Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%
Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%
Sixty-three percent of Americans say a third U.S. political party is needed, up from 56% a year ago and by one percentage point the highest in Gallup's 20-year trend.
Story Highlights
- Third time support has exceeded 60%, along with 2017 and 2021
- Republicans primarily behind the increase, with 58% now in favor
- Political independents remain group most likely to favor third party
RANKED CHOICE VOTING
make parties irrelevant
make parties irrelevant
Precisely why they will never let this happen
So you gonna just keep complaining online or do something to make them?
Pleasantly surprised to see this is the top comment.
Comparison of various voting systems...
I'm personally in favor of STAR, takes how leading candidates fair in head to head matchups against each other without confronting voters with the possible ballot Atlas of a true condorcet vote
This is a core policy of the Forward Party along with open primaries and independent redistricting commissions.
Let go full stv
Stop Tim (my neighbor from) Voting? I'm for that. Dude is a giant dork and votes explicitly for things he thinks will fuck things up, not things he thinks will improve society. He's a doomsday dude, wants society to go to hell in a handbasket so, per his religion, his god can come and fuck it up more. I mean, believe what you want, just, let's try and make this place better not worse.
I want third parties, but before that happens we need Ranked Choice Voting or Approval Voting. Otherwise, voting third party is essentially just taking votes from the major party most closely aligned with that third party.
I know RCV is the zeitgeist, but I really think Approval Voting is better and easier for the public. I'm glad you mentioned it
That's why I always mention it. I personally would prefer Ranked Choice. However, considering the introduction intelligence of many Americans, telling them "number 1, 2, 3, etc based on how much you like the candidates" might confuse them. Instead, "mark the ones you like" is much easier.
but before that happens we need Ranked Choice Voting
...which, of course, Florida banned a year and a half ago. :(
False. It sends the message that if that major party wants those votes they need to align with the 3rd parties policies. You keep narrowly losing elections because voters don't support what you do, you'll change if you ever want to win again. People are more concerned about winning every election, voting for the lesser of two evils, then wonder why our candidates keep getting shittier and shittier.
Now ask those people what the third party's platform should be.
Not right, not left, but a secret third position
What if we just took all the leftist policies that Republican voters say they love in polls, but just replaced their names with new names that Fox News hasn't had a chance to program their viewers on? Instead of Universal Healthcare, we'll call it the American Bodily Integrity Defense Initiative or patriot care or some shit. No, no, it's not high speed rail, it's the Uncle Sam Express. No, no, it's not universal college, it's the "Beating China By Investing in Education Strategic Defense Initiative". Etc.
Something that is not "too extreme" - something that strikes a compromise with fascists that want to kill fellow citizens for merely existing (gays, trans, POC, etc.) or disagreeing with them and people that support the Constitution and civil rights and institutional norms. Because that second group is just so extreme.
Do people think "third party" literally means one and only one additional party? Or am I getting wooshed
In case anyone does think that... It does not
Now there are five parties!
How about a data driven platform determined solely by what gets at least 65% majority support in two or more national polls?
Given political preferences tend to fall along a normal distribution curve, rather than drawing a line in the middle and catering to two parties necessarily based by the split toward less popular ends, it would make more sense to focus on two std deviations from the norm and ignore the extremes of each side, leaving it up to national discourse to move the median in one direction or the other and have representatives literally just represent whatever the majority holds.
If only the politicians in the dominant parties had any incentive to make elections fair for all parties. As it stands, the dominant parties have too many systems in place to give themselves advantages.
Rank choice voting seems like an obvious upgrade to our current voting system but is nowhere to be found other than a couple states.
There’s like 12 imperfect voting systems that are still light years better than our current system. I wish we would just pick one and roll with it already, even if it’s a temporary fix.
Approval voting is mathematically sane, rewards candidates that are broadly acceptable rather than extremists, and is easy to explain to voters: "Vote for every candidate whom you would be okay with."
Candidates get more votes by building big tents than fanatical bases; voters maximize their power by honestly representing their views, and (unlike IRV) there's no case where thinking better of a candidate will lead you to vote in a way that causes that candidate to lose.
Rank choice voting seems like an obvious upgrade to our current voting system but is nowhere to be found other than a couple states.
Because the two "private parties" have an insane amount of control over our political system.
And both of them count on getting a large amount of votes because people hate the other side.
If there's literally any viable third option it fucks their system up, which would take power away from the people leading those private organizations
For example, say a far right party shows up. That hurts republicans, but it means Dems would win in landslides. Once that happens, Dem voters are going to start demanding things get done. Which means we're suddenly going to have more Manchin's voting against the party. Leading to increased primary challenges and maybe even a viable progressive party.
Both parties have a bunch of reasons to keep the status quo
As long as the US sticks to it's long outdated and undemocratic FPTP voting model, you won't see a relevant third party in congress.
Why stop at three parties. We need like seven.
You would need to get rid of the "first past the pole" system anyway to allow for other parties to have an actual chance. As soon as that's done, more parties can easily be done.
But well, the people who would need to make that happen are the same people who currently benefit from the system as it is.
FYI it's first past the post, not pole.
Does the GOP still count as a political party? What is their platform, anyways? I don't think "install a dictator and oppress minorities" counts as a platform. Point is, maybe we should look at getting a second political party first. One that can actually represent conservatives.
The Republican Party is representing conservatives better than it ever has. Installing a dictator and oppressing minorities is what conservatives genuinely want, and always have wanted.
Let me tell you about the cult I belonged to once that explicitly preached the US was made by their god, but also wanted to install the head of their cult as king of the US (because the united states didn't fight two wars to get rid of those) and eventually world.
If by conservatives you mean Americans who describe themselves as conservatives.... that's a ridiculous claim. I don't think I've ever met a Republican who openly wanted a dictator. I'm sure they exist, but it's not the majority view within Republican voters.
If you mean something else, please define what you mean by conservative.
They have no platform, they didn't even bother to make one during the last party convention
They had that one banner that said something like "we are domestic terrorists." I think that's basically their platform.
The funny thing is that they did. They copied their 2016 platform - including language that denounced the current administration. (At the time it was originally drafted, Obama, but on reuse it targeted Trump.) They can't even copy paste properly.
I'm not from America so I have no idea how this party system works, but the point here is I love parties 🎊
Let me educate you:
It doesn't!
Basically, we're only allowed 2 parties per year, and if you want any more, you have to buy a subscription, or else the party police will take away your party privileges. We're hoping that with enough complaints, they'll allow us another party before having to pay.
Would love a third and a fourth and a fifth party. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a winner-take-all system based on the Electoral College.
Yeah, I feel like any 3rd party is just there to siphon votes away from one of the other two parties. We need a change to the system, along with additional parties, so that it's not just tilting the balance back towards one of the top two. I wish we could also somehow decouple Supreme Court nominations from the Presidency, or add additional justices to make it more representative. As it is, we've got a ridiculously small group of nine people making decisions that affect the lives of hundreds of millions.
Because the tea party and libertarians are such awesome options. How about no parties and ranked choice voting.
A third party in the US would just replace one of the 2 existing parties so within one or two election cycles we'd be back to two anyway. And with the way the parties are acting currently it would probably be the Republican party to collapse and be replaced.
And with the direction the Republican base is going, whatever party replaces the GoP is probably gonna think Hitler's biggest problem was his accent.
Yes, this 58% Republican support isn't "Libertarians" finally smartening up and realizing the neocons want a police state, it's Trumpers who want the Trump Dynasty.
I went third party in 2016 because I was disgusted and at the time I didn't think my state would ever be anything but red. Since then I've learned that I am very much in a swing state and Republicans have made it very clear they are going full fascist. There is at least one conservative think tank spreading the idea that we need a "Red Caesar" which sounds a lot like Mussolini to me. I don't know if it's possible to shift the Democratic party further left or not at this point, but I won't be voting third party again unless there is some massive change in the way we handle elections.
Yet talk about voting 3rd party and get attacked by straight ticket absolutist
Yep. Because US isn't multiparty system yet, and just voting 3rd party in president elections is not viable and not smart. It doesn't mean that people don't want US to be multiparty system
Pasting my comment from further down the thread
False. It sends the message that if that major party wants those votes they need to align with the 3rd parties policies. You keep narrowly losing elections because voters don't support what you do, you'll change if you ever want to win again. People are more concerned about winning every election, voting for the lesser of two evils, then wonder why our candidates keep getting shittier and shittier.
Regardless of what side your on as a Canadian I'd warn you that you need ranked voting for this kind of thing to work. We don't have that here.
We have one prominently right party and 2 left parties. This heavily skews the votes towards the right as left votes are being split between 2 parties. Often as a left voter you have to vote for the more popular party even if you don't like them in order to keep the right leaning party from winning.
Ranked voting would fix this issue but neither of the 2 popular parties on eatch side, who can fix this want to fix it. Both the popular left and right parties work to supress all other parties.
If your not getting ranked voting that 3rd party will only exist to split the vote for whatever side its on.
I'd argue the situation is even more complicated in Canada Federal politics than you suggested. There are many ridings where the Green Party is a viable option and splits the vote on the left even further. That's before we get into Quebec and the complications the PQ adds to the mix.
This is true. Green party was pretty big in my hometown and the local representative was great. But it was considered a "waste of a vote" to vote on them so everyone left leaning often voted for the liberals out of fear that the conservatives whould get in if they didn't.
A third party would be an improvement. But, really, parties are the problem.
There are other parties, they just don’t do well enough and the electoral college is allowed to vote independently of voters
Careful. Heavily promoted Libertarian and Green candidates coupled with a relatively unpalatable Democrat is how we got Trump.
Just remember - with first past the post third party is structurally prevented from rising. Get busy with local election reform in your state: look for ranked choice or approval voting initiatives with some steam
Structurally prevented from rising, but still can act as a spoiler. If a person votes for a left leaning third party candidate instead of Biden, they are making it more likely that Trump (or whoever the Republican nominee is) will win.
I do want strong third parties, but we need Ranked Choice Voting or Approval Voting first.
Yes. My point exactly. I think young people get frustrated being told 3rd party is a wasted vote and do it out of a sense of rebellion. Real rebellion is attacking first past the post
Mostly due to embarrassed republicans who want a new republican party
I'd settle for a second party that doesn't keep goldbricking.
Republicans would do anything to save the republic, except vote for a Democrat. 14a3 and we can be rid of Trump and Biden both.
And what is 63% more of nothing? Almost nothing!
Previous elections beg to differ
https://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/green_partys_jill_stein_cheri_honkala
obama and biden had security chain the third party candidate to a chair during the 2016 election for wanting to be included
Murica will never allow more than the demopublican party
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true
But what about no parties? I'm for no parties and maybe a little bit of nuance (gasp!) in American political discussion.
So, if Trump goes to jail before the republican convention, we might see them Nominate the runner up, and a third party run by Trump might split the vote?
75% of independents, 58% of Republicans, 46% of Democrats
Given that Republicans are primarily behind these results I imagine they want a party more dedicated to the ideology of national socialism.
If any of you actually want to work towards a solution to this look into Forward Party. Forward Party is trying to make third parties actually viable through ranked-choice voting and open, nonpartisan primaries. Once states move past First Past the Post voting, it will actually be possible to vote for third parties without acting as a spoiler.
Not left, or right, but forward! It's a scam, mate. Same as no labels.
Feel free to dismiss any new idea with baseless name calling if you want.
Unlike Forward Party, No Labels is actually funded and made up of mainstream US politicians and interest groups. No Labels is an establishment group pushed by right wing(republican) corporate interests. Forward Party is an outsider third party that is ignored by the established media outlets because they don't control it.
The linked video assumes the left right spectrum is communism vs capitalism which is NOT how it is used in the US. In the US left is dems and right is repubs to the general population. That is the meaning of Forward's Slogan in this context.
They are saying both of the democratic and republican parties are wrong and we need a different approach that does not conform to party lines. That is exactly what the OP shows.
It's funny how the founders were so concerned about political factions forming and basically put in all the safeguards they could think of to prevent it.
AND results are on a sample too small to be significant.
Results for this Gallup poll are based on [...] a random sample of 1,016 adults, [...]the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
AND results are on a sample too small to be significant.
My guy, do you even know the point of statistics?
AND it's a stupid poll anyway, because most Americans don't even understand the question as asked.
It's kind of shocking because Gallup definitely knows better than to ask questions like this
If only people voted for what they wanted instead of against what they were scared of because that number is more than enough for a political shift even if there were two alternative parties, one to each main one. The 'wasted vote' propagand is doing more work keeping republicans in charge than the supreme court is. Since more republicans than democrats want a third party, so the only worry should be that too many democrats get elected if we tried.
No it’s not. No third party has anywhere close to a meaningful support level to start talking about the system being the reason. Not only are they nowhere close, they run unqualified or failed two party system candidates with untested or even well thought out ideas and use the entire thing as largely a grift to sell books or gain klout. Recently party officials have even run because no serious candidate actually tries to win any national office at all.
No ones gonna fund a party no ones voting for. Not to mention they get federal funding money if they reach a certain vote threshold, a threshold we can hit to fix those problems you speak of. The numbers of voters are there, but if you like the duopoly just say that but you're not gonna make third parties viable by voting for the two parties that benefit from there not being large third parties. If you don't want third party choices to be viable sure what you say makes sense, but you cannot keep voting for the same thing and expect a different outcome. Its either stop supporting the duopoly or resign yourself to voting for a duopoly candidate for the ret of your life.
Literal math says you're wrong. Spoilers exist, and FPTP systems don't allow third parties and also suck ass.
Then vote for one? We do have more than democrat and republican. They're usually not much better. Ain't no difference between 2 piles of shit or 5. It's all shit. Nobody who wants these jobs is ever fit enough that they should have them.
Really disturbing how nowhere in this post about 63% potential third party voters is anyone advocating for voting third party.
Vote literally any other party than Dem or Republican. I'm voting green for Dr. Cornel West and I'm proud to support him.
Edit: Dr. West is running independent now and I'll likey vote for him unless the greens nominate someone better.
Because in our current system, it is literally a wasted vote. There is a reason Russia promotes the green party - it is because it splits the Democrat vote, making it more likely for a Republican to win.
That doesn't mean the 3rd party people are bad, or the cause isn't just. I actually really like Dr. Cornel West as well, far more than Biden. But the realities are such that I am aware that there is 0 chance he will win, and votes for him are better spent on the lesser of the two evils.
How does voting for libertarian candidates not diminish Republican votes? Everyone says Green Party is responsible for a milquetoast candidate with low approval ratings losing an election based on popular vote.
I don't see Republicans or Democrats blaming Libertarians for when they lose, even though they are the biggest third party, registered in all 50 states, and had more votes in general than other third party candidates since Ross Perot.
And libertarians get actual money from companies who support them, like republicans. Green party doesn't. I've seen more ads for them and "vote Jo Jo" than Green party support, and yet somehow the smallest party is to blame.
THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
look, we became a global military and economic superpower under the two-party system.
We built the strongest middle class in history under the two-party system.
We ended segregation, and made huge progress in LGBTQ rights under the two-party system.
Solving our country's problems do not require more political parties. And the last time liberals tried this, Ralph Nader's spoiler party gave The election to George W. Bush, instead of Al Gore.
That's the Iraq War. That's the 3 trillion dollar giveaway to the ultra rich. That's blocking stem cell research. That's years of accelerated climate change. Years of no movement on healthcare.
No. Fuck that.
If you want to change things, take a note from the Republicans: change comes from WITHIN your party.
If we'd picked Bernie instead of Hillary, the Democrats would have become the liberal party we need.
Unfortunately we don't have a Presidential primary this year, when we desperately need one. So our choice is Biden or ... Full-on fascism.
Have to strongly disagree. If there are going to be political parties, the more the better.
Unfortunately we don't have a Presidential primary this year, when we desperately need one. So our choice is Biden or ... Full-on fascism.
You seem to make my point here. You don't think more parties are needed, but you want to keep pushing the "vote for my guy because the other guy is a monster" line. Sorry, but I'm not going to vote for someone based on who they are not. You point out there are only two shitty choices after stating that we don't need any more choices...
Biden isn't my guy. I don't like Biden. But Trump literally tried to overthrow our democracy.
It's no contest.
Ralph Nader’s spoiler party gave The election to George W. Bush, instead of Al Gore.
the supreme courrt gave the election to bush. nader had nothing to do with that.
SCOTUS gave the only reasonable answer under the circumstances. The deadline for certifying the election is enforceable and the entire state has to be counted under the same standards, not a separate, different standard for places one candidate wants to challenge. Denying either of those would be a terrible idea for reasons that extend well beyond 2000, and if you accept both of those premises then there's no other real answer, as there wasn't time to recount the entire state under a new standard before the deadline.
The fallout of that same decision is why Trump had to give up on legal challenges against the election when he did in favor of protests and planning that exceedingly poorly thought out attempt at an insurrection.
Ralph Nader took enough votes from Gore to bring the election to a narrow enough race that the court could steal it.
If he'd dropped out near the end, when it was clear he wasn't going to get the 5 percent he needed, he still refused to put his support behind Gore, selling the lie that both parties are essentially the same.
And the last time liberals tried this, Ralph Nader’s spoiler party gave The election to George W. Bush, instead of Al Gore.
To be fair, it was the other of the two right-wing coups the US has suffered in the last few decades -- the Brooks Brothers Riot -- that gave him that.
Why would we have to take a note from republicans?
Bernie's been making that same point for decades...
Because they completely overhauled their party and transformed it from the inside. No way in hell Trump ever could have gotten elected as a third party candidate. But now he owns the entire party.
Just because they are evil morons doesn't mean we can't appreciate he there magnitude of the transformation.