60% voters say a viable 3rd party is needed to have an effective political system!!!

B

Bill

Malarkeyville
Poll: 60 percent of voters say a viable third party is needed to have an effective political system

[FONT=&quot]A majority of voters believe a viable third party is needed in order to have an effective political system, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sixty percent of registered voters in the Sept. 10-14 survey said here needs to be a more viable third party system while 40 percent said the current two-party system is working.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
wat_09182020_1.jpg
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Democrats and Independents were more interested in having a viable third party.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sixty-one percent of Democrats ad 68 percent of Independents said a viable third party is needed. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Republican voters were more split at 51 percent support for a third party.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The poll also found that Joe Biden voters were less likely than supporters of President Trump to say the current two-party system is working.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sixty-seven percent of voters who said they plan to cast their ballots for Biden believe a viable third party is needed. By contrast, 53 percent of Trump voters said the same.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Hill-HarrisX poll was conducted online among 3,758 registered voters between Sept. 10-14. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]—Gabriela Schulte[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

​
 
Bill said:
Sixty percent of registered voters in the Sept. 10-14 survey said here needs to be a more viable third party system while 40 percent said the current two-party system is working.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with a two party system in general, but I feel the Republicans have lost their way. I would like to see two mainstream parties. The Republicans have been captured by the Alt Right, and have become the party of trump.
 
Walt said:
I don't have a problem with a two party system in general, but I feel the Republicans have lost their way. I would like to see two mainstream parties. The Republicans have been captured by the Alt Right, and have become the party of trump.
Click to expand...

Lets just look at healthcare for a moment. Every first world country has universal healthcare of one of the three basic varieties. You can either have mandatory private insurance, single payer, or government owned healthcare. Germany has mandatory private insurance. Canada has single payer. The UK has government owned healthcare.

In America, all three possible plans are stuffed into one party (the Democrats), with the Republicans being the only mainstream party in the first world to be against any form of universal healthcare. That means we do not have a real debate over how best to get universal healthcare.
 
jacksonsprat22 said:
I have no problem with that.

We would benefit from a parliamentary system.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

The current system benefits the two parties & the rich that own them...........

Our great grandchildren will not be learning Spanish, German or French, it will be Mandarin & these corporations & politicians will usher these events.......
 
Walt said:
I don't have a problem with a two party system in general, but I feel the Republicans have lost their way. I would like to see two mainstream parties. The Republicans have been captured by the Alt Right, and have become the party of trump.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.:thup:

Personally don't think they rep us, but their corporate sponsors.....

Nor do I think one, or two corrupt parties are enough to represent the vast & varied opinions & ideals of 330,000,000 Americans..
 
Walt said:
Lets just look at healthcare for a moment. Every first world country has universal healthcare of one of the three basic varieties. You can either have mandatory private insurance, single payer, or government owned healthcare. Germany has mandatory private insurance. Canada has single payer. The UK has government owned healthcare.

In America, all three possible plans are stuffed into one party (the Democrats), with the Republicans being the only mainstream party in the first world to be against any form of universal healthcare. That means we do not have a real debate over how best to get universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

When hillary brought it up why didn't her husband?? Did all the Dem party support her or did they cave to the money??

When Obama was elected I recall it was pelosi, not the gop that took it off the table............. :thinking:
 
Bill said:
Poll: 60 percent of voters say a viable third party is needed to have an effective political system

[FONT="]A majority of voters believe a viable third party is needed in order to have an effective political system, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Sixty percent of registered voters in the Sept. 10-14 survey said here needs to be a more viable third party system while 40 percent said the current two-party system is working.[/FONT]
[FONT="][IMG]https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/wat_09182020_1.jpg[/IMG][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Democrats and Independents were more interested in having a viable third party.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Sixty-one percent of Democrats ad 68 percent of Independents said a viable third party is needed. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]Republican voters were more split at 51 percent support for a third party.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The poll also found that [URL="https://thehill.com/people/joe-biden"]Joe Biden[/URL] voters were less likely than supporters of President Trump to say the current two-party system is working.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Sixty-seven percent of voters who said they plan to cast their ballots for Biden believe a viable third party is needed. By contrast, 53 percent of Trump voters said the same.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="]The Hill-HarrisX poll was conducted online among 3,758 registered voters between Sept. 10-14. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.[/FONT]
[FONT="]—[I]Gabriela Schulte[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#2B2C30][FONT="][/FONT]

​
Click to expand...

I'm kind of getting sick of both sides so I'd probably fit a bill for the new party. A poster on another forum referred to me as Bull Moose and I often feel more relevance to that nickname lately.
 
Need to get rid of single member district. Create a multi party system.

Thing about it is, most countries with multi party form coalitions anyway. And ends up being similar to 2 party.

Also you get more extremists parties that aren't nec better.
 
Crocodile said:
I'm kind of getting sick of both sides so I'd probably fit a bill for the new party. A poster on another forum referred to me as Bull Moose and I often feel more relevance to that nickname lately.
Click to expand...

LOL, tis a compliment............

I honestly don't believe anyone agrees w/ their party platforms 100%, nor should they...........

Sadly the current regime & fans demand complete subservience to the usurper of their party...... Disagreeing w/ him in whole or part is not tolerated~really a nasty foreign subversive undermining of free thinking Americans to force conformity & obedience to him..........

The other party pushed out other viable contenders & they, the party leaders picked biden as their best options.......... Kinda sad when he is their best option, but that is what the country has come down to.............
 
Instead of some goofball wacko extremist right/left wing waste of time, someone should just start a Centrist Party.

Invite everyone who views themselves as moderates, be they R or D.

Let the loonies have those two parties and take voters from both.

I have a feeling the D's would lose more than the R's though, as the R's seem to have more people with extremist views amongst them.
 
Bill said:
Personally don't think they rep us, but their corporate sponsors.....
Click to expand...

Think about this, a third party might just represent even more corporate sponsors. In many countries, wealthy people can setup their own small party, and get nearly automatic parliament membership. They then demand a cut of the spoils to join a coalition.

Or maybe more parties will allow for easier replacement of corrupt parties. Our current system has the two parties so baked into it that it is impossible to replace them. They are almost like the Communist Party of the USSR, except with two of them.

Bill said:
Nor do I think one, or two corrupt parties are enough to represent the vast & varied opinions & ideals of 330,000,000 Americans..
Click to expand...

In the end, we need to refine down all those different views into ONE government. That government needs to have limitations, so that it is not everything we are. We do not all need to eat the same dinner, or watch the same TV show, because there is a need to have one government. But our society needs to either go to war, or not. We need to either build a road, or not. We need to have one final decision on many issues.

Arguably refining it all down to two parties could then help refine it further to one government.
 
Nomad said:
Instead of some goofball wacko extremist right/left wing waste of time, someone should just start a Centrist Party.

Invite everyone who views themselves as moderates, be they R or D.

Let the loonies have those two parties and take voters from both.

I have a feeling the D's would lose more than the R's though, as the R's seem to have more people with extremist views amongst them.
Click to expand...

I think that was what John Anderson was striving for when he ran.. He did fairly well considering, almost 7%
 
Bill said:
When hillary brought it up why didn't her husband?? Did all the Dem party support her or did they cave to the money??

When Obama was elected I recall it was pelosi, not the gop that took it off the table............. :thinking:
Click to expand...

America only has a debate between universal healthcare, and not universal healthcare, with the default compromise be not universal healthcare, but with a few more people being covered. Most other countries have a debate which universal healthcare to use, so have a much more fruitful debate.

I blame the Republicans for this. The Republicans have staked out such a bizarrely outside the mainstream position that no reasonable compromise can ever be found. The Democrats are left trying to represent all the mainstream positions, which becomes like one party rule. One party, no matter how much they legitimately try, can never represent all positions.

So the Republican fanaticism has led to compromises with fanaticism, and Democrats trying(but failing) to represent all the reasonable options at once.
 
/MSG/ said:
And yet no 3rd party has managed 5%.

Hmmmmmm.
Click to expand...

Strong presidential systems always tend to become one or two party systems. If there we had a parliament system, there would probably be two to five major parties, and many more minor parties with some parliamentary representation.

Basically put, there are no coalitions in a strong presidential system, so votes for anyone other than the two big parties are almost always wasted votes. That makes it impossible to grow a party to be one of the two major parties, and means a static two party system.
 
Walt said:
Think about this, a third party might just represent even more corporate sponsors. In many countries, wealthy people can setup their own small party, and get nearly automatic parliament membership. They then demand a cut of the spoils to join a coalition.

Or maybe more parties will allow for easier replacement of corrupt parties. Our current system has the two parties so baked into it that it is impossible to replace them. They are almost like the Communist Party of the USSR, except with two of them.



In the end, we need to refine down all those different views into ONE government. That government needs to have limitations, so that it is not everything we are. We do not all need to eat the same dinner, or watch the same TV show, because there is a need to have one government. But our society needs to either go to war, or not. We need to either build a road, or not. We need to have one final decision on many issues.

Arguably refining it all down to two parties could then help refine it further to one government.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a possibility of that, but that will further divide the spoils & they are already investing in their politicians......

Yep in many states they have both erected hurdles & barriers to prevent any other parties from "their elections" as if the founders or God gave the country to them.........

I don't think that less is more in this case..

While it my help them come to a conclusion, that does not imply that it is the best conclusion for the country.....:|

The politicians do what is in their best interests, not ours..... We have no labor party in this country..

bill clinton signed NAFTA not nixon........ he was not forced to do so...........

That sucking sound was putting it mildly-the dem party & the republican party orchestrated those jobs leaving.......:mad:

They said there would be some winners & some losers=they were the winners & we are the losers.......

Personally I trust neither of them, why anyone would after these two examples is beyond me, but there are many, many more........
 
Bill said:
bill clinton signed NAFTA not nixon........ he was not forced to do so........... That sucking sound was putting it mildly-the dem party & the republican party orchestrated those jobs leaving.......
Click to expand...

In effect, Clinton signed NAFTA, but technically he did not. Bush (senior) signed NAFTA, with Clinton getting it through the Congressional ratification process. Clinton signed it all into law, so I guess that part he did sign. NAFTA had bi-partisan support, after Clinton insisted on labor and environmental protections. Clinton needed the two side agreements (labor and environment) to make sure that we did not go to the least common denominator(or maybe to try, but fail, to make sure).

NAFTA happened at the same time as the rise of China, and other global trade. It also happened against the backdrop of constant industrial automation, and market consolidation. It is hard to figure out what caused what happened next. I will say that it has not all been bad. It has allowed American manufacturing to outsource low wage work, and to increase American higher wage work. So we create more computer chips, and Mexico assembles them. When China assembles the computer chips, they are more likely to buy the chips from East Asian companies. When we assemble the computer chips, the price is too high, and we go out of business.
 
Walt said:
America only has a debate between universal healthcare, and not universal healthcare, with the default compromise be not universal healthcare, but with a few more people being covered. Most other countries have a debate which universal healthcare to use, so have a much more fruitful debate.

I blame the Republicans for this. The Republicans have staked out such a bizarrely outside the mainstream position that no reasonable compromise can ever be found. The Democrats are left trying to represent all the mainstream positions, which becomes like one party rule. One party, no matter how much they legitimately try, can never represent all positions.

So the Republican fanaticism has led to compromises with fanaticism, and Democrats trying(but failing) to represent all the reasonable options at once.
Click to expand...

While I agree the gop has been adamently opposed to it~

snip
So Democrats’ attempts to quell their base’s clamoring for a comprehensive, public health-care system isn’t new. What is new is the open, public disparagement of such a goal — not just by Democratic leaders, but by leading liberal commentators, too.

Ironically, this appears largely to have been due to the Sanders campaign — or rather, the challenge it posed to Hillary Clinton’s previously wide-open road to the White House. Needing to differentiate herself from Sanders’s unabashed progressivism, and to dampen popular enthusiasm for his message, Clinton began attacking his policies, despite her historic sympathy toward single payer.

Sanders’s proposals were “ideas that sound good on paper but will never make it in real life,” she told crowds; for good measure, she insisted that single-payer health care “will never, ever come to pass.”

Two years earlier, she explained her opposition to the policy on the basis that “we don’t have a one size fits all; our country is quite diverse.” In January 2016, she warned breathlessly that Sanders’s plan would “end all the kinds of health care we know” and claimed it would “send health insurance to the states,” while her daughter warned that it would “dismantle Obamacare” and “strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance.”

As late as October, Clinton’s team was still trying to distance herself from Trump’s accusation that she — heaven forbid! — “wants to go to a single-payer plan,” with her spokesman directing Politifact to an earlier fact-check confirming her lack of support for the policy. (Lest we mistake this for mere expediency, we can rest assured that at least some of the Clinton camp really felt this way: campaign manager John Podesta declared in an email to ThinkProgress editor-in-chief Judd Legum that Sanders’s “actual proposal sucks, but we live in a leftie alternative universe.”)

These doomsday warnings didn’t seem to sway the public. By May 2016, Gallup polling found that more than half of Americans favored replacing Obamacare with a single-payer system, including a whole 41 percent of Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top