Recently, as my friends and I sat around taking in our weekday dose of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, we got into a discussion about the non-influence of independents. As the couple dozen candidates winnow down to just three, many of the candidates we'd have wanted to elect were no longer options. And it really isn't democratic because this winnowing down subverts true democracy.
Unlike some true nut-jobs who claim Republicans are conservatives and Democrats are liberals, the true face of these parties is far more nuanced. Despite the official front of the Republican Party, most Republicans polled want abortion to be legal. Even when Republicans decry Democrats as the anything-goes party, most Democrats voted against social constructs like gay marriage. And though the issue of universal healthcare has now been championed by Democrats, 51 percent of Republicans also think it is a right. Yet, the only reason people split among these two parties is because there are always only two serious candidates to choose from -- one Republican or one Democrat. Isn't it time that we demand more than just the two?
Every presidential election, movements crop up (generally in California and New York) to vote for either an independent candidate or "None of the Above." They do this for two reasons: One, they want to voice their displeasure at having a two-party system. And two, they believe they can get the numbers to embed a viable third-party candidate. Each election year, these movements fail. I believe it's a combination of voter apathy and a lemming mentality. Most Democrats and most Republicans are unwilling to think for themselves and follow the party line despite their personal convictions.
So, even though it won't matter, this year, my friends and I will be voting our convictions either with write-in candidates or choosing none of the above. In a truly democratic system, there will be many candidates and the winner really captures only ten percent of the votes. To me, this is far better than voting against your conscience solely because your party endorses a candidate.
(Then again, I live in a Democratic state so it really doesn't matter who I choose.)
If only people were as smart as that. I had been meaning to write something like this but because I have to politcal brain I had been putting it off.
I really do think That if everyone who wanted to vote outside one of the major parties did that we would develop a new US. However people are to afraid to toss their vote away. I am glad you and your pals are making a choice.
Good post.
Hoping others jump on your ban-wagon
~T
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
I agree that Independents have no voice in American politics, and I also decry the choke hold that Democrats and Republicans have on our political system. Voters are forced to elect parties, not people, to the Presidency, or any other political office. When electing a member of a certain party, one is forced to accept all of that candidate's views; choosing a candidate truly representative of your personal opinions is impossible in our two party system. I wrote a blog about this just yesterday: Political Parties and Political Pickles.
However, I couldn't disagree more with your proposed solution. Voting for your conscience, while admirable and quite Romantic, is a waste. Nothing of value is accomplished, nothing gained for the greater good. In our current system, one must accept the candidate that is the best fit. Cynics would call it “choosing the lesser evil,” and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it's better than throwing your voice out.
Independents, simply by their nature, have no central beliefs, and no guiding principles. Electing Independents is akin to using a map in the woods with no compass. The Independents who have had the most influence on American politics in recent years- Perot and Nader- have only created chaos and strife in our political system.
I would also take strong exception to your idea that it is preferable to elect independently-minded government officials with only a 10% percent "majority" (which is no majority at all) to officials from a major party by a true majority, despite the fact that they may not represent yourself fully. When an official is elected with 10% of the vote, 90% of the populace explicitly voted against that candidate, and did not want him or her in office. This is a perversion of "true democracy." This is not “majority rules,” it's a free-for-all. At least with our two party system, the candidate who wins had the support of over half the electorate.
The solution, I think, is not Independents, but introducing more political parties into the mix. These new parties would have guiding principles and clear visions for America's future, and give people a much more varied choice in elections. What the US could try to implement to accommodate these new parties would be similar to the existing primary system. In an election, candidates from the many different parties would run against each other in a primary, with the top two vote getters (regardless of party) going onto the general election. It's not perfect, but I think it fits the idea of progressivism and independence in politics within the bounds of pragmatism and plausibility.
Either that or the creation of one national primary so that our system isn't exhausted with 10 months of campaigning that degenerates to squabble, not issues. I submit that in this time, the issues for candidates have not become more refined. The net effect of all the oil consumption that accompanies 'face time' and traveling state to state each day is a more apathetic society.
Ideally, candidates like John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would have the opportunity to attract votes based on their ideas, not their fundraising potential. The effect of so-called issues likeElectability would be minimal. Lets fight for this kind of system!
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
I like the idea of a national primary, to an extent. The benefits of our current primary system is that it forces candidates to campaign hard in small states, like New Hampshire or West Virginia, which in a national primary would be overlooked by candidates in favor of larger states with more delegates. In this way, candidates are forced to interact with small town Americans and farmers, people who would be treated as less "important" in a national primary.
So, I support of combination of the two primary ideas: A national primary that took place over several weeks or a month. That way, we don't have the ridiculously long primary campaigns and pointless name calling we have now, we wouldn't have issues with Florida and Michigan, and candidates would still be forced to campaign for less "important" voters in less "important" states.
That's an interesting point. Smaller states since the writing of the Constitution have had a significant advantage in representation (e.g. the Delaware plan and whatnot) and they won't want to provoke change in this tradition today.
Perhaps we lobby for a compromise: two primaries; we split the first primary into the lowest populated 25 states, where candidates will campaign for a month or so prior. The next primary is separated by the former by one, maybe two, months.
This would solve a few problems:
1)Small states get the initial attention, much like New Hampshire and Iowa (they'd dig that)
2)There's no need to arbitrarily appropriate a population number that artificially determines whether you're a "big" or "small" state. The top 25 and lower 25 states are determined each election cycle.
3)Large states would dig this because they will have the final say in nominations...
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
True democracy is very rarely "majority rules." True democracy is a system whereby every person's opinion is taken into consideration. In a democratic environment, it's true that a person may not get more than 10 percent of the votes.
When you operate a democracy with "majority rules," you're actually disenfranchising at least 90% of the population because this large of a majority could not vote for a candidate they truly share their ideals with. They have to settle and pick a candidate that is least worse. How is this better than having everyone pick only the candidates they want? In either case, only a small percentage of the population will have most of their needs met, except when everyone gets to choose any candidate they want, they will do so in a true democratic environment where their opinions are truly reflected in their vote.
Majority rules only creates the illusion of consensus when no such consensus exists.
The Independents who have had the most influence on American politics in recent years- Perot and Nader- have only created chaos and strife in our political system.
True, but this is only because we do not operate in a true democracy, but at least it was inching toward the promise of a true democracy. The 4 or 5 percent who voted for Perot or Nader did so because they truly believe in these candidates, whereas the vast majority of the people who voted Republican or Democrat had to quash their ideals to pick the lesser of two evils.
The system of "majority rules" is the only system which could realistically work in a nation as diverse as America. There is no way every political group can agree with every other, and so we have to reach consensus by compromise and overcoming our fickle political trivialities. Compromise, compromise, compromise is key. It worked for the Founding Fathers, we can make it work, too.
America's democracy is certainly overshadowed by the power and rigidity of the major political parties, I agree with that. I would argue that Perot achieved somewhere near 18% of the popular vote in 1990 largely because he was a multi-billionaire. Someone without the same means as Perot, but identical ideas, could not get nearly as far as him. Which is another problem with our political system: it runs on money, and I believe it unfairly favors rich candidates.
There is one problem with too many political parties, I've realized. Deadlock. Warring parties in Congress and state governments would increase partisanship and decrease the effectiveness of government. We see this happening currently, with only two political parties.
And so, it again comes back to the importance of compromise: compromise among voters choosing a candidate who doesn't fully represent them, and compromise between elected officials trying to effect meaningful changes in government.
Why do you think that majority rules is the only system that works when you know that is is a meaningless measure that doesn't reflect the will of the people? Is there some reason you think that 300 million people would have problems picking and choosing about a few dozen people for President?
There is one problem with too many political parties, I've realized. Deadlock. Warring parties in Congress and state governments would increase partisanship and decrease the effectiveness of government. We see this happening currently, with only two political parties.
Yes, we see this with two political parties because we only have two ideologies. If we have a true democracy with several different ideologies, there would be far less gridlock because the party line distinction would be erased. Men and women would simply be voting for relevant issues.
The will of the "people" is collective. It's totally impossible and unfair to elect a president who fully represents a small group of citizens instead of one who somewhat represents a large group of citizens.
People would have problems choosing a single person as President from a pool of dozens. To choose a president in such a manner is illegal and unconstitutional.
As a Constitutional constructionist, I believe that we need to follow the intentions of the Founding Fathers, who called for the President to be elected by a majority of 50% plus one, not a plurality of, say, 10%. (Article II, Section I of the Constitution) In the event that no one candidate receives the majority vote, the election is decided by the House of Representatives. Whenever something like this happens, the election is totally taken out of the hands of the American people themselves and decided instead by political insiders.
This is what makes the United States so incredibly stable politically. A true majority is required to be elected President. We do not have complicated run-off elections, and even during the greatest times of stress in our nation, most notably the Civil War, this system has helped the country survive.
Strict constructionist ehh. Did you catch that 60 minutes dialogue with Justice Scalia?
Coal is to shaving as nuclear power is to waxing. For the time being, they are both relatively cheaper options, and each is a fast fix to the energy problem. Now, factor global warming back in --"Hairy Sustainability" by A-squared, a ProU blogger
No I did not. Tell me about it.
I've always had faith in the Constitution, and I think a lot of our current political problems stem from politicians ignoring it: warrantless wiretapping, unauthorized war, excessive governmental spending... It's supposed to be a document for the people, not for the government.
I get the impression that people equate "constructionist" with "conservative" or "reactionary." The Constitution was one of the most liberal and revolutionary documents written.
Well, this topic gets complicated, so maybe I'll blog about it. Though I'm sure everyone is sick of reading political blogs...
The Independents who have had the most influence on American politics in recent years- Perot and Nader- have only created chaos and strife in our political system.
I would put this statement to an extreme test ----- either we're all spoilers in a democracy or we're all given a chance to compete in a democracy. Which theory should we subscribe to?
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
I don't think we have to exclusively subscribe to one theory. In a democracy, there are contender candidates, and there are pretender candidates. At least with a more democratic system involving more political parties, we could change some of those "pretenders" into legitimate, electable "contenders."
Who decides whether you're a "contender" and what's the cut-off percentage difference? I think that's really an absurd idea the more I think about it, sorry. Is Hillary a pretender at this point? :)
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Good point, but I'd argue that the people of course separate the contenders from the pretenders. There'd be no official "cut-off," just the limits of feasibility. What I mean is, contender candidates are able to drum up support and raise money. Those who cannot do this, cannot be realistically elected, and are therefore unfeasible or "pretender" candidates. Simply not enough people support pretender candidates. I wouldn't say Hillary is a pretender, but some examples of former pretenders would be Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, or Fred Thompson.
I do have one qualm about this though. Candidates who are personally rich could afford to buy more influence... This is an unfair advantage, and dangerous to democracy. I support campaign finance reform proposals for this reason.
Good on you. I think it's short cry from an oligarchy when people say money=speech in a democracy.
Coal is to shaving as nuclear power is to waxing. For the time being, they are both relatively cheaper options, and each is a fast fix to the energy problem. Now, factor global warming back in --"Hairy Sustainability" by A-squared, a ProU blogger