Two’s company… Three’s a Party

Majority of Americans Support Creating a Third Party

Heather Ginsberg | Oct 13, 2013 |Townhall

With the recent government shutdown it’s no surprise that many Americans are dissatisfied with the government. But in a recent poll from Gallup, it seems clear that the disapproval has reached a new level.

It is well known that the American government is based in a two-party system, but it now it looks like many are not so sure that is the best way to go. 60 percent of Americans now say they would support the formation of the third party. Democrats and Republicans are no longer cutting it. Since Gallup began asking this question 10 years ago, this is the highest percentage they have measured. Only 26 percent believe the two major parties are accurately representing their constituents.

Since the shutdown began we saw a rise in negative opinions of the parties, so it is no surprise that when given the option of a third party, many Americans are willing to look into that option. And this is not even a party specific finding. Both Democrats and Republicans are equally likely to see a third party as a good alternative; however, independents are much more likely to think a third party is necessary.

Clearly the dissatisfaction over the government shutdown is affecting several different areas of the American political spectrum. Perhaps this would be a good choice in order to avoid this kind of situation happening again in the future.

Those numbers an attitudes speak loud and clear, for themselves.

15 comments on “Two’s company… Three’s a Party

  1. Mrs. AL says:

    I have thought for some time now that I would like to see one month of new broadcasts with NO, NADA, ZIPPO (R) or (D) appearing behind anyone’s name. I truly believe if that were to happen, more people would hold electeds responsible as individuals outside the context of party affiliation.

    Like

  2. Hardnox says:

    Following Mrs AL’s lead they should just put a (G) behind their names. They all play for the same team anyway.

    Like

  3. --Rick says:

    On Third Party conversations, I would invite you to consider a pithy post at Gus Van Horn on this topic.

    Like

    • bullright says:

      Rick, Well, he makes great points But we still undeniably have problems (emanating) in Washington, outside the purview and permission of the folks. Lord Acton again. Much as I like the blame it on the folks mantra, it leaves something missing too. Integrity and accountability are in short supply. But we see how scandalous it becomes when we do try to hold them accountable. (as if that is only where the real fun begins) Still good points.

      Like

      • --Rick says:

        This link kind of makes the point in a different way as to why the TEA Party shenanigans with Obamacare and the Debt Ceiling have only worsened the Republican’s chances of gaining more power. In fact, I think it is a sure bet that they will have less power and may, in fact, lose the House in 2014. If that happens, then what? How does any party stop the onslaught of increased spending and zero accountability? If the politicians can’t make a serious connection with the voters on these issues, the voters, as much as they like to complain will continue to vote “their guy/gal” in believing that they can’t be wrong if so many others agree with their vote.

        The nation has lost its identity, its character and its philosophic soul and reclaiming any part of that is difficult at best. Reclaiming it all in a short period of time is virtually impossible. Republicans had a chance to solidify their foundation and work for gains in both houses. I don’t think they have a strong enough candidate who can communicate to the degree necessary to win the WH. But, they had a shot at taking the Senate and the purse strings in totality. Instead, the TEA faction has bulldozed the ground supporting basic principles and they have done so from too many directions to keep it focused.

        Hell, they can’t even agree among themselves what directions to follow. Some want small government. Others want a modern day version of Christendom where the secular government is weakened but the overall size of intrusion into individual rights continues with the combined powers of both Church and State pulling individuals into groups pitted one against the other.. Still others want our fiscal house put in order, but wish to continue social programs and access to power. If you go to Wikipedia and look up conservative politics, you find a myriad of conflicting and contradictory definitions almost by sect. How can anyone possess the skill to present a clear, concise and straightforward politico-philosophical message that the common person will understand and buy into with that backdrop?

        This last, I think was much of the point that GVH was attempting to make but in a less verbose manner.

        Thank you for continually stimulating my bite sized brain and giving me the opportunity for some intellectual exercise. Best to you and yours, always.

        ~~Rick

        Like

        • --Rick says:

          Consider this quote from another GVH article on the same topic and I think it will be found to make perfect sense. Have you ever met a politician who did not want to ingratiate him/herself by trying to appear hip or current with the culture or their time? The big question remains, how does a political party change the culture without a rock star statesman holding the reigns of influence and direction?

          “if you want to make things better, party politics is probably not your best focus. Politicians are weathervanes, and the winds they respond to come mostly from forces in the culture and the media. If you want to turn them around, work on that. Change the culture and the politics will follow. Leave the culture to Oprah, Olbermann, and worse, and you won’t accomplish much through politics over the long run.”

          http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2008/01/indeed-indeed.html

          Like

        • bullright says:

          Good comments all Rick. A lot to think about there.

          “The big question remains, how does a political party change the culture without a rock star statesman holding the reigns of influence and direction?”

          Yea I understand that, But we are a nation of laws not of men. So that is what we have now in the King. I know what he and you mean wanting a strong leader. But I always worry what happens when that person is gone etc.?

          In part, that is why the Tea Parties tried to stay out of the Party business. They wanted to be an influence t the system. No, maybe they haven’t done everything the right way, but they tried to do something rather than sit back watching the same old do the same old. I saw Cal Thomas’s quote and the guys always seem to say the same thing. I’ll give it some more thought.

          Like

  4. bullright says:

    Per Rick’s [link], this was the closing in the great article.

      “This is because most politicians by nature value power, which they know they need your vote to obtain. The moment you pledge your support to the man, you have lost whatever measure of power you once had to cause him to act to further goals in accordance with your principles.

      Where would we be today if, instead of principled abolitionists like Lydia Maria Child, we had the likes of William Kristol telling everyone to pick a party, accept a candidate, and shut up their nit-picking about slavery already?” — CAV

    Good summary.

    Like

Comments...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s