Bob Franken's blog at The Hill entitled "Time For a Declaration of Independents" pretty much expresses what I've been thinking lately.
Your thoughts? Is it time for a third party?
"Maybe this is the year. After all the decades of lip service to the idea of third-party or Independent candidates, perhaps the time has come. Heaven knows the Democrats and Republicans have done their part to make the idea appealing.
The two major parties have way more in common than their loyalists would like to admit. There is jealousy, dogmatic infighting, downright buffoonery. Then we have egotistical turf battles, corruption, incompetence and general chaos. And let's not forget the lineup of mediocre or worse hacks the Big Two select as candidates...No wonder large percentages reject the Dem and GOP labels. They are unwilling to choose between parties that have demonstrated that about all they're good at is fundraising.
...This is not about the fringe candidates, but those among the ranks of attractive, creative, intelligent citizens who are serious about solving our problems. There are millions who simply find the existing setup obsolete and might be willing to step forward...[M]aybe things have gotten bad enough that the unattached will have enough initial success to inspire many more to go their separate ways to the voters the next time around. We could end up with a certified Movement.
With the world moving at a rapid pace, if a country is standing still, it's moving backward. Maybe some alternative approaches might end the slide."
Your thoughts? Is it time for a third party?
Problem with a third party, even a viable third party, is that you end up with a winner who represents a minority.
Bill Clinton won with something like 43% of the vote, and Perry won with about 39%.
I just don't like the fact that someone can be put in a position of power who does not represent a majority of voters.
I think we have a de-facto third party anyway. It is made up of the independents, those who don't identify with either of the major parties.
The independents move to whichever party appeals to them at the time. But, if the independents were all to join a third party, they probably would not be able to have as profound an effect on the outcome of elections.
Don't count on a viable third-party any time soon.
Aside from having to attract and keep independent voters, there's still the problem of platform. You're likely to find that independents have a wide spectrum of positions on issues, making it difficult to get a party consensus, much less nominate a candidate. And you're still left with the distinct possibility of the party or candidate being co-opted by one of the main parties.
In my little fantasy world, a coalition is formed between outcast moderate Repubs, centrists and center-minded Dems. No shrieking teabaggers or Jane Hamshers, no circular firing squads; just level-headed bipartisan compromise and good governance.
John Anderson
And I even worked for him. Somewhere in a jewelry box, I have a John Anderson campaign button. What a suckah I am.
My general thinking boils down to two words(well 3 words, in actuality): "We're screwed !"
Realistically what piece of the ideological pie does that vaunted 3rd party carve itself from? Historically, it has only cannibalized one party or another, thereby defeating its ideological purpose. In essence, cutting off its nose to spite its face. The most recent instance being New York's 23rd Congressional District where the right wing teapartier Dan Hoffman cannibalized moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava and ensured the Democrat Bill Owens' win.
What legitimate 3rd party candidate has or will draw equally from both parties so that it doesn't throw the race to the Republican or Democrat by default?
And to arte's point, who or how does a 3rd party candidate draw the minority vote that has historically voted Democratic? Somehow or another any independent that draws an all White constituency reeks of "fringe party" regardless of what platform is being espoused. Even historically with Ross Perot's 1992 candidacy. I'm sure his "you people" speech reference did wonders for his minority support. Anyone have statistics for John Anderson? Even though he ran in the Republican primary and lost as a "Liberal Republican" (an oxymoron in this day and age), I can't imagine his strong showing in the general election not predominantly cannibalizing Carter's constituency, ensuring his defeat. Anyone have info to support or refute my admittedly undocumented Anderson support assertion?
I think we are long over due for a third party. I came across this just the other day:
Another Party Said Cure for Nation's Ills
By Associated Press
Berkeley Cal. Jan 14.-- Dr. John Dewey of Columbia University noted American philosopher and chairman of the League for Independent Action today made a plea for a third national political party.
"The republican and democratic parties have no principles and are continually dodging important economic issues." he said on his arrival at the University of California to deliver the ninth annual Howlson Foundation lecture.
"The two parties are so much alike that scarcely one division is discernible between them..."
Some things never change because I found this article while reading The Galveston Daily News from January 14th 1931. Which tells me that people have been fed up with the two party system for a very, very long time but won't do anything about it.
Problem is that the third party movement attracts fringe candidates, ie. Ross Perot. Even Sarah Palin has publicly flirted with the idea of running as an independent and she is the quintessential definition of the word "fringe", (as well as several other words). Ask ex-First Dude Todd, who was a member of the VERY fringe Alaska Independence Party for years - whether Ms Palin wanted to admit it or not.
It's been 30 years - the John Anderson campaign - since there was a serious, credible 3rd party candidate. Even I voted for him.
But maybe it is time, again. Democrats have shown they are no less corrupted than the GOP by the banks and the special interests.
Understood on that one.
The problem with campaign finance reform is who's going to do it? Are the people who benefit from the system as it is going to pass laws that change the system? Not likely.
I think if you really want to see the Democrats and Republicans work together all you have to do is let a credible third party take a few seats in the House and Senate. Tops on their agenda then would be to make sure the 3rd party's people got nothing, and I mean nothing, accomplished during their terms. No legislation passed, no earmarks granted, nada, zip.
I agree with Shortstuff - without campaign finance reform, a third party will be a party of the same old same old.
Get rid of the lobbyists stuffing the politicans pockets and we may have a shot at changing the parties that we have now - or creating a new and better party that will adequately represent millions of Americans.
My hope is that the tea party folks exert enough pressure that both parties will transform into what they should be. My fear is that they will pull another Ross Perot & result in a protest candidate that changes nothing.
Maybe. But until we get some realistic campaign finance reform and get the lobbyists out of the pols' pockets, a third party would just mean a third party to be bribed by big corporate interests.
I'm sure the TeaParty advocates think they have the new third party going now. And they may be right.