Party Over

Post Reply New Topic

Gallup just released a new report (N=12,137) demonstrating how political party identification has been in a constant decline in the US for more than 2 decades.



Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democ ... aign=tiles

As shown above, the US will likely soon approach a situation where more than half of the population (currently 42 percent) no longer feels any party affiliation.

However, as shown above, the decline in party affiliation tends to favor the Democrats fairly consistently, as they enjoy a slight edge over Republicans in the "Leaning" voters among Independents. Please note that this edge may not translate 1:1 into an electoral advantage, since turnout has historically been lower among Democrats than Republicans.

Anyway, this development is certainly quite a challenge to the electoral First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system in the US, which has a tendency to create two-party political systems.

Please discuss.

In a lot of ways, this is a good political development. Trends such as these obviously point towards diversification of political ideologies and dissolve the necessity of having voters confined to merely two choices. If voters are less inclined to restrict themselves to only voting for the Republicans or Democrats, it will empower new political players and a more diverse political climate.

I've seen the same polling data, but I've also seen the electoral data, and so far the lack of party identification doesn't seem to be translating to much independent voting. I suspect that people like the idea of being politically independent, but when it comes to actually voting, succumb to the party line scare-mongering of their political peers. I've also seen data on political polarization showing that while people are on the whole just as satisfied/dissatisfied with their own parties as they've ever been, their dislike of the other party is at all time highs, indicating to me that people are voting along partisan lines more because they dislike one party than because they like the other.

I think it's important to note the branding problem the parties, republican in particular faces. I actually did a marketing research proposal for the libertarian party in a recent class assignment.

The party label is only one way of determining the ideology of the people. Whatever the label, the US as a whole is a center-right country.

Republicans have been vilified to the point that people will never vote for them, even though they may agree with more of the party's ideas than they know.

My mother, 69, is a life-long democrat. She had told me she would rather die than vote republican. But when she talks to me about actual issues, her opinions are much more conservative than she realizes. She instilled me with conservative principles, yet she seems surprised that she did. If I try to tell her she has a conservative position, she shuts down the conversation. I think she's still hung up on labels. Labels are the short-hand of parties.

I think there are plenty of other people out there who misidentify their beliefs. I think it can even be tied to desire for social acceptance and other neuro-typical behavior. Elections can swing wildly in the last few days because there is a sizable fraction of the populace that would rather be on the winning side than hold any deep philosophical conviction.

As a regular third party voter, I think it's a good thing that people no longer identify as much with parties. I do believe they serve to divide and conquer the people, to incite false rivalries, to make enemies of neighbors. There is so much more that we have in common than that which we disagree on. George Washington's farewell address was equally profound and prescient on the problem of parties:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. "

Last edited by looniverse on 12 Jan 2016, 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't really feel a party affiliation. I'm registered as an Independent.

I like some things from the Dems....others from the Elephants...others from others.

The political system doesn't usually work for independents, nationally only for single constituencies.

In the UK it is not possible for an independent to be Prime Minister, since it is the party with the most seats that wins, and that party's leader becomes the Prime Minister. However to become leader of the party is a matter for the party.

Why do you need to register as an independent? Just be one.

I have never quite got the party affiliation registering thing in the US. Why disclose that information, except to the party you support.

Some states have closed primaries and you have to register as a Republican or Democrat to vote in them, I'm sure there are other reasons for it too.

You can decline to answer but I just put independent.

It's pretty obvious by this election cycle already that the American people are deeply unsatisfied with their political parties. We have a Reality TV star/billionaire on one side and an old hippie that looks like Doc from Back To The Future as serious contenders.

I've lost faith in our system, I think we need to decentralize and have more direct democracy. Why shouldn't I be able to vote on policy matters that effect me? These representatives aren't uniquely qualified nor do they actually represent us, there is a huge huge disconnect now between the American people and their elected officials. Give us a slate of policy issues, require a civics test, let people vote on said issues, I doubt we'd come out worse.

Maybe the massive expansion of the House of Representatives + repeal of the 17th amendment would be a good alternative.

I like a few of your points. I think the Constitution was abused to create the centralized government that exists now. Thanks to the relentless progression of precedent, the 10th amendment is essentially meaningless.

I think we could revolutionize the system through technology. There is no need for a central hub with the ability for these representatives to telecommute. It would be very easy to go back to the original figure of one representative for every 40,000 people. Hoorah!

As for the decentralization, that's why I favor strict constitutionalists.

There wouldn't have been a need for centralization if all the states would have respected the rights of their citizens, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference. But because the more reactionary states have had a bad record in that department, the federal government has had to step in to protect the liberty of all Americans.

The feds have never respstected the rights of its citizens, one big government isn't better or more accountable than 50 small ones. Our country is broken and divided, if nothing is done then it will only get worse from here.

the drive for centralization is to concentrate power in the hands of a very elite few

It's certain states that have suppressed the rights of racial and sexual minorities, and in those states, it's the feds who have come to the rescue of those minorities. Had blacks not been politically and economically disenfranchised and segregated, had gays been given the right to marry, had trans persons had the right to use whatever sh*tter they please, there wouldn't be a need for the federal government to interfere. If you want the feds to stay out of the states, then the states need to voluntarily extend liberty to everyone, even those people the majority doesn't like.

Also, there is a news report from 2011 ( http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/pol ... 52171688/1 ) which states that "More than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continues to grow." The largest abandonment among the political parties was the Democratic Party which suffered an 800,000-member loss whereas the Republican Party lost 350,000 members. Meanwhile, unaffiliated voters grew by 325,000 members.

Political parties are now anathema to American life. Thankfully, I left the Democratic Party (and other parties) behind in 2004. This condition of the parties suggests a good chance that, absent some 2000-style election voting "irregularities," a third-party or independent presidential candidate (say, Trump or Webb) could actually win. After all, Bill Clinton won his first presidential election in 1992 by winning a plurality of votes, not a majority.

The federal government has done more than its fair share suppressing the rights of minorities, pretending otherwise is being ignorant of history and allowing yourself to be a useful idiot for the new world order which want to control the planet top down. You don't seem to understand the very basic concept that the government that can give you everything you want can also take it all away.

The GOP controls 31 state legislatures, they need 34 to call for a Article V constitutional convention which would allow unlimited amendments to constitution to be proposed and 38 states would be needed to ratify those amendments. Texas governor Greg Abbott recently called for one, things aren't too far out of reach.

Sure, the federal government had suppressed the rights of minorities - in the long past. It's been a very different story since the mid twentieth century, when it's been the feds championing voters rights for all Americans, and more recently, LGBT rights.
Incidentally, if Abbott gets his wish, and the states have more power with overturning supreme court decisions, and the addition of new amendments from the state level, you can almost certainly see an end to LGBT rights on a national level, and possibly even a repeal of Voting Rights Act.

snip

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 15 Jan 2016, 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.