Gallup: 60% Of Americans Say Third Party Is Needed

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

IGOR BOBIC – OCTOBER 11, 2013, 8:19 AM EDT

Amid a government shutdown and continuing brinkmanship over the debt ceiling, 60 percent of Americans feel that a third party is needed to accurately represent their interests, according to a Gallup survey published Friday.

The numbers reflect the highest dissatisfaction with the nation's two political parties since Gallup first asked the question 10 years ago. Just 26% of respondents believe the Democratic and Republican parties adequately represent Americans.

Those polled that identified as Republicans and Democrats were equal in their view that a third party is needed, 52 percent and 49 percent respectively.

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gallup-60-of-americans-say-third-party-is-needed

[PeteSelman]

1. We do need a labor party.

Since no one represents labor anymore.

[JHB]

9. I think one of the ones we have used to do that...

...but it's been a long time.

I'd much prefer it, though, if the Very Serious People at the higher reaches of the party would get off the neoliberal-economics sauce long enough to remember that being pro-working people is "pro-business" in the real sense.

[Cal33]

31. Very well put.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

52. Was thinking the same thing.

[jimbot]

2. would be nice, if...

Add ranked voting to this and I'm for it. Without it, you end up making the tea-party block with a solid 30-35% the largest party (see Maine's last gubernatorial election).
--JT

[Gore1FL]

3. I'd be in the 40%

Unlike multi-party governments, we build our coalitions before the elections.

Besides, the natural fallout of the electoral college rules is to have 2 candidates (or have strange 1824-like results.)

[jwirr]

17. I have watched 3rd parties screw up the works ever since I voted for JFK. All too often they tip the

scales for the worst of the three and IMO that is how we got where we are today. We could use a party to replace the GOP and then a move by the Dems back to the FDR system of government. That would be what I want to see.

[Gore1FL]

19. I'm on board with that!

It's been tough being GOP-light for the past 20-30 years.

[Wait Wut]

39. I'm right there with ya.

The people in that 60% believe that all of the others in the 60% think like they do. The lefties think it would be a strong progressive party, the righties think teapers, the independents think moderate (or whatever it is that they think).

That would be a fun convention. We could sell tickets to watch the fights.

The third party dream is just a dream. I'm a registered Democrat. I don't have to vote for a Democrat if I don't want to. Yes, I vote straight party ticket, but that's my choice. Tossing in another option wouldn't sway my vote. Anyone that thinks a third party would force Dems further left is living in a fantasy world. They're following the same line of thinking as the teapers. "A third party would force Republicans to be more Conservative".

No, it won't. It will just split the vote giving the other side a better chance of winning. I believe we have some recent history that proves that point.

[DissidentVoice]

56. Which is one reason upon many the Electoral College must be JUNKED!

The EC is only there as a relic of aristocracy...the Founders didn't trust "the rabble" to elect the President, so they "entrusted" it to "our betters."

[Pab Sungenis]

4. I think we could use a third party

so we would have a place to shove all these Blue Dogs and take our OWN party BACK.

[Skeeter Barnes]

5. We need a working class party. Democrats have moved too far to the right.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. The idiots in the Beltway will NEVER accept the idea it's a more Liberal choice we want.

[srican69]

7. I think we need 4 parties for congress.. Left, Center-Left, Center-right, Right. Nt

[on point]

20. I think you are right!

[srican69]

25. You know what will happen if that were to come about ..

businesses will pour money into the middle two ... and outer two will eventually die and we will end up where we are now.

[Ash_F]

8. The Republicans should split up first.

[JoePhilly]

14. YUP.

[marmar]

10. Yep. We need a couple of more parties.

[coldmountain]

12. Yeah, look at Canada and Germany where the left have majorities and the conservatives have power

What we need is a better educated and informed electorate

[marmar]

13. Yes. So they can keep voting for two corporate parties.

[coldmountain]

33. Or we can have 2 corporate parties with 2 other parties corrupted by corporations

We either have work something out with corporations or have a shooting war

[socialist_n_TN]

66. Yes, you are correct.......

And the corporations are like the Republicans, the "compromise" is we do it MY way.

[SHRED]

11. Repubs need to branch off I agree

[Wait Wut]

40. This I can agree with.

[frazzled]

15. As one can see from the responses here

Everybody wants a third party--but each person wants a different one.

What scares me is that the Paulites will capitalize on the dissatisfaction of both sides and we'll get the Super Crazy-Ass Libertarian Party. Call it SCALP.

[dotymed]

16. Bernie Sanders it is YOUR TIME.

Democratic Socialism ala Bernie, would be great.
A Labor party is needed also.

First, money must be removed from politics. Publicly financed elections and no more lobbyists...

Currently we have many politicians becoming wealthy through "public service", obviously their public is the 1%.

[DissidentVoice]

57. Full marks to that!

Bernie Sanders is one of the few pollies who hasn't been tainted by "Third Way" propaganda.

I fully believe in social democratic principles (Scandinavian-style), but unfortunately the far right has done such a good job equating any kind of socialism with Stalinism that people are scared of the word. I'm not, but a lot of Americans are.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. What type of Third Party are we talking about? Because if it is a Libertarian Party....

....no thanks.

That's the thing about "third party".....Everyone says they want a third party, but no one can agree on what it is. Conservatives might want a party more conservative than the Republican Party, Liberals might want a party more liberal than the Democratic Party, and moderates might want some sort of mishmash Third Party that they can identify with. But good luck on getting any traction on any substantial third party because I doubt they'll be any consensus on the platform.

[ffr]

26. You're right. It's a lesson in history.

The Liberterian party is the 3rd party, just as IAP is a 3rd identifying party. Oh yeah, like you said, we've been down this road. It doesn't work. And yet, polling shows yet again, the respondents haven't learned anything from the past.

[TBF]

21. Americans can try that - but they are still propping up the Capitalism

Until that goes we will continue to have the same problem. Wealthy people hoarding their $$$ because they are rewarded for doing so. As long as that is the set-up we will continue to have problems. Change the system and we might see a change in behavior.

[socialist_n_TN]

67. Very true, BUT.........

If the left put up a credible Progressive Worker's Party, even if it's bourgeois in nature to start with, at least you would have something to try and radicalize and turn into an anti-capitalist party and eventually a revolutionary party.

[TBF]

79. Yes, I'm impatient :)

And in this country that is probably the way to go. The communists after all did make great strides in the 1920s-30s in this country with a lot of union support. It was the threat of socialism/communism that led to the new deal - Roosevelt knew he had to do something or the whole thing would collapse.

Where are William Foster and Eugene Debs when you need them ...

[socialist_n_TN]

81. Add in James Cannon too......

Unfortunately, WE are the ones that have to try and fill those ENORMAS shoes.

[TBF]

82. Definitely - James P. Cannon

For the folks perusing the thread who are not familiar with Cannon:

Cannon was an important factional leader in the American communist movement of the 1920s, sitting on the governing Central Executive Committee of the party in alliance with William Z. Foster, a Chicago-based group which looked to native-born American workers in the unions. Later in the decade, Cannon broke to an extent with Foster, heading up instead the party's legal defense arm, International Labor Defense (ILD). This organization served as a power base for Cannon and his associates.

Cannon was the Workers (Communist) Party's candidate for Congress in the New York 20th District in 1928.

More here about Cannon -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Cannon

[CapnSteve]

22. Third Party = GOP or Dems get a lock...

Examples:

1) Green Party siphons off just enough votes to put Florida close enough for the GOP, Bush steals the election.

2) "Perot Party" - Perot voters, upset that their candidate was not picked, stay home. This siphons off enough votes to tilt the election to Clinton over Dole.

Libertarians and Tea Party form their own more radical right party, means Dems always will win. I am all for that.

No Green Party. No Labor Party. The Dems tent is plenty big enough, and we need to be united to win.

[Myrina]

28. Welcome to DU - stick around awhile ....

..... and you'll notice that the Dem Tent is actually getting smaller.

Those of us who dare think for ourselves or disagree with the lockstep-adoration of the Administration get castigated right quick.

[7962]

49. Clinton over Bush; Perot ran in '92 and got 18%

[CapnSteve]

51. Senior moment! Of course, you are right. Perot siphoned off votes directly as a third party candidat

[geek tragedy]

23. Of course, the problem is that people mean three different things by a third party

1) something more conservative
2) something more liberal
3) something more centrist/less polarized/more diverse

[Kablooie]

24. We need a Batman party for the boys and a Little Mermaid party for the girls.

And we can hire the Tea Party as clowns too entertain everyone.

[Myrina]

27. Sad thing is, the we HAVE these "other" parties ...

... they just don't get mainstream media coverage, invited to debates or any acknowledgement that they exist & what they stand for unless they have crazy people or worn out celebrities (Gary Coleman, Roseann Barr, Grandpa Munster) at their forefront.

[coldmountain]

34. Very true we have many parties already, we already have Greens and Libertarians for example

Then we also have the "no labels" BS sort of non party party

[Myrina]

38. CSPAN used to do a decent job of covering their debates ...

.... back when CSPAN was really what it said it was.

In 1996 there were 2 debates with 5 'other' parties/candidates:

Labor
Socialist
Natural Law
Green
and one other person who's name I don't recall - I keep thinking Ralph Reed but that's not it. Similar fundie nutbag.

Actual policy stances and visions were discussed, not the BS talking points that get tossed back and forth in the "Big 2" debates.

It was quite interesting, actually!

[appacom]

29. How quickly we forget how untrustworthy Gallup etc. are. Romney wins, remember? Sick of

the polls and the asshole commentators on tv who twist them any way they will to undermine the president and this administration. There's not going to be a third major party. We need to focus on fixing the ones we've got, and that means getting the vote out

[Lasher]

30. I'm hoping Teabaggers will split off from the GOP

These are essentially the same people who backed Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, and for George Wallace in 1968.

[L0oniX]

32. We need a Bernie party! ...but wouldn't that just be a real Democrat?

[bvar22]

35. I'd settle for a 2nd Party.

Old joke since the Centrist Clinton Administration,
though it has been pretty easy to tell the difference the last couple of weeks.




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[taught_me_patience]

36. Winner take all elections insure two parties

because a vote for a third party is a vote for the opposition. America is the greatest democracy is the world!

[Answerman]

37. We're stuck with an 18th century electoral system.

As long as a candidate can win with a plurality we'll have two parties. The Europeans worked this out long ago. We need a system that assures that the winner gets a majority. (run-off,ranked voting etc.)

[haele]

41. A third party that not enough people will vote for that would change the stalemate.

This sort of talk has been going on since I remember and prior that time, my folks remember talk of a third party. It takes a major implosion of one party to create a viable third - that usually ends up taking the place of the party that imploded.

If we want a viable third party that can be elected in numbers alongside the preeminent two parties, we need to get the money out of elections all-together.

Otherwise, there's just too much more money to be made by people with money to begin with in keeping the status quo with two National parties in constant conflict.

Because with only two parties in charge; with only two parties negotiating and legislating, Government gets pushed down to the level where it's only a game where personal responsibility can be can be dumbed down - sluffed off to the level of a Friday-night Football game. It becomes a Manichean duality concerning "whose on top" rather than a truly representative governance organization.


Haele

[Drunken Irishman]

46. Everyone says they want a 3rd party...

Not everyone can agree on what they want that third party to look like.

How many here would support a centrist third party? I'm guessing maybe a handful of posters. They'd say, "THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS ALREADY THE CENTRIST PARTY!"

Okay - then you move the party to the left and automatically alienate a good number portion of the population. You move it to the right and the same thing happens.

What people here need to realize is that if there will be the rise of a third party, there are two scenarios:

1. The tea-party splinters off from the Republicans and form their own party, which is far more extreme than even the Republicans today.

2. The Republicans go off the cliff and a more moderate, right-of-center party, which may resemble the Republican Party prior to the 1980s, replaces it - leaving the GOP in the hands of loons.

Neither would be a progressive third party or a party anyone on DU would support.

That's the tricky thing with these third party talks - what kind of third party do voters want? Green or Libertarian? Something in the middle?

[DallasNE]

42. The Problem Is The Money In Politics

You get what you pay for so a 3rd party would solve nothing without the reform that would render them unnecessary. Either you embrace corruption or you want Citizens United reversed.

[pam4water]

43. I think the tea baggers are only 15% of the population. So that would be 45% of sane people for

a new party. Still a good percentage. What we should do is commit all the currently elected Republicans to an insane asylum. Split the democratic party into the Corporate Democrats and the Liberal Democrats. We'd have two accurately named parties and we could just forget the Republicans ever existed!

[Drunken Irishman]

44. And how many of those 60% would agree with just 'one' third party?

I'm guessing many of those 60% are in complete opposition to what many on here believe - as in, they oppose a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, welfare and I'm guessing this number encompasses the tea party.

Third parties aren't getting anywhere because they're fringe parties that automatically alienate over half the population with their views.

They're either too conservative or too liberal. And they can't be too moderate or the fringes will abandon the idea.

So, while a strong majority want a third party - what third party do they want? Greens or Libertarians? Something in the middle?

I doubt they could even agree on that one.

[Comrade Grumpy]

45. After watching DC politics for too long, I'm ready for the Natural Surrealist Party.

[Turbineguy]

47. Good idea!

Maybe we can start a party to help the republicans like in 2000.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Ah, Teabagers and Purity Liberals?

Unrealistic, can't be done.

Remember that anti-slavery party that tried to form in the mid-1800s? I think the guy's name was Linker who headed the ticket, Abraham Linker or something like that. I remember that name because I'm very smart about politics. Anyway, Abe and his party are now on the scrapheap of history.

Take note, Moonbats: that's your fate.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[athenasatanjesus]

50. As long as one party can be wrong on virtually every issue..

..and still be considered a valid political party,then it doesn't matter how many parties we have the system won't work.

[MADem]

53. Good ole Gallup! Reliably Republican, as always!

Let's ignore the fact that most people are quite specifically pissed at the GOP, and pretend that everyone is equally annoyed at both parties....

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. Didn't we try this already? Remember Jill Stein, Roseanne, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson?

All failed miserably, and nothing in this poll can change that. This is momentary venting, nothing more. Ralph Nader screwed it up for third parties, especially on the left. When real progressives are confronted with the threat of another rightwing teahadist type, they'll think twice about throwing away their vote. Bank on it!

[DissidentVoice]

58. I don't get the idea of "throwing away" a vote.

I voted for Obama both times, but last time I came very close to voting for Jill Stein.

My vote is mine.

It is an expression of my belief.

If I want to vote for Bugs Bunny or Darth Vader it is still MY VOTE, and NONE of my votes have ever been "thrown away."

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. And you have that right. But like you, many people flirted with the notion of Jill Stein & Roseanne

but in the end, they made the sensible choice. Ideological purity is great and all, but if you think we're deadlocked now, you wait until we elect some clown who has no built in alliances with either party in Congress. That should be loads of fun. I know some of you guys think you see an opening when times are bad, but it hasn't translated in to electoral success, and never will. But hey, keep plugging away.

[DissidentVoice]

63. I wouldn't have thought of that if Democrats were still being DEMOCRATS.

And I don't mean Third Way/DLC "Democrats."

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. FDR is dead! The Democratic Party has evolved to include people from across the political....

landscape. You and others like you, will either learn to deal with that, or get over it. Whatever!

[DissidentVoice]

65. In other words...

...you're an apologist for the DLC/Third Way?

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. Call it what you want, but I don't support a teahadi style group on the left, who care more....

about their personal ideology than the country as a whole. Fuck that! One need look no further than the Occupy movement to see the ragtag, disorganized style of the purists to know that they would be just as disfunctional at governing as they are at organizing. So, if that makes me DLC/Third Way, then sobeit.

No more Tea Party style takeovers. No Thanks.

[DissidentVoice]

83. To each their own, but...

The Tea Party and what the Democratic Party USED to be are not related. The Tea Party is more hyperconservative, Ayn Randist than even Ronald Reagan was.

I care about the country as a whole, and if I wanted to vote for a moderate Republican, I'd vote for a moderate Republican.

[DissidentVoice]

55. Yes. Let's call it the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

What passes as today's Democratic Party with all it's Third Way/DLC/GOP Lite/Me-Too/The Will Isn't There For ________ bullshit bears no resemblance to the Democratic Party that got my grandfather back to work through the WPA, after running bathtub gin to feed his family.

[stillcool]

59. campaign finance laws

put the kibosh on that..along with the media. Money can't buy you face time anymore. Now you need an entire global imdustry behind you.

[markpkessinger]

61. The problem with this is . . .

. . . that while 60% may indeed agree a third party is needed, there is very little agreement on any particular set of political principles any such third party should espouse.

[DJ13]

62. Good idea in principle

But we would end up with a Turd Way kind of third party, progressing nowhere.

[markpkessinger]

69. I'm not so sure a third party that merely splits the difference between . . .

. . . a center-right Democratic Party and a far-right extremist GOP would really do all that much good.

[LiberalElite]

70. We need a third fourth and fifth party -

What if the "third" party is more right wingers? Where does that leave the rest of us?

[Kennah]

77. CORRECT! Democratic Party has already moved right. If a Third is between the D's and R's ...

[Sunlei]

71. sure republicans can split up themselves to the 'Tea Party'. They already have a name and a logo.

[1000words]

72. We need a parliamentary system

We are witnessing the inevitable result of a two-party system

[Liberalynn]

73. +1

[JVS]

75. Long ago I remember reading something that said that even parliamentary systems tend to either...

devolve into 2 parties or that they become too fragmented to be governed.

[DissidentVoice]

84. I live within walking distance of Canada

Of course, they have a Westminster parliamentary system.

A friend of mine over there says he prefers it when one party doesn't have a majority (as Stephen Harper's Tories now have), because he said "that way they have to work with others if they expect to get anything done."

And, of course, they have the option of a vote of no confidence, which we do not.

We have the phenomenon of the head of state and government being one person...they do not. If a Prime Minister refuses to dissolve Parliament and call a new election, the Governor-General (acting in the name of the Queen) can do so. It's very rare; the last time I know of it happening was in Australia in 1975. However, that "nuclear option" is there if need be.

[7wo7rees]

74. Mom always said I had a special pupose

[rhett o rick]

76. We dont need a third party. We just need to kick the conservatives out of the Democratic Party. nm

[Warpy]

78. Wall street Democrats want "the left" to form a new party

and Wall Street Republicans want the teabaggers to do so. Of the two, the latter is much more likely, although the Republicans will be loath to lose the votes.

Most likely of all is a dance of death, the Republicans and Teabaggers clinging to each other while they claw each other to shreds.

[CBHagman]

80. And yet incumbents, in all but relatively few cases, are safe.

On Facebook I'm seeing variants galore of "Throw 'em all out!" but have to wonder what percentage of FB posters cast a ballot for the incumbent and perhaps might even approve of him/her while disparaging all other lawmakers. What people say and what they do are two different things.

[JVS]

86. This is not completely the fault of people saying one thing and doing another.

Remember that the presidency is the only office in our country decided by a national election, and even then it is mitigated by the electoral college.

The senate is selected by state elections, but fills offices that function on a national level.
The house is decided by district wide elections, and also fills offices that function on a national level.

So people can say "throw em all out" as much as they want. There are only 4 positions they ever get to make a decision about, and only 1 (or 2 if you want to count VP) that requires nation-wide approval.

[GreenPartyVoter]

85. Obviously I'm down with that, but we need to adjust our Plurality voting

system to accommodate the change.