American First Globals are more likely than other generations to profess their allegiance to third party candidates in national races. When surveyed in October 2008, 15.7% of First Globals claimed they would vote for independent/third party candidates Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, or “other” in the 2008 presidential election. Only 5.4% of the other combined generations said they would vote for any of these candidates. Likewise, 6.6% of First Globals claimed to have voted for Nader or other third party candidates in the 2004 presidential election, compared to only 3.3% of other combined generations. However, even as they seem more likely to vote for third party candidates, First Globals are only slightly more likely than the rest of the population to be registered as independents or members of a third party , with 22% of First Globals registered as third party/independents compared to 21% of the rest of the population.
Some say that multi-party political systems (such as those found in much of Europe) better represent the variety of opinions and preferences held by the public. Others say that having multiple parties fragments the political scene and sometimes results in minor parties obtaining disproportionate influence within multi-party coalitions. What do you think? And is it significant that American First Globals are apparently more likely to vote for third party or independent candidates even as they register as independents or third party members in approximately the same numbers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
according to mark penn and microtrends, the future of the world is small groups expressing themselves either in politics, lifestyles, religion, and much more.
I agree microtrends are powerful and we can see this in U.S. Therefore a 2 party system does not represent such a diverse nation.
However, European politics while definitely more democratic- the problem is that I think inherent in this system is the greater possibility to allow extreme groups to be elected. If I know my history correctly, I think this could have been an underlying factor why 20th century Europe has seen more extreme political groups. Or maybe it was the harsher conditions that existed in Europe which brought about more of these groups, but still, the parliament system made it easier didn't it?
so hurray for our founding father's and their mistrust of the public!
the multi-party system makes it easier for extreme parties to make it to the government, sometimes in a prominent role because they are necessary for majority coalition to be formed. i am not sure what the relationship is between founding fathers and two-party system. i think it is our constitution that limits the powers of any extremists in the office, at least in principle.
Post a Comment