Count Me Among Them

[beretta304]

Poll: 46 percent of Americans want a third party
Political observers have long debated: Should American politics have a third major political party? A recent Gallup poll shows that 46 percent of Americans today believe the answer is yes.

However, this is down from the percentage of people who believed we needed a third party candidate in September 2011, a solid 55 percent.

The number of people who believe that the two existing major parties — the Republicans and Democrats — are doing an adequate job of representing the American people was at 45 percent this month, rising from 38 percent during the same time last year.

“Americans generally tend to support the idea that a third major party is needed on the American political scene, although such support today, at 46%, is lower than it has been over the past two years, perhaps because the poll was conducted in a presidential election year, shortly after the Republican and Democratic conventions,” Gallup notes.

Independents are the most likely to support a major third party, with 58 percent this month saying America needed one, the second lowest proportion recorded since 2003.

“As would be expected, Americans who have the weakest ties to either of the two major parties — independents — are consistently more likely to favor having a third party,” according to Gallup.

Among Democrats and Republicans support for a third party is lower, at 40 percent and 36 percent respectively.

However, no third party candidate received a significant amount of support in the poll. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode each got only one percent support. President Barack Obama took 50 percent to Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s 43 percent.

“Despite Americans’ attitudes, no third-party candidate who garners a significant level of support has emerged,” notes Gallup. “The vast majority of votes in this year’s Nov. 6 presidential election, it follows, are likely to be cast for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.”



Read more: Poll: 46 percent of Americans want a third party | The Daily Caller

 

[uscitizen]

I on the other hand think that ALL political partys should be banned.

 

[JoeB131]

NOt going to happen as long as we have the mechanism of the 12th Amendment throwing any split decision into the House for resolution.

Let's say we had a moderate between Romney and Obama, and let's say he won about a third of the electoral college and the popular vote. No one gets 270.

The election would then be throw into the House of Representatives where each state delegation gets one vote, depending if they are dominated by GOP or Dems.

That's why third parties pop up, stay for one or two election cycles, and vanish.

 

[martybegan]

Poll: 46 percent of Americans want a third party
Political observers have long debated: Should American politics have a third major political party? A recent Gallup poll shows that 46 percent of Americans today believe the answer is yes.

However, this is down from the percentage of people who believed we needed a third party candidate in September 2011, a solid 55 percent.

The number of people who believe that the two existing major parties — the Republicans and Democrats — are doing an adequate job of representing the American people was at 45 percent this month, rising from 38 percent during the same time last year.

“Americans generally tend to support the idea that a third major party is needed on the American political scene, although such support today, at 46%, is lower than it has been over the past two years, perhaps because the poll was conducted in a presidential election year, shortly after the Republican and Democratic conventions,” Gallup notes.

Independents are the most likely to support a major third party, with 58 percent this month saying America needed one, the second lowest proportion recorded since 2003.

“As would be expected, Americans who have the weakest ties to either of the two major parties — independents — are consistently more likely to favor having a third party,” according to Gallup.

Among Democrats and Republicans support for a third party is lower, at 40 percent and 36 percent respectively.

However, no third party candidate received a significant amount of support in the poll. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode each got only one percent support. President Barack Obama took 50 percent to Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s 43 percent.

“Despite Americans’ attitudes, no third-party candidate who garners a significant level of support has emerged,” notes Gallup. “The vast majority of votes in this year’s Nov. 6 presidential election, it follows, are likely to be cast for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.”



Read more: Poll: 46 percent of Americans want a third party | The Daily Caller

The problem is that there is no clear 3rd party that can garner enough support to challenge one of the existing parties. Whenever a 3rd party manages to get enough support, it only usually results in one of the parties being split, and a person winning the presidency with a plurarity, and not a majority.

Look at what happned in the past. The 1860 election actually had 4 parties running, republican, Southern Democrat, Northern Democrat and Consitutional Union. The 3 parties supporting the status quo had a sizable population majority, but because of the fracturing Lincoln won the electoral college.

In the 1912 election, the Bull Moose Party of Roosevelt actually managed to beat out the republican party (Taft) in the election, but again The split led to Wilson winning with 41% of the vote, but an overwhelming electoral majority.

Finally you have the 1992 election, where Ross Perot greatly aided Clinton's sucessful attempt at unseating Bush I.

For a 3rd party to have true sucesss, It would have to "eat" one of the other parties, thus going back to a 2 party system.

 

[ba1614]

As long as they are more Conservative than what passes for a Conservative today.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If Romney loses as badly as did Goldwater in 1964 I would expect the Republican Party to fracture into several smaller parties. Thinking in terms of personalities the Ron Paul Libertarian Party, the Michael Bloomberg Business Party, the Jim DeMint Christian-Republican Party and the Dick Cheney Neoconservative party.

 

[Seawytch]

Citizens United made a 3rd party all but impossible.

 

[JoeB131]

If Romney loses as badly as did Goldwater in 1964 I would expect the Republican Party to fracture into several smaller parties. Thinking in terms of personalities the Ron Paul Libertarian Party, the Michael Bloomberg Business Party, the Jim DeMint Christian-Republican Party and the Dick Cheney Neoconservative party.

I disagree.

I still think this is going to relatively close as an election, but let's say Romney completely collapses, he'll still take most of the states that McCain did. Maybe he'll lose Arizona and Missouri, but not much beyond that.

I suspect there will be recriminations in teh GOP as to why he lost, the TEA Party will blame the Establishmetn and the Establishment will blame the Christian Right. But at the end of the day, most of the blame will go onto Romney for being a bad candidate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If Romney loses as badly as did Goldwater in 1964 I would expect the Republican Party to fracture into several smaller parties. Thinking in terms of personalities the Ron Paul Libertarian Party, the Michael Bloomberg Business Party, the Jim DeMint Christian-Republican Party and the Dick Cheney Neoconservative party.

I disagree.

I still think this is going to relatively close as an election, but let's say Romney completely collapses, he'll still take most of the states that McCain did. Maybe he'll lose Arizona and Missouri, but not much beyond that.

I suspect there will be recriminations in teh GOP as to why he lost, the TEA Party will blame the Establishmetn and the Establishment will blame the Christian Right. But at the end of the day, most of the blame will go onto Romney for being a bad candidate.

[I don't see Romney winning the popular vote even if he were to win the general election]

In 1964 Johnson won 61% of the vote, Goldwater 38.5%; Romney might take all the states as did McCain but the popular vote will be telling. Telling in the respect of how fractured the GOP has become.

In terms of the GOP remaining as one party, I believe that depends on who takes the tourch. A charasmatic leader might be able to bring the factions together but how could such a figure govern?

 

[Liberal]

Man, it would be interesting to see additional "relevant" parties come into being.

With so many years of the same 2 parties being deeply rooted in politics it seems like it really would take a long time for a third (or any other) to really take a good footing.

Additional relevant and viable parties would make elections so much more interesting, IMHO.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'd freakin' love to see a third party, but I'm afraid Joe is right.

Therefore, I want to put serious limits on these narcissistic, paid-off thugs:

1. Strict term limits
2. Publicly-funded elections
3. Balanced Budget Amendment

If we can't make 'em honest, at least we can try to make them accountable.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

As long as they are more Conservative than what passes for a Conservative today.

Who the hell are you to state what the makeup of the third party should be?

 

[Wry Catcher]

.

I'd freakin' love to see a third party, but I'm afraid Joe is right.

Therefore, I want to put serious limits on these narcissistic, paid-off thugs:

1. Strict term limits
2. Publicly-funded elections
3. Balanced Budget Amendment

If we can't make 'em honest, at least we can try to make them accountable.

.

I don't think term limits makes for accountability, and having worked with budgets I know that a budget is a plan and plans generally need to be revised based on unplanned events.

I like the idea of publicly funded elections, but how? That the electoral process has become corrupt is obvious, sadly corruption has become acceptable. We have no idea who has given how much to influence our elections and that should scare all of us. That it doesn't is to me unfathomable.

 

[Seawytch]

.

I'd freakin' love to see a third party, but I'm afraid Joe is right.

Therefore, I want to put serious limits on these narcissistic, paid-off thugs:

1. Strict term limits
2. Publicly-funded elections
3. Balanced Budget Amendment

If we can't make 'em honest, at least we can try to make them accountable.

.

I'm totally onboard with Publicly funded elections...or at least limits on donations with 100% transparency. I'm not convinced about balanced budget amendments and strict term limits though. I like having someone in office with experience and I fear what happens to emergency funding with a balanced budget amendment.

 

[hjmick]

And yet better than 75% of that 46% will probably still vote for one of the two major parties because they want to vote for the "winner," or because a third party candidate isn't "viable."

The only way that 46% will get the third party they want is to vote for that third party candidate...

 

[Seawytch]

I on the other hand think that ALL political partys should be banned.

CA is trying it. Open primaries. Can't wait for the day the "top two" vote getters going into the General are from the same party.

 

[Katzndogz]

If 46% of the public wanted a third party, we would have one by now.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet better than 75% of that 46% will probably still vote for one of the two major parties because they want to vote for the "winner," or because a third party candidate isn't "viable."

The only way that 46% will get the third party they want is to vote for that third party candidate...

The marketing isn't good enough.

 

[ba1614]

As long as they are more Conservative than what passes for a Conservative today.

Who the hell are you to state what the makeup of the third party should be?

The one who would vote for such a party.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If Romney loses as badly as did Goldwater in 1964 I would expect the Republican Party to fracture into several smaller parties. Thinking in terms of personalities the Ron Paul Libertarian Party, the Michael Bloomberg Business Party, the Jim DeMint Christian-Republican Party and the Dick Cheney Neoconservative party.

I could see this happening. A Romney loss is going to strengthen the hands of both the Religious Right and the Tea Party (and to some extent the Ron Paul wing). They can claim that Romney lost because he wasn't "one of them". You'd have a Republican internal split at that point that would be very tough to resolve as there wouldn't be an obvious choice of leader to unite the groups.

On the other side, if Obama loses I forsee a fairly united party under Clinton leadership emerging.

Citizens United made a 3rd party all but impossible.

This is probably closer to the truth. To get a real and true third party going you'll need massive financial backing after Citizen's United, and right now the two parties have the large donor base pretty much sewn up.

I suspect Romney will lose (though it is still not certain he will). If he does I really do hope it leads to the foundation of a new third party. The GOP is fairly disfunctional right now and I'd like to see something emerge from the wreckage I could work with.