On January 8, Gallup Polls released its poll on how U.S. voters self-identify. For the fourth quarter of 2013, the two major parties together are only at 51%, a record low for them. See the details here, which show, for the fourth quarter, independents at 46%, Democrats at 29%, Republicans at 22%, no response 3%.
This poll does not give respondents an opportunity to choose “something else”, but past polls that have given that option find the “something else” above 10%.
The 9th USA Parliament poll gave every participant the liberty to self-categorize and/or vote for any word by their name.
The percent which chose D or R is 17.4% D or R:
http://www.usparliament.org
Yet the Gallop Poll apparently has more legitimacy than the 9th US Parliament’s poll to the owner of the BAN site.
You be the judge.
How many people were included in the 9th USA Parliament poll? Gallup is a big, experienced polling company that probably had thousands of respondents, chosen in a way to get a statistically significant mirror of the whole US population.
Only 2 parties in 6,000 plus years –
STATISTS (aka LOOTERS — monarchs/oligarchs and their stooge gangs) and Free market folks.
Give us the data on the Gallop before you make any hypothetical declarations on their numbers?
Pure proportional representation is mathematically perfect with small or large amounts of data but plurality elections pretty much are guaranteed to exclude large swathes of data, as your own article states.
There is no comparison as to the accuracy. Plurality polls will always be totally inaccurate, and therefore your reporting is inaccurate too.
Plurality polling is simply small or large amounts of inaccurate data. You’re being led down the garden path by them and you’re promoting highly inaccurate data when you report Gallop, unless they switch to ranked choice voting (RCV).
RCV uses calibrations and algebra and doesn’t use addition. It’s 1000 times more accurate than plurality systems, and the calibrations are exact to within .0001ths every time.
When you promote that system you’re simply perpetuating the psychological impact of that system.
That’s destructive and damaging to not just unity but also damaging to any psychological momentum of alternative voting systems.
If you use red and blue paint, you’re probably going to get a red and blue house. But if you use 1000 small brushes and cans of paint, you’ll probably get 1000 variations in color.
Things are changing since 1995 when algebra and calibrations started being applied to elections in the USA and now we are uniting many multiples of political thought. Have you hear about the new virtual USA Parliament and the possible alternatives of which there are no limit?
Find the news at the source. It’s the only news source whose board members are elected under this very same system, whose executives are subject to a vote of confidence 365 days a year with plenty of consecutively ranked executives as back-ups, as a result they are perpetually accountable and continually self-improving by the stock-holders’ votes:
http://www.allpartysystem.com
…doesn’t matter if you only paint a small part of the house with red and blue, the whole house or an entire state, you’ll still pretty much get red and blue when you only use two possible colors.
Three cans of colored paint will give you a three-colored house.
People who like to cause division like the concept of three, i.e. split the two and go up the middle. That’s a dividing concept based on fighting and conflict.
But when you’re inclusive of all, with equal treatment across the board, you’re using a unifying psychology.
People are tired of conflicts. We want peaceful, unifying messages. Not two-way, not three-way, but all-ways and the more the better. All inclusive and the more the better!