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.
I have wondered this as well. We need someone who can work with both parties. For either party to think it has to all be one-sided or it's my way or the highway attitude, nothing is ever going to get done and resentment builds up. There needs to be balance.
Read Jesse Ventura's book.
It was BOTH PARTIES that did not want to work with him!!!
For the political parties it is about CONTROL and POWER.
They don't want to work with a INDEPENDENT to solve problems. They are about maintaining power or at least every four to eight years getting the ability to cash in on their political power.
The problem is much, much, much worse than we think.
FYI : A republic is not synonymous with a republican form.
(Ex: The Peoples Republic of China is a republic - but NOT a republican form)
In a republican form, the people are born equal (none higher) with Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass. Absent consent of the governed, government is limited to adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
BUT
If you do consent to be governed, shut up, sit down, pay and obey. Mandatory civic duties abrogate all endowed rights. You DID consent, knowingly, willingly, and or intentionally - right?
- - -
As to the electoral college, under the original pre-amended form, yes, an independent could be selected as president.
Not now.
The requirement to have a president and vice president imposes affiliation, which involves partisan politics.
FWIW - democracy is a vile form, where a majority can legally persecute a minority. (And slavery was a revenue taxable privilege under the democracy - not the republican form, where the people were sovereigns without subjects.)
You can make the argument that Trump was an independent candidate.
And that was one of Trump's problems. He was NOT a Republican establishment candidate and was opposed by both parties. As a result he had a hard time putting together a functioning government.
His management style and temperament didn't help matters.
But his policies were pretty successful, but he never got credit for them.
It is worth reading Jesse Ventura's book on being Governor of Minnesota as an Independent. Makes you hate political parties.
Trump was a Republican, no arguments there. Sure he had some disagreements with the party (as all presidents have with their party), but he played the same game and most of his agenda aligned with the Republicans. Just look at his Supreme Court picks. They were justices handpicked and delivered to him by the establishment.
How the constitution is currently constructed, I don't think we could ever get a truly independent candidate. It's no coincidence that there has only ever been to viable parties at a time in our nation’s history. The winner takes all approach cements the 2 party. If it were to happen, the independent would have a hard time governing since congress would likely still be controlled by Dems and Repubs, both of which would like to see the Independent gone and one of their own in power.
FYI : A republic is not synonymous with a republican form.
(Ex: The Peoples Republic of China is a republic - but NOT a republican form)
In a republican form, the people are born equal (none higher) with Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass. Absent consent of the governed, government is limited to adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals, and defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
BUT
If you do consent to be governed, shut up, sit down, pay and obey. Mandatory civic duties abrogate all endowed rights. You DID consent, knowingly, willingly, and or intentionally - right?
- - -
As to the electoral college, under the original pre-amended form, yes, an independent could be selected as president.
Not now. The requirement to have a president and vice president imposes affiliation, which involves partisan politics.
FWIW - democracy is a vile form, where a majority can legally persecute a minority. (And slavery was a revenue taxable privilege under the democracy - not the republican form, where the people were sovereigns without subjects.)
You'll have to splain that one to me. What was the affiliation between Ross Perot, and his vice?
Heck, after seeing what President's do, in BOTH parties, I'd be inclined to support a candidate that said they "Will do NOTHING during their term." And just hope they kept their word...
Heck, after seeing what President's do, in BOTH parties, I'd be inclined to support a candidate that said they "Will do NOTHING during their term." And just hope they kept their word...
This reminds me so much of Arlo Guthrie's humorous folksong "Alice's Restaurant." In an updated version of this very long story told in song, Arlo mentioned at one point how much he approves of the president taking naps -- that "the more he sleeps, the safer we'll be." Arlo wasn't merely speaking about the U.S. president at the time, either. His comments were directed towards a great many world leaders of our time who make decisions that often adversely affect the rest of us.
As for the OP's question as regards whether or not we might get more done in this country should an Independent be elected instead of someone from one of the two main political parties... I think that any election of an Independent would be accomplished due to populist voting, and I don't believe that the populist vote has ever been the wisest vote in this nation. "Populism" being defined as: "any of various, often anti-establishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies."
I am distrustful of celebrities who get into populist politics and who have no previous experience in an elected position -- and who especially have no record of public service. I think that the Roman Republic had the right idea, with those seeking elected office having to go through a sequence of elected offices, as part of the Cursus Honorum.
Trump was a Republican, no arguments there. Sure he had some disagreements with the party (as all presidents have with their party), but he played the same game and most of his agenda aligned with the Republicans. Just look at his Supreme Court picks. They were justices handpicked and delivered to him by the establishment.
Trump is a Republican... but he is generally not a Conservative. As a matter of fact, people's personal opinions aside, Trump is probably the most liberal Republican president we've had in our lifetimes since Nixon (who got us off the gold standard, created the EPA, created the Privacy Act... even if he wasn't there to sign it).
Trump shares nearly identical views to Bill Clinton during his presidency. Trump supports the use of tariffs, which is fundamentally against the idea of free and open trade that Conservatives and Republicans believe in. Clinton used tariffs, and that is a tenet of tools that Democrats use. Trump has nearly identical views to Bill Clinton on illegal immigration. During one of Clinton's state of the union addresses, he made a speech that to most people today, would think it was Trump speaking... you can watch that here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c46317...al-immigration
I mean... the two have nearly identical public policy agendas. The fact that both were impeached of course is probably somewhat telling. Haha...
But no, Trump is not the radical "far right" candidate that people make him out to be. He's very centrist, in much the same way that Bill Clinton was... and that's what made them dangerous to many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan
You'll have to splain that one to me. What was the affiliation between Ross Perot, and his vice?
He was getting a bit off topic, but until the country passed a constitutional amendment early on in the life of the country, they were getting a situation when the President and Vice President were not of the same party. This obviously creates some problems, so they resolved it in the 12th Amendment.
EDIT: I just saw a response in my e-mail, but I'm not seeing it posted here? Maybe the user deleted it, but this was the comment:
Quote:
For the political parties it is about CONTROL and POWER.
They don't want to work with a INDEPENDENT to solve problems. They are about maintaining power or at least every four to eight years getting the ability to cash in on their political power.
I would agree with this. Governing is not really that hard... but politicians make it seem intentionally hard. Solving the problems we face is also not hard, but there's always a more financially beneficial option, and that's the one that's often taken. I could go on forever about this, but I spent a decade in government, and while the Federal government is filled with a lot of people who want to serve their country, there are also a lot of people who seek these positions for personal gain. I'd probably see I see the latter more than the former.
It's quite simple... look at who's getting into politics. Most politicians come in not having much more net worth than the average middle-class American. After only a term or two in the House and/or Senate, they are millionaires. The people you need to trust are the ones who go into it at great personal expense, and come out of it with less wealth.
Last edited by Atari2600; 05-01-2022 at 10:05 AM..
You'll have to splain that one to me. What was the affiliation between Ross Perot, and his vice?
Perhaps I should have used rapport instead of affiliation.
However, since the amendment, electors had to declare their choices for president and running mate BEFORE the college convened, which defeated the original purpose of an independent body doing the examination of all candidates.
Obviously, under the original rules, there would be no national campaigning nor the need for legalized bribery (campaign donations).
No candidate would need to be wealthy or supported by wealthy constituents.
It would be real nice if the election of the Electors was one year before the selection of the chief executive, thus allowing for a lengthy investigation and perhaps public hearings for each candidate for office.
Ah-h-h-h-h.
. . . . .
While we're at it - repeal the "democratic" election of Senators, and return their selection back to their respective state governments. This would also eliminate the need for campaign donations (more bribery).
Only the representatives of the House would be "democratically" elected, and since their district is relatively small, no need for a massive campaign warchest (legal bribery).
. . . . .
. . . . .
Imagine the "fun" if the Donald was Vice to the Bidet in Chief? (Which would be unlikely to occur, if the Electoral College was vetting candidates...)
While we're at it - repeal the "democratic" election of Senators, and return their selection back to their respective state governments. This would also eliminate the need for campaign donations (more bribery).
Yes... I definitely want to echo this statement. Vast majority of people today have no idea that prior to 1913 (? I think), senators were elected by the legislators / House of their respective states. It irks me a little when people claim that the Senators in the Senate are their "representatives..." because it's so incredibly wrong. Senators represent the state Government. The assumption is that generally speaking, the legislature of that state, in electing the senator for the Federal Senate, will more properly represent the will of the whole of the people in that state.
Exactly as you say... Senators have basically become puppets by which the wealthiest lobbyist can win them over on a decision.
The REASON this happened was to make senators more susceptible to Democrat vote, and to increase and expedite the shift of politics from local to central government... which is exactly what it's done.
The vast majority of people in this country don't even know who their own governors are, let alone ANYONE that represents them in their state house and senate. Everyone thinks their world turns by the decisions made in the White House.
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.
In an updated version of this very long story told in song, Arlo mentioned at one point how much he approves of the president taking naps -- that "the more he sleeps, the safer we'll be." Arlo wasn't merely speaking about the U.S. president at the time, either. His comments were directed towards a great many world leaders of our time who make decisions that often adversely affect the rest of us.