Full Version: Independent Leanings
(note: Poll choices were listed in alphabetical order)
Often times, when I meet someone who describes themselves as an Independent, I learn, as I get to know them better, that they lean pretty heavily towards one party or anothers ideology. Often times, the similarities outnumber the differences. However, just as often, those differences carry more weight then the similarities for the individual.
Many have various reasons for not associating themselves with a party, even though their personal ideology may be pretty close to one or the other.
What I wonder is, if enough people who choose the independent role (like myself) were to join and become active in the party that comes the closest to their views, would they be able to effect the party in the long run, possibly shifting the platform of that party closer to their own view point? In the end, would that be better for American politics or worse?
Questions for debate:
Considering your personal political leanings, what major political party do you feel comes closest to your own ideology? What is it that about that party that prevents you from joining it?
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Edited to add: I expect we will see a larger then number of people who say then identify with the Libertarian party most then the national averages because of the seemingly high number of "big L" and "little L" libertarians that frequently visit
.
Since no one has decided to post here as yet I figured I would try to get the ball rolling, by answering my own questions.
Considering your personal political leanings, what major political party do you feel comes closest to your own ideology? What is it that about that party that prevents you from joining it?
Though I was once a Republican for some time (and a Democrat before that), I find that I most closely agree with the Libertarians, at least in regard to their more "moderate" positions.
Personally, I feel that there has to be significant and provable benefit to all Americans if we are going to ban anything, or limit individual liberty. This why I support the legalization of most vices, reductions in government regulation (as well as changing our approach to it), and I also tend to lean slightly toward isolationist thinking when it comes to involving ourselves in the issues of other nations.
What prevents me from joining them is a combination of factors. One, is some of the more extreme positions in their platform. For example, eliminating all taxes in favor of a fee for service system. I don't see how this is possible.
However, my biggest issue comes from when I actively looked into the party. Everyone I asked for answers regarding the platform passed the buck. Eventually, I talked to the gentleman running governor as a Libertarian in my state in 2004. When I asked him specific questions he said that he could not answer platform questions, as he never read it. Others said similar things like 'We are Libertarians, we believe what we want', or talked about how there were so many competing groups within the party, the platform would never get straightened out. This bothered me. How do you belong to a party, with a platform that you neither agree with or try to change?
Then when I looked further I learned that to join I had to sign a line item basically saying I did not support the use of force in resolving political disputes. Since there are times, when dealing with other nations, that I feel force can be necessary, I couldn't sign that. I was told a few times that this referred to the use of force in America (as in revolution). I still had problems with this. For one, it doesn't get that specific in it's wording. For another, I am not 100% certain that we will not need a revolution in America's future if we are ever to get things turned around.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
This would depend on how many of them there were, how much money they had access to, how many volunteers they had available, etc. The truth is, unless you have a sizable voting block, I sizable war chest to use to donate to campaigns, or a large pool of volunteers for campaigns, no one will take your group or what you have to say (when it differs with the party platform) very seriously (and even when you have these things they often merely pay lip service to your groups ideas). This certainly seems to be true for both the Democrat and Republican parties, though I would not doubt it was true with the Libertarians as well.
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
Depends on the number of them of course. But in the end, yes. If I felt I could get the ball rolling, and form a Centrist Caucus within one of the major parties I would likely work to accomplish that. To sway the party you have to be heard (and when you are, you have to sound reasonable). But the most important thing (other then how many vote, how much money you have to donate, etc) is that you be a member of the party because all too often political party members ignore messages from those outside their ranks, regardless of the validity of those views.
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Personally, I don't think so. That is not the way I wish it was, it is just the way it seems to be. I have said this here on before, but there are dozens of third parties out there that all basically agree on the same things with the exception of one or two issues. However, those parties stay apart and do not pool their efforts or resources because most insist on "ideological purity" and will not bend to work with others. There is of course always the issue of party leaders and "empire building" but I think the primary issue that keeps similar third parties apart is their insistence on staying true to their ideology. There seems to be a mindset among many third parties that it is better to never win an election then to ever compromise a position. Considering that the art of politics is compromise, I don't see how they could ever win, and if they managed to, I don't think they would be able to accomplish anything once they were in place.
IMHO, so long as third parties remain scores of small groups that will not work together, they will never be able to gather enough support for any candidate on the federal level.
This leaves them with the spoiler role. Which can be a very important role, though it usually gets them the candidate they connected with the least.
Considering your personal political leanings, what major political party do you feel comes closest to your own ideology? What is it that about that party that prevents you from joining it?
Though I was once a Republican for some time (and a Democrat before that), I find that I most closely agree with the Libertarians, at least in regard to their more "moderate" positions.
Personally, I feel that there has to be significant and provable benefit to all Americans if we are going to ban anything, or limit individual liberty. This why I support the legalization of most vices, reductions in government regulation (as well as changing our approach to it), and I also tend to lean slightly toward isolationist thinking when it comes to involving ourselves in the issues of other nations.
What prevents me from joining them is a combination of factors. One, is some of the more extreme positions in their platform. For example, eliminating all taxes in favor of a fee for service system. I don't see how this is possible.
However, my biggest issue comes from when I actively looked into the party. Everyone I asked for answers regarding the platform passed the buck. Eventually, I talked to the gentleman running governor as a Libertarian in my state in 2004. When I asked him specific questions he said that he could not answer platform questions, as he never read it. Others said similar things like 'We are Libertarians, we believe what we want', or talked about how there were so many competing groups within the party, the platform would never get straightened out. This bothered me. How do you belong to a party, with a platform that you neither agree with or try to change?
Then when I looked further I learned that to join I had to sign a line item basically saying I did not support the use of force in resolving political disputes. Since there are times, when dealing with other nations, that I feel force can be necessary, I couldn't sign that. I was told a few times that this referred to the use of force in America (as in revolution). I still had problems with this. For one, it doesn't get that specific in it's wording. For another, I am not 100% certain that we will not need a revolution in America's future if we are ever to get things turned around.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
This would depend on how many of them there were, how much money they had access to, how many volunteers they had available, etc. The truth is, unless you have a sizable voting block, I sizable war chest to use to donate to campaigns, or a large pool of volunteers for campaigns, no one will take your group or what you have to say (when it differs with the party platform) very seriously (and even when you have these things they often merely pay lip service to your groups ideas). This certainly seems to be true for both the Democrat and Republican parties, though I would not doubt it was true with the Libertarians as well.
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
Depends on the number of them of course. But in the end, yes. If I felt I could get the ball rolling, and form a Centrist Caucus within one of the major parties I would likely work to accomplish that. To sway the party you have to be heard (and when you are, you have to sound reasonable). But the most important thing (other then how many vote, how much money you have to donate, etc) is that you be a member of the party because all too often political party members ignore messages from those outside their ranks, regardless of the validity of those views.
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Personally, I don't think so. That is not the way I wish it was, it is just the way it seems to be. I have said this here on
before, but there are dozens of third parties out there that all basically agree on the same things with the exception of one or two issues. However, those parties stay apart and do not pool their efforts or resources because most insist on "ideological purity" and will not bend to work with others. There is of course always the issue of party leaders and "empire building" but I think the primary issue that keeps similar third parties apart is their insistence on staying true to their ideology. There seems to be a mindset among many third parties that it is better to never win an election then to ever compromise a position. Considering that the art of politics is compromise, I don't see how they could ever win, and if they managed to, I don't think they would be able to accomplish anything once they were in place.IMHO, so long as third parties remain scores of small groups that will not work together, they will never be able to gather enough support for any candidate on the federal level.
This leaves them with the spoiler role. Which can be a very important role, though it usually gets them the candidate they connected with the least.
Considering your personal political leanings, what major political party do you feel comes closest to your own ideology? What is it that about that party that prevents you from joining it?
I voted "other". I do feel an affinity towards the libertarian platform, however I find it too ideological to get my declaration. I believe politics is an experiment. Like all experiments, the outcome of a proposal may not be what one expects or desires. This is okay. One cannot realistically expect to get it right all the time (or even half the time necessarily).
However, I find, more often than not, political experiments to be poorly conceived. It may be that the proposal is ill-designed; it may be that all variables have not been isolated; it may be that the standards for measuring the outcomes are improper. Similarly, politics often take credit for outcomes which are not proven to be causative or even highly correlated to a given policy. Thus, politics suffers from both inductive and deductive fallacy. I find this condition sad if unsurprising.
What makes me most disenchanted with party politics is the entrenchment. Much effort may be placed into designing and enacting a given policy, yet there is absolutely no follow through. There seems little consideration put into whether or not the policy works as intended. There are no standards created by the political experimenters themselves by which to evaluate their policies at the time the policy is enacted. Thus, there appears to be very little consequence associated with law making. Oh, we might be able to vote the folks out of office but the law remains. And the party remains too. It self-perpetuates its ideology as a justification for its own ideology.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
No, I don't believe so. I believe the party as a system has motivations independent of its individual constituents.
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
If a party were founded on basic principles of good experimentation, of induction (like science), then I think it may be workable. If a party's planks were falsifiable, that is, had standards by which they could be proven to be incorrect, then I would consider it.
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Without reform of our voting system, like rank-order voting, third parties will always be considered "spoilers" in a close election. I believe a better (more fair) voting system is essential for any third party viability.
I voted "other". I do feel an affinity towards the libertarian platform, however I find it too ideological to get my declaration. I believe politics is an experiment. Like all experiments, the outcome of a proposal may not be what one expects or desires. This is okay. One cannot realistically expect to get it right all the time (or even half the time necessarily).
However, I find, more often than not, political experiments to be poorly conceived. It may be that the proposal is ill-designed; it may be that all variables have not been isolated; it may be that the standards for measuring the outcomes are improper. Similarly, politics often take credit for outcomes which are not proven to be causative or even highly correlated to a given policy. Thus, politics suffers from both inductive and deductive fallacy. I find this condition sad if unsurprising.
What makes me most disenchanted with party politics is the entrenchment. Much effort may be placed into designing and enacting a given policy, yet there is absolutely no follow through. There seems little consideration put into whether or not the policy works as intended. There are no standards created by the political experimenters themselves by which to evaluate their policies at the time the policy is enacted. Thus, there appears to be very little consequence associated with law making. Oh, we might be able to vote the folks out of office but the law remains. And the party remains too. It self-perpetuates its ideology as a justification for its own ideology.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
No, I don't believe so. I believe the party as a system has motivations independent of its individual constituents.
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
If a party were founded on basic principles of good experimentation, of induction (like science), then I think it may be workable. If a party's planks were falsifiable, that is, had standards by which they could be proven to be incorrect, then I would consider it.
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Without reform of our voting system, like rank-order voting, third parties will always be considered "spoilers" in a close election. I believe a better (more fair) voting system is essential for any third party viability.
Considering your personal political leanings, what major political party do you feel comes closest to your own ideology? What is it that about that party that prevents you from joining it?
I am generally left-leaning, but I have qualms about some issues with which mainstream (so-called) liberalism in the US seems obsessed. More on that below.
A very annoying aspect of Democrats is that they have a strong tendency to sound foolish when they talk off-the-cuff. They use words incorrectly, especially the word "cynical." I have heard that one used incorrectly at least twice. You have to use these $10 words with care or they backfire. There are plenty of people trying to make themselves look good, rather than making the party's goals look appealing to the public. They need to lay off words like "I" and phrases like "I think" and replace them with "Americans" and "American workers need ..." Complete disposal of the word "agenda" would help, too, I think. My party has a "platform," not an agenda.
But moreover, I am having problems accepting the Democratic Party as "my party" because my impression is that they seem to share a lot of the same political traits as the Republicans. Dems take contributions from big corporations and are therefore "bought" by these powerful forces, just like their nemeses; it is an arguable point as to the degree of this influence in the party as compared to that same influence in the Republican party. Either way, I don't care for it. As far as I am concerned, multinational (US?) corporations are the enemy of hard-working people. I do not feel that Democrats can stand up for me until they stand up to big business -- which they won't, of course -- especially now in light of globalism and its many fans, including some within the Democratic party.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
Possibly, and in many cases it already has. Look at how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their very narrow, special-interests have influenced the Democratic Party. Likewise, there is a huge Hispanic influence, as well there should be. And so forth. And while I like the idea of pluralism, I do not feel that some of these internal groups are looking at how efforts made for the benefit of their own constituencies will necessarily help the other constituencies within the party. With Jackson, everything looks Black it seems. "Reparations" would probably hit the top of the list in that regard. But what about Christian and atheist minorities who are also struggling in this oppressive environment; how would their own special interest agenda help these others? On top of this, he and his brood have made noxious remarks about other groups in the past (see "hymietown"). "My party" would not exclude various demographic groups, nor would it provide special treatment for any of them either.
As another example, I really do not feel comfortable with directives that force government and business to cater specifically to the needs of Spanish-speaking immigrants. We did not do that for Jews who came to America in the last century (read: my grandparents), and there were periods of US history when Jews, Germans, Poles, Irish, and others were the "predominant" immigrant group coming to America. They seem to have done just fine from what I can see in their various achievements here. Likewise for Hispanics, except that liberals want to coddle this group specially for some reason. I think it is a crutch that will end up hurting these new immigrants more than helping them in the long run. So far, no one has been able to convince me of some ethical or moral basis that makes policies only apply to this group but does not apply to other groups such as Russian Jews who came in droves to America after the wall fell and who have just as many problems with English as any other group.
This segues into another one of my issues with the Dems. With so many voices speaking out for so many conflicting issues, how can that party gain enough true unity (as opposed to all the liberals smiling at each other when they really want to klompf each other over the head)? I terribly dislike the Republican party, with the far-right wing and their constitutional butchers in particular. But they have a very clearly defined agenda, and there is no guessing what they want or what they are up to. I cannot see how left politics in the US can do likewise without first shedding some very negative influences, and setting a clear platform.
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
Not so long as individual groups place their own objectives ahead of the rest of the party membership. See above. Nothing can get done without some subgroup feeling dissed because they were ignored or because some other group is getting special treatment that they don't get.
I have been looking at the fledgling Labor and Progressive parties, in so much as they sparsely exist, as well as the Greens. I am only starting to learn about these new parties, and I have questions about them. The very possibility of these other choices is a reason for hope.
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
This hits one of my hot buttons. When we speak of 3rd-party candidates as spoilers, this is really only applicable in the context of presidential races. This is reasonable due to our Electoral College system. (N.B.: Whether or not the Electoral College should be eliminated is a completely separate topic, so please don't throw a tangent here.) But the presidential races are only one race in American politics, and in my opinion, they are given far too much weight with the public (via the media) for one thing, and for another thing, the power of "We The People" is supposed to be focused in Congress (originally just the House, later the Senate as well), not the Executive. For races in Congress and the statehouses, there is no reason that there can not be a multi-party system that functions successfully; in legislative bodies, it is one member, one vote, and there is none of the awkward, limiting factors that exist in US Presidential elections.
Not only could such a system be successful, perhaps it would be even more effective than the current two-party arrangement. It would force elected members of legislatures and congress to create coalitions and to get broad-based support rather than the current winner-takes-all approach in the lower houses, and the almost as exasperating experience in the Senates. Why, it could possibly force members of these bodies to be responsive to many different voices and actually work together to achieve common goals, rather than narrow ones. Of course, we would all have to get used to the idea that the agendae of our favorite party might not be fulfilled completely, or exactly the way we would like. (That goes for me, too, admittedly.)
I am generally left-leaning, but I have qualms about some issues with which mainstream (so-called) liberalism in the US seems obsessed. More on that below.
A very annoying aspect of Democrats is that they have a strong tendency to sound foolish when they talk off-the-cuff. They use words incorrectly, especially the word "cynical." I have heard that one used incorrectly at least twice. You have to use these $10 words with care or they backfire. There are plenty of people trying to make themselves look good, rather than making the party's goals look appealing to the public. They need to lay off words like "I" and phrases like "I think" and replace them with "Americans" and "American workers need ..." Complete disposal of the word "agenda" would help, too, I think. My party has a "platform," not an agenda.
But moreover, I am having problems accepting the Democratic Party as "my party" because my impression is that they seem to share a lot of the same political traits as the Republicans. Dems take contributions from big corporations and are therefore "bought" by these powerful forces, just like their nemeses; it is an arguable point as to the degree of this influence in the party as compared to that same influence in the Republican party. Either way, I don't care for it. As far as I am concerned, multinational (US?) corporations are the enemy of hard-working people. I do not feel that Democrats can stand up for me until they stand up to big business -- which they won't, of course -- especially now in light of globalism and its many fans, including some within the Democratic party.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
Possibly, and in many cases it already has. Look at how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their very narrow, special-interests have influenced the Democratic Party. Likewise, there is a huge Hispanic influence, as well there should be. And so forth. And while I like the idea of pluralism, I do not feel that some of these internal groups are looking at how efforts made for the benefit of their own constituencies will necessarily help the other constituencies within the party. With Jackson, everything looks Black it seems. "Reparations" would probably hit the top of the list in that regard. But what about Christian and atheist minorities who are also struggling in this oppressive environment; how would their own special interest agenda help these others? On top of this, he and his brood have made noxious remarks about other groups in the past (see "hymietown"). "My party" would not exclude various demographic groups, nor would it provide special treatment for any of them either.
As another example, I really do not feel comfortable with directives that force government and business to cater specifically to the needs of Spanish-speaking immigrants. We did not do that for Jews who came to America in the last century (read: my grandparents), and there were periods of US history when Jews, Germans, Poles, Irish, and others were the "predominant" immigrant group coming to America. They seem to have done just fine from what I can see in their various achievements here. Likewise for Hispanics, except that liberals want to coddle this group specially for some reason. I think it is a crutch that will end up hurting these new immigrants more than helping them in the long run. So far, no one has been able to convince me of some ethical or moral basis that makes policies only apply to this group but does not apply to other groups such as Russian Jews who came in droves to America after the wall fell and who have just as many problems with English as any other group.
This segues into another one of my issues with the Dems. With so many voices speaking out for so many conflicting issues, how can that party gain enough true unity (as opposed to all the liberals smiling at each other when they really want to klompf each other over the head)? I terribly dislike the Republican party, with the far-right wing and their constitutional butchers in particular. But they have a very clearly defined agenda, and there is no guessing what they want or what they are up to. I cannot see how left politics in the US can do likewise without first shedding some very negative influences, and setting a clear platform.
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
Not so long as individual groups place their own objectives ahead of the rest of the party membership. See above. Nothing can get done without some subgroup feeling dissed because they were ignored or because some other group is getting special treatment that they don't get.
I have been looking at the fledgling Labor and Progressive parties, in so much as they sparsely exist, as well as the Greens. I am only starting to learn about these new parties, and I have questions about them. The very possibility of these other choices is a reason for hope.
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
This hits one of my hot buttons. When we speak of 3rd-party candidates as spoilers, this is really only applicable in the context of presidential races. This is reasonable due to our Electoral College system. (N.B.: Whether or not the Electoral College should be eliminated is a completely separate topic, so please don't throw a tangent here.) But the presidential races are only one race in American politics, and in my opinion, they are given far too much weight with the public (via the media) for one thing, and for another thing, the power of "We The People" is supposed to be focused in Congress (originally just the House, later the Senate as well), not the Executive. For races in Congress and the statehouses, there is no reason that there can not be a multi-party system that functions successfully; in legislative bodies, it is one member, one vote, and there is none of the awkward, limiting factors that exist in US Presidential elections.
Not only could such a system be successful, perhaps it would be even more effective than the current two-party arrangement. It would force elected members of legislatures and congress to create coalitions and to get broad-based support rather than the current winner-takes-all approach in the lower houses, and the almost as exasperating experience in the Senates. Why, it could possibly force members of these bodies to be responsive to many different voices and actually work together to achieve common goals, rather than narrow ones. Of course, we would all have to get used to the idea that the agendae of our favorite party might not be fulfilled completely, or exactly the way we would like. (That goes for me, too, admittedly.)
Considering your personal political leanings, what major political party do you feel comes closest to your own ideology? What is it that about that party that prevents you from joining it?
I would consider myself a leaning small l. I have thought about this for some time. For a while I thought I would like to “belong” to a party that I could do something. I realize now that I was kidding myself. First do I need to “belong”? To what? Both the Democrats and Republicans are about restricting freedom. How can I be ok with that? On the LP front, well I am mostly with you Overland. Defense is a big issue for me as well as immigration.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
Do I have the power to change their core platforms that bother me so much? And the answer is no. Let them figure out how to get my vote and I keep my independence! Although I would like to throw my support behind a party I have decided that I won’t do it if there are serious issues that party supports which I can’t support. With that criteria I am left where I am, and always have been, independent!
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
I remember checking out the libertarian caucus of the Republican Party once. If I remember correctly there was a dude who I could ask questions about the caucus. I found his website and learned he supported all the things that I dislike about the Republican Party. That option was then removed. I think that they want my money not my ideas. Sorry folks! You have to earn it!
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Not sure but it is fun making both parties try to appeal to us! I also wouldn’t view the Independents as spoilers. If the people wishing for power don’t appeal to a large minority voice then they have a good chance of not winning. Let them spend the time and resources figuring out how to get the power they so desperately desire and let me vote for who ever is closest to my views.
I would consider myself a leaning small l. I have thought about this for some time. For a while I thought I would like to “belong” to a party that I could do something. I realize now that I was kidding myself. First do I need to “belong”? To what? Both the Democrats and Republicans are about restricting freedom. How can I be ok with that? On the LP front, well I am mostly with you Overland. Defense is a big issue for me as well as immigration.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
Do I have the power to change their core platforms that bother me so much? And the answer is no. Let them figure out how to get my vote and I keep my independence! Although I would like to throw my support behind a party I have decided that I won’t do it if there are serious issues that party supports which I can’t support. With that criteria I am left where I am, and always have been, independent!
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
I remember checking out the libertarian caucus of the Republican Party once. If I remember correctly there was a dude who I could ask questions about the caucus. I found his website and learned he supported all the things that I dislike about the Republican Party. That option was then removed. I think that they want my money not my ideas. Sorry folks! You have to earn it!
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Not sure but it is fun making both parties try to appeal to us! I also wouldn’t view the Independents as spoilers. If the people wishing for power don’t appeal to a large minority voice then they have a good chance of not winning. Let them spend the time and resources figuring out how to get the power they so desperately desire and let me vote for who ever is closest to my views.
Considering your personal political leanings, what major political party do you feel comes closest to your own ideology? What is it that about that party that prevents you from joining it?
Neither. Their are both fairly far from my ideals. The libertarians are in the ballpark, but seriously flawed with their purity of ideology problems.
The Dems exist only because so many people dislike Republicans in general. The republicans are simply socially conservative Socialists.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
No. It seems you are either a memberof an established party or so Independent that you wouldn't find a suitable party regardless. Any attempt to disrupt the traditional power structure would be quickly crushed
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Yes. When dissatisfaction with the 2 party status quo grows high is when they can be effective. But since they are outside of the political power structure, if they are elected it would be easy enough to quaratine them and wait for their approval to drop and sour people on 3rd party candidates.
It would require a major split in the dominant parties and an exodus of their members to the new party for any lasting change to take place.
Neither. Their are both fairly far from my ideals. The libertarians are in the ballpark, but seriously flawed with their purity of ideology problems.
The Dems exist only because so many people dislike Republicans in general. The republicans are simply socially conservative Socialists.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
No. It seems you are either a memberof an established party or so Independent that you wouldn't find a suitable party regardless. Any attempt to disrupt the traditional power structure would be quickly crushed
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?
Yes. When dissatisfaction with the 2 party status quo grows high is when they can be effective. But since they are outside of the political power structure, if they are elected it would be easy enough to quaratine them and wait for their approval to drop and sour people on 3rd party candidates.
It would require a major split in the dominant parties and an exodus of their members to the new party for any lasting change to take place.
Considering your personal political leanings, what major political party do you feel comes closest to your own ideology? What is it that about that party that prevents you from joining it?
I also, say Neither. They are both fairly far from my ideals.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
Yes, but I feel it would be a net long term dis-service. That party may get a better plank, but the "big parties" systemic problems will remain. I'd try a new party, even got a name: the Commons party!
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
A better agenda than the above. but I'd still try for a Commons party. There are just too many issues that I'd like changed!
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?[
Yes, but it's tough. I think a blogging route might now be possible! (Hope eternal, etc. you know!)
I also, say Neither. They are both fairly far from my ideals.
Could independent voices, moving into the major political parties have a real possibility of effecting change in those parties?
Yes, but I feel it would be a net long term dis-service. That party may get a better plank, but the "big parties" systemic problems will remain. I'd try a new party, even got a name: the Commons party!
If you felt you could bring together a number of independents as a caucus of sorts within one of the major political parties (one that came close to your own ideology) would you join that party to work to effect change within? Why or Why Not?
A better agenda than the above. but I'd still try for a Commons party. There are just too many issues that I'd like changed!
Is it really possible, considering the nature of our political system today, for an Independent party to have an effective role in American politics outside of being a spoiler?[
Yes, but it's tough. I think a blogging route might now be possible! (Hope eternal, etc. you know!)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.