Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Reference article: https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_affiliations_of_registered_voters
Note 1: THIS QUESTION IS ONLY FOR 18+ (VOTING AGE) ADULTS and opinions from people under-18 will be deleted.
Note 2: Choose the answer-option in the poll that most closely matches your response to this question.
Note 3: Please state in your comments WHICH ANSWER-OPTION LETTER you selected in the poll.
I was a Democrat from 1972 until 1996 when I voted independent against Clinton when he ran for his second term.
I continued to vote independent until Obama ran the first time. But Mr. Hope and Change turned out to be a liar and a traitor, so I voted independent when he ran again.
I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primaries and for Tulsi in the 2020 primaries, but the DNC and mainstream media sandbagged them.
I voted independent from 2012 until 2020 when I voted for Trump in an effort to defeat Biden.
I don't have conservative values and I'm not a Republican, but I no longer recognize what "liberalism" has come to represent, and the Democratic party has become despicable.
I don't have any party affiliation. If RFK jr wins the nomination (which I doubt), I might vote for him. But that would still mean supporting the Democratic party platform, which I loathe.
I might just vote for Trump again. He was far better than Dubya, Killary or O'Bomber.
I am still registered Democrat, but that's for sabotage. I vote against their front runner in every local, state and national primary. And I never vote for a Democratic nominee in general elections.
Thanks for your very detailed openness about yourself!
You’re welcome
I've been a registered Republican since sometime in the 80s, probably early 80s. I don't consider myself a Republican though, or any other party. When I first started voting I was not registered with a party. I know for sure I was not registered with a party in 1980, but I'm not sure exactly when I registered with one.
I've voted third party before, but the large majority of the time I vote Republican, although it's commonly the lesser of the evils - that's pretty much been the case for over 20 years now. By the late 90s I thought the Republican Party had lost it - but they haven't lost it nearly as much as the Democrats who have gone completely over the edge.
As far as I'm concerned there are no good parties in the US. The country needs to dump first-past-the-post voting. I have no idea which side that would favor, but it would be interesting to find out.
Thanks for your openness about yourself.
What do you mean by “first-past-the-post voting”?
You can look up first-past-the-post. But basically it's voting for one candidate, and the majority or plurality wins. First-past-the-post is the main cause of the highly divided two party system. Rather than voting for the candidate they want, people vote for the lesser of two evils. In the US, the two main parties will oppose each other no matter what, even if the other party happens to have a good idea.
In some places people rank the candidates in order of preference. So for example if there are three candidates. They would be ranked, with the first choice getting 3 votes, the second getting 2 and the third getting 1.
This diminishes the effect of "wasting your vote" thinking. People are far more likely to vote for the person they like most, which is the way it should be.
In the US presidential elections, the primaries are even worse. The highly influential early states narrow the field very quickly. These states are small and non-representative. Yet first-past-the-post voting contributes to their influence. It knocks out many candidates who otherwise might have done well.
The extreme cost of modern campaigning amplifies all this. The money flows to the first-past-the-post candidate. There could be two almost even candidates in the primary, but because of the extreme cost, only one of them will be funded. So it's not just votes that will be divided between two candidates, so will the money. It's the same thinking. People don't want to waste their vote. They don't want to waste their money either.
It's dividing the hell out of the country and could very well bring it down.
Thanks for this information.
I read about FPTP voting…
www.commoncause.org/.../
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
…and the “Imagine that Tennessee is having an election on the location of its capital” example in the (above second) Wikipedia article seemed the most enlightening to me about the downsides of FPTP voting.
What do you believe should be the alternative voting system that the USA should use instead of the FPTP system?
@windatmyback
FYI: on the following question…
Americans: Should Both Biden & Trump Drop Out Of The 2024 Us Presidential Race? ↗
@BootsLover94 brought up Ranked-Choice Voting (which looks very good).
https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)
Opinion
19Opinion
The party I chose is Republican, but that says less than people assume. American political parties are not ideological parties as you tend to see in Europe. Rather they are lose knit coalitions of regional, religious, ethnic, racial, income and other groups that have come together in part by common interests and in part by historical accident.
In the case of the GOP, it is a coalition made up of classical liberals - which Americans call conservatives - libertarians, small and medium sized business, religious and social traditionalists, lower middle and upper middle income earners, farmers, rural and exurban populations, and historically older voters. It tends to dominate the South, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain West and the state of Alaska - though this is starting to change somewhat.
On the Democratic side you get, ethnic and religious minorities, middle and high income wage earners, big business and entertainment industries, urban and inner suburban votes, radical liberals - which Americans call liberals. (Note, the term "radical" here does not mean as Americans use it, i. e. "extremist," but rather as the ancient Greeks used the term, meaning "to the root of.") The regions where it is dominant are northeast, the mid-Atlantic, the Pacific coast and the state of Hawaii. (Though again, this is starting to change and is one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton was defeated in 2016.)
This is how you get a Republican Party that runs from Ted Cruz at one end to Susan Collins at the other, with the libertarian Rand Paul thrown into the mix. This is how you get a Democratic Party that runs from Joe Manchin at one end to Elizabeth Warren at the other. Quite simply, party identification is not about ideological identity.
This being even more complicated by the fact that both parties are experiencing a populist phase as happened in the late 19th century and again in the 1960s and 70s. Populism not being a schematic philosophy, but rather a cultural attitude characterized by distrust of complexity, a disdain for elites, and a belief that the common man is the font of all virtue but that he is oppressed by the elites and the "special interests." This manifesting itself in a mishmash of policies that are more often related by sentiment than any coherent overarching theoretical structure.
Thus former President Trump in the GOP. He is NOT a conservative. Thus the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic party. She is not a liberal nor a socialist. Rather both appeal to feelings of envy and resentment in the electorate and toss out random policies to appease those sentiments.
For my part, I am conservative, but I put an asterisk over it. My conservatism is not what Americans typically call conservative. Because, as noted, what Americans call conservative is, historically speaking, not conservatism at all but is, rather, classical liberalism. Albeit with a streak of social traditionalism rooted in the Protestant Reformation.
My conservatism, which is classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Ministers Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.
Classical conservatives emphasize the nurturing of civic virtue, see free markets as a tool as opposed to the end purpose of government, and believe that politics should take its bearings not from human reason, but human nature. As Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."
There is much more to it, but this summarizes it.
I looked at your profile, what sort of “politics work” do you do?
Ok, very cool.
@exitseven Well, you are correct. The demographics of both parties have changed. However, the consensus on the size of government is pretty well bi-partisan.
Thin of this:
1 in 6 people who work, work for government.
1 in 7 is a Social Security recipient - and this will only grow as the population ages.
1/3 of ALL families, this year, will receive some form of transfer payment.
Less the half of ALL Americans pay ANY income tax at all.
That is a huge middle class constituency and consensus for large government. The real debate between Republicans and Democrats is about spending priorities and to some extent the incidence of taxation. Overall, though, the American public seems to have pronounced themselves - either explicitly by what they argue or implicitly in how they vote - with a, by historical standards, fairly large government.
It is less a debate about the size of government than what government of that size ought be doing.
@exitseven Well, but that is now it is in realty. In fact, the appeal of the welfare state is that it is aimed mainly at the middle class, including the working class. By far, Social Security and Medicare are the main programs of the American welfare state and let anyone talk about "reforming" them and the public screams as if someone were setting out to touch up the Mona Lisa with a paint gun.
By contrast, "welfare reform" - that is those programs aimed primarily at the lower class - was reformed with comparative ease. See also the advent of "workfare" for example.
Americans have convinced themselves that they don't like "big government," but as the data shows, when push comes to shove, they rather enjoy living beyond their means. The real argument being over the composition of the welfare state, not whether it should exist.
Programs like social security and Medicare are programs people contribute to their whole working lives. They deserve to get benefits upon retirement. Welfare on the other hand is just a handout set up by democrats to buy votes.. They targeted minorities and set up programs like the War On Poverty or the Great Society which actually did rhe opposite. It created a whole welfare class of multi generational wards of the state that will vote for a Democrat no matter how incompetent, corrupt or senile he might be. As time went by a lot of these people got dissatisfied with the welfare lifestyle and moved away from the Democrat party. The southern border was opened to replace those who left the party with a new group of lifetime welfare recipients.
@exitseven Medicaid was the largest product of the Great Society and it has been "reformed" in various ways. It being typically forgotten that such programs - especially including Medicaid - employ middle and upper middle class workers and this forms a substantial constituency on their behalf.
Do recall that 1 in 6 people who work, work for government. That is an enormous constituency and - more to the point - unlike the poor it is a constituency that votes.
As to the opening of the border, that is as much a manifestation of free market economics as it is a form of welfare. Recall that it was Adam Smith who said, "The merchant has no country."
The reason why immigration reform has been such a tough issue for Congress is that it divides both parties - albeit for different reasons. Thus putting together a viable coalition has proved elusive.
The last successful immigration reform came under President Reagan. It was only modestly successful and was based on a trade-off between immigration and various labor reforms that did not follow.
In any event, as far as the welfare state, do recall that it was founded by conservative for ameliorative purposes, i. e. to offset some of the instabilities arising from free markets. Particularly the effects of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.
The Great Society took this far further. It presumed to use the welfare state to achieve social reform. (Hence the name "Great Society.") It was social engineering and it was largely over by the end of the Carter administration.
What has not ended is the administrative state, which as noted, has an enormous middle class constituency of both beneficiaries and employees. All voters who have made reforming it - eliminating it is not in the cards and is NOT a goal of either party - difficult and slow a best.
P. S. Oh, and just to add, Social Security and Medicare both dwarf the rest of the welfare state. Throw in that Medicare has $47 trillion in unfunded liabilities and Social Security has $22 trillion in unfunded liabilities and the problem becomes obvious. The whole national economy is only $24 trillion in size and as the population ages and the workforce - and thus the tax base - shrinks, this will only get worse.
The bottom line, there will be no reduction in the size and scope of government unless and until SS and Medicare are meaningfully reformed. You could eliminate the rest of the welfare state and it would make no difference.
Every week money was taken out of my paycheck to go towards Medicare And Social security so that when I turn 66 I can have Healthcare and get some kind of monthly payment to supplement my income. People streaming across the border paid nothing into the systen. the government whether at the state or federal level just give out money and benefits that most Americans do not qualify for all in the name of recruiting more Democrat voters. They will be told that if Trump gets elected they will all be sent back.
@exitseven Probably not. SS and Medicare are at risk because of an aging population and a shrinking workforce. Paradoxically, if those immigrants are integrated into the labor force they will be paying in SS and Medicare taxes and that will help extend the life of the systems.'
Absent fresh sources of revenue - as I showed you above - the two systems are not viable and are outpacing the growth of the economy. This, by the way, will only get worse absent fresh sources of labor in that, as economies industrialize and mature, birthrates tend to decline.
Thus, right now, Japan, Europe and North America have the oldest populations on Earth. In fact, Japan, which as an island nation strictly limits immigration, has in demographic terms the oldest population on Earth.
Bottom line, while like you I favor reform of the immigration system, the failure to integrate immigrants into the country and the labor force will only exacerbate of host of economic problems. Indeed, it makes the long term viability of programs like SS and Medicare problematic, at best.
@nightdrot. What we need are innigrants that are doctors, engineers and other professionals that will find jobs, participate in their communities and pay taxes. Instead Biden is importing poverty from every corner of the globe. People with no education and no marketable skills. It is the opposite of what Trump did
@exitseven You forget that EVERYONE pays SS and Medicare taxes regardless of income level.
Sorry, demographics is destiny. The more people you have paying in, the fewer people you have taking out. As the population ages that balance is shifting. More are taking out, fewer are taking in.
You can wait, if you like, for a mass immigration of doctors and lawyers and engineers and the like, but they are not likely going to show up in sufficient numbers. This being especially true in that the higher the level of professional attainment, the more likely that they will earn incomes allowing them to retire early.
Some problems do not have solutions. They are just difficulties that must be managed as best they can be. This is one of those.
The American public talks a ferocious game against big government, but as the data show - see my comments above - they rather like it. They just don't like paying for it. Thus less than half of ALL Americans pay ANY Federal income tax AT ALL.
Want to change their minds? Make them pay the bills and raise taxes across the board. Suffice to add that any politician of either party that wants to propose that, please signify by saying, "I do not choose to run for re-election."
@exitseven You do understand that Social Security has, to repeat, $22 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Medicare has $47 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The total GDP of the American economy is $24 trillion with a growth rate that has been around 3% per year.
Put simply, you could tax the American public 100% and you would not cover the differential. You need to expand the tax base and the only way to do that is with immigration given the declining birthrates.
To be sure, the unmitigated mess that the Biden Administration has made of border control needs to be corrected for reasons of security. That said, to repeat, demographics is destiny and it is arguing with an earthquake to assume that the problem is too few doctors and lawyers, as you have formulated it.
Bluntly, you can't get from here to there on such a narrow road.
Independent. The only bigger suckers than most of these politicians are the ones supporting them. I’m not really looking for third-party leadership in life, anyway. Honestly, I more vote AGAINST stuff, that’s what gets me out to the polls. I was never super politically involved, but I feel like everyone lost their damn minds with Trump, and regardless how it shakes out, this was important enough to me to come out and be able to say I was on what I believe will be the right side of history. Usually it’s just the same empty suits going in and out of the revolving door, but the last 7-8 years feel like a little more of a crisis to me.
E - Independent.
I view both Democrats and Republicans as a bunch of deranged, tribalistic children who will take opposing positions and views on any topic, and these positions are so extreme that it's to the point that one side's position galvanizes the other, yet these positions are detestable in of themselves because of their extremist nature. Moreover, these deranged tribalistic children are more than willing to take on these views just to spite the other side. No other reason. They don't actually care about the fate of the nation or anything like that.
This is the true rhyme and reed of American politics and the Two Party System. This is what it does to people, and it's ultimate goal: To keep Americans divided and ignorant to what is actually going on in the halls of government. How Corporate America has all of D. C in it's pocket, yet we call this the corruption of individuals and not of both the individuals and the system itself.
When the government bails out failing banks left & right instead of arresting the people who are responsible for the bank failing it really sends the message that indentured servitude and slavery never really went away, they just slightly raised the standard. "Socialism for me, pulling thyself up by the bootstraps for thee."... It's been 15 years since 08', and the same fucking thing keeps happening. Democrats and Republicans have come and gone in both the White House and Congress, and nothing has changed. Nothing ever will change because both parties are owned by different groups of corporations, and they primarily serve THEIR will, and don't actually care about any of us commonfolk nor do they care about the fate of the country.
Something to keep in mind when you're at the polls next time.
Yeah it’s so terrible how most politicians know nothing about compromise and getting along civilly, and just seem to care about increasing their grasp on power by dividing people (especially by entrenching in their Dem & Repub positions).
Not American, but anyone who claims the Republican party is not a monolith is a liar. They vote together, because that way lies power, which is all they're interested in. One single Republican senator has ensured that the Marine Corps doesn't have a confirmed leader because he doesn't approve of the president's priorities. How is that reasonable?
One Senator holding up military promotions is NOT right, and I’m NOT sure how he is able to do this — offhand I would think one Senator not voting or voting a “thumbs-down” regarding “approving of a person’s confirmation for a position” should NOT be able to disrupt the approval process entirely — and I think the current approval process that allows this to happen should be changed.
However, I think the Democratic Party also “vote together” and actually “stick together” much better than the Republican Party does on party platform priorities..
Yes. And yeah I know who they are.
I use to be a democrat until they went way off of the deep end. I am a classical liberal, and unfortunately i have more in common with republicans than i do the current democrat party.
So you’re a registered-Republican now?
Yeah im not giving you that personal info. Telling you that would to me be the same as me telling you my drivers license number or address.
Ok. Do you feel worried that you told me you “use to be a democrat”? 😊
In my state, we don't register with a party. I consider myself an Independent, but that's not a party, so I voted None.
Because your state doesn’t register voters by party at all, you made the right selection in this question’s poll (because I asked people about how they are registered to vote).
In at least some of the states that register voters by party, “Independent” IS a choice that can be made; and I believe in at least some elections for those states it will show an “Independent” party candidate that can be voted for in elections.
I'm not American and I don't understand why you have to register with a party. What if you want to vote for the party you're not registered with? Is that illegal?
No, it’s not illegal.
And, “it’s different for different US States” — whether you need to register w a political party or not, but I think the main reason it’s done is because the states that do have party-registrations can restrict political party primary (before general election) voting to just their political party members.
Thanks, that actually makes sense.
You’re welcome
I never register as a specific party. As soon as you do, they have no reason to listen to your concerns.
I'm not registered with a party, but I've voted Republican for many years now.
I voted Democrat before they went batshit crazy.
Currently registered as a Democrat, but I longer support the Democrat party of today.
I now identify as a independent though I might never vote again as American politics has become unreasonable and unbearable.
* no longer
It doesn’t say anything. But I’ve voted Dem the last five elections so…
See Note 3.
👌👍
Independent but will vote for anybody but Trump
I ws independent but tye democrats have gotten so crazy I had to take a side so I sam now a Republican.
I'm not American but if I was I guess I would vote democrat
I would rather vote for Libertarian but the Libertarian party is a joke.
Which political party are you registered as?
Republican
Those are skewed, only because some states are swing states. While they may register as that party, they'll often go for the other one
How did you vote in the poll?
Independent. Both parties suck.
I agree.
100% Republican.
You’re welcome
Libertarian
In California it almost does not matter since in all nominating races except for POTUS all candidates run against each other with the top two going to the general. That is why we often get two Democrats running against each other in statewide races and sometimes see weirdness like two Republicans getting into the general in a solidly Democratic district because four or five D's more or less evenly split their 60% and the two Republicans each got 16% or 17%
Interesting.
Republican
Republican
Libertarian.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions