1y ago

Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%

news.gallup.com Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%

Sixty-three percent of Americans say a third U.S. political party is needed, up from 56% a year ago and by one percentage point the highest in Gallup's 20-year trend.

Story Highlights

Third time support has exceeded 60%, along with 2017 and 2021
Republicans primarily behind the increase, with 58% now in favor
Political independents remain group most likely to favor third party

TechNews @radiation.party

Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%

news.gallup.com /poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx

3 1

You're viewing a single thread.

225 comments

THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
look, we became a global military and economic superpower under the two-party system.
We built the strongest middle class in history under the two-party system.
We ended segregation, and made huge progress in LGBTQ rights under the two-party system.
Solving our country's problems do not require more political parties. And the last time liberals tried this, Ralph Nader's spoiler party gave The election to George W. Bush, instead of Al Gore.
That's the Iraq War. That's the 3 trillion dollar giveaway to the ultra rich. That's blocking stem cell research. That's years of accelerated climate change. Years of no movement on healthcare.
No. Fuck that.
If you want to change things, take a note from the Republicans: change comes from WITHIN your party.
If we'd picked Bernie instead of Hillary, the Democrats would have become the liberal party we need.
Unfortunately we don't have a Presidential primary this year, when we desperately need one. So our choice is Biden or ... Full-on fascism.
- Have to strongly disagree. If there are going to be political parties, the more the better.
  Unfortunately we don't have a Presidential primary this year, when we desperately need one. So our choice is Biden or ... Full-on fascism.
  You seem to make my point here. You don't think more parties are needed, but you want to keep pushing the "vote for my guy because the other guy is a monster" line. Sorry, but I'm not going to vote for someone based on who they are not. You point out there are only two shitty choices after stating that we don't need any more choices...
  
  Biden isn't my guy. I don't like Biden. But Trump literally tried to overthrow our democracy.
  It's no contest.
- Ralph Nader’s spoiler party gave The election to George W. Bush, instead of Al Gore.
  the supreme courrt gave the election to bush. nader had nothing to do with that.
  
  SCOTUS gave the only reasonable answer under the circumstances. The deadline for certifying the election is enforceable and the entire state has to be counted under the same standards, not a separate, different standard for places one candidate wants to challenge. Denying either of those would be a terrible idea for reasons that extend well beyond 2000, and if you accept both of those premises then there's no other real answer, as there wasn't time to recount the entire state under a new standard before the deadline.
  The fallout of that same decision is why Trump had to give up on legal challenges against the election when he did in favor of protests and planning that exceedingly poorly thought out attempt at an insurrection.
  
  SCOTUS gave the only reasonable answer under the circumstances.
  the circumstances being that they wanted another Republican president, and they owed his dad a favor anyway.
  
  The circumstances being that one candidate wanted to recount parts of the state under different rules than the rest of the state, and wanted to extend that process past when state law said the process had to be finished. The entire SCOTUS decision was built on the idea that state election deadlines are valid and equal protection requires votes be counted under the same standards statewide.
  Which of those premises do you disagree with, and would you have been OK with other candidates making full use of it in later elections, even if it might have led to Biden losing to a second term of Trump and still potentially might have left Bush as the winner in 2000?
  
  you talk about it like precedent matters and they don't just do what they want.
  
  the Supremes can sing any song they want. I know whose tune they dance to.
  
  There was nothing reasonable about what they did. They halted the counting, and then said, "oh we don't have time to finish the counting!"... Read the dissent for that opinion, you'll see that all the non-conservatives on the court were outraged.
  
  The decision was based on two things:
  Counting votes in different parts of a state by different rules is a violation of equal protection.
  The deadline for completing the count is enforceable.
  Which of those do you disagree with?
  Sure, they halted Gore's last recount. But let's consider for a moment the counterfactual where they didn't stop Gore's last recount, but still made the same final ruling. In that case, it wouldn't have mattered because that last recount was only for part of the state and was done under a different standard than the rest of the state and so would not have been valid because accepting it would have violated equal protection unless the entire state was recounted under that standard, and there was no way to recount the rest of the state under the deadline because despite the case being extremely quick for SCOTUS, the ruling was still only released 2 hours before said deadline.
  
  The court could have allowed each county to operate in good faith in choosing any counting method that reflected voter intent, and they could have ruled that both candidates engage transition teams simultaneously so that either candidate would be prepared to take office, and let the count proceed for a couple more weeks without damage to the winner.
  That's just one of many solutions that would have allowed the voters to decide the election.
  
  The court could have allowed each county to operate in good faith in choosing any counting method that reflected voter intent,
  Election procedures are explicitly a matter of state law, unless the state delegates that authority to the counties or even individual towns. Specifically so two people producing identical ballots aren't treated as having different votes depending on which town they are from. You apparently support letting each county make up it's own methods so long as those methods sound reasonable?
  and let the count proceed for a couple more weeks without damage to the winner.
  You don't seem to understand the timeline here, or else believe that all election deadlines should have been ignored and deemed unenforceable until when? Until no candidate wants to recount any part of any state under any new standard they can come up with? Until a count was arrived at where Gore would win?
  Each state has to produce paperwork officially establishing the slate of electors at least 6 days before the meeting of electors (in 2000 this would be 12/12). The meeting of electors is federally mandated to happen on the 1st Monday after the 2nd Wednesday of December (in 2000 this would be 12/18). Electoral votes are required to be in the hands of Congress by the 4th Wednesday of December (in 2000 this would be 12/27). Congress then officially reviews the vote (and also votes if no candidate hits the required number of electoral votes) on Jan 6, and the current President's term ends at noon on Jan 20.
  Two weeks from 12/12 (the SCOTUS decision) is literally the day before the electoral votes have to be in the hands of Congress, eight days after the electoral votes was supposed to have already happened, and two weeks after the state government is supposed to produce the official paperwork about who the slate of electors is.
  The absolute best case for Florida doing another manual recount in 2000 would be if they could have done a manual recount of all legally cast votes statewide, but there was only a 4 day window to complete that in from the point that the recount Bush requested an injunction against was called for. From Friday to Tuesday to establish what standards are used to evaluate votes, recount everything, have it completed and the results certified by the state. That...wasn't going to happen any way you cut it.
  The first round of Florida recounts were entirely in line with both Florida and federal law, aside from running well beyond state deadlines for their completion and the Florida Supreme Court extending those deadlines (which also got vacated by SCOTUS - apparently changing clear deadlines set in law is less "interpreting the law" and more making it up from scratch to serve your agenda).
  Bush's injunction and the recount being killed basically saved us from SCOTUS having to answer questions like "what happens if a state fails to approve a slate of electors by the deadline?", "what happens if a state fails to approve a slate of electors before the day the electoral vote happens?" or even "what happens if a state hasn't supplied the electoral votes by the day they are supposed to be in the hands of Congress?" I doubt you would have liked SCOTUS' answers to any of those questions either, because they probably wouldn't have involved Florida's electoral votes counting at all, and probably would have led to the House voting whether it would be Bush, Gore, or whoever Barbara Lett-Simmons (faithless elector for DC, who abstained in protest of DC not having Congressional representation, but might not have in this scenario) might have voted for in this scenario as no candidate would have hit the minimum number of electoral votes if Florida had no slate of electors by the required date (12/12) and federal election deadlines are enforceable at all.
  
  Ralph Nader took enough votes from Gore to bring the election to a narrow enough race that the court could steal it.
  If he'd dropped out near the end, when it was clear he wasn't going to get the 5 percent he needed, he still refused to put his support behind Gore, selling the lie that both parties are essentially the same.
  
  If he'd dropped out near the end,
  you have no idea what would have happened. the electoral college could have put Michael Moore in the presidency. you're guessing and basing your theory on a counterfactual.
  
  "ooOOoo, considering possibilities is scary!"
  
  what are you quoting?
  
  I'm paraphrasing you
  
  that's a strawman.
- And the last time liberals tried this, Ralph Nader’s spoiler party gave The election to George W. Bush, instead of Al Gore.
  To be fair, it was the other of the two right-wing coups the US has suffered in the last few decades -- the Brooks Brothers Riot -- that gave him that.
- Why would we have to take a note from republicans?
  Bernie's been making that same point for decades...
  
  Because they completely overhauled their party and transformed it from the inside. No way in hell Trump ever could have gotten elected as a third party candidate. But now he owns the entire party.
  Just because they are evil morons doesn't mean we can't appreciate he there magnitude of the transformation.

225 comments