• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The US: Six Political Parties?

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2000
Messages
26,852
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What if America had 6 political parties? by Damon Linker on 2019 May 28.
Several trends were apparent in the results of the EU parliamentary elections that took place from last Thursday through Sunday across 28 European countries. Right-wing populists surged, though not quite as much as some had predicted. Support for the established center-left and center-right continued to sag. Green parties did very well and appear to be surpassing social-democratic parties on the left.
Proportional representation easily allows multiple parties, something that first-past-the-post with single-member districts doesn't.

He identifies three main factions in both the Republican and Democratic Parties, and I have woven his words into my descriptions here.

In the Republican Party:

The Populist-Nationalist Party. It is anti-immigrant, skeptical of free trade and big business, suspicious of the deployment of American military force abroad, and strongly nationalist. It is strongest in the Rust Belt and low-density areas, and Donald Trump is its best-known recent politician. It is much like such European parties as Marine Le Pen's National Rally in France, Matteo Salvini's Lega Nord in Italy, and Viktor Orban's Fidesz in Hungary.

The Internationalist Conservative Party. It is pro-immigration, pro-free trade, antitax, and willing to use US military might to remake the rest of the world in the US's economic and political image. It is strongest among upper-middle-class to upper-class suburbanites, big business, the party's major donors, and the bulk of the party's establishment. It is much like European center-right parties, but with much more skepticism about government provision of social services.

The Religious Right Party: It is strongly anti-abortion, anxious about threats to the religious freedom of traditionalist Christians and Jews, and it strongly supports the appointment of staunchly conservative jurists to the nation's courts. Its core is white evangelical Protestants, and it includes the more conservative sorts of Catholics and Jews. It is much like Israel's far-right ultra-orthodox and settler parties.

In the Democratic Party:

The Social Democratic Party: It has a long list of policy proposals, including sharply higher income taxes, a wealth tax, single-payer health care, free college tuition, and decarbonization of the economy, and some of its members call themselves socialists. It downplays identity politics and the culture war, while being skeptical of some free-trade policies and foreign-policy hawkishness. Its biggest supporters are young, white, and highly educated voters, and its most prominent politicians are Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren.

The Internationalist Progressive Party: Though sharing many goals with the social democrats, it has a more cautious, incremental, and technocratic approach on economic policy, it is big on identity politics and fighting the culture war on the left, it supports immigration, free-trade agreements, expansion of international law, and enforcing it with US military might. Its biggest supporters are people in urban areas, high-density suburbs, and minority communities, and it has such prominent politicians as Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg.

The Centrist Working-Class Party: It strongly supports mid-20th-cy. social programs like Social Security and Medicare, but does not want to go much further. "Its members also tend to be more conservative on culture war issues, express some nationalist sympathies, and fear that high rates of unskilled immigration will depress wages and increase competition for lower-skilled jobs." Its members are "older, whiter, less educated, and more likely to be found in the unionized, post-industrial Midwest than the members of the other left-leaning parties." Its has prominent politician Joe Biden, someone whose main platform seems to be criticizing the other factions, the social democrats for being too ambitious, and the internationalists' culture warring too polarizing.


I recall from somewhere that Brand New Congress wanted to operate as a European-style political party, but one that works inside the two existing parties. Most of its candidates have run as Democrats, but a few have done so as Republicans.
 
If those are the six, the Social Democratic Party all the way! Go team!

Actually if those were the 6 official parties, it would be interesting to see the interplay between some of the former republican and democrat parties. Some of them would have more in common with each other than with those who are currently aligned within the 2 parties.
 
Actually if those were the 6 official parties, it would be interesting to see the interplay between some of the former republican and democrat parties. Some of them would have more in common with each other than with those who are currently aligned within the 2 parties.
I agree. And I see little difference between the socialist and populist parties. Nor do I see much difference between the Internationalist progressive and consevative parties.

The main problem with US parties today is not that there are only 2 parties. The problem is that both parties are beholden to the same interests. With such control over all the party's its impossible to do a democratic job of representing voters. And when that happens politics and government starts to break down and become ineffective.
 
In the Democratic Party:

The Social Democratic Party: It has a long list of policy proposals, including sharply higher income taxes, a wealth tax, single-payer health care, free college tuition, and decarbonization of the economy, and some of its members call themselves socialists. It downplays identity politics and the culture war, while being skeptical of some free-trade policies and foreign-policy hawkishness. Its biggest supporters are young, white, and highly educated voters, and its most prominent politicians are Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren.

The Internationalist Progressive Party: Though sharing many goals with the social democrats, it has a more cautious, incremental, and technocratic approach on economic policy, it is big on identity politics and fighting the culture war on the left, it supports immigration, free-trade agreements, expansion of international law, and enforcing it with US military might. Its biggest supporters are people in urban areas, high-density suburbs, and minority communities, and it has such prominent politicians as Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg.

The Centrist Working-Class Party: It strongly supports mid-20th-cy. social programs like Social Security and Medicare, but does not want to go much further. "Its members also tend to be more conservative on culture war issues, express some nationalist sympathies, and fear that high rates of unskilled immigration will depress wages and increase competition for lower-skilled jobs." Its members are "older, whiter, less educated, and more likely to be found in the unionized, post-industrial Midwest than the members of the other left-leaning parties." Its has prominent politician Joe Biden, someone whose main platform seems to be criticizing the other factions, the social democrats for being too ambitious, and the internationalists' culture warring too polarizing.

This breakdown has the candidates and their supporters all wrong, though. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are the ones primarily supported by less-educated minority communities living in urban or suburban areas, and they have a distinctly different base (and thus different political priorities) than Warren, who actually IS supported by white, highly educated upper-middle class voters.
 
What if America had More Political Parties? - TLDR News - YouTube
What If America Had A Lot More Political Parties? l FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast - YouTube

June Verified Voter Omnibus - Quadrants - Echelon Insights
Omnibus October 2019_Party - Omnibus-October-2019_Party.pdf
June 2021 Omnibus External Toplines - June-2021-Omnibus-External-Toplines.pdf

The work starts off with a version of the Political Compass: economic and cultural left to right. Each individual scale, from left to right.
  • Cultural:
  • (1/2 split) - 44% 56%
  • (1/4 split) - 19% 26% 32% 24%
  • Economic:
  • (1/2 split) - 52% 48%
  • (1/4 split) - 20% 32% 27% 21%
The four quadrants (C = cultural E = economic / L = left R = right):
  • Liberals (CL EL): 39% (strong) 13%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): 6%
  • Populists (CR EL): 14%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): 42% (strong) 16%
When one pluts individual points, one finds a lot of scatter around the line between CL-EL and CR-ER, with the line bent in the populist direction near the center.

Libertarians are surprisingly rare, despite the impression one might get from the Internet. In one of the videos, one of those who found these results said that he has bad news for CEO's and the like: not many people take their side.

By party affiliation:
  • Liberals (CL EL): D 80% I 4% R 10% ? 7%
  • (strong) D 91% I 1% R 6% ? 2%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): D 58% I 16% R 23% ? 3%
  • Populists (CR EL): D 42% I 6% R 49% ? 3%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): D 13% I 6% R 76% ? 6%
  • (strong) D 5% I 1% R 89% ? 5%
? = unsure

The 2016 Presidential election
  • Liberals (CL EL): HC 69% DT 11% GJ 2% ? 9% . 14%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): HC 59% DT 19% GJ 4% ? 6% . 13%
  • Populists (CR EL): HC 41% DT 34% GJ 3% ? 4% . 18%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): HC 14% DT 72% GJ 3% ? 5% . 7%
. = did not vote

The 2020 Presidential election
  • Liberals (CL EL): JB 84% DT 10% JJ 1% ? 0% . 5%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): JB 69% DT 15% JJ 4% ? 0% . 11%
  • Populists (CR EL): JB 38% DT 53% JJ 2% ? 2% . 5%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): JB 19% DT 76% JJ 1% ? 1% . 3%

This suggests that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because liberals didn't want to vote for her. They turned out for Joe Biden, and that is why he won. He won despite populists and conservatives turning out in greater numbers for Donald Trump.
 
As to what people consider themselves (liberal, moderate, conservative),
  • Liberals (CL EL): L 53% M 32% C 10% ? 5%
  • (strong) L 76% M 19% C 5% ? 0%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): L 11% M 59% C 25% ? 5%
  • Populists (CR EL): L 19% M 38% C 33% ? 10%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): L 7% M 21% C 71% ? 2%
  • (strong) L 1% M 5% C 93% ? 0%
So liberals tend to consider themselves more moderate than conservatives do.

Age ranges (18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-64, 65+)
  • Liberals (CL EL): 25% 16% 13% 26% 21%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): 11% 14% 23% 34% 18%
  • Populists (CR EL): 11% 17% 25% 26% 21%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): 11% 15% 14% 29% 30%
Rather interesting distributions: liberals are young and late middle age, libertarians and populists are middle aged, and conservatives are old.

Race is interesting (White, Black, Hispanic)
  • Liberals (CL EL): W 64% B 21% H 12%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): W 61% B 7% H 18%
  • Populists (CR EL): W 65% B 21% H 12%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): W 83% B 6% H 6%
Liberals and populists are much alike in their racial composition.

Libertarians have a lot of Hispanics and not many blacks, for some odd reason.

Conservatives are mostly honkies.

I'd like to see where Asians fit in.
 
Then the issue of more than two parties. The authors propose five parties, with these platforms:
  • Nationalist - Stop illegal immigration, put America First, stand up to political correctness, and end unfair trade deals
  • Conservative - Defend the American system of free enterprise, promote traditional family values, and ensure a strong military
  • Acela - Advance social progress including women’s rights and LGBTQ rights, work with other countries through free trade and diplomacy, cut the deficit, and reform capitalism with sensible regulation
  • Labor - Put the middle class first, pass universal health insurance, strengthen labor unions, and raise taxes on the wealthy to support programs for those less well off
  • Green - Pass a Green New Deal to build a carbon-free economy with jobs for all, break up big corporations, end systemic inequality, and promote social and economic justice
The Acela train runs Boston - NYC - DC.

Profiles of these parties:
  • Nationalist - The Trump Republican Party: Anti-Illegal immigration & political correctness, assert American national identity
  • Conservative - The Pre-Trump Republican Party: Pro-Free Enterprise, socially conservative, strong on defense
  • Acela - The Acela Corridor’s idea of centrism: Socially liberal, globalist, fiscally responsible
  • Labor - A “hard-hat” version of today’s Democratic Party, focused on bread-and-butter economic issues, not cultural issues.
  • Green - The political home of the Squad, pushing for a Green New Deal and socialist policies

Leaders:
  • Nationalist - Donald Trump
  • Conservative - Ronald Reagan, Mike Pence
  • Acela - Mike Bloomberg
  • Labor - Barack Obama, Joe Biden
  • Green - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Support (2019, 2020, 2021):
  • Nationalist - 19% 16% 24%
  • Conservative - 21% 25% 19%
  • Acela - 12% 11% 10%
  • Labor - 28% 26% 26%
  • Green - 10% 11% 9%
 
I broadly agree that the split makes sense. But on the democratic side the names and identities of the parties don't reflect the content.

First, the "internationalist" conservative and progressive parties are not, despite the name, each others counterparts. When you strip the republicans of nationalist/populist/trumpist wing and religious right, you're left with a mainstream upper-middle class conservative or market liberal party. On the other hand, the "centris working class party" would be akin to European social democratic parties. I think these two would be biggest parties and the most bland.

What the author calls "social democratic party" would be left of social democrats, and the "internationalist progressive party" would be a variation of a green party.
 
Let's see how they voted in 2020.
  • Nationalist: JB 14% DT 83% ? 3%
  • Conservative: JB 20% DT 78% ? 2%
  • Acela: JB 80% DT 19% ? 0%
  • Labor: JB 84% DT 15% ? 1%
  • Green: JB 85% DT 15% ? 0%
So the Republican Party is divided into two factions, Conservative and Nationalist, and the Democratic Party into three factions, Acela, Labor, and Green.

Let's look back at some history. During the New Deal Era, from FDR's Presidency to the 1960's and 1970's, the Democratic Party was indeed a sort of Labor Party with its strong support from labor unions. But the New Left challenged the party's establishment in those latter years, though was not quite successful in taking over. Over subsequent years, Gilded Age II or the Reagan Era, the Democratic Party became dominated by the Acela faction with labor unions becoming weaker and weaker.

On the Republican side, conservatives were indeed dominant for a long time with Donald Trump successfully challenging that dominance. Trump got away with vulgarity and boorishness and uncouthness -- was he really trying to get the boor vote?
 
Let's see how the four Political Compass quadrants would vote.
  • Liberals (CL EL): G 15% L 42% A 19% C 4% N 8% ? 11%
  • (strong): G 27% L 42% A 21% C 6% N 2% ? 2%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): G 7% L 41% A 9% C 12% N 13% ? 18%
  • Populists (CR EL): G 9% L 26% A 9% C 16% N 18% ? 22%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): G 4% L 8% A 3% C 33% N 42% ? 9%
  • (strong): G 1% L 2% A 0% C 45% N 47% ? 5%
It's surprising that the Libertarians don't go very much for the Acela party -- that seems like their sort of party: upper-middle-class, cosmopolitan, accepting of capitalism with some regulation.

Also, it looks as if a Labor Party is the part of the Democratic Party that would appeal the most to the Right.

By party:
  • Dem: G 15% L 45% A 16% C 6% N 8% ? 11%
  • Ind: G 8% L 24% A 11% C 19% ? 19%
  • Rep: G 3% L 10% A 3% C 32% ? 8%
By ideology:
  • Very lib: G 24% L 32% A 25% C 4% N 7% ? 7%
  • Smwt lib: G 19% L 50% A 18% C 2% N 4% ? 7%
  • Moderate: G 6% L 34% A 12% C 14% N 17% ? 16%
  • Smwt con: G 5% L 12% A 2% C 33% N 39% ? 9%
  • Very con: G 2% L 8% A 1% C 35% N 46% ? 8%
Seems like a Labor Party is the most broadly attractive sort of party. Also note the decline of the Greens from left to right. There is an approximately even split between Conservatives and Nationalists over the spectrum.

Race & education:
  • White noncoll: G 6% L 22% A 6% C 24% N 33% ? 9%
  • White coll: G 10% L 26% A 11% C 22% N 22% ? 9%
  • Black: G 15% L 30% A 17% C 6% N 10% ? 21%
  • Hispanic: G 9% L 28% A 17% C 11% N 14% ? 21%
C+N is for white noncollege, 57%, white college 44%, black 16%, and Hispanic 25%

Generation:
  • GenZ: G 19% L 31% A 23% C 5% N 15% ? 7%
  • Mill: G 14% L 30% A 14% C 16% N 15% ? 10%
  • GenX: G 7% L 29% A 11% C 18% N 23% ? 13%
  • Boom: G 6% L 22% A 6% C 19% N 32% ? 16%
  • Silent: G 4% L 18% A 5% C 45% N 24% ? 4%
Support for Democratic factions and the Left increases with decreasing age. But what is especially interesting is that the more conservative of Gen-Z people strongly prefer Trumpism to pre-Trump conservatism. Support for Trumpism also peaks in middle age then drastically declines among the old. This seems much like the stereotype of old people as set in their ways.

But here also, Labor is the most broadly appealing part of the Democratic coalition.
 
The four quadrants (C = cultural E = economic / L = left R = right):
  • Liberals (CL EL): 39% (strong) 13%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): 6%
  • Populists (CR EL): 14%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): 42% (strong) 16%

The 2016 Presidential election
  • Liberals (CL EL): HC 69% DT 11% GJ 2% ? 9% . 14%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): HC 59% DT 19% GJ 4% ? 6% . 13%
  • Populists (CR EL): HC 41% DT 34% GJ 3% ? 4% . 18%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): HC 14% DT 72% GJ 3% ? 5% . 7%
. = did not vote

The 2020 Presidential election
  • Liberals (CL EL): JB 84% DT 10% JJ 1% ? 0% . 5%
  • Libertarians (CL ER): JB 69% DT 15% JJ 4% ? 0% . 11%
  • Populists (CR EL): JB 38% DT 53% JJ 2% ? 2% . 5%
  • Conservatives (CR ER): JB 19% DT 76% JJ 1% ? 1% . 3%

This suggests that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because liberals didn't want to vote for her. They turned out for Joe Biden, and that is why he won. He won despite populists and conservatives turning out in greater numbers for Donald Trump.

I did some arithmetic with the numbers and discovered that
  • Yes, millions of Liberals who stayed home in 2016 came out to vote Biden in 2020. This is the only reason Trump wasn't re-elected.
  • Conservatives and Libertarians turned against Trump slightly by 2020, but the effect was small.
  • Populists were the big story. They had low turn-out in 2016 and tilted slightly toward Clinton. In 2020 they had high turn-out and voted for Trump. This small (14%) group would have re-elected Trump except for the high Liberal turn-out.
 
In the Republican Party:

The Populist-Nationalist Party.
The Internationalist Conservative Party.
The Religious Right Party:

In the Democratic Party:

The Social Democratic Party:
The Internationalist Progressive Party:
The Centrist Working-Class Party:

Obviously most voters will likely agree with a variety of policy planks championed by factions other than the one they most identify with, but I find it interesting just how integrated some of these policies have become between the factions for some voters.

For example, while growing up, I think my father was more of an "Internationalist Conservative Party" sort. You know, he hated government regulation and taxes. He was always listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. He has never gone to church and never will go to church, but after a while, in the '90s, he started mentioning "God" and "hell" in conversations and speculating on the afterlife. I think this happened to coincide with Newt Gingrich's leaning on the "moral authority" of the Religious Right in his pursuit of Clinton's impeachment. Then, when Trump won in '16, he became more boorish, populist, and anti-immigrant as the Right wing propaganda dispensaries he suckles on daily were forced to adapt to Trump's new style.

Also, I feel like the "Internationalist Progressive Party" is defined a little bit poorly. I think there are at least a couple groups there that the article's author tried to squeeze into one and then gave them a poorly chosen name. Activists for BLM are interested in identity politics, but they don't necessarily agree that immigration should be easier. Free-trade agreement enthusiasts might be content with more immigration, but might not care at all about Trans gender rights or any other identity politics issues. IMO It just doesn't fit.
 
Opinion | Quiz: If America Had Six Parties, Which Would You Belong To? - The New York Times

Seems like the same six parties mentioned earlier in this thread, under other names.

[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Economic
[/TD]
[TD]Social
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Progressive Party
[/TD]
[TD]Social Democratic Party
[/TD]
[TD]0
[/TD]
[TD]0
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Liberal Party
[/TD]
[TD]Internationalist Progressive Party
[/TD]
[TD]0.36
[/TD]
[TD]0.13
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Labor Party
[/TD]
[TD]Centrist Working-Class Party
[/TD]
[TD]0.08
[/TD]
[TD]0.42
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Growth and Opportunity Party
[/TD]
[TD]Internationalist Conservative Party
[/TD]
[TD]0.83
[/TD]
[TD]0.40
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Patriot Party
[/TD]
[TD]Populist-Nationalist Party
[/TD]
[TD]0.64
[/TD]
[TD]0.96
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Christian Conservative Party
[/TD]
[TD]Religious Right Party
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[TD]0.81
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Economic and social are both liberal = 0, conservative = 1

The article then continues with these descriptions:

The Progressive Party is focused on equity and racial justice, with a strong vision of inclusive social democracy. Its strongest support comes from politically engaged, highly educated younger people, especially women.

Its potential leaders include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren or Julián Castro.

The New Liberal Party is the professional-class establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Members are cosmopolitan in their social and racial views but more pro-business and more likely to see the wealthy as innovators.

Its potential leaders include Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti and Beto O’Rourke.

The American Labor Party is focused on economic populism, with an appeal to working-class Democrats who don’t have college degrees and don’t follow politics closely. It is more moderate on social and cultural issues compared with the Progressive Party, but also more diverse, appealing to many working-class Hispanics.

Its potential leaders include Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester and Tim Ryan.

The Growth and Opportunity Party is the socially moderate, pro-business wing of the Republican Party. It is the heir to the old moderate “Rockefeller Republican,” the East Coast wing of the G.O.P.

Its potential leaders include Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Mitt Romney, John Kasich and Michael Bloomberg.

The Patriot Party is the party of Donald Trump’s 2016 primary campaign: the coalition of the small town, white working-class Americans who feel left behind by globalism and condescended to by cosmopolitanism. It is economically populist and strongly anti-immigration. Its strongest support among lower-income conservatives comes from exurban America.

Its potential leaders include Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and Tucker Carlson.

The Christian Conservative Party is focused centrally on issues of religious liberty and morality, with very limited government. It will find stronger support among the most politically engaged and affluent, especially men.

Its potential leaders include Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Mike Pompeo.
 
Table of features of the parties (pcts):

[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Feature
[/TD]
[TD]PgP
[/TD]
[TD]NLP
[/TD]
[TD]ALP
[/TD]
[TD]GOP
[/TD]
[TD]PtP
[/TD]
[TD]CCP
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Population
[/TD]
[TD]14
[/TD]
[TD]26
[/TD]
[TD]12
[/TD]
[TD]14
[/TD]
[TD]14
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Economic
[/TD]
[TD]0
[/TD]
[TD]36
[/TD]
[TD]8
[/TD]
[TD]83
[/TD]
[TD]64
[/TD]
[TD]100
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Social
[/TD]
[TD]0
[/TD]
[TD]13
[/TD]
[TD]42
[/TD]
[TD]40
[/TD]
[TD]96
[/TD]
[TD]81
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]College degree
[/TD]
[TD]43
[/TD]
[TD]32
[/TD]
[TD]15
[/TD]
[TD]30
[/TD]
[TD]18
[/TD]
[TD]32
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Born again
[/TD]
[TD]11
[/TD]
[TD]18
[/TD]
[TD]30
[/TD]
[TD]27
[/TD]
[TD]36
[/TD]
[TD]46
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Female
[/TD]
[TD]60
[/TD]
[TD]55
[/TD]
[TD]60
[/TD]
[TD]47
[/TD]
[TD]55
[/TD]
[TD]38
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]>$100K
[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[TD]19
[/TD]
[TD]9
[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[TD]12
[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Follows news
[/TD]
[TD]66
[/TD]
[TD]50
[/TD]
[TD]31
[/TD]
[TD]46
[/TD]
[TD]46
[/TD]
[TD]64
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]White
[/TD]
[TD]64
[/TD]
[TD]50
[/TD]
[TD]49
[/TD]
[TD]67
[/TD]
[TD]77
[/TD]
[TD]75
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Black
[/TD]
[TD]13
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[TD]21
[/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[TD]6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hispanic
[/TD]
[TD]13
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[TD]10
[/TD]
[TD]14
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Northeast
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[TD]17
[/TD]
[TD]17
[/TD]
[TD]18
[/TD]
[TD]16
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Midwest
[/TD]
[TD]21
[/TD]
[TD]19
[/TD]
[TD]22
[/TD]
[TD]22
[/TD]
[TD]21
[/TD]
[TD]21
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]South
[/TD]
[TD]34
[/TD]
[TD]38
[/TD]
[TD]39
[/TD]
[TD]35
[/TD]
[TD]45
[/TD]
[TD]40
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]West
[/TD]
[TD]25
[/TD]
[TD]24
[/TD]
[TD]22
[/TD]
[TD]26
[/TD]
[TD]17
[/TD]
[TD]23
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Opinion | Quiz: If America Had Six Parties, Which Would You Belong To? - The New York Times

Seems like the same six parties mentioned earlier in this thread, under other names.

[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Economic
[/TD]
[TD]Social
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Progressive Party
[/TD]
[TD]Social Democratic Party
[/TD]
[TD]0
[/TD]
[TD]0
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New Liberal Party
[/TD]
[TD]Internationalist Progressive Party
[/TD]
[TD]0.36
[/TD]
[TD]0.13
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American Labor Party
[/TD]
[TD]Centrist Working-Class Party
[/TD]
[TD]0.08
[/TD]
[TD]0.42
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Growth and Opportunity Party
[/TD]
[TD]Internationalist Conservative Party
[/TD]
[TD]0.83
[/TD]
[TD]0.40
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Patriot Party
[/TD]
[TD]Populist-Nationalist Party
[/TD]
[TD]0.64
[/TD]
[TD]0.96
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Christian Conservative Party
[/TD]
[TD]Religious Right Party
[/TD]
[TD]1
[/TD]
[TD]0.81
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Economic and social are both liberal = 0, conservative = 1

The article then continues with these descriptions:

The Progressive Party is focused on equity and racial justice, with a strong vision of inclusive social democracy. Its strongest support comes from politically engaged, highly educated younger people, especially women.

Its potential leaders include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren or Julián Castro.

The New Liberal Party is the professional-class establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Members are cosmopolitan in their social and racial views but more pro-business and more likely to see the wealthy as innovators.

Its potential leaders include Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti and Beto O’Rourke.

The American Labor Party is focused on economic populism, with an appeal to working-class Democrats who don’t have college degrees and don’t follow politics closely. It is more moderate on social and cultural issues compared with the Progressive Party, but also more diverse, appealing to many working-class Hispanics.

Its potential leaders include Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester and Tim Ryan.

The Growth and Opportunity Party is the socially moderate, pro-business wing of the Republican Party. It is the heir to the old moderate “Rockefeller Republican,” the East Coast wing of the G.O.P.

Its potential leaders include Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Mitt Romney, John Kasich and Michael Bloomberg.

The Patriot Party is the party of Donald Trump’s 2016 primary campaign: the coalition of the small town, white working-class Americans who feel left behind by globalism and condescended to by cosmopolitanism. It is economically populist and strongly anti-immigration. Its strongest support among lower-income conservatives comes from exurban America.

Its potential leaders include Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and Tucker Carlson.

The Christian Conservative Party is focused centrally on issues of religious liberty and morality, with very limited government. It will find stronger support among the most politically engaged and affluent, especially men.

Its potential leaders include Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Mike Pompeo.

I'd be in the Growth and Opportunity Party.
 
I myself am closest to the Progressive Party according to that page's poll.

There is no “center” party here. That is because there are very few voters in the middle across all issues. Many readers who consider themselves centrist might also think of themselves as socially liberal/fiscally moderate or socially moderate/fiscally conservative. They will find a home in either the New Liberal Party or the Growth and Opportunity Party.

...
We get to such a system through proportional multimember districts. This approach features districts much larger than our current tiny congressional ones — and each elects more than one person, at once, to represent the region. So more than one party could represent a district in proportion to their popularity within that large district — just as they do in most advanced democracies.

...
Proportional multiparty democracies also have consistently higher turnout than majoritarian two-party democracies with single-winner districts.
 
Back
Top Bottom