Posted on 10/30/2007 12:28:46 PM PDT by RogerFGay
Zogby Poll: U.S. Constitution Wearing Well in Modern America
But Zogby newsletter poll shows wide majority feels the two–party political system is not working well; Most want more options
As the nation marks its 231st birthday Wednesday, most Americans believe the U.S. Constitution is still serving the nation well, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
Nine out of 10 respondents to a recent online survey said that, despite the massive changes that have occurred in the U.S. since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the guiding document of the nation is still relevant to modern life in America.
The survey included 5,651 respondents and was conducted June 19–21, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/– 1.3 percentage points. Results from the wide–ranging poll can be found in the July edition of Zogby’s Real America Newsletter, available at www.zogby.com. The current edition of the newsletter explores a wide variety of topics having to do with the nation’s birthday and with the hot topic of immigration.
Half said the Constitution was “completely relevant” to modern life. By contrast, just 1% said it was not at all relevant, while 7% said it was not very relevant. Those at the liberal end of the political spectrum were more likely to be dissatisfied with the founding document’s guiding of life today in America, but moderates were most disenchanted. Among the very liberal, 46% said the Constitution was “very relevant,” compared to 79% of the very conservative who said the same. Among moderates, just 37% agreed.
Younger respondents were less convinced of its relevance in modern society. Racial minorities were somewhat less likely to say it was relevant, compared to whites.
The newsletter survey also shows that, by a wide majority, most Americans are displeased with the current two–party political system. Two out of three adults – 67% – said they were dissatisfied with the Democrat–versus–Republican dominated system, while just 31% said they were happy with it.
Oddly, just 32% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans said they were pleased, while majorities were dissatisfied. Among those who described themselves as political independents, just 19% were satisfied, while 80% said they were unhappy. The poll revealed serious intensity of emotion against the current system among independents – 49% said they were “very dissatisfied” with the current political arrangement in America.
Asked if they thought a system that included more political parties would make the country’s politics better, 53% agreed. Liberals were more interested in new options, the poll shows – 64% of liberals said more parties would improve the system, compared to just 38% of conservatives who said the same thing. Among Democrats, 58% said they believed more parties would improve the system, compared to just 38% of Republicans who agreed. Among independents, 64% agreed more political parties would help.
ping
Unfortunately, those two-thirds won’t make up a single, unified third party.
They will be the margins of either party that will only serve to split the vote of the others.
We’ve been here before.
Better to affect change from within.
Make every primary on the same day and make them all open primaries. There is no need for voters to declare themselves. If someone gets 50% of the vote they win. If nobody gets 50% of the vote the two highest vote getters have a run off.
The only thing achieved by a multi-party political system is to give more power to the extremists. That kind of system has decimated Europe and would do the same to the United States if the 2-party system were to ever truly fall apart and be replaced by the concept suggested in this article.
If this is true; just wonder how the questions were worded?
Oh...I bet the Clintons are behind this one.
But really, if you want multiple parties move to Germany, France or Italy.
Beat me to it. One only need look at Italy for an example. The French are not far behind.
I don’t want either type of government here.
As what?
They’re voting for the US Constution and against the two party opposition to it.
The question is: Why do you believe a poll from an Islamist son-of-a-bitch?
You’re posting interesting articles to me. Unfortunately my eyes are on the big picture right now, how to get a couple more judges like Roberts and Alito and Clarence Thomas. We’re too close to take a chance on that. I’m looking at who can appoint a couple of good judges right now. You could call it being practical.
This article might well be appropriate long term. Short term [2008] I’m not sure.
I can’t see it right now. I need time to evaluate this.
But what about a few-party system like the UK, Canada, and Australia have. Seems to work quite well in my book.
You just need a far left party, a left-centre party, a right-centre party and a far right party, correct?
With the election rules passed by the two parites in power (especially in the wake of Perot's 19% in 1992), it's almost impossible to start a successful third party.
“Two-thirds against two-party system”
I am no fan of Zogby, but I am actually against the “party system” altogether.
That is the way the governmental election system has evolved based on the rules the Founders set up.
You cannot do this without destroying freedom of speech.
How do you destroy freedom of speech? By watering down what financial backing can do. If you, or the group you're a part of want to back a candidate, you do that largely with donations. The more donations; i.e., support for that candidate, the more that candidate's message gets across.
Primaries are a way to test viability of candidates, allow them to solidify their base, and extend their message to voters outside their party.
Having three, four, or even ten parties will dillute the campaigns of legitimate candidates, and give power to extreme or "fringe" candidates. I shudder to think what our country would be like with a "Green" party, an "Anarchist" party, or the "Peace" party.
And in the end, in order to pass legislation, you'd end up eventually consolidating votes. You'd have more parties, but in the end, every vote has two outcomes.
Man, like we really need the Green Party running Al Gore in 2008 man!
George Washington warned, in his farewell address, that we should be wary and shun any “parties”. Shame “we” didn’t take his advice.
“We have a one party system with two ugly heads.”
Ooooh, right on the mark.
Open primaries are an open invitation to gamesmanship to sabotage the opposing party by selecting an unelectable candidate. IMHO, too much emphasis is placed on primaries especially in the presidential race. They allow energetic special interests and one-issue fanatics far too much power.
It wasn't always so and the old 'smoky back room' system usually produced better candidates than our current 'celebrity' system.
Uh fine, no problem, but you will have to have a constitutional amendment to change the electoral system, and don't get mad at me for saying such, get mad at the Founders, who setted up our current system.
Zogby “Special Sauce”
No Roger, I mean like Hillary Clinton without having to worry about moderating her warped views. Like it or not, our current system takes a VERMIN like Hillary and forces her to behave in a quasi-reasonable fashion in order to get elected, and eventually to remain in power without fear of impeachment or coup.
With a multi-party system, Hillary Clinton, or those worse than her, could relax and be themselves.
And even if the extremists were not elected, they could more easily play “kingmaker” in coalition governments and gain huge concessions for their extreme positions. This happens in Europe all the time when Center/Left governments are forced to deal with Greens and Marxists, etc...
In our current system, the wackos still have too much power, but they have far less leverage than they would in the multi-party system.
It’s almost impossible to find the “perfect” party for all of us in a 2-party system, but in our desire to seek that “ideal” party, we would merely be creating the possibility of a less free, less functional system.
The two party system is a good check on radicalism (left or right) and the pettiness of coalition governments.
Either we have open debates between the top three of each of the two parties or develop a third party. The way we are doing it now is no longer working. Politicians have figured out that if both parties get together, they can control everything. All they have to do is make them LOOK different. I don’t see any other way of handling it to the point that the people can have control of what’s going on. It’s too late to start a third party now, but one could be started immediately after the elections so that it’s in place prior to 2012. I wouldn’t want to see anything like the Libertarian Party either. Controlling this one would be tough. A legitimate third party could keep the other two in line and bring about true competition.
But again........we can fix the two party system by having every debate be between the Republicans and Democrats.....all questions are kept secret until the debate and candidates cannot skirt any questions. If they do skirt any question, they could be skipped for the next three questions and/or cut off in the middle of their answers. Also...no questions like “What would you do about Daylight Savings Time”? This country has serious problems and we need to know what each candidate would do about them. I would also have a 3-4 hour, non-stop debate....let them get tired of standing there and you will see different answers. The debates we have now are not true debates, they just give their answers and don’t debate amongst themselves.
Great post. Absolutely right on target.
Uh George Washington, is one of the Founders of our current electoral system, shame should be on him, by you, for his partaking in this current travesty, by your basic words.
Sorry, you’ll have to lend out your magic Penumbral Emanation Spectacles to get anybody else to find the word “party” in the Constitution.
Your 4-party system is more workable than the Multi-Party system, but it would still increase the likelihood that lesser parties could gain more influence than they should. For example, if one of the 4 parties you describe has a crippling scandal or suffers from one particularly awful national candidate, a lesser, more extreme, party could step into that void and gain power, thus altering the delicate balance of a Republic.
Uh stevie, you do know it's takes a half + 1 to be the majority in Congress.
Hey don't get mad at me, the Founders set up the system where 2 basic idealogical parties fight it out for control.
I’ve heard that argument before, but it’s not one I consider valid. It’s a warped view intending support for the two party system. There are unstable governments in the world but multi-party democracy is not the cause; nor has the two-party system been a cause of stability in the US.
Count me among those tired of watching the two halves of the superparty toss the ball back and forth.
Why fix the two party system. No one has ever developed a political theory in which a two-party system is desirable. The Constitution defines our system as non-partisan. We have political parties because we have political freedom - i.e. we cannot deny people the right to form political parties. It has never been intended by any intelligent political philosopher that we should have a two-party system. It’s just a negative side-effect - an unintended consequence of people who have not behaved as the Constitution intends.
But there aren’t enough Republicans to matter.
Well then, you should point your venom at the Founders, who set the current system up.
And don't forget, people like James Madison, who authored Federalist Paper No. 10, argued against factions, which would be found in a multi-party system.
Call me old-fashioned, but I still trust our Founders, when it comes to how our government should be run.
Wow! Even pollsters pushing to have a 3rd Party, preferably someone Right Wing or Conservative, on the ballot. I guess Hillary’s chances are iffy.
Splinter groups don't have a chance of real power ownership when compared to a system of fewer, larger parties....
Real multi-party systems operate without the distortion we have from the two-party system. Representation evolves with the people. Only the strong survive.
Which leads you to what conclusion or stance?
The Constitution says nothing about a two party system. There is no two party system: last national election there were eight parties on the ballot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.