http://people-press.org/reports/images/239-3.gif



So America isn't happy with either side of the Twoparty. Meanwhile, it was the Greens and Libertarians, not the Democrats, that challenged the 2004 election results, and this has caused many independents who threw in with Kerry to distrust the Democratic Party even more.


Questions for Debate:

Do independents have a chance of gaining large numbers of Congressional seats in 2006?

What about in 2008?

Would Independents in place of Republicans and Democrats improve overall satisfaction among American voters?



Edited to remove image in accordance with forum Rules - Jaime

Do independents have a chance of gaining large numbers of Congressional seats in 2006?
Bernie Sanders will elected senator from Vermont. Other than that no independents really have a chance. Independents don't have the benefit of a party organization, raising money or incumbency. That makes it hard for them to win.


What about in 2008?
John McCain could possibly be elected president as an independent, maybe.

I don't think independents are going to be elected in large numbers in the near future. Independents need issues that the Republicans and Democrats aren't addressing or a constituency that isn't being catered to. Maybe that issue is immigration or the deficit, I don't know. I don't think any politician, democrat, republican or independent, knows that right now

Do independents have a chance of gaining large numbers of Congressional seats in 2006?
I heard the same logic employed on Air America this weekend, where they were quoting this survey and how the disapproval meant that in 2006 America would vote for Democrats. I hate to rain on independent or Democratic parades, but in the survey, if you dig, you find the following:


Not "likely voters." Not "registered voters." Just 18-year-olds and up. This sample has nothing to do with political reality. The spin doctors and radio hosts, of course, will be milking this for all it's worth, but as far as the election is concerned, no impact.

So, I'd say that the Independents have a chance to rouse the opinions of the (non-voting) young person out there. As a former registered Libertarian, I was once a believer, but no longer. The only chance for a third party would be for either the Republicans or Democrats to implode and schism, the Republicans into a religious right / libertarian divide or Democrats devolving between centrists & leftists. Neither appears likely since the conservatives own the Republicans and the leftists have "bought and paid for" the Democrats.

On the bright side, the discontent could appeal to a sense of fair play and get a third party candidate into a debate or two? One can dream.

What about in 2008? too early to tell

I do not believe that "independents" or any other fringe party will pick up any seats in 2006 or 2008. The system, as it stands, requires large amounts of money to compete at the federal level. The two parties (DNC and GOP) are the only two capable of raising the type of money required.

Increasing voter satisfaction would depend on the definition of "independent". Sanders, for example, is a far left socialist and I doubt more people like him would increase satisfaction. The way I see it, 30% of the population are nearly certain to vote democrat, 30% are certain to vote republican, and 40% are up for grabs. Where the fault lines lie with those people vary from issue to issue. Therefore, I believe that the candidate who wins at the national level has best captured "the middle". In 2004, that candidate was President Bush.

Voter satisfaction is a different issue. Polls respond more to events than policies. For example, Bill Clinton received high poll numbers because the economy was experiencing a boom driven by the internet gold rush, y2k related spending, and the rapid growth experienced in computing, software, and telecomm sectors during the late 1990's. Clinton's approval was independent of Clinton's policy to encourage American companies to invest in China-based manufacturing or his relatively weak stance toward Bin Laden and terrorism in general.

Bush had the bursting of the economic tech bubble, 9/11 and the rapid rise of China's economy on his watch as well as the unresolved and festering Iraq issue.

Therefore, the polls reflect the mood related to those events and don't reflect an understanding of the policies of these politicians.... most of which are unknown to a vast number of the people polled (or who vote).

I think you both have erred about something: The Democrat's have not pleased the leftists (I know, I am one, and I am not pleased), and Move On, much as it hopes to have the Democratic Party bought and paid for and remembering the fact, can't really compete with Exxon Mobil and other corporate campaign contributors. That's not to say that I think this increases chances Independents will get somewhere this time, I think your pessimism is probably realistic, but I wanted to point out a mistaken impression you both seem to share.

One more impression, from carlitoswhey, that struck me as a little off: that the conservatives own the Republican Party. There are quite a few conservatives, including some in the Republican Party, who would disagree with you. Conservatives have bemoaned the current trend toward neoconservatism, a non-conservative philosophy of heavy spending, little respect for individual rights (lip service to the right to keep and bear arms, but that is about all), and a foreign policy that, far from avoiding foreign entanglements, embraces them.

I wish I could find as much reason to question your underlying conclusion. I would dearly love to see third parties take hold in America. I think it might be worth our while if we on the left forced the Democratic Party to implode (temporarily giving full power to the Republican Party) by refusing their center and rightwing candidates in favor of leftists, but that concept is so frightening to many that I don't think it will take hold, even if endorsed by groups like Move On.

Why would the implosion of the DNC make people like you happier? As it stands, the democrat party are the only "viable" outlet for the left (as you describe yourself) and that segment is a subset of that party. Those who vote for republicans (more than 50% of the voters) would NEVER vote for a far left "independent" candidate. So, I can't see how you'd get more representation by seeing the democrat party implode.

Isn't the real issue that you're unhappy with the politicians in Washington because they don't represent YOUR minority views?

In our representative system, the makeup of politicians represent the people's views for the most part (whether we like it or not). You won't see any large scale leftist politicians elected until large sections of the population adopt those views.

It would make me happy because the Democratic Party is not left at all. Therefore, it does not represent me and those like me. So long as there are two parties to feign opposition (despite their core actions being almost identical), it is likely that Independents will remain shut out. If the left refuses to endorse "better than the Republicans" candidates, the Democratic Party will either fall, or will adhere more closely to our wishes, therefore diverging from the right and center right policies the Party follows. If no amount of money spent on advertising could sway formerly Democrat voters, the Democrat's reliance on corporate money would not give them the advantage they currently share with the Republicans.

It happens that my views are shared by many. The voter apathy in America is a direct result of too many citizens not feeling represented. And it would be foolish of the working class strugglers like myself to embrace either Party if a viable alternative would meet their needs and fit with their ideology better. I heard both leftists and rightists (of the conservative category), lament the options presented in the last three Presidential elections. Many Americans want change. The question is, how do we bring it about? And the implosion of one of the Twoparty Twins seems like a good shakeup that might let in a little variety.

How many people share your views (%) as determined by this political demographic poll out of curiosity?

http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

Voter apathy is just irresponsible citizenship. We're talking over 40% of the people. If they were truly motivated (and they aren't), their block of votes could put in any candidate or agenda that they wanted.

The process of being president is highly competitive. It's an endurance contest and the guy who wins has to make it through the gauntlet. I don't share your opinion about the people who run against each other. To me, they are the best the respective parties have to offer. On many ballots, you have candidates running for president from many other fringe parties. They get exactly the number of votes that they earn, just like the DNC and GOP candidates.

From your link (bold emphasis mine):



Throw in the paleoconservatives and disaffected who are disgusted with one or both sides of the Twoparty, and I believe we have an overwhelming majority in America.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. It's true numbers have never been my strong suit.

Ralou wrote:



Ralou, I am curious, where would you have the democratic party go? What issues would you have them move more "left" on? Are there any issues where you would compromise in favor of a more left position on others? Personally, I have always wished there would be a third party that represented me more. I can't say either party does. So-- if you had to compromise some issues-- which ones would they be? Which issues are deal breakers?

Any candidate I would want representing me would campaign on the issues below:

Respect for human rights and civil rights (civil rights to include privacy and free speech and assembly) and full and transparant investigations into credible allegations of violations. And end to attacks on civil liberties (including an end to 'free speech zone' cages, such as those used during the DNC convention), and a full investigation into the false imprisonment of activists at the GOP convention.

An end to corporate welfare.

An end to disproportionate corporate power in Washington via campaign contributions and lobbying that involves perks, giveaways, promises of donations, a peach position through the revolving door, and other influence peddling. Also, the reversal of such giveaways as the airwaves, no-bid contracts, and public land 'leases' that allow mining companies and ranchers to access public land for ridiculously low fees.

A full investigation into the Iraq war, including the Blair memos.

An end to the reversal of access to higher education for low income students.

A real welfare to work program that would provide those capable of holding more than a $6.00 an hour McJob opportunities for education and job training, plus assistance with healthcare and other basic needs during the time of transition, rather than leaving families worse off by removing the mother from the home to work a dead end job, and ending or greatly reducing healthcare services, putting the family at serious risk of homelessness.

Trade tariffs on goods made in sweatshops. Rewards for companies, no matter where they are based, that are shown by an independent, reputable organization to pay a living wage, respect human and civil rights, and maintain safe working conditions.

An end to the attacks on FOIA (Clinton didn't do much right, but he did make it easier to access FOIA documents, but Bush has worked to reverse his progress since his first weeks in office).

And end to the shifting of taxes, retirement costs, and healthcare costs onto workers.

An end to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Become signatory to the ICC.

Defend the Second Amendment. Ensure that no more restrictions on firearms is put on the books. We have no problem with our gun laws, the problem is that criminals don't follow them, and the current rights of citizens to keep and bear arms is a "no touch, no compromise" issue for me. (Surprised?)

An end to the use of voting machines without proven paper trails. Independent and partisan observers to have access to all aspects of the election process. Independent pollsters also to have access, and to be able to publish results as the election day progresses. An investigation into the 2002 and 2004 election and into the CEO of Diebold's claim that he would deliver Ohio to the President, as well as investigations into various other allegations against voting machine companies.



Here are the ones I would compromise on:

An end to corporate welfare: Assistance for small businesses-under a definition of 'small' that excludes multi-million dollar corporations-could continue.

An end to the reversal of access to higher education for low income students: Work studies that could not in any way include military service or overseas participation in combat operations or combat spheres could replace many loans, so long as participating in these work studies provided the participant enough money to actually attend college, even if the workstudy plus grants are the person's only source of income.

Become signatory to the ICC: Or the US could begin to so vigorously and ethically prosecute human rights violators that there is no need to become an ICC signatory.


There are many more issues that I want to see candidates campaign on. The Green Party hits most of mine, as does Nader, but the Libertarians hit some of mine, too. Far more than either Democrats or Republicans do, as I am a big privacy rights advocate, and Libertarians don't care for the government snooping in their bookstore purchases!

People dont like to think that a third party candidate can flourish in this country due to lack of money to campaign, but thats why third parties must start small in local govt, then "graduate" to state govt, and hopefully get some national attention.

What people also dont realize is the mass of votes out there that can be taken from the two major parties, along with nonvoters who should be mobilized to vote. The two parties in power now cover too many policies, and many of their members find minor or major differences in their ideology and that of their party, but dont join another party because they are all too small.

There are votes out there, both registered and unregistered, and they have to both be accessed if a third party ever wishes to gain any sort of power or even attention. The problem with third parties is that they try to bite off more than they can chew. Yea, so their policies may be what the public wants to hear, but how can the public hear it when you dont have any funds or anything?

So, as to the question, NO, i dont think any 3rd party or independents will get seats in Congress. I would love to see it happen, but i just dont think it can due to low publicity and low income for campaigns.

I think what third party members and leaders need to realize is the old saying:

"To defeat what is strong, attack what is weak."
Ok, so maybe it was a quote used for war, but if you think about it, what is weaker and easier to overcome, a national party, or a smaller local party?

Chip away at the strong, and eventually third parties could have a chance.

I like the idea of starting locally, but the ones who run will still have to be incredibly charismatic, won't they? Because that million dollar bankroll is still needed to run for Congress, nevermind what a person needs to run for President. If corporations won't like them (and corporations don't like independents, as a rule, then individuals will have to fund them. Lots and lots of individuals). Which makes for a good argument against Federalism and support for local and state powers. It would be easier to create a diverse group of parties.

Do independents have a chance of gaining large numbers of Congressional seats in 2006?

For 2006? No I don't. I think you'll see people voting for the other party or perhaps another candidate in their own party, but I doubt you'll see third parties gaining seats.

The main problem with third parties is that while they may talk a good game they don't have the money to compete in a federal (and many cases state) race and they don't have a track record for getting anything done. Aside from a few city and county offices how many third party politicians are there? Not many in the grand scheme of things. If these third parties want to be taken seriously by voters as a whole they are going to have to porve they can deliver results by getting in at the state level and actually accomplishing something and they are going to have to agree to work together to pool money and influence.

What about in 2008?
Who knows, way too early to tell.


Well.. we all know what happens when we throw around words like NEVER. First of all your tone is very suggestive of this "mandate" attitude which we all know doesn't exist - you'd be best served to drop it. But that aside, just like a lot of people vote Democrat because they agree with them on a few key issues, a lot of people vote Republican for the same reason. So it really depends on the race. As an example, I know quite a few people who call themselves Republicans solely because they agree with their foreign policy - they don't like all of the morality stuff and they don't like the fact that they spend money like water. So on the federal level they vote Republican, but if it was a state race they could conceivably consider voting for someone else.

No, for a few simple reasons.

1. Money, money, money, money....MONEY!

2. Because both parties have embraced big gov't, authoritarian policies, any party advocating something different will be labeled extremist.

3. Americans, in general, are fairly ignorant about third parties.

4. Most third parties are small l libertarian, and Americans are still content with their mommy government.
--------------------------------------------------

There's no way that out of the blue, we'll have a third party presence in Congress, it would be nice if we had a mayor or two before we start thinking about Federal representatives. Not many third party members occupy any public office more prestigious than dogcatcher.

I'll let you know in three years. A lot could happen between now and 08, hopefully the country'll swing to an alternative to the authoritarians.

CP

Do independents have a chance of gaining large numbers of Congressional seats in 2006?

No. Most people believe that supporting independents, weakens their side of the political spectrum by dividing it, and independents are consequently unviable.
Your polls indicate that 76% of America is satisfied with one party or the other, and i'm sure that most of the people who are dissatisfied are merely nuetrels, who are unhappy with both partys, because both partys are bashing eachother and they don't know who to trust. They are a fluctuating faction, but its improbable that they will go independent, because independents are incapable of speaking to as wide an audience as Democrats and Republicans (who get much more media attention).

What about in 2008?

Independents are only going to gain power if people start getting smarter/better educated. If this happens then activists will become more numerous, and consequently independents more viable. However, I doubt were gonna fix our education system, so you can forget about that happening.

Would Independents in place of Republicans and Democrats improve overall satisfaction among American voters?

People are dissatisfied because of the partisan atmosphere. However, if the government was run by hundreds of independents, then things would just be disorienting, and more importantly tedious. Nothing would ever get done, because without voting blocks, it would take forever to pass bills. If third parties were put into power, things would get done a bit faster, but people would be even less satisfied. Third Parties tend to represent extremes, such as socialism and anarchism, and almost nobody wants either of those things to come into play.

Ah, but who decides that they're extreme my sinister friend? The two party duopoly, who, in doing so, tighten their grip around the political arena in this country.

CP

Ah, but who decides that they're extreme my sinister friend?

The commonly held beliefs of the overall population of America. They are used to society as it is, and therefore they are against any extreme changes.

The two party duopoly, who, in doing so, tighten their grip around the political arena in this country.

If a system is working, then people generally dont want to change it, so I doubt socialists or libertarians would gain much headway, even if they were as loud as the Reps and Dems.

Do independents have a chance of gaining large numbers of Congressional seats in 2006?

Maybe if Howard Dean continues to run the DNC into the ground. I just read earlier this week that he's only been able to raise half the money compared to the RNC. Nobody wants to throw large amounts of money at an organization or political party that's going to lose. After a string of humiliating defeats, investors are hesitant to contribute their money to the Democrats. But even still, I think that the Democrats would have to fall much further before leaving an opening large enough for a third party.

Republicans make more money, because they have more support from corperations then Democrats do. This was true even in the Clinton days, when democrats were the winners.

Baring any kind of political upheaval in the next 2 years it is unlikely there will be any change in 2006. Looking at the races in the Senate it is likely the Republicans will pick up a couple of seats.

Polling methodology has changed since the election. Bush polls about 3-5 points higher in "likely voter" polls than a survey of adults over 18 (according to http://www.rasmussenreports.com). The 2008 election is too far away to make any bold predictions. Politics can change a lot in four years.

Americans have a very cynical view of politics right now. Since Watergate Reagan is the only President that I would consider largely popular with the American people. Hopefully the next President (regardless of party) will help ease the cynicism that is clouding American politics.

Do Independents have a chance in 2006?

I really do not think so. One week ago I gave up my Independent status on my voter registration to the Democratic Party. I have decided to run for my District's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and I thought that I would have a greater chance raising the money needed to compete again the incumbent by choosing to run against him on a Democratic ticket. All of the seasoned and savvy political watchers that I have shared this with have agreed that I made the right decision. The primaries are May 16, 2006; I guess I'll see.

What about 2008?
It would be nice to see more people shifting towards the Independents, but what does the party have to offer? My concern is about presenting another face and option to the voters. I'd run as a Republican if I knew that it would encourage more voter turn-out.

Very good
While I have voted Democrat for the past few elections, I would gladly offer to assist in any candidate's campaign who was running on a platform such as this.

Now where do we find this True American Candidate?

Do independents have a chance of gaining large numbers of Congressional seats in 2006?

What about in 2008?

Would Independents in place of Republicans and Democrats improve overall satisfaction among American voters?

No.

No.

No.

Independents tend to be too far out of the mainstream of American voters. If their platforms should ever appear to approach what the Republicans or Democrats are presenting, they become redundant. Either way, they get few votes.
I think that the only "independent" party that could be formed to attract very large numbers of participants would be a party of moderates. It would be very interesting to see how many Dems and Repubs abandon their party to join the new party.