BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Independent Parties What Would the Effect Be?

A conversation over in the Republican forum got me thinking about something for the Independent Parties.

The US is getting closer each election to being able to fathom electing a President that is NOT a Democrat or Republican.

We have had the bi-partisan system for so long, that most people up until the last 2 elections did not even think about the fact that there ARE other parties out there to choose from.

I personally would LOVE to see an Independent win, just to shake up DC. (Of course, that is providing that person is qualified.)

But DC has gotten so used to finagling back and forth with Congress and the House of Rep trying to find the balance with the President (or rather watch them try to scramble to make sure each other side is in charge).

So what do you guys think would happen with the Dems and Reps in Congress if we had an Independent elected for President?

Would we see the mad scramble for one party or the other to get ahead? Would they "join forces" against the outsider? Or would we be able to break free of party politics and actually focus on the American people?

This one is an open discussion for everyone - just no insults!

I think we just might see a breakthrough that would enable the candidates to actually focus on the American people. This could very well be a huge step forward in our history. The Dems and Reps are, I think, too focused on their party and being top dog rather than really listening to the people.

Thanks, Michelle, for bringing up this subject. I think it is something we (all Americans) really need to discuss and think about. To realize that we can have more than two choices is a wonderful and encouraging concept.

Michelle, I like the way you think. I think that more people need to discuss this issue. We need to stop the two party politics once and for all--both have their share of corruption. I am personally tired of how it separates and divides people. Also, Phyllis thank you for posting and for discussing this issue.

I do not think a third party candidate will be elected to the Presidency within our lifetimes. No, third party has ever come close to having a reasonable chance of success. The most successful third party candidate was former President Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. He was a member of the Progressive, or Bull-Moose, Party and got only 88 electoral votes. In 1948 Sturm Thurmond got 39 electoral votes as a States Rights candidate. In 1968 George Wallace got 46 electoral votes for the American Independant party. In 1992 and 1996 Ross Perot did not get any electoral votes for the Reform Party. Ralph Nader and the Green Party have not gotten any electoral votes either. It takes 270 electoral votes to elect a President, yet in nearly a hundred years no third party candidate has gained more than 88 electoral votes and he was a former president. In view of that sort of a historical track record I do not believe any third party will enter the White House during the next 100 years or more.

For information on Presidential election results go to History of Presidential Election Results

The greatest problem with any election for Presidency is that our votes are subject to being ignored. The electoral vote is given to reps who can make their own decision on who to cast the vote for, regardless of the popular vote. So - even though an Independant Party would be good for toning down the viscious back-stabbing and political nonsense, we still may not get the right person in office until the electoral college system is looked at and changed or eliminated.

That is how I feel about the electoral votes. What does everyone else think about this?

The electoral college is there for a reason. Without it Presidential candidates would only campaign in the very large states and in large cities. Campaigns would be held mostly in places like New York, California, Texas and Florida. States like New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, South Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and others would be almost completely ignored. The electoral college maybe be outdated, but it still serves a purpose. Without many more voters participation in Presidential elections would be disregarded and ignored by the candidates and the campaigns. Do you want a country where the leadership in Washington listens only to the five most populous states and totally ignores small states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada and Wyoming? I don't. I am not a fan of the electoral college, but I wouldn't want to be without it.

Third parties have never toned down the "vicious back-stabbing and political nonsense". Perot's Reform Party did not tone down the competitiveness of the 1992 or 1996 campaigns. The Green Party has not changed anything, except possibly the outcome of the 2000 election. For the record today's campaigns are mild compared to the vicious attacks made in newspapers during the elections of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, as well as other elections of the 18th and 19th centuries. Back then there was blatant name-calling of candidates. Look at this political cartoon from the 1860 election of Lincoln.


Political cartoon from the 1860 election of Lincoln

You have some good points there, Craig58 - that is a good way to look at the issue, thanks.