Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows



Yea, and only 26% identify as Republican.

Most (42%) identify as Independent or UnAffiliated.


And yet everyone will still vote for one of the “two” candidates we will be told are the only two with a chance, one from each party…


And we’ll elect the one we deserve. And everyone will spend the next four (or eight) years complaining about him (or more likely in this case, her).


It’s times like this I begin to think a Parliamentary system might not be all that bad as it tends to encourage 3rd parties and power sharing. More over you can vote the whole lot out when they decide to do more or less nothing as a strategy. :smiley:


As a priest told my friends and I “You’re expected to choose between the party of usury, and the party of sodomy.” referring to the republicans and the democrats, respectively.


And they will think that the one the chose actually has a chance of making the changes they promise.

Without realizing, the much of what they promise is not in the Executive power to begin with.

We have a system of checks and balances in our system of government for a reason.
Without Congress, the president is pretty limited.

More and more I see that many simply do not understand the government and the Constitution that governs us.

So much of what the candidates say, they simply cannot deliver. The Constitution prohibits it. :shrug:


We know the Constitution doesn’t stop anything right, though? The current guy has trampled it time and again and his “opponents” do nothing, and rogue judges make their own laws anyway…


Yeah, I’ve been questioning the symbiotic 2-party system for a looooooooooonnnnnng time. <-----this thread is almost 9 years old now!! :o


maybe it is time to invent new parties and let the democrat and republican parties fade into the sunset.


I think maybe because the 2 parties do control much of the election process, and with regard to debates, and state ballot access. Which in a system like ours would be hard to break. And as such for an Independent to win the Electoral College, is a long shot to say the least.




But counting where independents lean, 45% of the population are Democrats or Democratic leaners compared to only 42% who are Republicans and Republican leaners.


Why am I not surprised at the high percentage of Independents? Then, of course, there are those who don’t bother to vote at all or even register to vote, which remains a significant number of the population.


It’s the same everywhere; at least in the UK, for any party that isn’t either slightly insane or (unwittingly) racist.

All we like sheep…have followed the dominant media narrative.

Well speaking as one living in Parliamentary democracy, I think the problem in the US isn’t so much the 2-party structure so much as the voting system; “first past the post” (as we call it here) - the “winner takes all” approach to vote-counting - usually tends to result in an entrenched 2 party (or sometimes 3 party) system; what happened in the UK at the last general election (with regards the Scottish National Party winning all but 3 seats from Scotland) was, electorally speaking, a fluke.

What the US clearly “needs” is a PR system. Given both the Democratic and Republican parties each contain sufficient disparate political ideology within their own ranks for several new parties each, it might not actually be a bad thing (there are hard-left and hard-right, and perhaps the centre ground from each would end up coalescing).

I think another problem is that for all the grumbling and protesting about things one party or the other does or says that some voters don’t like - most actually don’t really care all that much and will vote for one side or the other from instinct rather than a great deal of cogitation. This isn’t to say that the average voter in the United States or anywhere else is stupid (I don’t accept this on principle), merely perhaps ill-informed - and that this isn’t the voter’s fault so much as the media which has such a prominent share in the responsibility to do the informing.

Perhaps what is really needed is not a voting system or a move to a new system of government - but a national public service broadcaster like the BBC?

(While the Beeb isn’t entirely politically neutral and does have a noticeable liberal bias on social issues, it is broadly even-handed about domestic political matters, which is borne out by the fact that all parties complain about it being biased against them!).

The other thing is to cut out political adverts on TV. This may be linked to broader campaign reforms. What we have in Britain is each party (which includes lots of very tiny fringe groups that don’t stand an ice cube in Hell’s chance of getting elected anywhere), has a right to a certain number of broadcasts, and mailshots, which broadly have to be positive “look what we want to do!” messages rather than “the other lot are terrible” ones (though this is partly accepted convention rather than law). I think people are often turned away from party adherence on a day-to-day basis because the coverage and their TV advert-output (which is what all most people will see), is so unremittingly negative about the other guy. The reason people flocked to Obama in 2008 for instance I think is as much to do with his campaign having a genuine sense of upbeatness about it (however misplaced it might have been) as anything else.

I think that many Americans (the ones who are not particularly interested in following any politics but still interested enough to vote, anyway), probably regard the Constitution as many Catholics seemingly regard aspects of Church moral teaching; they know its there and have a vague idea of what it says but it’s much easier just to believe it’s ok to ignore it sometimes when it’s convenient…the difference being that you can actually amend the Constitution if you don’t like it, I suppose.


I wonder what the statistics are for the number of qualified voters who do not register to vote.


I’m not too surprised. I, for one, was a Democrat for a long, long time. When it became clear to me that it stood for nothing but abortion on demand, I couldn’t identify with it anymore. But I didn’t become a Republican, though I vote for Repubs all the time because they’re not abortion supporters while their opponents always are. Why didn’t I turn Repub? Because, as with the Democrats, they don’t seem to care much about the truly poor; the ones who can’t help themselves.

There might be a lot of people like that, who once had a party affiliation but lost it and never took up another.

For many, I think, it’s more a matter of never having formed an affiliation at all. There are promises and promises, but none of them ever seem to actually be kept. And when, now and then, they’re kept, they’re awful, like Obamacare. How many times have I heard people declare that they “vote for the man”, regardless of party? To me, that means they don’t know much about any candidate and pick the one who has the greatest emotional appeal at the moment. There really are differences between the parties, though it’s presently fashionable in some quarters to say there aren’t.


Here’s a question for the voters here. When was the last time you voted for someone instead of against the other candidate?

On the federal and state level I’ve yet to vote “for” someone. In effect I’ve typically voted against someone as there is typically as candidate pushing for policies I don’t want. And voting against someone is what feeds the two party system.

Just once I’d like to vote for president thinking “both are good choices but I prefer A”, not “We must stop B by voting for A”.


You make a good point. People too often vote against the other candidate rather than for a candidate. Generally both are rather bad choices and people vote for the less bad. I think one might have to go all the way back to Eisenhower and Stevenson to find two good choices for presidential candidates.


I vote against people all the time except for state legislators, and I usually like them personally. I do vote Repub in those elections since the Dems are all pro-abortion. Much of the time, though, there are no Dem candidates at that level because this area is so conservative.

The last Dem I voted for was a few years ago when a Dem ran for sheriff. He at least claimed to be prolife and he was a likeable fellow.

Hubert Humphrey wasn’t a bad candidate. Ran against Nixon. Nixon wasn’t a bad president, just a bad man.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit