Sixty-three percent of Americans say a third U.S. political party is needed, up from 56% a year ago and by one percentage point the highest in Gallup's 20-year trend.
Story Highlights
Third time support has exceeded 60%, along with 2017 and 2021
Republicans primarily behind the increase, with 58% now in favor
Political independents remain group most likely to favor third party
If only the politicians in the dominant parties had any incentive to make elections fair for all parties. As it stands, the dominant parties have too many systems in place to give themselves advantages.
Rank choice voting seems like an obvious upgrade to our current voting system but is nowhere to be found other than a couple states.
There’s like 12 imperfect voting systems that are still light years better than our current system. I wish we would just pick one and roll with it already, even if it’s a temporary fix.
Approval voting is mathematically sane, rewards candidates that are broadly acceptable rather than extremists, and is easy to explain to voters: “Vote for every candidate whom you would be okay with.”
Candidates get more votes by building big tents than fanatical bases; voters maximize their power by honestly representing their views, and (unlike IRV) there’s no case where thinking better of a candidate will lead you to vote in a way that causes that candidate to lose.
How would you suggest elections be made “fair for all parties”? Hell, just look at republican primaries or basically all the California recall debates for what happens when you let complete randos use televised debates to advertise their personal brand.
Ranked Choice comes up and, while there are definite concerns over it making the “crazy second choice” candidate too viable, I generally like it.
But also? We already more or less have that. Both major parties (I think also most of the “independent” parties?) have a primary where party members can select the nominee from those running. And, in a lot of cases, that results in the eventual winner shifting to cover some of the runner up’s policies as a concession. And… that basically is the same end result. Because I am not going to pick Biden first, trump second. I am going to pick Biden first, Bernie second, etc. I would theoretically prefer to have unaffiliated voters (or even everyone) be able to engage with those primaries but also understand how that would be abused.
Personally? I am a big supporter of better education on how the government works (and why local and state elections are actually much more important than presidential…), removal of the electoral college, and general efforts to re-enfranchise voters.
I believe the only reason a “crazy second choice” exists is because we have such limited options to choose from when voting.
With rank choice voting, more candidates could run within a party without competing for votes because you would be able to vote for all of your favorite people in order without worrying what party they fall into.
We could vote for people we like instead of voting to avoid the person we hate.
If only the politicians in the dominant parties had any incentive to make elections fair for all parties. As it stands, the dominant parties have too many systems in place to give themselves advantages.
Rank choice voting seems like an obvious upgrade to our current voting system but is nowhere to be found other than a couple states.
There’s like 12 imperfect voting systems that are still light years better than our current system. I wish we would just pick one and roll with it already, even if it’s a temporary fix.
Approval voting is mathematically sane, rewards candidates that are broadly acceptable rather than extremists, and is easy to explain to voters: “Vote for every candidate whom you would be okay with.”
Candidates get more votes by building big tents than fanatical bases; voters maximize their power by honestly representing their views, and (unlike IRV) there’s no case where thinking better of a candidate will lead you to vote in a way that causes that candidate to lose.
How would you suggest elections be made “fair for all parties”? Hell, just look at republican primaries or basically all the California recall debates for what happens when you let complete randos use televised debates to advertise their personal brand.
Ranked Choice comes up and, while there are definite concerns over it making the “crazy second choice” candidate too viable, I generally like it.
But also? We already more or less have that. Both major parties (I think also most of the “independent” parties?) have a primary where party members can select the nominee from those running. And, in a lot of cases, that results in the eventual winner shifting to cover some of the runner up’s policies as a concession. And… that basically is the same end result. Because I am not going to pick Biden first, trump second. I am going to pick Biden first, Bernie second, etc. I would theoretically prefer to have unaffiliated voters (or even everyone) be able to engage with those primaries but also understand how that would be abused.
Personally? I am a big supporter of better education on how the government works (and why local and state elections are actually much more important than presidential…), removal of the electoral college, and general efforts to re-enfranchise voters.
I believe the only reason a “crazy second choice” exists is because we have such limited options to choose from when voting.
With rank choice voting, more candidates could run within a party without competing for votes because you would be able to vote for all of your favorite people in order without worrying what party they fall into.
We could vote for people we like instead of voting to avoid the person we hate.