of apathy more than disgust (sadly). Many have also speculated that a loss of community has decreased civic interest, be it from television, campaign techniques (campaigns used to heavily rely on local GOTV, now they tend to use advertising), and other technologies that have detached people from their local area.
d.eris // May 12, 2010:
“………. [a] collective delusion that third party and independent candidates don’t exist ………”
Most human relations experts (Cultural Anthropologists, Psychologists, Sociologists, others) when applying ‘metrics’ to personal or group movements consider both repulsion and attraction to creeds or ideals.
As far as folks being repelled by the Democans and the Republicrats being the entire formula, that is only half of the story. Many groups do not attract these ‘loosely held’ individuals. These ‘floaters’ go back to major party dynasties (Ralph Nader’s ‘Legacies’), get disenfranchised, or hold their nose[s] and select the ‘least evil’ alternative party as unenthusiastic new members.
2000: reform / deform movement
2004: Natural Law Party
2008: Constitution movement
2012: Greens ???????????
[at a time where ‘Decline to State’ types are multiplying ………..]
[It is not merely delusion, it is more like disappointment in the options ……….]
GR: “Blanco you are clearly a racist. All I see in your posting is White white white…”
Deran: “Blanco, learn Spanish, and get to know some people that aren’t caucasoids.”
Ironically, ‘blanco’ is Spanish for ‘white.’
Erik @17: “I don’t believe any study has shown that turnout has an effect on third party or independent candidates.”
My feeling is that turnout is so low in the US because in many cases the majority of voters basically refuse to vote for the anointed Republican or Democrat in any given race. So if they’re not going to vote Dem or Repub, and they believe a third party or indy vote is a “wasted vote,” they opt not to vote. The result, of course, is that elections are decided by the minority of eligible voters who are willing to waste their votes on a Democrat or Republican.
Don Lake- don’t worry my friend… I will not go down easy!
GR- Thanks for clearing that up for me. I understand now and appreciate your patience!
@40 All my arguments are very welcome to be used by others. That’s why I make them, among other reasons.
NewFederalist // May 13, 2010:
Do you think it is already too late? This part of your post confuses me ………
“…take it easy enjoy life..(its later than you think)”
Ah, the Duopoly Establishment would love the Loyal Opposition to adopt that ‘take it easy’ attitude!
My influence, in the conservative mid west / Heart Land was that of ‘access’: North Americans were inoculated against Socialist rebellion due to the possibilities of immediate or intermediate advancement.
The individual could start out on the east coast as a dental assistant, move west and become ‘Doc’ Holiday.
‘There are no ‘second acts’ in American Life. Hah! North American is all about encores and modifications.
With little class system (property, speech, education, money, family) if you did not improve your station, then your off spring might. This was especially true of the progeny of former slaves!
Why fight the system [say capitalism] that might propel you and your blue collar union neighbors to your children’s white collar stations ????????
“My only problem with immediate gratification is that it does not come soon enough ……..”
I loved Paulie’s comment at #4.
Do you mind if I steal that argument? 🙂
Yours,
Alex Peak
Most historians believe that socialism was never able to take off here like in Europe due to Americans already (at the point in time) having more liberties than their European counterparts. It never gained enough steam initially because fewer people sought radical solutions for change compared to Europe.
“its later than you think” my inference was to mean for me…”our time living on earth” if we live to be 80 we are lucky….If say you are 50.. you have what 30 years left? think back thirty years….it was a snap…a twinkle…I have learned from observing people who fought fought on their death bed they left swearing….not really a happy peaceful life…just wasted being unsatisfied.. I say find satisfaction….because…our lives on earth are short…:)
Blanco, learn Spanish, and get to know some people that aren’t caucasoids. It’ll do you good. Or, just join one of the nazi parties floating around.
“This isn’t the first time I took on a problem & found the solution & nobody listened.”
LOL!!!
If only there were a democratic socialist party of any competence in the US! Now would be the time to radicalize the citizenry, and I don’t mean the crypto-whatnots of the Tea Partys! I’d even settle for a Progressive Party!
No, not the Greens. In the US their national party has passed its use by date, and it’s dead in most states.
“…take it easy enjoy life..(its later than you think)”
Do you think it is already too late? This part of your post confuses me.
White, black ???????????
It is all shades of beige!
ARE MIXED…you seem to be an alarmist….as for third parties…If they ever got someone that was not so extreme in veiws they might have a chance..MOST people don’t have stanch views….if you really examine…the teaparty people…many retired…and on SS ask how many are willing to give up their “socialist” security payments?? I see many people that really want to disagree just for the sake of disagreement. THERE will never be a perfect candidate….never…….(never) if people were truly honest they know in their heart they sway on many issues. As for this scare tactic of white babies are being aborted etc…why try and spread hate and divisiveness? Maybe you should take care of “your” own backyard…first…pick up some trash around your city…help an old lady accross the street….one small drop of rain..becomes a lake….take it easy enjoy life..(its later than you think)
Blanco you are clearly a racist. All I see in your posting is White white white…
deal with the demographics changing…thats life…many people are marrying others not of their race SHOCK!!!! AND THEIR CHILDREN
/\
We need a real third party to deal with the real issues in this country that all the parties are ignoring:
The threat of Islamic terrorism and the rise of Islamic extremism around the world.
The flood/invasion of illegal aliens taking away American jobs which will cause white people to be a minority in this country soon…has anyone wondered what will happen then?
Abortion of white babies, which is contributing to this disturbing demographic trend if it is not outlawed.
Corporations outsourcing American jobs – where is the paycheck for the white working class man going to come home to feed his family?
The war on Christianity in our schools, courthouses, etc., and the war on Christmas.
The Zionist bankers and their control of the money supply.
The rising economic and military threat posed by China.
The flood of dope on our streets and the leniency of the police and courts toward non-white street thugs.
NAFTA/GATT/WTO/United Nations threats to American sovereignty.
Multiculturalist brainwashing of our children.
Filthy garbage of the worst imaginable sort being allowed in the movies, TV and on the radio, producing generations of degenerates.
Feminization of the American male through the promotion of feminism and normalization of sodomy as a “lifestyle” – this can’t be helping our demographic trends! Before long this country will look like a cross between Mexico, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Gomorrah if we don’t do something.
While Wall Street is partying, the Zionist bankers are closing our factories and foreclosing on our farms.
Is there a party, major or minor, that will rise up to address these issues?
Will we do something before it’s too late?
I’m not good at acronyms. Is I & R short for initiatives and referenda?
Yes.
The main gripe, a reasonable one, is that both parties are corrupt. This can and should be fixed with two changes, by Constitutional Amendment if necessary. 1. Campaign finance reform by limiting all contributions to individuals, reported in a timely fashion. 2. term limits (2) for congress. #1 makes it harder to buy them going in. #2 makes it a poorer investment to buy them after they’re in (hell, they won’t be around as long to pay back those who bribe them. If you think I’m fixated on a peripheral issue, consider what would cause YOU to lose confidence in your government. Loss of that confidence in the governing by the governed, is what brings governments down, through elections or revolutions. Think about it and send your ideas to me, tbeebe6535 (at) yahoo (dot) com
RM@19:
“This isn’t the first time I took on a problem & found the solution & nobody listened.”
I make a living on solutions and know exactly what you mean. Implementation is always the hard part.
Big, lasting change also never comes quick nor easy and the hardest hurdle is the first one.
BTW it took me many many posts to figure out what PLAS was after I first heard of it. It sounded more interesting later but the learning curve has a steep start for us regular Joes.
I’m not good at acronyms. Is I & R short for initiatives and referenda?
I think it may be that the root of the problem is the nationalist better-by-birthright syndrome so rampant in the States. Due to U. S. exceptionalism, folks don’t notice how miserably we fail at democracy.
Dale @6 “. . . people aren’t stupid . . . even though they don’t like it, it *is* a two-party system, so they do the best they can, and vote for the lesser of two evils. Voting for a third party is just too big of a risk with single-winner plurality elections.”
People are stupid. There is no risk. A given voter does not hold the deciding vote (local elections a possible exception). Even under plurality it’s a mistake in thinking to not vote your heart under the illusion of doing the best you can and voting for lesser evil to avoid some “risk”.
You mention approval voting more than once. I’m a big fan of approval.
The thing about electoral reform is that it’s not a pressing issue for most people. If there are no candidates running outside the two-party system to 1. expose the faults of plurality winner-take-all and 2. talk up alternatives like IRV and PR, reform isn’t gonna happen.
The good news is that reform can and does happen when third parties push for it. Instant runoff voting has a good track record with voters – almost anywhere that Greens or others have gotten IRV on the ballot, it’s passed. The next step is for independent party candidates to start talking up proportional representation, which is another idea that just makes so much sense, it’s bound to catch on eventually if enough people start talking about it.
It’s silly when they ask about a “third party.”
@ 6
Well it is a kind of catch 22 isn´t it? I agree with you in (good) electoral reform and a move away from plurity would definitely help with the elections of third parties/independents, but if we can not get anyone in office who will support such reforms, how do you ever expect to get such systems in place in the US? The only way I see around this is I & R, which I think only 19 states have this, along with a number of localities (municipal and county governments). Possibly some very well organized campaigns could accomplish this, but it would have to take some pretty amazing organizing skills on the behalf of very experienced and/or effective community organizers.
Though, let us keep in mind it is not impossible for a third party to win even in the American system. The VPP has been able to make some victories, by being very well organizing and tactilely picking their battles (small state legislative seats). Perhaps one day they will hold the balance of power and force the Democrats into a coalition, and bring about voter reform that brings an end to plurity. One thing to be said that´s true, most third parties in the US are terribly organized, so that is most certainly a factor to add in as well to their lack of success.
This proves we need a full slate of Green Party candidates for every seat in the U.S. House of Representatives…
U.S. Senate
Milnes, don’t leave! Its obvious to me that you will be the one who saves this county. Keep preaching PLAS – on every thread you can find. People will catch on eventually.
Progressives/revolutionaries are voting wrong.
This isn’t the first time I took on a problem & found the solution & nobody listened.
Everybody is engaging in sex wrong.
I read some Wilhelm Reich about 40 years ago. It took me a couple of years but I figured out the little bit left to complete his theory. I wrote Dr. Alexander Lowen about it(Reich was deceased;Lowen was analyzed by Reich & following in his footsteps in Forest Hills, NY) & he wrote me back saying “I believe you have …rendered Reich’s ideas…” Since then I lost that letter. Lowen may still be alive; I see no obit on search. Nobody listened to me then either so I went on to political burnout. Then I got back in politics around 2003 & contacted Tom K. & got involved in libertarian politics & eventually figured out PLAS. After studying Teddy Roosevelt’s close victory with the fatally flawed Progressive Party.
I’m thinking about leaving politics again. I read somewhere that Einstein never completed his Unified Field Theory.
PLAS.
Also (to d.eris @ 13),
I don’t believe any study has shown that turnout has an effect on third party or independent candidates. Perhaps there’s the occasional correlation (1992 saw a bump from 50.11 to 55.10%), but I don’t think the case is strong enough to assert definitively (1996, by comparison, dropped to 49%, the second-lowest total since 1824).
For example, voter turnout was much better in 2004 than 2000, yet third party and independent candidates for the presidency were crushed. Nader lost over 2.4 million votes, but turnout was up by nearly 17 million people (it went from 51.21 to 56.69%). Moreover, 1912, the famous Teddy run as a Progressive, saw turnout drop from 65.4 to 58.8%. It also went back up in 1916 to 61. 6%, though you could argue this was due to the war question.
Either way, I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest turnout has anything to do with voter behavior towards independent, alternative, and third-party options.
d.eris @ 13,
I don’t doubt you or Darcy, but I would love to see that study. Virtually every time I’ve tried to look for a study on this topic, I’ve failed.
I have, however, seen VMS media tracking from ’08 that showed Ron Paul, for example, was mentioned 85x less than John McCain during the primaries, 69x less than Giuliani, 202x less than Clinton, and 207x less than Obama. The closest he came to was being out-mentioned by Fred Thompson 25x (which is still remarkable). And that was with an elected, sitting, 10-termed Republican (i.e. from the two major parties) congressman!
So, even if media coverage used to be better, I’m willing to bet it was still multiple times greater for the two major parties than for the minor ones. Some studies in Britain have even suggested that Parliament tends to swing by the amount and quality of coverage shown towards its parties.
Now, either way, this isn’t the be-all-end-all to my argument. It was just something I was postulating as to why our system is potentially the way it is to the degree that it is. I remember once reading that we had the highest incumbency rating in the world – higher than even that of the former U.S.S.R. at one point. To me, that is just remarkable. Surely, there has to be some reasoning behind this.
For what it’s worth, much of my planned graduate work will entail these very topics, as my degrees are in both Psychology and Political Science – a trend I will be attempting to follow all the way through to my (hopefully eventual) Ph.D.
Lake @1o,
I speak from experience. Although I was very young, I still remember living in a country which had only one choice of each type of food item in grocery stores (or zero choices for many items at many times) and also one choice of political party.
Voters and shoppers were not too confused.
There were sometimes long lines for grocery items, so they must have been really popular.
I don’t know about voting, because I was way too young for that. I don’t remember hearing or reading anything about long voting lines there.
I don’t think their ballots were too “crowded” or “confusing”…
Dale @ 12,
I wasn’t trying to say you were wrong, I was merely pointing out that there are exceptions to what you’re arguing, and that it isn’t as simple a remedy as it appeared you were stating. If I had to list my choices for reform, removing the exlusivitiy of single-member districts and ending plurality voting would certainly be at the top of my list. Naturally, I, too, would expect other issues to then begin being solved (such as ballot access, debate access, gerrymandering, etc.).
EriK: “our popular media doesn’t generally provide much coverage of alternative choices because they don’t have money or a history of electoral support.”
This might be a relatively new phenomenon as well. Darcy Richardson pointed out in a recent interview (Jacksonville Observer?) that media used to do a much better job of covering third party and indy politics.
And to add one more point to your description of American exceptionalism in this regard, we might also mention the fact that voter turnout is often VERY low in US elections. In many cases, it seems like we’ve really reached a point at which a third party or independent candidate would easily win if all the people who stayed home out of disgust with the Republicans and Democrats went out and cast their ballots for alternatives.
@Erik G. at 8:
Oh, certainly, parliamentary systems have some extra… I guess you could call it “insulation”? from two-party domination. Not having a single national-popularly elected leader to rally around/against helps, as does the UK’s odd lack of district-level polling (keeps people in the dark, making them more loss-averse, and more likely to vote for the lesser of two evils), and their strong regional parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland (the closest thing in the US today is the Vermont Progressive Party).
(But I’d put money down that, in 10 years (barring electoral changes like the semi-proportional AV+), either the LibDems or Labour will be where the LibDems were 10 years ago; less than 20% of votes, even fewer seats, and derided as a third party. More than two strong parties isn’t a situation that can last long. Anyone care to take that bet?)
But it’s not entirely American; take a look at Australia, for instance. The lower house has no third-party representation (unless you want to argue that Lib and Nat are really two separate parties, which would be crazy talk.) But their upper house has 10% third-party representation, because it uses proportional representation.
I dunno, perhaps Americans are just obsessive X-maximizers, where X can be profit or, in this case, expected utility; because given the situation of single-winner plurality districts, the (personal) utility-maximizing strategy is to vote for one of the top-two candidates. So perhaps (like basketball), plurality is a game Americans are just better at.
But that’s why something as simple as approval voting *CAN* have such a dramatic effect: it changes the game, in the mathematical, game-theoretical sense of the word. The personal-utility-maximizing strategy in a three-candidate race is no longer to vote for the lesser of two evils. And that really is a huge, huge deal.
I would like to see proportional voting as well. Also free and equal procedures for getting on the ballot. While we are at it, let all parties vote in primaries or do away with them. Parties could then nominate (at their own expense) at their conventions.
paulie ….. e x c e l l e n t …. e x c e l l e n t
the spiel I often use is ‘an isle full of break fast choices and only two opinions for President!’
To expand, American politics has a number of catch-22s that don’t seem as prevalent in other cultures, for whatever reason.
Here, our popular media doesn’t generally provide much coverage of alternative choices because they don’t have money or a history of electoral support. Of course, we all know that they don’t have money or electoral support in large part because they don’t have much coverage. Thus, people don’t protest much, and even seem to support justification for ballot and debate restrictions.
America also seems to buy into the ‘wasted vote’ mentality more than any other nation, which is fascinating. I could only speculate (for I don’t have evidence to support) that this could be due to a long American tradition of philosophical pragmatism and utilitarianism, with ‘pragmatism’ in particular more prevalent here than elsewhere (as it began in the U.S. and is primarily an American philosophical institution).
Honestly, I don’t think polls like this are indicative enough of anything that will actually produce change. In my opinion, the best chance for reform is extensive use of I&R as much as possible to push through electoral reform in the western states, and hope that the eastern states eventually catch on as they see the benefits of such a system. I, for one, am about to move to Colorado in 5-6 weeks, and have already determined to make this one of my life’s missions in my new home. High sentiment for change is beneficial if there is a referendum on the ballot to actually make the change, but the sentiment alone won’t actually make people start changing the way they vote. To that end, you are most certainly correct in that issues such as single-member districts and plurality voting (among other factors) are heavy detractors towards electoral reform.
Dale @6,
While I generally agree with most of what you said, and I myself have argued much the same (ballot access, debate access, single-member districts, plurality voting, gerrymandering, etc.), there are a few things worth pointing out.
To claim that “the fix is an election system that doesn’t use single-winner plurality elections,” isn’t entirely accurate. Britain, for example, uses single-member districts and plurality voting, yet their parliament contains multiple parties, and their elections often see close races percentage-wise between their three largest parties.
Don’t take that the wrong way – I’m 100% for eliminating plurality voting, broadening ballot & debate access, and integrating proportional representation into the system. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t as simple as you claim.
Despite everyone’s best analysis of this subject, it isn’t any one thing in particular. Somehow, the collusion of multiple problems factored with some distinct American traits has created this clusterfuck of a system.
It really is strange, this collective delusion that third party and independent candidates don’t exist.
4 out of 5 say the 2-party system is broken… but 9 out of 10 still vote for it; how can that be?
Easy: people aren’t stupid; they know that, even though they don’t like it, it *is* a two-party system, so they do the best they can, and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Voting for a third party is just too big of a risk with single-winner plurality elections.
The fix isn’t a third party–as NewFederalist eloquently put it, there already are LOTS of third parties–the fix is an election system that doesn’t use single-winner plurality elections.
If you love your third party the ONLY things you should be fighting for are either proportional representation or approval (or score) voting; the barriers of ballot access laws, press coverage, debate access, and gerrymandering will all crumble like wet paper once there’s an electoral system that actually rewards voters who vote for you.
The MSNBC folks provide some other previews from the poll. A whopping 80% “see problems with” the two-party system and only 15% think it works “fairly well.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/12/2311788.aspx
Mik, obviously, voters would find any more than two choices to be too confusing, and the ballot would be too crowded. You can just imagine the confusion and crowding that would happen in grocery stores if they had more than two kinds of cereal, bread, yogurt, beer, etc…
Oh, wait.
The question should be: ‘Why is a ‘two-party system good for the country?’
Why do they always ask ‘a third party’? Why not multi-party system?
Unfortunately most people are blissfully unaware that there already ARE alternatives.