On May 4, the Pew Research Center released its fifth study of U.S. voters and their ideological views. Pew previously did such studies in 1987, 1994, 1999, and 2005. Using cluster analysis and survey research, the Center finds eight “core typology groups”, plus a ninth group of people who do not engage in political activity and do not form political opinions. The eight groups include two types of Republicans: Staunch Conservatives and Main Street Republicans. Also, there are three types of Democrats: New Coalition Democrats, Hard-Pressed Democrats, and Solid Liberals. Finally, the study identifies three groups of people who do not identify with either major party: Libertarians, Disaffecteds, and Post-Moderns.
The study says that the people who do not identify with either major party are not necessarily “moderates”; rather they include a large number of voters who hold extremely strong ideological positions. This discovery is not new, but it has been consistently overlooked by the business groups and newspapers who have supported top-two election systems. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
“The study says that the people who do not identify with either major party are not necessarily “moderates”; rather they include a large number of voters who hold extremely strong ideological positions. This discovery is not new, but it has been consistently overlooked by the business groups and newspapers who have supported top-two election systems.”
Forget the anti-top-two, it’s an argument for PR. That’s assuming that you’re an advocate of govt that attempts to represent the people as they actually exist-not as some bogus construct called “the American People” or whatever.
France uses top-two combined with another type of two round system and it hasn’t prevented the French from maintaining a wild variety of parties (both left and right) that have strong ideological positions. They just don’t seem to ever(?)become parts of governments beyond the local level. But their support can determine (1) who qualifies for the runoff and (2) who ultimately wins the runoff. That gives them deal-making capability. The Georgia (US) Libertarian Party has forced runoffs in major races in recent years.I don’t know if it gives them any clout or how they are dealt with by the major parties. But I’d be surprised if it didn’t at least get them substantial campaign money from D’s.
According to this study, I don’t exist. Not only that, my political party doesn’t exist either. That ought to be important news to the California Secretary of State, perhaps even news to three per cent or so of California voters who supported one or more of our candidates last November.
The percentages add up to 100, so they can’t have left anyone out. Or can they?
That was my first reaction. Then I looked at the survey questions on which the categories are based. Out of 19 questions, zero ask about my core political values, even indirectly. With a some exceptions (Q17a, Q37w, Q37r, Q17f, Q17c, Q17d, Q17i), I can mostly pick one alternative over the other. But doing so paints a wrong picture of my politics taken as a whole.
So they did leave people out — by not asking the really important questions.
See the very recent studies about leftwing and rightwing folks — different physical structures in their *brains*.
How about MORE States so the robot party hacks can ruin less sane People ???
A few questions —
Do you want some party hack gerrymander robots to TOTALLY control your life – from birth to death ???
Do you LOVE having 100 percent taxes ???
90
80
etc
0 ???
The advantage of the Top 2 Open Primary is that voters of all 9 typologies may vote in all elections and choose from among candidates of any of the 9 typologies who run.
It is almost a straw man argument by those whose impulse is to ban or control participation on the basis of political ideology to characterize the goal or intent of the Top 2 Open Primary as producing a particular result.
Pingback: Pew Research Center Releases New Political Typology Study | ThirdPartyPolitics.us