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
    • TheSambassador@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      9 months ago

      While it may be reasonable to remove the display of party affiliation from ballots, you can’t prevent people from forming political groups. Banning “political parties” would not really prevent the damage that they cause.

      • TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.comEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Indeed. This is well-evidenced by the forming of political factions in one-party states. Even though no new political parties can form, individual factions will form in the single party based on individuals or popular policies.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      5·
      9 months ago

      then make those positions Non-renewable, similar to Jury duty. So it creates and fosters an environment where the best decision is made based on the facts presented

      That also fosters an environment of “Make the decisions that make me the most money in 2/4/6 years when I leave this job and get a cushy position at the company that has been lobbying me.”

    • mwguy@infosec.pubOP
      2·
      9 months ago

      You can protect the people’s right of assembly, or you can ban political parties. You can’t do both.

      • TAG@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        You cannot stop people from agreeing to all campaign for a single candidate, but you don’t need to put it in big letters on the ballot. A ballot can just be a list of names. The major parties can inform most voters who they endorse for president. They may also be able to get most people to associate a Congressional or Senate candidate with their party. But, when a voter is looking at their ballot, there is no way that they will know if a party enforced “Smith” or “Jones” for state treasurer, unless the candidate changes their legal name to “Democrat Jones”.

        It would probably mean that most voters will just not vote for down ballot candidates, except a very few who brought along the party’s list of recommended candidates or crazies like me who try to research candidates on the ballot.

        Also, there is no reason for the state to host and administer primaries for major parties, police that a given voter does not vote in multiple parties’ primaries, or forbid a locally popular candidate from appearing on the ballot just because they are a member of a national party who endorsed another candidate.

        I am not sure if it would be the best choice, though, since it would make it more likely that a party insider would get elected (since they are going to appeal to party die hards).

    • Blue@lemmy.world
      21·
      9 months ago

      It would work maybe with another species, one that doesn’t have tribalism ingrained in every fiber of their being.

      “man is by nature a political animal”