46% of Americans would like to see a third political party emerge (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Just saw it on the news, recent poll. As usual, people distrust the Dems, distrust the Republicans, and lots of people would like to see a viable third party. 46% is historically as high a number as its ever been in modern times.

But is it possible? The existing two parties are so entrenched, have so much money, so much control of the political scene. As we all know, they have worked together to gerrymander voting so that each side has a certain number of "safe" seats. Is there any way to overturn all of this? I have my serious doubts. What are your thoughts?

 

[Arizona Ron]

Too many Unions and other interests involved in the current two parties. The people that want a third party aren't as invested would likely not spend the time/money it takes to get one of its feet.

While driving home today, I saw three younger women holding signs for a local election - I doubt they just really believe that's the right candidate; they're either on the payroll or the party's decisions could directly effect their income in one way or another.

 

[Darth Cheney]

No.

 

[timschochet]

Too many Unions and other interests involved in the current two parties. The people that want a third party aren't as invested would likely not spend the time/money it takes to get one of its feet.While driving home today, I saw three younger women holding signs for a local election - I doubt they just really believe that's the right candidate; they're either on the payroll or the party's decisions could directly effect their income in one way or another.

It is true that both parties are seemingly beholden to a tremendous amount of special interests, with the big money for the Dems coming from unions and trial lawyers, and the big money for the GOP coming from a variety of corporate interests. Not sure there is any way to break this hold. But it's intriguing how many people now yearn for an alternative.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Go ahead 46%. Do it. What are you waiting for?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

A viable 3rd party would emerge quickly if we switched to an instant run-off election.

 

[pollardsvision]

A viable 3rd party would emerge quickly if we switched to an instant run-off election.

I agree. That's what would be necessary. I don't know how that would happen, but I'd assume it would have to be Republicans and Democrats would have to decide to make it happen, which means it'll never happen.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

A viable 3rd party would emerge quickly if we switched to an instant run-off election.

I agree. That's what would be necessary. I don't know how that would happen, but I'd assume it would have to be Republicans and Democrats would have to decide to make it happen, which means it'll never happen.

Well that's obviously a pretty big hurdle...

 

[jonessed]

Politics is directly tied to money and there is no way a third party could maintain the kind of financing they would need to establish themselves. A billionaire could fund an election campaign on their own dime, however setting up the special interest ties that would be required to fund an actual sustained movement would be impossible. Our government is simply too big and the two current parties too entrenched to ever unseat.

 

[Chi-Mo]

No.

 

[KCC]

Politics is directly tied to money and there is no way a third party could maintain the kind of financing they would need to establish themselves. A billionaire could fund an election campaign on their own dime, however setting up the special interest ties that would be required to fund an actual sustained movement would be impossible. Our government is simply too big and the two current parties too entrenched to ever unseat.

The other thing to consider is that the 46% probably favor a third party that agrees with all or most of their individual political views. The 46% that feels disenfranchised would quickly splinter and the third party support would dry up once the party platform was actually drafted.

 

[Oliver Humanzee]

I read recently where Sarah Palin and a few others have endorsed a Conservative Party candidate over the Republican nominee.

To paraphrase a wise friend, "I am personally delighted that the right wing is keen splinter the Republican Party into a nutball branch and a greedy ####sucker branch. Only nutbag greedy ####suckers will be torn."

 

[timschochet]

Politics is directly tied to money and there is no way a third party could maintain the kind of financing they would need to establish themselves. A billionaire could fund an election campaign on their own dime, however setting up the special interest ties that would be required to fund an actual sustained movement would be impossible. Our government is simply too big and the two current parties too entrenched to ever unseat.

The other thing to consider is that the 46% probably favor a third party that agrees with all or most of their individual political views. The 46% that feels disenfranchised would quickly splinter and the third party support would dry up once the party platform was actually drafted.

If the third party was not extremist, I might support them at this point even if I disagreed with many of their positions, simply to break the stranglehold. But you may be right that there aren't many who share this opinion.

 

[timschochet]

I read recently where Sarah Palin and a few others have endorsed a Conservative Party candidate over the Republican nominee.

To paraphrase a wise friend, "I am personally delighted that the right wing is keen splinter the Republican Party into a nutball branch and a greedy ####sucker branch. Only nutbag greedy ####suckers will be torn."

Sure, the right wing is angry at the Republicans. But isn't the left wing just as angry at the Democrats? Suppose, for instance, the Democratic party comes up with a health care plan without a public option. I think this is highly likely, no matter what they say. Will the left go along with this in quiet resignation?

 

[crnerblitz]

Politics is directly tied to money and there is no way a third party could maintain the kind of financing they would need to establish themselves. A billionaire could fund an election campaign on their own dime, however setting up the special interest ties that would be required to fund an actual sustained movement would be impossible. Our government is simply too big and the two current parties too entrenched to ever unseat.

The other thing to consider is that the 46% probably favor a third party that agrees with all or most of their individual political views. The 46% that feels disenfranchised would quickly splinter and the third party support would dry up once the party platform was actually drafted.

If the third party was not extremist, I might support them at this point even if I disagreed with many of their positions, simply to break the stranglehold. But you may be right that there aren't many who share this opinion.

Another problem with the peacefull formation of an actual new party is that its leadership and officers are filled with the same old politicians from the old parties. The game then begins anew. That and the money problem are serious obstacles to realization. Now if you want to go down the non peacefull road, well then please tell me about your belief system?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

The Whigs will rise again!

 

[Dragons]

Now if they only could agree on which 3rd party.

 

[Oliver Humanzee]

The left has been angry at The Democrats since, oh, LBJ. The left here in Chicago have never liked Democrat Mayor Daley. We just hate them less than nearly every Republican and believe, stupidly or not, that a centrist-conservative Democrat (like Clinton and Obama) will be more beholden to issues than Republicans (who are, invariably, completely hostile to them.)

That DINO Harry Reid has made concessions to a vocal liberal movement by including Public Option Lite in the latest iteration of health care reform, is proof that one doesn't necessarily need a multi-party system to have public officials act upon your intrests. Harry Reid needs liberals to vote for him if he wants a job. Even more, he needs liberals to give him money.

Don't get me wrong, there are a great many good things about multi-party politcal systems, runoff elections, and parliamentary coalitions. I just think that it will never happen in our country, not in our lifetime, and that you--right or left--have a better chance to make your issues heard by influencing the party of your choice, rather than taking your ball and going home.

 

[quickhands]

No.

this

 

[tommyGunZ]

pretty easy to support a party that doesn't even have a platform yet. once the details come out, that number shrinks to ~ 4%.

 

[Da Guru]

I think the % would be way higher than that if there were a viable third party. My dem friends are not happy with Obama, my GOP friends are always looking for something better. There are way more moderates now, people who are looking for some real "Hope and Change" not just a campaign slogan to get elected.

The time has finally come for a different direction..of course it would be shot down by the people who already hold power.

The key is $$$$ Barack Obama obliterated every political spending record in U.S. history spending more than 300 million more than John Kerry did four years earlier, and over 250 million more than John McCain in 2008.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think the % would be way higher than that if there were a viable third party. My dem friends are not happy with Obama, my GOP friends are always looking for something better. There are way more moderates now, people who are looking for some real "Hope and Change" not just a campaign slogan to get elected

Your "dem friends not happy with Obama" would probably prefer him to any other candidate out there at this point, so not being happy with someone doesn't automatically translate to a changed vote or changed support.

 

[Da Guru]

I think the % would be way higher than that if there were a viable third party. My dem friends are not happy with Obama, my GOP friends are always looking for something better. There are way more moderates now, people who are looking for some real "Hope and Change" not just a campaign slogan to get elected

Your "dem friends not happy with Obama" would probably prefer him to any other candidate out there at this point, so not being happy with someone doesn't automatically translate to a changed vote or changed support.

I think people are just ready for a new "middle" direction. Obama is way too left, the GOP people are way too right. Most people that I know are in the middle but there is nobody there.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think the % would be way higher than that if there were a viable third party. My dem friends are not happy with Obama, my GOP friends are always looking for something better. There are way more moderates now, people who are looking for some real "Hope and Change" not just a campaign slogan to get elected

Your "dem friends not happy with Obama" would probably prefer him to any other candidate out there at this point, so not being happy with someone doesn't automatically translate to a changed vote or changed support.

I think people are just ready for a new "middle" direction. Obama is way too left, the GOP people are way too right. Most people that I know are in the middle but there is nobody there.

Obama isn't "way too left". He's governing from a very moderate position, that's why your left dem friends are unhappy with him. Your righty friends think he's too left because Glen Beck told them so.

 

[Orange Crush]

The closest we've come to a viable third party in about a hundred years was Ross Perot and the Reform Party in '92. Perot was able to self-fund his campaign and the party infrastructure. But it pretty much lived and died with him. Sure they got Jesse Ventura elected as the governor of Minnesota, but it was a last gasp of a dying movement (which Ventura pretty much killed).

I think the Libertarian Party's platform would actually garner a lot of public support. The only problem is that the LP has, so far, attracted some very ... eccentric ... individuals for candidates.

I think if a self-funding billionaire were to use the LP, it could actually have a shot at growing into a viable third party. The billionaire would probably have to commit to the project for at least 8 years (two full presidential cycles) though, before seeing if the party could thrive independently.

 

[timschochet]

The closest we've come to a viable third party in about a hundred years was Ross Perot and the Reform Party in '92. Perot was able to self-fund his campaign and the party infrastructure. But it pretty much lived and died with him. Sure they got Jesse Ventura elected as the governor of Minnesota, but it was a last gasp of a dying movement (which Ventura pretty much killed).

I think the Libertarian Party's platform would actually garner a lot of public support. The only problem is that the LP has, so far, attracted some very ... eccentric ... individuals for candidates.

I think if a self-funding billionaire were to use the LP, it could actually have a shot at growing into a viable third party. The billionaire would probably have to commit to the project for at least 8 years (two full presidential cycles) though, before seeing if the party could thrive independently.

The Libertarians have changed from a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (30 years ago) to extremist. Just because I am fiscally conservative doesn't mean I want to eliminate ALL government restrictions, and do away with public education. Nor do I want to remove ALL controls on guns. And don't get me started on their foreign policy, which is isolationist and unacceptable to me.If I could find a third party that was moderately fiscally conservative and moderately socially liberal and had a realistic attitude towards foreign affairs... but oh well, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.

 

[Zigg]

Politics is directly tied to money and there is no way a third party could maintain the kind of financing they would need to establish themselves. A billionaire could fund an election campaign on their own dime, however setting up the special interest ties that would be required to fund an actual sustained movement would be impossible. Our government is simply too big and the two current parties too entrenched to ever unseat.

This does not sound like a good thing.

 

[Orange Crush]

The closest we've come to a viable third party in about a hundred years was Ross Perot and the Reform Party in '92. Perot was able to self-fund his campaign and the party infrastructure. But it pretty much lived and died with him. Sure they got Jesse Ventura elected as the governor of Minnesota, but it was a last gasp of a dying movement (which Ventura pretty much killed).

I think the Libertarian Party's platform would actually garner a lot of public support. The only problem is that the LP has, so far, attracted some very ... eccentric ... individuals for candidates.

I think if a self-funding billionaire were to use the LP, it could actually have a shot at growing into a viable third party. The billionaire would probably have to commit to the project for at least 8 years (two full presidential cycles) though, before seeing if the party could thrive independently.

The Libertarians have changed from a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (30 years ago) to extremist. Just because I am fiscally conservative doesn't mean I want to eliminate ALL government restrictions, and do away with public education. Nor do I want to remove ALL controls on guns. And don't get me started on their foreign policy, which is isolationist and unacceptable to me.If I could find a third party that was moderately fiscally conservative and moderately socially liberal and had a realistic attitude towards foreign affairs... but oh well, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.

Ok, maybe not the current LP platform, but at least the party philosophy would be popular. One of the things that really turned me off the LP was its stated and hard core isolationism. But yes, I completely agree. A moderate libertarian party dedicated to incrementalism would be hard to ignore.

 

[LHUCKS]

The closest we've come to a viable third party in about a hundred years was Ross Perot and the Reform Party in '92. Perot was able to self-fund his campaign and the party infrastructure. But it pretty much lived and died with him. Sure they got Jesse Ventura elected as the governor of Minnesota, but it was a last gasp of a dying movement (which Ventura pretty much killed).

I think the Libertarian Party's platform would actually garner a lot of public support. The only problem is that the LP has, so far, attracted some very ... eccentric ... individuals for candidates.

I think if a self-funding billionaire were to use the LP, it could actually have a shot at growing into a viable third party. The billionaire would probably have to commit to the project for at least 8 years (two full presidential cycles) though, before seeing if the party could thrive independently.

The Libertarians have changed from a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (30 years ago) to extremist. Just because I am fiscally conservative doesn't mean I want to eliminate ALL government restrictions, and do away with public education. Nor do I want to remove ALL controls on guns. And don't get me started on their foreign policy, which is isolationist and unacceptable to me.If I could find a third party that was moderately fiscally conservative and moderately socially liberal and had a realistic attitude towards foreign affairs... but oh well, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.

 

[tommyGunZ]

If I could find a third party that was moderately fiscally conservative and moderately socially liberal and had a realistic attitude towards foreign affairs... but oh well, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.

Won't happen. What you think is moderately socially liberal or moderately fiscally conservative is different than others. What do you call the democrats of the late 90s, who were running budget surpluses?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Politics is directly tied to money and there is no way a third party could maintain the kind of financing they would need to establish themselves. A billionaire could fund an election campaign on their own dime, however setting up the special interest ties that would be required to fund an actual sustained movement would be impossible. Our government is simply too big and the two current parties too entrenched to ever unseat.

The other thing to consider is that the 46% probably favor a third party that agrees with all or most of their individual political views. The 46% that feels disenfranchised would quickly splinter and the third party support would dry up once the party platform was actually drafted.

If the third party was not extremist, I might support them at this point even if I disagreed with many of their positions, simply to break the stranglehold. But you may be right that there aren't many who share this opinion.

And there in lies the problem. Too many divergent ideas on what the third party should look like. You want a third party, but only if it isn't too extremist. Others want the extreme. Still others might want something different.

 

[timschochet]

What do you call the democrats of the late 90s, who were running budget surpluses?

It's a fair question. Personally, I thought Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000 was an excellent president, exactly the sort of guy I wanted. But I always felt he was forced into it by the GOP gains in 1994. Which is why, in lieu of getting what I really want, I prefer a president from one party and control of the congress from the other party.

 

[culdeus]

In order for it to happen it's going to take a far right wing party being formed and forcing the GOP to the center in response after siphoning off all their religio-nuts and gun clutching wackos.

A party won't just magically appear in the center and appeal to the everyman it will have to be extreme, and right now there are seemingly more extreme right wing people than left (see: fox news, rush appeal, etc.)

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The closest we've come to a viable third party in about a hundred years was Ross Perot and the Reform Party in '92. Perot was able to self-fund his campaign and the party infrastructure. But it pretty much lived and died with him. Sure they got Jesse Ventura elected as the governor of Minnesota, but it was a last gasp of a dying movement (which Ventura pretty much killed).

I think the Libertarian Party's platform would actually garner a lot of public support. The only problem is that the LP has, so far, attracted some very ... eccentric ... individuals for candidates.

I think if a self-funding billionaire were to use the LP, it could actually have a shot at growing into a viable third party. The billionaire would probably have to commit to the project for at least 8 years (two full presidential cycles) though, before seeing if the party could thrive independently.

The Libertarians have changed from a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (30 years ago) to extremist. Just because I am fiscally conservative doesn't mean I want to eliminate ALL government restrictions, and do away with public education. Nor do I want to remove ALL controls on guns. And don't get me started on their foreign policy, which is isolationist and unacceptable to me.If I could find a third party that was moderately fiscally conservative and moderately socially liberal and had a realistic attitude towards foreign affairs... but oh well, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.

Couldn't agree more. But could you two guys be a little less vocal in your support? Don't want to kill this thing before it gets started.

 

[RCon]

If I could find a third party that was moderately fiscally conservative and moderately socially liberal and had a realistic attitude towards foreign affairs... but oh well, it probably won't happen in my lifetime.

Won't happen. What you think is moderately socially liberal or moderately fiscally conservative is different than others. What do you call the democrats of the late 90s, who were running budget surpluses?

Democrats? You mean the Democrats that controlled both houses of Congress at that time?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Without seeing the results of the poll or knowing if it was even asked, I'm guessing that 46% is all over the map politically. Some of them are like me, wishing for a viable libertarian-flavored party. Others are on the left wishing for a viable Green party. And some of them are so-called centrists who live in a fantasy world in which the Democrats and Republicans are somehow polar opposites and wish that we had yet another middle-of-the-road party. So in other words, while about half the respondents wanted a third party, the constituency for any particular third party is much smaller.

Edit: Okay, a million other people pointed this out already. So sue me.

 

[kaa]

The hardest thing is that independents are probably split between two groups:

1. The ones that think both major parties are too extremist and want a true middle-of-the-road solution.

2. The ones that think both major parties are exactly the same and want someone to actually offer something different.

Anyway, any more than two parties weakens the presidency. This is because if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives votes for the President. (And the Senate votes for Vice-President). So in a three-party system, the House of Representatives gains power. Take for example if say Obama won the election but did not reach 270. Then the House votes him President. Well, he would know that he would have to keep his constituents happy - in this case the House - to help ensure his re-election in 2012. Obama would work on building a coalition of votes from 2 of the 3 parties.

In a three party system, we could easily have a President and Vice-President from different parties, if congress was split.

 

[Mr. Yuk]

Bull Moose party FTW

 

[LHUCKS]

My perfect party:

1) Balance the budget/support balanced budget ammendment

2) pay down debt agressively and on a structure basis

3) Cut Medicare

4) Cut unecessary spending

5) term limits for congressmen

6) significantly more strict laws on politicians and money received both during and after tenure

7) Reform Social Security

8) Obama Foreign Policy

9) reform education starting with seniority system for teachers

 

[Sinrman]

Absolutely there should be. The two major political parties have run this country in the ground for far too long. However, they have both very carefully set things up to make it extremely difficult for a third party to rise and be competitive. That, and people have to get over the "if I vote for a third party, it's a wasted vote."

 

[Sinrman]

My perfect party:

1) Balance the budget/support balanced budget ammendment

2) pay down debt agressively and on a structure basis

3) Cut Medicare *cut it entirely*

4) Cut unecessary spending *especially vote-buying pork barrel projects*

5) term limits for congressmen

6) significantly more strict laws on politicians and money received both during and after tenure

7) Reform Social Security *do away with the world's and history's biggest Ponzi scheme*

8) Obama Foreign Policy *sing Kumbaya with everyone? Talk is cheap. DO SOMETHING*

9) reform education starting with seniority system for teachers *do away with tenure and reward excellence*

 

[tommyGunZ]

Without seeing the results of the poll or knowing if it was even asked, I'm guessing that 46% is all over the map politically. Some of them are like me, wishing for a viable libertarian-flavored party. Others are on the left wishing for a viable Green party. And some of them are so-called centrists who live in a fantasy world in which the Democrats and Republicans are somehow polar opposites and wish that we had yet another middle-of-the-road party. So in other words, while about half the respondents wanted a third party, the constituency for any particular third party is much smaller.

Edit: Okay, a million other people pointed this out already. So sue me.

I agree IK. The two parties ARE the middle of the road. Those screaming for another party and suggesting there is widespread support for a party that holds their exact views are folks who don't know much about politics.Hell, the democrats are too conservative for me, but I agree with them on many/most of the major issues, so I'm seen as a fanboy. But if I were calling the shots, kaa and Jim11 would have heart attacks.

 

[Sinrman]

LHUCKS posted his, and I liked it. So here's my "perfect party":

1) Enact term limits (no "career politicians")

2) Do away with Social Security entirely - someone will get screwed in the long run, whether it's now or 30 years down the line - all we're doing now with it are writing IOUs - allow people to opt-out and eventually phase it out

3) Do away with Medicare and Medicaid - open the flood gates to competition and insurance companies with certain regulations on it

4) Enact the FairTax - too many reasons to list, but it is about as close to a perfect tax system as we could ever ask for, and it sure as hell beats the pants off our current, punishing income tax (www.fairtax.org)

5) Allow school vouchers for parents interested in sending their kids to private schools

6) Bring competition into schools - good teachers will get rewarded and re-hired - bad ones will not - do away with tenure entirely

7) Tort reform, tort reform, tort reform - lawsuits have gotten waaaay out of hand - why do you think things such as prescription medicine is so much? Lawsuits...

8) Pay off the debt as quickly as possible - a huge % of our GDP goes towards paying off the interest only, which is unacceptable

9) Balanced budget every year - no politician should be allowed out of Washington until it is done - should be the first thing they do every year

10) Do away with "earmarks" and other vote-buying projects

11) Withdraw from the UN and have them move elsewhere - being the biggest contributor, we sure as hell take a ton of flak and "anti-Americanism" going on for my taste - corruption rampant - allowing certain countries such as Communist China on the Human Rights Council? Come on! Give us body that has balls and can actually go through with things and not threaten, threaten, threaten, and then do nothing

12) Make a very serious effort towards ridding ourselves of oil - drill in our own territories with no limitations, and tell the Middle East and other American-hating countries (see Venezuela) to go pound sand

I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, but that would be a nice start...

 

[tommyGunZ]

4) Cut unecessary spending

Wasteful according to who?

 

[LHUCKS]

4) Cut unecessary spending

Wasteful according to who?

ME...now is not the time for spending. We've got a potential disaster on our hands with this current deficit.

 

[Native]

IMO a third party would need to be centrist by nature and attract moderates from both Repubs and Dems.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I thought we would see a strong centrist part emerge in 2008, but Obama's appeal to moderates was too big for this to happen.

 

[culdeus]

When perot pulled out and then got back in I think it killed the process for another 50 years at least. At one time he was leading in the polls.

 

[kaa]

I agree IK. The two parties ARE the middle of the road. Those screaming for another party and suggesting there is widespread support for a party that holds their exact views are folks who don't know much about politics.

That's completely wrong. In fact, there is a tried-and-true political model, used for thousands of years, where a leader's EXACT views become adopted by the public. Its referred to as "cult of personality". It doesn't matter what view the leader holds - because it came from THAT person, the public accepts it. A classic example would be Hitler. What Hitler believed was irrelevant. He had a cult of personality that swept across Germany. Whatever his exact views were became what the people wanted.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

A moderate libertarian party dedicated to incrementalism would be hard to ignore.