On July 10, Gallup released new results on how U.S. citizens self-identify, relative to political party loyalty. See here for more details. The national results:
Democratic 34%
Independents who lean Democratic 15%
Republican 28%
Independents who lean Republican 12%
Independents who don’t lean to either major party 10%
Other: 1%. Thanks to Political Wire.
Only 11% who can’t stand the duopoly? We ARE doomed!
Let’s see
where did they state that 37% of voters were independent?
Look in the “party identification” section.
Small party registration in California is about 4.4%. What is it nationwide? Is a poll result of 1% consistent with the nationwide number?
sorry Richard, I see that they did break out the independents.
bill
If the Democrat-leaning Independents and Republican-leaning Independents joined the real Independents, they’d be the largest group. Maybe the only way a third party is going to have a good shot at coming out strong, in Presidential elections, is if there was a ticket with one candidate leaning moderate-liberal and the other moderate-conservative. Maybe, just maybe, if all third parties (or at least the top 3, Libertarian, Constitution and Green) would unite under one banner. Maybe the candidate could be “independent” but on the ballot in different states with different parties.
Derek has the right idea here, but it ain’t never gonna happen because of egos and “big frog in little pond” mentality that dominates most 3rd parties – especially the self-annointed leaders.
Take the AIP in California. This party – with its magnatic and somewhat “neutral” name – could be the “meeting point” for Libertarians, Greens, and of course Constitutionalists. And any other fringe parties who wanted to participate could if they desired.
The Libertarians could have an organized faction, the Greens could have their faction, and the Constitutionalists theirs, and so on and so forth. Each faction could enter candidates for offices and let the party members pick who they wanted as the nominee.
Depending on which candidates were better financed as well as which ones make the best presentation of the issues to the voters, it is possible that a Libertarian might be nominated for Governor, a Constitutionalist for U.S. Senator and a Green for Attorney General. And each faction might share nominees for Congress and the Assembly.
With such candidates sharing the “independent” label, it compliments as well as enhances each candidate. Each candidate gains more respectability and credibility and doesn’t have the “baggage” of a 3rd party name that may seem “threatening” or “alien” to the voters.
In the once “Solid Democratic South” it worked this way. Rather than Libertarians, Greens and Constitutionalists, it was “populists” “moderates” and “conservatives.” Each faction had their share of victories for the major offices. But if one group was edged out in the primary by another for a major office, the losing group didn’t pout like a spoiled kid and run off and start a new party like 3rd partisans often do when they don’t win or get their way. Instead, they picked up their losing campaigns, dusted off their pants, and vowed, “next time, our man will win.” And realizing that the success of the ultimate nominee in November was essential for the party as a whole, they often bit their lip and held their tongue and worked for the nominee – again knowing “their day would come.”
Could the Libertarians, Greens and Constitutionalists do it in the AIP in California in 2010? They could if they were willing to rise above the “love affair” they currently have with their political labels. And that’s the question. Do they want to have a chance to finally have some influence over the Democratic and Republican parties? Or, are they more interested in promoting ideological purity? Unfortunately, it will be the latter.
For example, if Ross Perot just to name the last impacting Independent candidate in a while, decided to run for President in ’96 as an Independent but with the endorsements of the Constitution Party (back then U.S. Taxpayer’s), Green Party and Libertarian Party, as well as the Reform Party.
One more useless poll.
P.R. legislative bodies.
A.V. NONPARTISAN executive/judicial offices.
Derek: Yes, your scenario with Ross Perot in ’96 is another example of how the major 3rd parties could and should work together. These parties have all got to understand that they must work together initially at least until some of them are elected to office and they become stronger. Then, years down the road, if their ideology gets in the way of continued cooperation, they could separate into separate parties again and elect their nominees under their separate labels.
But do you notice, Derek, that you and I are about the only ones that are open-minded enough to just discuss this? I thought my last comment would bring the ideologs and partisan puritists out of the wood work taking my head off for such heresy.
These folks don’t seem to realize that, for example, if a Libertarian wins the AIP nomination for an office, that candidate could still campaign as a “libertarian” even though listed as the AIP nominee on the ballot. The same would be true of a Green or Constitutionalist or any other 3rd partisan who was nominated for an office.
But the problem with most of these folks, is they drool when they see their name listed as “Libertarian” or “Green” or “Constitution” on the ballot or a piece of campaign literature. They have such a “love affair” with their party name that they let it blind them to what could be political success and influence for their philosophy.
Bottom line, Derek, most of them are not politically savvy. That’s the problem!
Nationwide, 2% of the voters are registered in parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. Of course, that only concerns the 29 states that have registration by party. The calculation ignores the other 21 states.
The conversation between Derek and Alabama Independent leaves me at a loss for words. What do they think political parties are for, exactly? Apparently, it’s to beat the Republicans and Democrats at any cost. The cost turns out to be becoming — well, not so much becoming like the Democrats and Republicans as becoming a characature of the them. What would such a political “party” do in office if it got elected?
The ballot label “American Independent” is no magic ticket to success. In November 2006, the AIP had a full slate of candidates for statewide office. Yet none of its statewide nominees polled as much as 2%. By contrast, all of the other ballot-qualified parties had at least one statewide nominee who polled 2%. The only reason the AIP wasn’t disqualified from the ballot was that its registration is so large, it remains on regardless of its vote totals.
The best statewide percentage for the AIP in 2006 was for Secretary of State. Glenn McMillon got 1.62%.
The best statewide Green percentage was 3.25% (Larry Cafiero for Insurance Commissioner). The best Libertarian statewide was 4.01% (Marian Smithson for Treasurer). The best statewide Peace & Freedom was 2.54% (Elizabeth Cervantes Barron for Controller).
Bob Richard:
Perhaps I did not explain my illustration as well as I could have. But to your question, “what would such a political “party” in office do if it got elected?” let me attempt to explain.
First, political parties do not get elected. Candidates get elected.
Under this scenario as I attempted to lay out, the individual candidates (if elected) would still hold whatever their political philosohpy they held when running for the office. For example, if a Libertarian got elected as Governor on the AIP ticket, he/she would still carry out his/her “libertarian” views in the office – not necessarily any “AIP” views. Keep in mind, the AIP would serve as only the mechanism for getting these candidates elected in the first place.
Let me attempt to make it as simple as possible with another illustration.
We know Barack Obama is a Liberal.
If Obama had run for President on a Liberal Party ticket only, he would have lost.
Instead, Obama ran on the Democratic Party ticket. He was elected even though not everybody who voted for him in the Democratic Party is a Liberal. Most of them are Moderates. A few are Conservatives.
When elected, Barack Obama was then able to work for his Liberal views. Something he would not have been able to do had he run under the Liberal Party ticket.
This is my point. Regardless of the fact that Independent candidates do not always have more votes than the 3rd party candidates in some elections, the historical record shows that more Independents have been elected than have 3rd parties, and that more votes have been cast for Independent candidates than have been cast for 3rd parties.
Again, that is my point.
Candidates – whether they are Libertarian, Green, Reform, Constitutionalist, Peace and Freedom or whatever – should run on a label where the voters are more likely to find agreement with them by political affiliation. Libertarian does not. Green does not. Reform does not. Constitutionalist does not.
Independent does!
By using an Independent Party label (the AIP label there in California) we have a better chance of defeating the Democratic and Republican candidates than we do when each 3rd party nominates separate candidates. When we run separate candidates we divide the anti-Democratic and anti-Republican vote.
I rest my case.
While we can all be frustrated that Green or Libertarian or whatever label was not included as an option, we also have to realize that no matter how many votes a third-party candidate gets or how experienced the candidate is, the political “science” crowd will ignore third parties. Academia is an incredibly stodgy area.
For example, after Libertarian Ed Thompson garnered 11% of the vote for governor of Wisconsin, one would think that the authors of a political “science” textbook would be able to find the space devote perhaps one sentence to Ed Thompson. But when the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee published the next edition of “Wisconsin Government and Politics” nothing was mentioned of the 2nd-highest ever vote for a Libertarian candidate for governor in the entire country!
Of course, the same university system that discriminates against 11% of the Libertarian population is the same university system that will devote new research, programs, etc. to any other part of the population that can claim .0001% or less of the population — as long as it is “academically correct.” Libertarians and Greens are not academically correct.
Where am I going with this? These polls are developed by political “scientists.” If third parties wish to change these polls, their members should get terminal degree in political science and start either working for polling companies or teaching at colleges.
There’s really no other way I’m sorry to say. Even getting large numbers of voters to vote for your candidates does no good in the eyes of academia or pollsters.
A question to all you people who make the asinine point that Communists and theocrats would get more voters if they teamed up:
Why do you not like the Democratic and Republican parties?
You obviously don’t care about ideology. If you don’t care about ideology, dislike for any political party seems totally irrational.
Third parties should form a coalition to get PR adopted in one or more state legislatures. This could be doable in states with initiative and referendum. The campaign would have to appeal to independents and those who are not strong partisans of either of the major parties and, therefore, would be likely to be amenable to the idea of more choice in elections.
If Canadian voters in any province would ever vote for Proportional Representation, and then implement it, that would get the attention of U.S. voters. Several attempts have been made in both Ontario and British Columbia, but even in Canada, voters won’t implement it.
If a journalist (there are very few real ones remaining) wanted to do a very interesting news story involving party identification, here’s an idea.
Assemble a list of proposals that were advanced by Democratic and Republican administrations over the past 20 years or so. These proposals or policies would be ones that are not normally stereotyped with that party, but that were nonetheless advanced by that party through its president. For example, bomb a faraway land (Clinton-Serbia); oppose gay marriage (Obama); mandatory biofuels (Bush I).
The poll would be simple: list such ideas without a party label attached. Ask people to fill out a survey. After they have completed the survey, they will be asked if they normally consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans. Then see how surprised each of the supporters of the parties are when their stereotyped labels don’t match the actual policies of that party label.
This would work well for either TV or print. On the TV side, you are sure to find some very hostile people who just had their party identification bubble burst. On the print side, there will be thoughtful people who would like to comment to the press.
If the journalist wanted to make an even longer story, he could include views from the Greens, Libertarians, etc.
Richard, I respect you but I must disagree. Americans don’t even know who the PM of Canada is. Them changing their election system is not going to “get our attention.”