Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
I've become a firm believer that the current two party system has to go. IMO neither party will make any effort to end the current "us vs. them" political atmosphere as if it did end people might just sit back and realize both parties pretty much suck and place party far ahead of both the country and the people.
Can an independent end this?
Personally, I'd like to see Chris Christie thumb his nose at both parties and run as an Independent, to me he seems like he might actually be able to pull it off.
I think the answer is yes and no. The first hurdle is getting on the ballot in enough states to take enough electoral votes. The second hurdle is getting enough people to vote for you. The two major parties have a huge advantage in getting on the ballot. That's a given. And they've had state legislatures pass a lot of legislation to make it darn difficult for third parties. I think the best way to get on the ballot for someone like Christie is not to declare independence from the GOP, but to split the GOP. Turn the convention on its head. Christie has a big enough personality to do it. Separating the moderate GOP from the tea party GOP won't be easy, but until that happens, I think the GOP will struggle to win the Presidency. Congress they can win, but they are still a split party. And Boehner will tell you, that split doesn't enhance the GOP's effectiveness in the legislature, it hurts it.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I think the answer is yes and no. The first hurdle is getting on the ballot in enough states to take enough electoral votes. The second hurdle is getting enough people to vote for you. The two major parties have a huge advantage in getting on the ballot. That's a given. And they've had state legislatures pass a lot of legislation to make it darn difficult for third parties. I think the best way to get on the ballot for someone like Christie is not to declare independence from the GOP, but to split the GOP. Turn the convention on its head. Christie has a big enough personality to do it. Separating the moderate GOP from the tea party GOP won't be easy, but until that happens, I think the GOP will struggle to win the Presidency. Congress they can win, but they are still a split party. And Boehner will tell you, that split doesn't enhance the GOP's effectiveness in the legislature, it hurts it.
I would vote for Christie as an independent but not as a GOP candidate. To me, if he were to get the GOP nomination he'd be so far in debt to those who helped him get it we'd have nothing but business as usual, party first and country and people a distant second and third. While I may choose another brand of poison I recognize it as poison none the less.
I just see Christie as one of the few current suspects who might actually be able to pull off an independent run. As you've said, getting on the ballot would be a big hurdle. Possibly a bigger hurdle would be raising enough $$$ to combat the entrenched powers that be.
I should've added at least one more response to the poll: "I Wish"
I believe a smackdown of both major parties would be the best thing to happen to the country in a long time.
Anyway, I'm gonna cross my fingers and vote 'Yes'.
I would vote for Christie as an independent but not as a GOP candidate. To me, if he were to get the GOP nomination he'd be so far in debt to those who helped him get it we'd have nothing but business as usual, party first and country and people a distant second and third. While I may choose another brand of poison I recognize it as poison none the less.
I just see Christie as one of the few current suspects who might actually be able to pull off an independent run. As you've said, getting on the ballot would be a big hurdle. Possibly a bigger hurdle would be raising enough $$$ to combat the entrenched powers that be.
I should've added at least one more response to the poll: "I Wish"
I believe a smackdown of both major parties would be the best thing to happen to the country in a long time.
The kind of split where at the primary convention a party ends up with two candidates is a major smackdown. And is not a "party first" kind of political move. I'm not as critical of the two-party system as you. I see it has problems, but I also see that it has benefits. What I am critical of is the entrenchment of the existing two parties, that doesn't allow the parties to reflect the sentiments of the American people. We have to have responsive political parties. Which is why I'm always advocating for the laws that make it more difficult for third parties to be rescinded, for the winner-take-all system that is implemented on the state levels to be modified, and for the cap on the number of Representatives to be removed. All three of these things would loosen the stranglehold that the current two parties have on elections, and would force them to be more flexible and more responsive to the American people. I can't say that I care one way or another about "smacking" down the major parties, I just want a republic that actually functions like a republic.
I've become a firm believer that the current two party system has to go. IMO neither party will make any effort to end the current "us vs. them" political atmosphere as if it did end people might just sit back and realize both parties pretty much suck and place party far ahead of both the country and the people.
Can an independent end this?
Personally, I'd like to see Chris Christie thumb his nose at both parties and run as an Independent, to me he seems like he might actually be able to pull it off.
It might be time for the system to go, but it takes years to make that type of change. I think we are seeing an attempt with the Libertarian party moves. As for an independent winning, right now, absolutely no way. It is hard for them to win local elections. As for Christie to thumb his nose, what difference should it make if he is a Republican, Democrat or independent, if you believe in what he stands for, support him. It is that easy.
Institutionally, it's virtually impossible for an independent candidate to win at the national level. That's because of the winner-take-all electoral college system. Maybe in a proportional representation system, like parliamentary style elections in many European countries, you could do that, but it would take coalitions for that to happen.
The Constitution almost guarantees only a 2 party system will work.
In the earliest days, when the U.S. had a very low population that was concentrated along the Atlantic seaboard, it was possible to have 3 or more parties contending for the Presidency, but as the nation expanded westward, it became increasingly hard.
Since we vote for the person, not the party, nowadays a 3rd party ever becoming large enough to escape the fringe is more remote than ever. There are lots of reasons why the Whigs were the last to have any major influence and why the Whigs ultimately failed. That was 150 years ago.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties have ways of inter-party reform, but the process is always slow. Much reform is generational, and comes in times when one generation is leaving the political arena while the next generation is taking over.
In the case of the Whigs, the Republican party appeared at a time when the Whigs failed to represent the desires of the liberals of the time. And that time was during the entrenched division of the nation that ultimately led to the Civil War. The Whigs continued to try compromise past the time when compromise was still possible, and the membership deserted the party en masse for the Republicans. They kept their party purity to the end, but became an irrelevant political artifact before going away forever.
We no longer have an issue that is so divisive as slavery was. The United States is no longer divided into agriculture vs. industry. Such an period repeating itself now, in a nation 10 times the size, much more diverse, and much more connected to each other, is impossible.
Since our system is not parliamentary, where citizens vote for the party, not the person, we lack the means to allow several small parties to form a governing coalition, as silverkris mentioned. To change our present system would require some very major changes to the Constitution, and while this is theoretically possible, it is very doubtful the citizens would ever approve of it.
Only a coalition made up of several like-minded small parties ever stands a chance of attracting enough voters to overcome one of the major parties, and our fringe parties have never shown an inclination to compromise and cooperate with each other. In the parliamentary system, a winning coalition almost always means that one or more small party will become totally subsumed by the largest of the group, and they go willingly. Once in-fighting starts, the coalition always fails and a new election is called.
Many minority parties only last for one or two elections before they disappear and then reform or combine with others. They all tend to form around a leadership core, which, if successful, then divvy up the governmental duties. When the leaders leave, the party vanishes.
There is no tradition of this kind of leadership or party formation here at all. The Libertarians, the Greens, the Constatutionalists, and the rest are all comprised of like-minded people with a philosophy and a cause first, with leadership taking a distant second. That never works in national elections; to win, it has to come from the top down, not the ground up.
A strong independent, like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader, can theoretically be elected because they are leaders who attract followers, but in our history, only George Washington has succeeded. he was never affiliated with any party during his two terms as President. The only other example is John Tyler, who was expelled from the Whig party while serving as President. He served out the remainder of his single term as an independent and never ran for a second term.
Right now, we have 12 registered fringe parties that have been formed in the 21st century. We have an additional 15 that were formed in the 20th century. One goes back as far as 1919. We also have 30 parties that are regional that have never entered a national election. Most regionals are state-wide, but not all; some are only found in counties, others in cities, and a few in areas that cross county lines. Choosing a party that suits any voter isn't a problem. With 27 to choose from nationally, it becomes evident why leadership, not party, is the key to winning.
Last edited by banjomike; 05-16-2013 at 12:44 PM..
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
The only way an independent could win the presidency is by having a following. That person would have to already have had an infrastructure in place to run as well.
Is it possible, yes, is it likely, no.
I dont think a Christie type could win as an independent, why ? Because what is more than likely to happen is a split of the Republican party rather than a true coalition of voters from the middle. Christie although more center oriented than Right oriented is still a true republican.
More than likely, a Presidential election with Christie would look 1992. A Democrat getting about 45% of the vote, a Republican getting 35% and independent Christie getting 20%.
The Constitution almost guarantees only a 2 party system will work.
In the earliest days, when the U.S. had a very low population that was concentrated along the Atlantic seaboard, it was possible to have 3 or more parties contending for the Presidency, but as the nation expanded westward, it became increasingly hard.
Since we vote for the person, not the party, nowadays a 3rd party ever becoming large enough to escape the fringe is more remote than ever. There are lots of reasons why the Whigs were the last to have any major influence and why the Whigs ultimately failed. That was 150 years ago.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties have ways of inter-party reform, but the process is always slow. Much reform is generational, and comes in times when one generation is leaving the political arena while the next generation is taking over.
In the case of the Whigs, the Republican party appeared at a time when the Whigs failed to represent the desires of the liberals of the time. And that time was during the entrenched division of the nation that ultimately led to the Civil War. The Whigs continued to try compromise past the time when compromise was still possible, and the membership deserted the party en masse for the Republicans. They kept their party purity to the end, but became an irrelevant political artifact before going away forever.
We no longer have an issue that is so divisive as slavery was. The United States is no longer divided into agriculture vs. industry. Such an period repeating itself now, in a nation 10 times the size, much more diverse, and much more connected to each other, is impossible.
Since our system is not parliamentary, where citizens vote for the party, not the person, we lack the means to allow several small parties to form a governing coalition, as silverkris mentioned. To change our present system would require some very major changes to the Constitution, and while this is theoretically possible, it is very doubtful the citizens would ever approve of it.
Only a coalition made up of several like-minded small parties ever stands a chance of attracting enough voters to overcome one of the major parties, and our fringe parties have never shown an inclination to compromise and cooperate with each other. In the parliamentary system, a winning coalition almost always means that one or more small party will become totally subsumed by the largest of the group, and they go willingly. Once in-fighting starts, the coalition always fails and a new election is called.
Many minority parties only last for one or two elections before they disappear and then reform or combine with others. They all tend to form around a leadership core, which, if successful, then divvy up the governmental duties. When the leaders leave, the party vanishes.
There is no tradition of this kind of leadership or party formation here at all. The Libertarians, the Greens, the Constatutionalists, and the rest are all comprised of like-minded people with a philosophy and a cause first, with leadership taking a distant second. That never works in national elections; to win, it has to come from the top down, not the ground up.
A strong independent, like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader, can theoretically be elected because they are leaders who attract followers, but in our history, only George Washington has succeeded. he was never affiliated with any party during his two terms as President. The only other example is John Tyler, who was expelled from the Whig party while serving as President. He served out the remainder of his single term as an independent and never ran for a second term.
Right now, we have 12 registered fringe parties that have been formed in the 21st century. We have an additional 15 that were formed in the 20th century. One goes back as far as 1919. We also have 30 parties that are regional that have never entered a national election. Most regionals are state-wide, but not all; some are only found in counties, others in cities, and a few in areas that cross county lines. Choosing a party that suits any voter isn't a problem. With 27 to choose from nationally, it becomes evident why leadership, not party, is the key to winning.
When I talk about Christie splitting the party, I'm thinking about how Roosevelt split the GOP in 1912. While Roosevelt lost to Wilson, he soundly beat Taft. If in 2016 we had a similar scenario, I suspect Christie would soundly beat any Tea Party candidate. Why does it matter? Because the GOP modified itself after the 1912 election, considering what the majority of their party members wanted as goals, and not looking to a small group of men to decide the direction of the GOP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
