Tweet
Overall, 52 percent of Americans would like to add a third major political party, while only 40 percent feel Democrats and Republicans do an adequate job representing the American people, according to the latest Gallup poll. The interesting finding of this poll is that it found across the political spectrum, liberals, moderates and conservatives, all equally felt the need for more than the two parties.
Clearly, the reason we have only two viable political parties while Denmark has half-a-dozen isn’t because Americans don’t think they need more options. Support for more political parties had been very strong for years (PDF).
This issue is that our electoral system, unlike the Danes’, is designed to prevent there from being more than two major parties. Having important elections where there is only one winner, President and Governors, and using first-past-the-post voting creates a dynamic that tends to deny us more political choices. Any left- or right-leaning third parties would tend to split the vote on one side of the ideological spectrum. throwing the election to the sole party on the other side, like what we saw with the Conservatives winning the recent Canadian federal election. This creates an instability likely to collapse back into just two parties.
It doesn’t need to be this way, though. We could adopt other voting systems, like proportional representation and, to a lesser degree, instant runoff voting, which allow there to be more than just two political parties, and where you can freely vote your convictions without giving power to the party you least agree with.
Of course, to change our federal election system to allow for more viable parties would require action to be taken by the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. And given how much Americans would love to vote for another party, what is best for Democrats and Republicans is to keep the system as it is, where all they need to do to win is be just slightly less terrible than the other party.
52 Comments
Why does 2011 (slightly into week 2 of May) get equal space/time in the ‘graph’ with the 12-month spaces?
NPA. New Progressive Alliance
Election rules are done by states. So couldn’t California or whoever pass a ballot initiative Instant Runoff voting for federal elections? It would basically increase turnout among Greens or disaffected Dems (possibly Libertarians too).
I think the electoral results will be the same, but the parameters of debate would move to the left, just because the news outlets would be forced to cover a new party winning such a high percentage of the vote.
We don’t have a two party system godamnit. We have a Fascist Police State owned and operated for the exclusive benefit of “moneyed interests”. It would be really really nice if the Fascist D’s and R’s would kindly give us back our country. But they won’t.
There is something voters could do to change things if they were not so fucking stupid. If they would stop voting for D’s and R’s there would not be any fucking Fascist D’s and R’s.
1) Always vote
2) NEVER vote for ANY Democrat or Republican.
If you continue to vote for D’s and/or R’s then YOU are a Fascist and a traitor. It’s time to decide which side you are on.
Political choices in the U.S. are like the color options on the Model T:
You can have any party you like as long as it supports the oligarchy.
As a Canadian whose govt has just been hijacked by the Conservative minority, I cannot stress enough the importance of a proportional voting system if you have more than two parties. This YouTube clarified the process for me. I esp like the possibility of ranking all candidates, not just indicate one, as us sometimes done in “instant runoff” methods. I would even recommend going for a proportional system *before* going multi-party.
BTW, here our candidate nominations are handled within the party at the local level, we don’t have public primaries as you do. Some candidates are elected by party members in the riding, sometimes appointed by an elected riding committee, or a favoured provincial/national candidate can be even be ‘parachuted in’ to a safe riding where the incumbent retires — less ‘democratic’, maybe, but doesn’t need any Govt participation (ie, primary election apparatus) to field a candidate. The process is simpler, *way* cheaper and more local, therefore, arguably more accessible to ‘grassroots’ entry level, which may work out to more democratic in the long run.
On edit: This makes it very easy for a new party to field candidates without having to be officially recognized, which usu means to meet some threshold. We even find that the existence of the Green Party means that we have a ‘shadow cabinet’ of committeed Greens who are watching what the various ministers do and are analyzing and issuing press releases. This means that I have expert eyes and ears in Parliament who will be watching the Conservatives like hawks. I can go to them to keep updated rather than depend on the Conservative-spun press releases!
Jon, everything that could improve the “situation”, must first go through Congress …
Nothing good, really good, of actual value to “the people” can possibly GET through Congress … because … that would mean “change”, something different from or than the status quo …
Frankly, ANY changes would cut into Congressional well-being, upset apple carts, and annoy the wealthy.
You see the dilemma in which poor, dear Congress finds itself, I’m certain, Jon, and, by extension, you must perceive our absolute necessity and basic resposibility of not putting Congress in such a stressful or anxious position?
What are ya?
Selfish?
Two parties aren’t enough?
Consider those poor unfortunates who have only one party … um, wait, no, don’t do that … let’s just consider how lucky we are. After all, we could have a king who had the right to kill anyone, anytime and anywhere, right?
We ELECTED the person, the guy or gal, who can do that.
What more could we possibly want?
What do ya think, ain’t we the greatest, the most-powerful, and the most wealthy nation that ever there was?
No exceptions!
And, we got the best Congress imaginable.
We may be going in circles, but we ALWAYS go the right way …
DW
Just one comment on instant runoff voting. While it may superficially sound like a vast improvement over plurality voting, there is a major implementation issue that makes it impractical.
IRV results are not “summable”. This is a bit hard to explain, so I refer you to
http://minguo.info/election_methods/evaluation/sc_summability_criterion
for an explanation.
IRV also fails other mathematical criteria of a good election system.
Fortunately, a much better alternative is available, which is approval voting.
In approval voting, every voter marks all the candidates they approve of, and the candidate with the largest number of approvals wins.
http://minguo.info/election_methods/approval_voting/why_it_should_be_approved_now
to ignore they are two parties is silly. Even if you don’t think they are both two parties of the rich looking out for the rich they are still two different parties.
We need a third party so we can have another group to b!tch about. Just ask Joe Lieberman.
I’m not a fan of approval voting and I suspect it would not stand up to constitutional change as a violation of one man one vote.
I voted for Rick Kriseman for the FL House and Charlie Justice for the FL Senate. Both are progressive Democrats and have done their best in a legislature controlled by the Regressives. I also worked and voted for Samm Simpson for Congress in 04 and 06. That DOES NOT make me a fascist and/or a traitor. To broadly paint people with those words when you don’t know them or who represents them is both arrogant and ignorant.
First things first.
Paper ballots.
We have to get the basic democracy thang down before more complex issues.
Look at mess happening this time in Wisconin. The election so corrupt the GOP doesn’t even bother to hide it half the time now.
Paper. Frakkin. Ballots. We’re not a democracy until we insist on them.
IRV would probably require computer voting system to pull off. That’s just a bad idea.
We’re centuries away from the general population understanding enough about computers and programming to pull off any computer voting concept. Any attempt would be corrupted.
All exactly correct. And here is the thing – the disconnect. The HUGE blindspot of almost all of the so called “liberal” netroots organizations and communities and the leadership of those communities: We are never – NOT EVER – going to be able to affect those needed electoral system changes by participating in the electoral system as it is now! For the very reason you just gave. The establishment corporatist duopoly is never going to voluntarily implement changes that have even the slightest potential of marginalizing them going forward. It will not happen.
Thus voting – viewing participation in the electoral process as an avenue for change right now – is simply a waste of time. Worse, the focus that gets put on participation in the electoral process by communities like FDL has an opportunity cost. The leadership of these netroots communities – our info gatekeepers – are focusing everyone’s attention on the wrong things and thus any true hope for change is foreclosed.
Voting for Democrats is not an answer. Voting for Republicans is not an answer. And, guess what? Attempting to establish and then voting for 3rd party candidates is not the answer. They system is GAMED and participation in the electoral process should be an AFTERTHOUGHT until certain changes to that system are implemented. Voting should not be seen as a primary or even secondary avenue for bringing about change. Sites like FDL should be basically ignoring the electoral process altogether and spending their time and this space attempting to organize the only “strategy” that has any hope at all of bringing about change.
Namely discussing what system changes are needed and then organizing direct action and civil disobedience campaigns for the expressed purpose of demanding those changes.
Until THAT is the focus, there will be no fundamental, lasting positive change in this country.
Three days remaining on the “Obama needs a primary challenger” bus ad campaign in D.C. We’re 85% funded and only need another $300 to close the deal and send this bus ad driving around D.C.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61669596@N07/5613417029/
Please help if you can.
No. Wrong.
More info on the NPA – which started here at FDL – is right here.
At least you know which side you are on. I wish you well in your misguided attempts to reform the Fascist Party. But you and I have parted company.
Or we could have a constitutional amendment banning political parties altogether. I don’t see any advantage to them. Candidates should stand on their own. They should not rely on a party for support nor should they be subject to coercion by party leadership. Political parties are not democratic at all and do not serve the regular folks well.
Oops! Forgot the link to the campaign.
http://www.epicstep.com/campaign/199/obama-needs-a-primary-challenger/
You’re making assumptions re reforming the Party. I’m not a Democrat, never have been. I’m a Wobbly. I’m glad I don’t pass your fuckin’ purity test, though.
Jon can we get some coverage of the CA-36 election? it’s a open primary with 16 people running to replace Jane Harman.
IRV has been used since 1918 in Australia without computers
Barack Obama actual political action taken put him on the political spectrum right about where Bob Dole was.
Bob Dole was the last Republican that wasn’t an utterly corrupt oil company lackey. Dole did a few good things for disabled people, and he cared about the well-being of everyday soldiers a lot.
Yes, there’s a difference between a Bob Dole school Republicans and Karl Rove school neo-cons. Bob Dole was a conservative Republican when Ford picked him as a running mate.
Now because we haven’t halted the onslaught of the corporate owned media, a Black Bob Dole is being called a communist.
Enough.
You know the legend of the “slippery slope”? We’re on it. Next stop is Franco in Spain model Fascism.
In the greater scheme of things I’m not sure that we can trust the other parties either (if they actually got into power, they could be bought too).
The key to this issue is simple. They ALL need to know that simply being the lesser evil is not good enough to get our votes.
You are right that we can’t trust any parties in the long run. Thus my comment about a constitutional amendment banning them.
The phrase “one man, one vote” expresses the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitution that “as nearly as practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.”
I believe that approval voting abides by that principle. It affords each voter the exact same voting power, by letting them approve or disapprove of each candidate. It’s one person, one vote- for each candidate.
I hate watching two fellow class warriors snipe at each other like this.
workingclass, I agree with you in principle, but Southern Dragon is on our side. And I loathe the south – that’s saying something.
comrades, comrades, we have bigger fish to fry here. Voting for a Democrat in a state election is not the end of the world. Federal, well, that’s pretty much indefensible to my mind. But state? Circumstance and personal judgment apply.
So, that would give us 6 parties? Or 9? (Liberal liberal, moderate liberal, conservative liberal, and so forth through three moderates and three conservatives.) Just admit that we are so divided that nothing short of a fifty-state secession would solve the problems (and I’ll stay in Washington ex-state, thank you…).
Changes wouldn’t go through Congress b/c as bayofarizona points out in #3 elections are run by the states.
Ralph Nader illustrated vividly in “Crashing The Party” how the states discriminate in various ways against third parties with laws passed by the R’s and D’s at the state level to limit any interference with the two party rule, which by its nature leads to two look-alike parties fighting for what they define as the center..
A competitive third political party is a pipe dream without proportional representation. If it were possible under our current system, then a third party would certainly be conservative. That’s because “progressive” voters are too stupid to withhold their votes from the Democrats who constantly take them for granted and betray them. These “progressives” treat every election as a matter of life or death and fume that any vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote.
Losers.
For those of us and who have been historically designated as “racial and ethnics” and given the anticipated wealth of voters in the coming years, it would be politically incorrect for any of us to support the entrance of a “third party” into the current toxic environment.
Why?
With the oncomin freight train that is our demographic trends, a “third party” would be marginalized, and thusly, our attention is now directed to the Tea Party. At some future point in time, “racial and ethnics” will “own” the Republican Party, and as in all things political “timing” is critical. Consequently, the Tea Party will divest itself of the Republican Party and file the appropriate paperwork to become a stand alone Political Party. And for those among us and who are somewhat unfamiliar with the Tea Party’s “Forty-Year Agenda”, the Republican Party is the current political animal that is both necessary and prudent.
Why the Necessary and Prudent?
First, the Tea Party was created to “distance” itself and as political operatives, from the Bush and Cheney Gross Incompetence. Secondly, as an eventual Stand Alone political party, the Republican Party has been lobotmized from within and therefore, will cease to exist in the coming years and all due to having to have a political platform to challenge the eventually majority of Americans, and that being the “racial and ethnics”.
Consider that the standard GOP’s “Bashing the Latinos” Program is tame by comparison to what the Tea Party has in store for the Brown People, and this is easily recognized from the mindset that incorporated in Arizona’s SB 1070. To wit, bureaucrats can “revoke” anyone’s citizenship, and thusly, citizenship becomes fungible and eligible for the “auction block”. Subsequently, the “racial and ethnics” become expendable.
Consequently, the “authoritarians” on the Far Left, make themselves available to “outed” as Charlatan Progressives and not to be confused with Progressive Charlatans.
Jaango
It’s really a stretch to say we have two political parties. Most special interests (the true owners of the country) routinely give to both Republicans and Democrats in the same election year. They shift to giving more to one party or the other depending on the expectation of which will do better in the next election.
Voting is the opiate of the masses. Real influence must be purchased.
I would argue that these voter sentiments, especially among republican voters, is a once in a lifetime chance to get started on a bipartisan movement for reform of the electoral system; i.e. making it more permitting of third parties, and fourth parties, etc. A third party, if successful, can only ever aim to replace the republicans or the democrats. And then we still have a two party system. It’s happened before.
But two parties cannot accomodate all the interests out there in a way that is satisfying to voters. The republicans have an interest in seing this happen as well. Today a secular libertarian has to vote against gay marriage and womens choice, if he wants to have small government. A evangelical christian has to vote for the death penalty and adventures in the middle east with enormous human costs. In a system that accomodates many parties those that dream of bringing the confederacy back can have their own party and every one else can point and laugh at them.
If there ever was a time when the conservatives could get behind reform it’s now with their level of disillusion with the republican establishment. They’ve been in lockstep for many years…
Change must simply be demanded. Influence must be purchased in a system as corrupted as ours but it can be purchased without money. It can be purchased with pressure. We, the little people are never going to have the money to by the needed change. In fact it is an impossibility even if we did have the monetary resources since the changes we desire are intent on ultimately marginalizing the big-money influence. They wouldn’t take our money to marginalize themselves and their golden goose.
Perfectly said, Jon, and the exact reason carefully strategized and executed electoral mutiny is our best option under the current system. Though third-party and Independent candidacies for federal office have yet to bear fruit, that’s due in large part to two factors: (1) the major parties’ so-called “tradition” of tolerating primary challenges to incumbents ONLY if the losing challenger “throws their support” to the incumbent at convention time; and (2) the lack of a UNIFIED, concerted CAMPAIGN for electoral activism that is as or more organized as the major parties’ approach to elections. (I highly recommend the book “Campaigns and Elections American Style,” Thurber/Nelson). The combination of these two realities has co-opted Populist movements again and again, throughout our history.
You cite Denmark, and you’re right to do so. It’s no accident that countries with coalition governments and/or multiple strong parties evolve into social democracies. Their people recognize that there is more to EVERY issue than black OR white, this OR that, the game our electeds play to a fare-thee-well, election after election, here in the so-called “cradle of freedom.” Only when people start working together for the common good does it become impossible for politicians to play them for fools.
Australia is also intentionally homogeneous society. Very white homogeneous society. Very. White.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy
Where was this “White-only” stuff in the National Geographic Specials? They just went from kangaroos to koala, skipped right by white only immigration policies. Amazing how that worked, huh?
I agree tht the rules need changing, and that the 2 parties won’t let it happen, so what do we do?
Funny thing is – My ballot has more than 2 names for nearly every office, especially for president. I haven’t voted for a D or R, in a general election, since 92′. If so many people WANT to vote for other than D’s or R’s – THEN THAT’S WHAT THEY SHOULD DO! It isn’t rocket science. Just stop voting for the 2 parties and they’ll eventually get the message.
Still trying to sell everyone that “let’s all participate in the electoral process in order to change the electoral process (amongst other things)” bullshit huh?
I give up. Will you feel any remorse at all when nothing changes? When election cycle after election cycle goes by and you have focused peoples time and energy into this losing strategy? What’s your response going to be when people actually figure it out for themselves that you wasted their time?
Why is it so difficult to generate interest in discussing the merit of banning political parties and forcing politicians to stand on their own merit? What is so compelling about political parties? Why is the assumption of their existence unchallenged? I do not understand this…
We tell them to change them. Much like the Egyptian people did recently except we have a better plan ready and don’t stop until we see actual change.
I never thought I’d ever see anybody besides myself that thinks that. Good for you. Washington warned about the danger of political parties. They are little better than organized crime syndicates, in this case with two major families and five or six little crews that can’t quite make the big time. I think they all should be prosecuted under the RICO statutes.
Sorry, I’m more of a follower of Jefferson than Washington and it was Jefferson that took the Hamiltonian idea of a party of elites working behind the scenes to stop democracy and re-invented it as a grass-roots network of the People working for democracy.
I’m afraid if we get rid of parties we totally turn over our faux-democracy to the elites, who will still cooperate behind the scenes like the early Federalists did under Hamilton, but now they will be taking orders from Exxon, Goldman Sachs and Walmart.
I’m for Jeffersonian type politics that is true grassroots. We don’t have ANYTHING like that now in the major parties and haven’t really for a long time. But if we’re going to work to change the system I think instead of eliminating the parties and turning the electoral process over to the big money entirely, we should instead work to make the parties truly grass-roots.
Right now there is some kind of blockade of the grass-roots power at just about the state level, at least in my state. We grass-roots may caucus, strategize, door bell, meet up and hold county conventions, but the state level machine and the big money just ignore us and decide which candidates fit the bill and FUND them.
Getting rid of parties will just make that the entire process without any grass-roots at all.
What’s the solution? Local control. End primaries and have only caucuses so the grass-roots can shape a party instead of big money selling their minions to a populace that doesn’t think about politics until the primary and the TV ads tell them what to think.
This is something local parties can do without waiting for Congress to change how the system works. We just take back our parties.
Yeah, I know. The Dragon is a stand up guy. I think I have been hanging around this Lake long enough. I have lost all patience with the party and am no longer satisfied with criticizing the leadership. I’ll be moving on.
By the way outer. How did you come across your hatred of the south? Its a big place, yet you seem to hate all of it. I’m a Midwest Yankee (Iowa) myself but I have been in Louisiana for about 14 years now. There is a lot of poverty and white racism compared to my small town upbringing. But it’s no worse than what I have seen in Saint Louis or Chicago. Spicy food? Banjo music? Whats the deal?
Then be determined to withhold your vote until it is earned. It’s the only leverage you have without boatloads of cash for campaign contributions and lobbying.
Why do Republicans throw the religious conservatives a few bones every year? Because they are known to withdraw their support otherwise.
I might think you were my dad if he were still alive. He had no use for parties and could not understand why anybody did. I just don’t see any way to get rid of them. People are going to unite to advocate or oppose political values or specific political agendas. The only way to eliminate political parties is to have just one Party. Like Communist China. Or Fascist America.
Yes! That’s what I’m talkin about. The Libertarian Republicans have the exact same arguments about lessorevilism and third parties that the Progressive Democrats have. But they just keep on voting R and D respectively. And the Fascists just keep on extending their reach and tightening their grip.
That is great! We are of similar mind. I have a whole rant on the whole *current* government being a protection racket. This is not a conservative anti-government rant – only a rant about the current government run by the 2 sided criminal cartel. I’ve been thinking I should turn it into a blog post someday.
Having a single party does nothing to eliminate parties. It is the opposite – the extreme end of their centralization of power and control.
People don’t need to stop uniting and advocating just because we eliminate parties. Howard Zinn demonstrates pretty effectively that it is issue focused grassroots movements that make a real difference. I think we would be much better served by focusing our collective political actions on transient issue oriented coalitions like the civil rights movement, the LBGT rights movement, ending prohibition, etc. These coalitions are actually grassroots and actually effective and enable clear accountability to any movement leaders. Political parties only pretend to be both and evade accountability in every respect.
Political parties only centralize political power and defuse grassroots power. Witness what happened in Wisconsin when the Democrats took control. No more protests and no more talk of strikes, just recall movements to elect more Democrats. Pretty effective end to real grassroots power that was starting to take shape.
One further point: how often does anything happen in congress that leadership does not support? Now ponder: how many of us were ever given the opportunity to vote for any of the leadership? This is a clear illustration of the centralization of power produced by the political parties in action.
You keep saying you “give up” blink, yet keep making your obnoxious little comments. Put your money where your mouth is and give up already.
Giving up? If anyone is giving up it is you. Giving in is more appropriate. I am just not willfully stupid enough to put effort into and encourage others to put effort into something that not only has no hope of affecting change but actually detracts from that possibility because it takes well meaning people who want to be active and leads them down a dead-end losing path. You and those like you are so short-sighted. My only hope is that you receive your just rewards when, after another few election cycles and nothing has changed, those who bought your “keep working within the system” line of crap, denounce and lambaste you – as they should.