Gallup Poll, for First Time, Shows Neither Major Party Viewed Favorably by As Much as 40% of the Electorate

On March 16, Gallup released this poll, asking voters whether they have a favorable or an unfavorable impression of the Democratic Party, and the same question for the Republican Party.  Gallup has been taking this poll starting in 1992.  For the first time in the history of this poll, neither major party registers a favorability rating of even 40%.  Many years ago, both major parties had positive ratings above 60%.

If the United States had nondiscriminatory election laws and practices relating to ballot access, debates, and campaign finance, it is obvious that new parties would arise and gain substantial support, just as they have in Great Britain and Canada.

Even now, the United States has a record number of one-state parties that are non-ideological and not associated with any particular interest group.  Independence Parties exist in Alabama, Florida,  Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, and South Carolina.  Parties named “Independent Party” exist in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, and Oregon.  The Moderate Party exists in Rhode Island.  South Carolina has a centrist party named “American Party.”  Massachusetts has a centrist party, the United Independent Party.  Colorado has a Unity Party.  Iowa has a New Independent American Party.  New Jersey has the D-R Party.  The United States had a centrist, non-ideological party called Americans Elect during 2010, 2011, and the early months of 2012, but it no longer exists.  In the past there were very few parties, either state or national, that were non-ideological and didn’t represent a particular interest group.  The birth and growth of such parties is a sign of the unhappiness with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.  Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.


Comments

Gallup Poll, for First Time, Shows Neither Major Party Viewed Favorably by As Much as 40% of the Electorate — 4 Comments

  1. Ballot access restrictions are only one of the differences between the U.S. and the other developed countries with winner-take-all elections (mainly the U.K. and Canada).

    The most important factor is probably the geographic distribution of support for small parties. In the U.S., in spite of the fact that Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly segregated geographically, small parties are not regional in nature. In the U.K. and Canada, some of them are (e.g. Parti Quebecois, SNP). That gives them majorities in some single-member districts even though it doesn’t usually give them their fair share of seats overall.

    Another factor is also important, even though its importance is hard to quantify. That’s the difference between parliamentary and presidential government. Direct election of the head of the executive branch reinforces the majoritarian nature of single member district legislative elections by further discouraging votes for small party candidates. IRV for presidential elections would mitigate this somewhat. The Electoral College makes it even worse than it has to be. In the U.K. and Canada, small party legislators can win cabinet seats for their parties in coalition governments.

    I’m not describing these other factors in order to argue that ballot access restrictions are not important. They are. But they are not the most important factor.

  2. Both the left Donkey and right Elephant gangs are full of ANTI-Democracy OLIGARCH HACKS — in their de facto one party safe seat gerrymander concentration camps.

    1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander camps = 1/4 CONTROL.
    Much much much worse primary math – i.e. no incumbent running.

    How many math MORON pollsters, lawyers, judges and esp. university profs are there at the moment in the nearly DEAD U.S.A. and State regimes ???

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  3. It won’t take too long – only a decade or two – but the day is coming when Independents will have the power and influence that they will be allowed to file as a candidate – whether partisan primary or non-partisan – by a filing fee of not more than 1% of the annual salary of the office or $500 which ever is the least amount dollars.

    Filing fees is, and and always will, be the fairest way for a candidate to qualify for public office. It is the voters, who will decide whether a candidate is qualified – not the number of signatures he/she can collect on a petition. A millionaire idiot can pay pay enough people to collect 50,000 signatures on petitions. I say keep the paperwork simple, and let the candidates file with a filing fee that is reasonable. This means practically all citizens can run for office, and the voters will decide if the candidates are qualified to serve. This is the way it should be.

  4. How about reading the UN-constitional filing fee only SCOTUS case ??? — circa 1976.

    i.e. discrimination against *poor* candidates who can not afford the filing fee.

    Thus – ONLY nominating petitions to get SERIOUS candidates.


    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.