Majority of Americans think there should be a third party

[politicus]

Since 2007 there has been consistent high support for establishing a third party - its 58% in a new poll. Greens, various conservative alternatives and Libertarians get little support, and noone seems able to create a viable Social Democratic party like NDP in Canada, but is it possible to create a viable centrist reform party between Dems and Pubs?

Is it just frustration when voters say they want a third party, or would they actually like a (moderate) alternative?

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/24/poll-58-percent-of-americans-want-a-third-political-party/

[DC Al Fine]

The current system doesn't really allow for more than two major parties. Even if there was the will for a new, moderate party, it would just kill off the Dems or the GOP.

[Person Man]

The current system doesn't really allow for more than two major parties. Even if there was the will for a new, moderate party, it would just kill off the Dems or the GOP.

Probably but I foresee that it could work if it's a Moderate Party that only ran for Governor , state leg, House and Senate  where only one party wins but would vote for an independent.  I could see a Perot style reform party winning in places like Washington,  Maine, Kansas, Montana, Arizona and Georgia. I could see people like Orman, Crist, Schwarzenegger,  Ventura, Donnelly and Collins being part of it. A "Radical Center" party.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

A party "in between" the Democrats and Republicans would be plainly right-wing and see little to no electoral success. What is growing and will continue to grow is the desire for a party in the interests of the working class.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A party "in between" the Democrats and Republicans would be plainly right-wing and see little to no electoral success. What is growing and will continue to grow is the desire for a party in the interests of the working class.

Basically we could use a second party.

[politicus]

A party "in between" the Democrats and Republicans would be plainly right-wing and see little to no electoral success. What is growing and will continue to grow is the desire for a party in the interests of the working class.

It has historically been one of the fundamental characteristics of the American political structure that unlike other Western countries you never got a Labour party. Why should it happen now, when trade unions are weaker than ever? Who should organize it?

(it seems like wishful thinking on your part..)

[angus]

Since 2007 there has been consistent high support for establishing a third party - its 58% in a new poll. Greens, various conservative alternatives and Libertarians get little support, and noone seems able to create a viable Social Democratic party like NDP in Canada, but is it possible to create a viable centrist reform party between Dems and Pubs?

Is it just frustration when voters say they want a third party, or would they actually like a (moderate) alternative?

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/24/poll-58-percent-of-americans-want-a-third-political-party/

I agree that more alternatives might be attractive, but it won't happen.  Not because the Greens are naive tree huggers or because the Libertarians are stoners and gun-nuts.  It's just that our electoral system is set up to favor the evolution of a two-party system.  It doesn't have to be the Democrats and the Republicans, and I suspect that from time to time over very long-range cycles there will be upheavals, but two strong parties will always come out on top.  You'd have to remodel the US constitution to change that.

In political science studies, this phenomenon was formerly known as Duverger's Law, after Maurice Duverger who published a major study in 1955.  Unfortunately, Duverger's study was very general and it doesn't really adequately explain the peculiarity of the US "winner take all" system.  The history learning site does a pretty good job trying to explain it in layman's terms, and you can use Google Scholar to come up with more detailed, peer-reviewed historical explanations specific to the US system.

While I freely admit to voting for third-party candidates from time to time, I also have to admit that I'm comfortable with a two-party system, especially when I compare the alternative, a one party system.  Egypt before the Arab Spring or Germany in 1940 or modern-day China don't appeal much to me.  If Americans really want a multiparty system, then they're going to have to revamp the constitution.  I don't think there's much appetite for that, despite claims that it would be nice to have alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans.

[Redalgo]

It has historically been one of the fundamental characteristics of the American political structure that unlike other Western countries you never got a Labour party. Why should it happen now, when trade unions are weaker than ever? Who should organize it?

(it seems like wishful thinking on your part..)

I am inclined to agree, and would add that most social democrats in the United States have already been co-opted into the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Socialists, Greens, and Libertarians have poor prospects for gaining traction in the polls because their voters can be courted by one of the major parties (which is something they will attempt at the very least for strategic reasons) if any of those minor factions starts to cost them elections by splitting the vote.

My suspicion is that with a multiparty system the U.S. would see at least a third of Democrats switch over to left-wing groups, allowing those who remain to better court moderate Independents. Getting libertarians out of the Republican Party might also help that group, as well - enabling them to shed some of their less palatable economic stances and appeal to lower-income earners who often like conservative values but are spooked off by the free market and Tea Party types.

At this point the best chance the U.S. has for developing a Labour-like faction is in young people being skeptical of capitalism. It is possible that they will gradually form a powerful democratic socialist / social democratic bloc within the Democratic Party, though it may be temporary seeing as people who grow up in the States after Millennials could experience economic conditions that do not incline them to be quite so critical of the establishment as young adults are now.


@Angus:

I agree with most of your post, though one issue with two-party systems is how they become de-facto one-party systems in many voting districts over time. My residence falls within state legislative districts that are consistently voting 70-80% for Republicans. The fact that Democrats run is a symbolic gesture - never a serious challenge. The tables are turned in many other places, as I imagine you are well aware. Even when a race gets competitive, we end up electing a bloke by whom nearly half the population does not feel well-represented. Maybe a lot of folks are okay with it but I certainly feel disenfranchised in an informal and indirect, yet institutionalized, apparently socially-acceptable way.

[dead0man]

If people would just vote for the best person for the job instead of the lesser of two evils...

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I wanted a third party back in 2012. And it didn't happen. And it will never happen. It would be better for libertarians/true leftists/moderate heroes to hijack one of the established major parties.

[angus]

It would be better for libertarians/true leftists/moderate heroes to hijack one of the established major parties.

I think it's actually the other way around.  When a minor party comes up with a good idea, and they sometimes do, the Democrats or Republicans co-opt that idea and make it part of their platform. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The idea of a third centrist party is always one with superficial appeal, but falls apart upon execution in most countries (the world must be littered with the remains of parties bursting into action promising "politics based on practicality"). I can think of two main examples of big tent centrists in politics:

The sprawling pudding-like "natural party of government" type, full of careerists and hacks (Fianna Fail, Canadian Liberals, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, the Independence party of Iceland and so many more). 

The smaller centrist parties exist primarily to act as a magnet for floating votes and underepresnted groups (the obvious and most pathetic example is the Australian Democrats; but the Lib Dems and D66 count as well). Unfortunately, the party exists as an outlet for the permanently dissatisfied; and typically crater when ever the party starts doing "serious stuff". These include any artificial attempts to start centrism as a viable strategy, and lack the pretension and deep roots of the previous group.

To be honest, I don't think either variety can work in America. Although I think third parties are not totally doomed by the election system - I can count a few handful that have popped up over the years, centrism is not viable in a country where less and less people are truly "centrist". People may think politicians are too polarised, but they are wrong. The electorate is polarised. The parties are streamlining because that is the pressure from voters.

[angus]

The electorate is polarised. The parties are streamlining because that is the pressure from voters.

There's that too.  Good point.  The polarization is fed by successful marketing strategies, of course.  I hate them because the talking heads I watch hate them, and the talking heads I watch hate them because they have read in the polls that I hate them.  Vicious cycle.

[eric82oslo]

To be honest, I don't think either variety can work in America. Although I think third parties are not totally doomed by the election system - I can count a few handful that have popped up over the years, centrism is not viable in a country where less and less people are truly "centrist". People may think politicians are too polarised, but they are wrong. The electorate is polarised. The parties are streamlining because that is the pressure from voters.

Not really. Kansas proves your point moot. So does New Mexico for instance. And many others. Loads of heavily Democratic states have become essentially toss-up states as of late; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, even sometimes Illinois (this year at least). Likewise, several heavily Republican states have become toss-ups as of late; Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia.

Surely some states are getting more polarized (think Hawaii, Vermont, Maryland, California, Wyoming and West Virginia), while many other states are becoming more toss-ups.



And the majority of voters are becoming more independent, not less!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

OK, I'll accept Kansas because Orman is promising the same kind of bland centrism that is popular with these things (Kansas is in a funny place right now though, and hardly representative of the rest of America).

As for the rest - all those states you mentioned becoming toss-ups prove my point. They aren't becoming toss-ups because half of fervent GOP's woke up one day and thought "huh, maybe I should vote for Obama". It's because of demographic changes. American politics is less and less about convincing people you are right, and more about catering to those who know you're right.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Everyone wants a different third party, though.

[eric82oslo]

OK, I'll accept Kansas because Orman is promising the same kind of bland centrism that is popular with these things (Kansas is in a funny place right now though, and hardly representative of the rest of America).

As for the rest - all those states you mentioned becoming toss-ups prove my point. They aren't becoming toss-ups because half of fervent GOP's woke up one day and thought "huh, maybe I should vote for Obama". It's because of demographic changes. American politics is less and less about convincing people you are right, and more about catering to those who know you're right.

Yeah, but we can still change that narrative. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both near perfect examples of that, and John McCain and Mitt Romney aren't way too lousy they either, although they come a far shot away from the two really big guns. If there's something Barack and Hillary have had on their minds for the past decade or so it's certainly to make the US less partisan and more harmonic. Thanks to jerkasses like Rupert Murdoch and all his afilliates, their strategy hasn't yet worked of course. And even bigger obstacle than Rupert Shothead Murdoch is the insanely conservative Supreme Court of course. My point is basically this: Please blame the increasing partisanship of where it belongs: the constitution, the absolutely mind-blowingly insane composition of the Supreme Court (even countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria would never even consider appointing such dumb, right-wing jokes of candidates), gerrymandering, way too many billionaire/big business money in politics, religion in America (the US is in fact almost as darn and dangerously religious as the vast majority of muslim countries in this world), the ridiculous constitutional right to bear arms, the almost equally (almost-constitutional right) to assassine a fellow citizen deemed guilty by someone (most of the time you don't even need the evidence of DNA, just share finger-pointing). I mean, if you try to tell me the US is not a crazy society then you're definitely off on a very wrong mission.

[Person Man]

OK, I'll accept Kansas because Orman is promising the same kind of bland centrism that is popular with these things (Kansas is in a funny place right now though, and hardly representative of the rest of America).

As for the rest - all those states you mentioned becoming toss-ups prove my point. They aren't becoming toss-ups because half of fervent GOP's woke up one day and thought "huh, maybe I should vote for Obama". It's because of demographic changes. American politics is less and less about convincing people you are right, and more about catering to those who know you're right.

Yeah, but we can still change that narrative. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both near perfect examples of that, and John McCain and Mitt Romney aren't way too lousy they either, although they come a far shot away from the two really big guns. If there's something Barack and Hillary have had on their minds for the past decade or so it's certainly to make the US less partisan and more harmonic. Thanks to jerkasses like Rupert Murdoch and all his afilliates, their strategy hasn't yet worked of course. And even bigger obstacle than Rupert Shothead Murdoch is the insanely conservative Supreme Court of course. My point is basically this: Please blame the increasing partisanship of where it belongs: the constitution, the absolutely mind-blowingly insane composition of the Supreme Court (even countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria would never even consider appointing such dumb, right-wing jokes of candidates), gerrymandering, way too many billionaire/big business money in politics, religion in America (the US is in fact almost as darn and dangerously religious as the vast majority of muslim countries in this world), the ridiculous constitutional right to bear arms, the almost equally (almost-constitutional right) to assassine a fellow citizen deemed guilty by someone (most of the time you don't even need the evidence of DNA, just share finger-pointing). I mean, if you try to tell me the US is not a crazy society then you're definitely off on a very wrong mission.

I don't think it matter what any one politician wants. You can honestly believe you have the solutions to help everyone but if people don't believe you, you are no better than the one who can before you. That's the problem right now. There isn't anyone out there that can be believed more than 53% of the voters and rarely more than 51%. At this point, we are a society that's hobbling along and have been since like 6 months into the next century. There's now always a major crisis or distraction every other year now.   Whenever we find a new direction, we get sick of it the next year but don't change that direction for another five years after that. The last 15 years reminds me of my first long-term relationship. Of course its not all doom and gloom (fewer unintended pregnancies(and abortions), less discrimination against sexual minorities and fewer uninsured people and crime) but that's all really hard to tell and its all overshadowed by the fact that  there is no sustainable or even desirable peace or state of war anymore and there's a double-or-nothing economy.

My thought is that we have had at least two chances to fix things out of their current trajectory. Those were in 2001/2 and 2008/9. It just seems that things might not change unless there's a crisis big enough to make everyone ready to listen.


This all being said, a at least temporary third party in the "radical center" could work but I don't know how. In 1992, we had a real 3-way horse race, right? 

[politicus]

Since 2007 there has been consistent high support for establishing a third party - its 58% in a new poll. Greens, various conservative alternatives and Libertarians get little support, and noone seems able to create a viable Social Democratic party like NDP in Canada, but is it possible to create a viable centrist reform party between Dems and Pubs?

Is it just frustration when voters say they want a third party, or would they actually like a (moderate) alternative?

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/24/poll-58-percent-of-americans-want-a-third-political-party/

I agree that more alternatives might be attractive, but it won't happen.  Not because the Greens are naive tree huggers or because the Libertarians are stoners and gun-nuts.  It's just that our electoral system is set up to favor the evolution of a two-party system.  It doesn't have to be the Democrats and the Republicans, and I suspect that from time to time over very long-range cycles there will be upheavals, but two strong parties will always come out on top.  You'd have to remodel the US constitution to change that.

In political science studies, this phenomenon was formerly known as Duverger's Law, after Maurice Duverger who published a major study in 1955.  Unfortunately, Du verger's study was very general and it doesn't really adequately explain the peculiarity of the US "winner take all" system.  The history learning site does a pretty good job trying to explain it in layman's terms, and you can use Google Scholar to come up with more detailed, peer-reviewed historical explanations specific to the US system.

While I freely admit to voting for third-party candidates from time to time, I also have to admit that I'm comfortable with a two-party system, especially when I compare the alternative, a one party system.  Egypt before the Arab Spring or Germany in 1940 or modern-day China don't appeal much to me.  If Americans really want a multiparty system, then they're going to have to revamp the constitution.  I don't think there's much appetite for that, despite claims that it would be nice to have alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans.

I am quite familiar with old Maurice (I am educated in history and pol sci after all) and his opinions do apply more to the US than anywhere else, since the modern counter argument that its mostly the party system which creates the voting system cant really be applied to the US given the age and sacrosanct status of your Constitution + electing President/Governors directly reinforces the pattern a lot more than a Westminster system would. However Duvergers point was that FPTP would act to 1) delay the emergence of a new political force, not that it would prevent it and 2) it would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force when a new one arrived. So he doesn't rule out new parties, just say that they are hard to establish and would likely marginalize one of the existing two if they became successful.

All that said you got the effect of money, ballot access, media bias, adaptability of existing parties etc. Still its interesting that there is this consistent majority in the polls for the need of a third force.

[angus]

new parties ... are hard to establish and would likely marginalize one of the existing two if they became successful.

yes.

Didn't realize that you were a history and politics major.  I'm sure you understand all this better than I.  I was a believer in strengthening the minor parties at the expense of the two big ones for a long time, but I guess I'm more skeptical about all that as I grow older.  Certainly the founding documents, of which we are rightly very proud, constrain our democracy in unfortunate ways.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

A party "in between" the Democrats and Republicans would be plainly right-wing and see little to no electoral success. What is growing and will continue to grow is the desire for a party in the interests of the working class.

It has historically been one of the fundamental characteristics of the American political structure that unlike other Western countries you never got a Labour party. Why should it happen now, when trade unions are weaker than ever? Who should organize it?

(it seems like wishful thinking on your part..)

Unionization has ticked up for the first time in decades, simultaneously fueled by and fueling the fast food strikes--and with Karen Lewis weighing an independent bid for Mayor of Chicago and independent labor-backed candidates winning local races in Lorain, Ohio, I think long-term growth is at least in the cards.

[Simfan34]

A party "in between" the Democrats and Republicans would be plainly right-wing and see little to no electoral success. What is growing and will continue to grow is the desire for a party in the interests of the working class.

It has historically been one of the fundamental characteristics of the American political structure that unlike other Western countries you never got a Labour party. Why should it happen now, when trade unions are weaker than ever? Who should organize it?

(it seems like wishful thinking on your part..)

Unionization has ticked up for the first time in decades, simultaneously fueled by and fueling the fast food strikes--and with Karen Lewis weighing an independent bid for Mayor of Chicago and independent labor-backed candidates winning local races in Lorain, Ohio, I think long-term growth is at least in the cards.

lol

[Free Bird]

THEN VOTE FOR ONE OF THEM

[SteveRogers]

I actually wrote my undergraduate honors thesis on the role of third party and independent presidential candidates in modern U.S. elections, so this is an area of great interest to me.

The short answer is, no, it is not possible for a viable centrist party to emerge in the United States. The two-party system is hardwired into our constitution and our electoral system.

Duverger's law states that the combination of single-member districts and simple plurality elections will tend to produce a two-party system. While Maurice Duverger never intended for this to be an absolute limitation, the theory describes the situation in the United States very well.

Duverger's law basically functions through two principles:
1). The Mechanical Effect- The mathematics of an SMSP electoral system leave little incentive for smaller parties to form and run candidates. A party that consistently win the support of 15% of voters nationwide might still not win a single seat in the legislature. There is no consolation prize for coming in 2nd or 3rd place in an individual congressional district. (It it important to note that Duverger's law is better understood as a prediction of the number of parties that will be represented in the legislature, not necessarily the number of candidates that will appear on the ballot).  

2). The Psychological Effect- If 3rd parties do run, voters won't vote for them even if they are a voter's first preference because a rational voter doesn't want to waste their vote, or worse, produce a spoiler effect that sees their least-preferred candidate win (the Nader problem).

In the United States, these effects are somewhat compounded by our Presidential system. Even a party that might be able to win a handful of seats in the House would be delegitimized in the eyes of the electorate because they would never be able to compete for the big prize- the White House.

This all being said, a at least temporary third party in the "radical center" could work but I don't know how. In 1992, we had a real 3-way horse race, right?  

While 1992 and the tale of Perot and then the Reform Party is often cited as evidence that there can be some "give" in the two-party system under the right circumstances, the example also sort of demonstrates why we can't have a third party here.

First, we didn't actually have a 3-way horse race. Ross Perot's 19% of the vote got him a grand total of zero electoral votes. Perfect demonstration of the effect of SMSP rules. Now, it is true that at his peak in June of 92 Perot was considered the frontrunner, polling ahead of both Bush and Clinton with ~37% of the vote. But his numbers were trending steadily downward by the time he fake-dropped-out in July. Part of that was because he ran an increasingly incompetent campaign, but a great deal of it was inevitable once Democrats rallied around Clinton. A big part of Perot's campaign relied on displacing the democratic nominee as the principle opposition candidate to Bush.

But I digress. The real problem for third parties is demonstrated by what happened to Perot's movement in the immediate aftermath of 1992. When a credible third party challenge does emerge, one or both major parties will move to neutralize the threat by co-opting the third party's platform. Perot's campaign focused on the budget deficit, a major issue that was being largely ignored by both major parties. He also pushed various reform proposals that resonated well with voters but that the major parties had shown no interest in. Perot pulled supporters from both parties and turned out many other voters who might normally stay home, but Republicans were left feeling the most threatened by the Perot movement and blamed Perot for Bush's loss in 1992. So the party moved quickly to capture the Perot coalition. The Republicans essentially copied-and-pasted Perot's platform into the Contract With America, ran on that in 1994, and swept into both houses of congress. Balanced Budget Amendment, term limits, de-emphasizing social issues. Republicans were purposefully using campaign rhetoric directly modeled on Perot's messaging from two years ago. Once the Republican Party embraced the heart of Perot's platform, the wind was taken out of the movement's sails. By the time Perot actually formed the Reform Party, there was little need for it because the heart of it had already been absorbed into Republican Party. Perot himself only got 8% of the vote in 1996, and the Reform Party candidates for congress throughout the country didn't do any better.

The lesson is that when any third party movement does reach the kind of critical mass that would make it a legitimate threat to major party dominance, the best result it can hope for is to get the major parties to respond to it.

So sure, you could argue that the two parties have gotten so polarized right now that a significant portion of the American public would support a centrist party. You could even have an election where a strong third party or independent presidential candidate could emerge. But their relevance would never last more than one cycle. They'd make their point, probably still lose, and then the two parties would be forced to move towards the center.  


By the way, it's important to distinguish a single independent candidate from an actual third party. We do get a random independent senator or governor here and there, but it never really makes a meaningful dent in the two-party dynamics of American politics. Let's assume Perot could have run a better campaign and actually won the 1992 election. Or maybe Bloomberg or whoever could do it today. Then what? They'd have no natural base of support in congress. Worst-case scenario: horrible gridlock and a generally ineffective administration likely limited to one term. Best-case scenario: They'd make some compromises to get some centrist bipartisan measures through congress, but there'd be no infrastructure in place to affect any lasting change after that president left office.

TL;DR: Not gonna happen.

[nolesfan2011]

If people would just vote for the best person for the job instead of the lesser of two evils...

I strongly favor a 7 party system.

Something like this. Socialist Party->Green/Progressive Party>Democratic Party>Reform/Centrist/Moderate Party>Republican Party>Constitution/Tea Party>Libertarian Party.

Socialists are literally far left reds who want European style Nordic Socialism, working class, union, minimum wage, high taxes on wealthy, public ownership of industry etc. (ie Kshama Sawant)

Greens/Progressives are non socialist progs, think Nader, Keith Ellison, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee, Alan Grayson, Sherrod Brown, Shenna Bellows, Bill De Blasio, Brian Schweitzer, Tom Harkin etc.

Dems are traditional center/left types, think Amy Klobuchar, Martha Coakley, Jeff Merkley, Andrew Cuomo, John Hickenlooper, Martin O'Malley, Gavin Newson, Hillary Clinton etc.

Reform/Centrist types are mix of blue dogs and moderate Republicans. Charlie Crist ,Susan Collins, Mike Ross, John Barrow, Michelle Nunn, John Huntsman, Neel Kashkari, Mitt Romney, Heath Shuler, Kyrsten Sinema, Richard Tisei, Carl De Maio etc.

Republicans are right but not super socially right, think John Boehner, John Cornyn, Bush family, John Bolton, Bob Corker, Bobby Jindal, Rick Scott, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley etc.

Constitution/Tea Party is the social and far right. Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Chris McDaniel, Ted Cruz, Steve King etc.

Libertarians are the Paul types, and the Gary Johnson types