Comments on: Independents are a Sleeping Giant

By: Alex Hammer

Alex Hammer — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:48:34 +0000

So many great points! Electing moderate, centrist and/or independent candidates is of course only a small part of the picture. Open up the electoral (and also governing) processes generally is a larger issue of great importance to which many of you have referred. I believe that the two can potentially be related, but there is a great deal that can be discussed in that regard.

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:50:49 +0000

Gee, for a little kid you are very smart.

By: michaelD

michaelD — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:20:45 +0000

you describe independents as if there is some common thread ... there isn't. independents seem largely to be people who have become disenchanted with the leadership or other aspects of their preferred party.

independents are republicans who have come to despise the party of no or who regret the evangelical influence over its deliberations.

independents are democrats who can't agree with the ongoing tax-and-spend attitudes or unbridled expansion of entitlement programs rather than any encouragement of personal responsibility. herding cats would be childs play in comparison to what you're proposing.

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:31:00 +0000

“That is [the relevance of Independent parties?]the prevailing conventional wisdom that is also often promulgated by the mainstream press, which is, I believe, heavily invested in the maintenance of the dominance of the two party system.

Many people, including Independents, are tired of the partisanship and special interests rife in both of the two major parties.”

As a Democrat I am also tired of the partisanship (on both sides), and I would dearly like to believe that such is just “conventional wisdom” promulgated by the mainstream press. However, after almost 200 years of “conventional wisdon,” and third party candidates at best (especially at the national level) merely playing a spoiler role, I am not too hopeful about an Independent party gaining much of a serious foothold in the near future.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:16:11 +0000

"you had a 'RINO' senator on one side with a history of crossing party lines and on the other you had a guy who supported his party something like 95% of the time. I still have hope, but independent have proven to be swayed by the superficial words and images and not by actual track records"

We've seen the verdict as depicted by the "purple states" maps and cartograms I've posted a link to before.

Note that this is notably true in the case of California. Look at the red and blue precinct map and also the cartogram below. It really was a creepy Blue Nation (Cyanide Nation) kind of place out there, this year. This may bring smiles to James Carville and lib Dem futurists, but not to most sensible people.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4362/statewide...

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7025/statewi...

By: Leonidas

Leonidas — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:51:23 +0000

Speaking only for myself, you left out a critical factor. The RINO selected, as a running mate, a religious right winger, and the RINO was old and not in the best of health. I don't know about anyone else, but I was leaning McCain until the Palin selection. After the Palin selection, I chose write-in for my vote.

That seems a reasonable position. I am a big fan of people who write in candidates if they cannot find either ticket acceptable. Well done!

By: tidbits

tidbits — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:17:24 +0000

Leonidas said, “last election, you had a “RINO” senator on one side with a history of crossing party lines and on the other you had a guy who supported his party something like 95% of the time.”

Speaking only for myself, you left out a critical factor. The RINO selected, as a running mate, a religious right winger, and the RINO was old and not in the best of health. I don't know about anyone else, but I was leaning McCain until the Palin selection. After the Palin selection, I chose write-in for my vote.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:00:17 +0000

I should add that the folllowing site features work that contains some errors in it, but which includes work on a "gerrymandering solution" that in fact could be extended to reconstitute the states as well as new districts, by using the same approach or by combining districts, in a radical revision of the existing set of states as well as Congressional districts that we have.

http://rangevoting.org/USsplitLine.png

http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

http://bolson.org/dist/all.html

http://bolson.org/dist/

By: Leonidas

Leonidas — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:51:21 +0000

I had hoped independents would have stirred last election, you had a “RINO” senator on one side with a history of crossing party lines and on the other you had a guy who supported his party something like 95% of the time. I still have hope, but independent have proven to be swayed by the superficial words and images and not by actual track records. Hopefully independents will become more involved and more knowledible before the next elections.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:48:37 +0000

No more gerrymandering in that actual, effective sense, though some would attempt it, still, in selecting the contiguous Census districts or ZIP code areas. (This is aside from what they would do in organizing these areas or in redesigning these areas, as an additional possibility.) Given the nature of these other kinds of areas, the gross distortions of sizes and population selections would obviously be greatly reduced, probably to effective meaninglessness. I don't hesitate to say it would be better than the districts we have now.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress...

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:15:44 +0000

Would there still be gerrymandering?

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:58:39 +0000

“the maintenance of the dominance of the two party system”

As I've written before, the two major parties need to be fractured into 4-6+ total new parties, accompanied by proportional representation (for multi-seat bodies, with approval voting for single person offices). It's a mistake to presume that only the extreme left (in order to secure representation they fail to win among the mainstream otherwise) wants proportional representation and a multi-party legislature.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:56:43 +0000

"Have you read my posts[,] DLS?"

Yes, of course, including such "entertainment" as:

"the party whose hallmark is oppression and subjegation of the poor and oppressed [...] plantation-owner attitude"

[smile]

You forget what FDR included, when discussing the South back in the 1930s: the word "feudal."

Keep it up. My own remarks are what are pertinent here. First we get attempted dismissal of public opposition to increasingly concerning lib Dem overreach, then we get wild speculation and hype. Neither are correct, or merited.

* * *

"Why do you think they vote Democrat? And why do you think the Hispanics (other than the 1st wave of Cubans) vote Democrat? Historically speaking, the blacks and poor whites used to vote for Republicans."

Discrimination, FDR, the New Deal, "tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect" in place of neglect.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:11:10 +0000

Have you read my posts DLS? If I'm a lefty then Joe Lieberman is Karl Marx by comparison on the political spectrum.

What changed with poor republicans [the most oxymoronic term I can think of] was education of the poor of all races via the internets. I'd love to “blame” it on the strapped and underfunded public education system but I think that would be stretching it. I think they figured out that being poor and oppressed and belonging to the party whose hallmark is oppression and subjegation of the poor and oppressed just didn't add up in the final tally. Their opposition to the lifesaving Public Option is the paramount example of their plantation-owner attitude towards those less fortunate than they.

By: vey9

vey9 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:01:36 +0000

"If blacks had turned out in Virginia in 2009 like they had in 2008, the Democrats would have won."

Why do you think they vote Democrat? And why do you think the Hispanics (other than the 1st wave of Cubans) vote Democrat? Historically speaking, the blacks and poor whites used to vote for Republicans. T. Roosevelt (R) invited the first black man B.T. Washington into the White House in 1901.

What changed?

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:30:46 +0000

??? First the lefty disparagement of much of the mainstream came, in order to devalue the recent election results. Now we get clumsy hype. What next? Will the term “swing voters” be exploited?

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:49:50 +0000

I agree with tidbits. Plus it's completely entertaining and fun to watch both of the major parties misjudge the thinking people of the US. It adds the element of surprise to the game. I love the upsets and the surge of voting a huge tide of unrecognized people can have at the polls. The more independents are ignored, the more they will trudge through the slush on election day and make it to the polls just to show the man who really can yell the loudest.

And like I keep saying; with the internets and access to instant information about virtually any subject you desire, the future generations of thinking vs reflexive loyals will only get better. So put your feet up, relax and watch the dems and GOP big bosses flub it time and again. Always put your money on the dark horse with a soul and a mind to match. Having a soul and an independent mind are going to be the trends of the future and, being jaded and ruthlessly pragmatic, the new generations will not bend an ear to buzzwords nor transparent lies.

I couldn't be happier about it.

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:42:06 +0000

I hope Hammer is right, but he is a politician, whatever he calls himself. A base of true independents would be nice since it would force the Rs and Ds to act more responsibly. Also, what do you think about requiring all citizens to vote, as is the case in some countries? That would drag all of us out and then the independents would be more representative, assuming Superdestroyer has a point.

By: Alex Hammer

Alex Hammer — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:39:07 +0000

That is the prevailing conventional wisdom that is also often promulgated by the mainstream press, which is, I believe, heavily invested in the maintenance of the dominance of the two party system.

Many people, including Independents, are tired of the partisanship and special interests rife in both of the two major parties.

By: tidbits

tidbits — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:22:16 +0000

Most, including many independents, remain wedded to the two party system. Independents use their influence more to move the major parties than to challenge them at the poles. A moderate third party that could mount a serious electoral challenge would constitute a great turning point in history, but it is many years, and much pursuasion, away from having a chance at reality.