The folly of the independent voter

[Harlan Huckleby]

When I hear somebody call themselves an independent voter in presidential elections I just shake my head. You may think you are choosing the best person available, but in our stinky political system, you are not.

A presidential election is about electing a party to power. If you help elect a republican, thousands of republicans will pour into Washington to steer the Interior Department, Education, etc. etc. in a direction along republican philisophical lines. And then there's the all important Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments, which will also be chosen largely from a pool of party loyalists.

Grow up, dumb ass. Decide whether you are more philisophically aligned with the Dems or Republicans and pull the appropriate lever. Stop all that thinking. It's not a good system, but it's reality.

[oregonpackfan]

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say voters have to declare themselves as Republicans or Democrats?

[Zool]

I believe HH (crotchety old bastard that he is) is indicating that a vote for a 3rd party is essentially like not voting. Neither of the big 2 could care less about it. They think all independents are wackjobs anyways.

He's saying get out and vote, but pick the least smelly of the 2 big turds.

[Freak Out]

When I hear somebody call themselves an independent voter in presidential elections I just shake my head. You may think you are choosing the best person available, but in our stinky political system, you are not.

A presidential election is about electing a party to power. If you help elect a republican, thousands of republicans will pour into Washington to steer the Interior Department, Education, etc. etc. in a direction along republican philisophical lines. And then there's the all important Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments, which will also be chosen largely from a pool of party loyalists.

Grow up, dumb ass. Decide whether you are more philisophically aligned with the Dems or Republicans and pull the appropriate lever. Stop all that thinking. It's not a good system, but it's reality.

Dumb ass? Most independents vote for a republican or a democrat anyway. I registered as an independent because of how my States primary rules are set up. You must have meant to say third party? Like the Greens or the Libertarians?

[oregonpackfan]

I too am proud to say I am a registered Independent. Yes, I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and third party candidates.

I have also supported ballot measures and political issues that could be labeled as liberal, moderate, or conservative.

I vote for whom I feel isthe best candidate. I also vote for the political issue that is the most ethical for the people involved.

[LL2]

So, who's winning this Iowa Caucus thing? I was reading earlier how the caucus' are different from an election. It was interesting. The dems have thir own system and Republicans have theirs.

[Freak Out]

Obviously HH is a blue dog democrat.

[hoosier]

I vote for whom I feel is the best candidate.

I think this logic is what the original post is railing against--the fiction that presidential elections are about individuals when they're really about parties. Translation: you're deluding yourself if you vote for the more appealing or authentic persona (or vote against the less appealing or more inauthentic persona) since what you're really doing is helping elect a party machinary and its prevailing ideology.

[Harlan Huckleby]

eloquently spoken, hoosier.

The single most effective reform for our system would be to add some form of run-off elections. This is much more critical than solving problems of campaign financing, electoral college, etc.

The basic idea is that no candidate can be elected with less than 50% of the vote. If nobody reaches that threshold, then the election is (somehow) done again with the top two finishers. That way, we would be free to vote for EXACTLY who we want among multiple parties without the fear of indirectly putting the worst evil into office! Beautiful!

So, for example, if I vote for Nader, and the final vote is Bush 40%, Gore 35%, Nader 15%, I get another chance to decide between Bush and Gore in a run-off election.

(There are shortcuts for doing a run-off, namely by having people indicate both their first and second choice right at the original election.)

The current system is COMPLETELY hostile to third parties. Not only do third parties have no chance of winning or even influencing, very often a vote for a third parties helps the major party candidate that you least want.

In our current system, there is ZERO point in being Independent. The only real democracy we have is during the primaries. In the general election, you are just voting to move Machine A or Machine B into power, as Hoosier said. If you haven't decided whether your prefer the policies of Machine A or Machine B, then you probably shouldn't be voting.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I too am proud to say I am a registered Independent. Yes, I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and third party candidates.

I have also supported ballot measures and political issues that could be labeled as liberal, moderate, or conservative.

I vote for whom I feel isthe best candidate. I also vote for the political issue that is the most ethical for the people involved.

Oregon, I am very independent too, in the sense that my opinions on specific issues are all over the spectrum.

But if you are a well informed person, as I am sure you are, then it is hard to believe that you don't fit better into one side of the Republican-Democrat divide. I suggest you face reality and not vote for candidates of your less-favored party for the higher offices. You don't elect one person for president, you are installing 10,000 people of one party or the other into power.

And BTW, I have total sympathy for people whose views are not well represented by either of the main parties! I can understand how a person who is a diehard libertarian in philosophy would vote liberterian. I wish we had a political system that allowed Libertarians a fair chance to win office, but we do not.

[Freak Out]

We need to do away with the electoral college and go to a run off system IMO.

[LL2]

We need to do away with the electoral college and go to a run off system IMO.

I kind of agree. You can win the popular vote, but lose the state to the electoral college votes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We need to do away with the electoral college and go to a run off system IMO.

yep. no other country in the world has anything as silly as our electoral college. And most countries use run offs.

[MJZiggy]

We need to do away with the electoral college and go to a run off system IMO.

yep. no other country in the world has anything as silly as our electoral college. And most countries use run offs.

I agree with this as well, as I suspect most do, and it would be good to have a system that were more friendly to third party candidates, but to the theory that you must vote along party lines instead of for the better candidate, you have to consider that had we voted (and I swear I had nothing to do with it) a different republican into office we wouldn't have ended up with intelligent choices like Mike Brown as FEMA Director. I mean, really!!

Had McCain won in 2000, are we at war now? It's not just electing the party line, the candidate makes choices beyond who's who in Washington...

[BallHawk]

(There are shortcuts for doing a run-off, namely by having people indicate both their first and second choice right at the original election.)

But in the case of that system wouldn't you have people making their 2nd choice to strategically help their 1st choice. If that happens you have people practically using 2 votes to help 1 candidate.

[The Leaper]

yep. no other country in the world has anything as silly as our electoral college. And most countries use run offs.

Many other countries also find their next political leader when the army overthrows the government.

Is that really what you prefer?

To me, the electorate system is kind of dumb...but the larger problem is the fact that we can't count votes correctly to begin with.

[Scott Campbell]

To me, the electorate system is kind of dumb...but the larger problem is the fact that we can't count votes correctly to begin with.

Funny how they struggle with that. Yet they have no problems with the complexities of payroll deductions.

[Freak Out]

I had forgotten that Maryland passed a election law relating to a NPV election..and it looks like New Jersey may follow.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...lectoral_N.htm

[Merlin]

The only reason Bill Clinton won two terms is because of Ross Perot. He effectively split the conservatives. It was a good start to a true "anyone can run" system but HH is right, if you cast a vote in principle for someone that can't win, then you might as well not cast a vote.

I think Hillary is feeling the effects of that right now. Although Bill was considered a "popular" president, he never got anywhere near 50% of the popular vote. Polls say what the person paying for the poll wants them to say.

Media Facts:

All Republicans Bad
All Democrats Good

Democrats are not liberals
All conservative are Republican

Just a sad state of reality.

[Harlan Huckleby]

yep. no other country in the world has anything as silly as our electoral college. And most countries use run offs.

Many other countries also find their next political leader when the army overthrows the government.

Is that really what you prefer?

yes, I'm a big fan of the military coup. break the back of the two-party system once and for all!

To me, the electorate system is kind of dumb...but the larger problem is the fact that we can't count votes correctly to begin with.

I don't really see the big problem. Ballot scanning machines seem to be the ideal hybrid - accurate electronic tabulation plus a paper trail. I think more states are moving that direction.