Third Party & Independents: Archives

I was agreeing with your arguments about the futility of voting out incumbents. But, amazingly, you come up with an even worse idea - not voting. The lack of informed voters is the root of the problem; having fewer of them will close the doors of accountability that much more.

Posted by: Schwamp at November 13, 2007 10:55 AM

Wow…
For once, I agree with Schwamp. Not voting is definately not the answer. In fact, I think most politicians would love for the informed to quit voting. This senerio could ONLY play out if you had complete proof that not one single American place a vote. But, unfortunately, all it takes is one and some yahoo would do it regardless of how this stance was assembled…lol..I’m sure you were just stating a hypothetical though..

Posted by: Traci at November 13, 2007 11:08 AM

The idea of voting incumbents out isn’t to replace them with crooks from the major parties. The idea is to vote out the bad politicians until the ones that are seeking office get the message that they better work for the folks that put them in office instead of special interest.
Just replacing the crooks we now have with crooks from the other major party won’t get the job done. The voters need to break the power of the major parties by voting in third party and independents, and replacing them if they’re crooks, until every politician gets the message and starts working for the better good of the country and not theirs.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 13, 2007 12:16 PM

Joel, there are some organizations that advocate getting rid of ALL incumbents in Congress. I agree, that will 1) NOT happen, and 2) would be a mistake if it did.

What is needed as Vote Out Incumbents Democracy advocates, is for voters to vote for or against their incumbent based on the results of their term in office. If an incumbent is inept, incompetent, or unwilling to make the changes the voter wants to see or, keep things the same the way the voter wants, then the voter would be wise indeed to vote against the incumbent.

Ignorant is voting to keep the same people in and expecting a different outcome. The SAVE Act which is a bi-partisan effort by most FRESHMAN in Congress to finally enforce our laws on border security and illegal immigration is a result of the incumbent purge in 2006. Both Democrat and Republican freshman in the House recognized what the purge of 2006’s elections meant to their incumbency if they did NOT act on the people’s issues.

There is no problem at all with the Founding Fathers idea that informed voters should vote to REMOVE politicians from office, if their interests were not being protected. POWER will keep itself in office, it takes Voters in a democratic system to remove them. Musharraf in Pakistan is providing an example of the truth of that maxim as I type.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 13, 2007 12:19 PM

Voting for third party candidates may make voters feel good, but history has shown that they cannot win congressional elections in the current rigged system.

Poppycock… History has not shown that third party candidates cannot win (there are a few independents in congress), it has shown that they do not win… and there is a profound difference.

It is based on the false assumption that it is possible to elect new people that are worthy of becoming our representatives and senators.

It is no false assumption. And Joel, you are, it could be argued, debating your own logic. By saying that third party candidates cannot win so it is pointless to try to incorporate change through voting for them, then it would even more pointless to try to incorporate change by not voting as a way of protest. Example…

If congressional district “A” has 100 voters, the most votes it would take for the third party (hopefully Libertarian) candidate to win is 51, and, depending on the rules of the particular state, it could take as little as 34 votes for the third party candidate to win. That means that it would take somewhere between 34 and 51 of the 100 voters to help change the system by voting for their Libertarian candidate.

If, in that same congressional district, you advocate causing change by boycotting the vote, you will need to convince all 100 voters to abstain from voting, as, if you were to only convince 99 to do so, that one remaining voter who votes for the incumbent Republican, will have won… and he will have thanked you for getting all the others to get out his way so that he could register his one vote and win the election for his candidate. Getting those 99 voters to not vote has caused no change in the system whatsoever…

Which would be easier to do to create change in congressional district “A”? Getting 51 voters to vote third party (or even a responsible Rep or Dem)? Or getting all 100 to not vote at all?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at November 13, 2007 03:59 PM

David, the problem with your prescription for voting against incumbents who are “inept, incompetent, or unwilling to make the changes the voter wants to see” is that’s it not an option on a ballot.

You don’t get to vote against somebody. Your only option is to vote for somebody else, unless you abstain from voting altogether as Joel suggests.

And there’s the rub. You have to make choices, often if not usually between two or three less than perfect options. Sometimes incompetent and inept is actually a lot better than someone who would be perfectly competent at implementing terrible policies. I’ll still vote for my incompetent congressman if he’s running against a far left or far right whacko.

Posted by: Liam at November 13, 2007 04:47 PM

Liam, it always amazes me. The way folks such as yourself will justify and rationalize voting and supporting political incompetence and ineptitude and corruption.

Of course voting against an incumbent is an option on the ballot. In fact, in most districts, voters get that option on two ballots.

In the Primaries voters get the option of voting for the challenger to the incumbent. And again, in the general election, voters get, in 9 out of 10 cases, the option to vote for the challenger or the incumbent.

The vote out the incumbent option is the vote for the challenger option on the ballot. There are some seats in some races where an incumbent runs unopposed, especially in gerrymandered districts where the vast majority of residents are either Democrat or Republican. But, that is not true for most districts in this country.

And if there isn’t a challenger, then you or a family member, or a friend who want a choice on that ballot need to step up to the plate. That is the American thing to do. It is how our founding fathers designed this system to work.

Many of our founding fathers knew, as in the case of King George, that the vote is not necessary to leave people in power, in power. They will take care of keeping themselves in power.

The necessity of the vote, is to REMOVE people in power from those positions in elected office. The anti-incumbent voting idea is nothing new, it was the very foundation of the idea of voting at the time the Constitution was drafted and eventually adopted.

That is why the NoneoftheAbove or, I just won’t vote, ideas have no merit whatsoever. All they accomplish is leaving incumbents in power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 13, 2007 06:53 PM

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: What Is Wrong With Voting Against Incumbents?

There is NOTHING wrong with voting out irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Do you know any responsible incumbents? The list of the responsible would be much shorter (or non-existent) than the list of irresponsible, which is why the nation’s problems are being ignored and allowed to grow dangerously in number and severity.
Voting out irresponsible incumbents is the one simple, common-sense, no-brainer, peaceful, and responsible thing the voters were supposed to be doing all along.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: At first glance people disgusted with our corrupt and dishonest political system may find it useful to support the strategy of getting rid of all incumbent members of Congress.

Just the irresponsible incumbents.

That may be most of them. After all, for two years, no one has been able to name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: Ignoring the fact that a very few incumbents might deserve to stay in office, …

That, I agree with 100%.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: … there is a much larger problem with this strategy. It is based on the false assumption that it is possible to elect new people that are worthy of becoming our representatives and senators.

I disagree. It is possible to elect new people that are worthy.

And any that fail to be unworhty, should be voted out too. Not rewarded with re-election.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: In reality, however, if the two-party political system is thoroughly rotten, …

That’s true. It is rotten, FOR-SALE, corrupt, wasteful, and bloated to nightmare proportions.

But WHO let it get that way?
Most voters did, because most voters keep rewarding incumbents with 95% to 99% re-election rates.
Voters whine and complain, give Congress dismally low 11% to 18% approval ratings, and then reward the incumbents with 95% to 99% re-election rates.
Voters, the largest group of 200 million eligible voters, must do better.
90% of the time, the election is won by the candidate that spends the most money.
Until enough voters figure it out, they have the government that they deserve, and they have ONLY themselves to thank for it, and not voting will solve nothing. Especially when the are a large portion of voters that are die-hard party-loyalists that will always pull the party-lever.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: …then all we do is replace the old crooks and liars with new crooks and liars.

That can happen. Voters should vote them out too!

Rewarding them with re-election makes no sense, and not voting won’t remove them.
Voters also need to demand (1) an Article V Convention (which Congress should have already called) to make an amendment to allow a state to recall their Senator(s) and/or Representative(s), and (2) removal of the party-lever/button and all indications of party affiliation from the voting ballots. Voters should know what person(s) they are voting for; NOT just blindly pulling the party-lever without even knowing which persons they are voting for.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: With the current rigged system it is almost impossible for people other than Republicans and Democrats to win congressional elections.

The key word there is “almost”.

The voters have their vote, and they have the power to bring about change with their vote. But, repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE incumbent politicians with re-election is not smart.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: Voting for third party candidates may make voters feel good, but history has shown that they cannot win congressional elections in the current rigged system.

There is NOTHING wrong with voting for third party candidates. Even if a candidate has little chance of winning, that is NOT a wasted vote, because it is a vote that the other candidates do not receive.

Third party and independent voters provide more choices. All candidates, especially challengers, should be seriously considered, instead of repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-elecion.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: So what the vote-out-incumbents strategy does, at best, is replace Democrats or Republicans with other Democrats or Republicans.

That can happen, but if it does, voters should vote that person out too A.S.A.P., and voters must keep doing it until politicians get the message. Repeatedly rewarding them with 95%-to-99% re-election is the real problem. Not voting will let incumbents retain their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.

• Stop Repeat Offenders!
• Stop Repeatly Rewarding Irresponsible Incumbent Politicians with 95% to 99% Re-Election rates!

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: And to believe that the two major parties will actually allow honest, incorruptible and dissident-type people to run for Congress on their tickets is highly improbable.

Not true. When the consequences of rewarding bad politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates finally becomes too painful, voters will vote them out in droves (or resort to less peaceful methods).

The highest anti-incumbent voting happened in two of America’s two most painful periods:

the Civil War

and the Great Depression

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: There is no evidence that somehow either party stands a chance of being taken over by dissidents.

That’s not necessary. All voters have to do is the one simple, common-sense, no-brainer, peaceful, and responsible thing that the voters were supposed to be doing all along: Stop rewarding irresponsible incubment politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates. Keep voting them out, over and over, until they get the message that their careers will be very short (and no pension) if they continue to be FOR-SALE, irresponsible, and corrupt.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: The other big problem with this strategy is that it maintains respect for the current awful political system and its elections.

Not true. To voting out irresponsible incumbents is to fire them. Firing them is not respecting them or the awful political system. It is doing the right thing. Not doing anything by not voting out bad politicians is what truly “maintains respect for the current awful political”, because that provides NOTHING to remove bad politicains, while voting them out (i.e. firing them) does remove bad politicians. Voters have this peaceful method right under their very own noses. They can do it the smart, peaceful, responsible way, or the hard, painful, and possibly less peaceful way. Why not try the peaceful way first? Why not use the power of our vote to fire and disrupt the two-party duopoly? Sooner than later would be better, because later simply gets more painful.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: It is based on the false premise that we can elect our way of the current mess.

We can, if we understand that rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates is a major part of the problem, and that is up to the voters.

Only the voters can change it. It does not even require a majority of voters to have a vast effect, but the more the better.
Yes, the system is corrupt, but voters empower it by repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.
Refraining from voting will simply let bad incumbent politicians retain their incumbencies and grow MORE powerful and corrupt and irresponsible.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: In actuality, voting keeps affirming the legitimacy of the political system.

ONLY if most voters repeatedly reward irresponsible and corrupt incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

If voters give Congress dismally low (11% to 18%) approval ratings, but then reward them with 95% to 99% re-election rates, then the biggest problem is actually 200 million eligible voters.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: And voting to get rid of incumbents is just as bad as voting for incumbents with respect to maintaining the two-party stranglehold on the system.

I disagree.

Rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians allows them to grow MORE powerful, corrupt, wealthy, and diffucult to unseat.
If the challenger is irresponsible too, then voters have a duty to vote them out too.
And if the new challenger is irresponsible too, then voters have a duty to vote them out too, … , and so on.
That is how it is supposed to work.
That is what voters have forgotten.
And now, the voters will suffer the consequences as we enter into BOTH simultaneous stagflation and recession.
Many economic factors and wealth disparity have been worsening for 30+ years, and the voters have themselve largely to thank for it.
If the voters are so unhappy, as indicated by Congress’ dismally low 11% to 18% approval ratings, why do the voters then repeatedly reward Congress with 95% to 99% re-election rates? It’s really because too few voters care enough to figure it out. 40% to 50% don’t even vote at all. Most voters don’t even know who their senators and representatives are.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: So you think: If voting for and against incumbents is a bad idea, what is the alternative?

Voting for irresponsible incumbent politicians is a bad idea.

Voting against irresponsible incumbent politicians is a good idea.

There are two alternatives:

(1) Stop rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians (regardless of party) with re-election; always. The sooner we start, the better.
(2) Do nothing; don’t vote as 40% to 50% already don’t which obviously isn’t solving anything; and/or keep rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Which of those two things is the BETTER course of action?
If you want to recommend a truly responsible strategy, (1) is the best approach.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: I say the preferred option is to stop voting altogether in elections for national offices as long as the political system is corrupt, dishonest and under the control of the two major parties.

What will that accomplish? The incumbents will simply retain their incumbencies. Already, 40% to 50% of all 200 million eligible voters don’t vote. How will making it 99% help? The incumbent politicians will simply retain their incumbency. If you want to be disruptive to the two-party duopoloy, it makes more sense to vote out irresponsible and corrupt incumbent politicians, and keep doing it until they become responsible and accountable.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: Voting only keeps legitimizing a system that no longer merits any public support.

If voting doesn’t work, then you are inferring that our system is broken. It is. But refraining from voting still won’t bring that about either.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: Our choice comes down to violent revolution to reform our political system or to use peaceful methods that do not depend on elections.

We should try the peaceful, safe, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible method first: Stop rewarding bad politicians with re-election.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: A boycott on voting for federal offices is a form of civil disobedience that merits widespread support.

That wouldn’t accomplish a thing and would be merely viewed as low voter turn-out. The incumbents would simply retain their incumbency.

If voters want to truly send a LOUD AND CLEAR message to irresponsible incumbents politicians, STOP rewarding them with re-elecion. Vote them out. That’s a message they’ll understand, one that truly deserves and merits widespread support, and is truly the one simple, common-sense, safe, peaceful, and responsible thing voters were supposed to be doing all along.

Joel Hirshhorn wrote: People must stop be conned by differences between Democrats and Republicans that are crafted to entertain and mislead, to keep you rooting for one team or the other. In the end this is the real truth: A difference that makes no difference is not a difference.

That, I agree with 100%. When BOTH are so corrupt and irresponsible, it matters very little which is less corrupt.

Please rethink the logic of asking voters to refrain fromm voting.
Instead, please ask voters to do what they were supposed to be doing all along, and stop rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election, because the high 95% to 99% re-election rates is a large part of the problem. Congress is irresponsible and corrupt, because they are constantly rewarded for it. Most voters are largely to blame for it.

Government won’t become more responsible and accountable until the voters become more responsible and accountable too, and that won’t occur by giving up, refraining from voting, and rewarding bad politicians with re-election.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 13, 2007 07:22 PM

Liam, it always amazes me. The way folks such as yourself will justify and rationalize voting and supporting political incompetence and ineptitude and corruption… In the Primaries voters get the option of voting for the challenger to the incumbent. And again, in the general election, voters get, in 9 out of 10 cases, the option to vote for the challenger or the incumbent.

David, you’ve obviously totally mistaken my meaning, but I’m not sure how.

All I was saying was that you don’t get to vote against somebody without also voting for somebody else. That is, unless it’s a recall election, which is extraordinarily rare.

Now, I have VERY OFTEN voted against an incumbent who I thought was bad in a primary. So I hope that would satisfy your feelings about voting against incumbents. But then when that incumbent wins the primary, which they usually do, I’ll often vote for him/her in the general election. And that’s because there are worse things than incompetence.

If you felt your Congressman was incompetent, but you saw that the only person appearing beside him on the ballot was David Duke, I hope that even you would vote for the incompetent candidate over the evil one.

My point is that we do not live in a perfect world that offers us ideal choices, and so we therefore must make compromises. It’s as true while voting as it is while doing anything else in life.

Posted by: Liam at November 13, 2007 11:08 PM

Liam, in light of the way things are going now in federal government, David Duke would have the advantage of NOT being an incumbent, helping to send the message to other incumbents to get their act together if David Duke were elected. And David Duke as one politician would NOT be a threat. Whereas a 94% incumbency re-election rate again and again results in nearly all politicians believing they can get away with most anything and still be reelected.

Jefferson in La. is a perfect case in point. David Duke would have been preferable and less harmful than reelecting a man investigated and caught with bribe money. That sends the wrong message to ALL the other politicians.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 14, 2007 12:01 AM

Joel,

Americans practice the art of not voting in virtually every off-year election, which is why bond elections and tax referenda are usually found on those ballots. The people who have the most to gain from our not caring enough to prevent them from winning elections triumph, and the ratchet of government expense and unaccountability advances another step.

Your solution is like protesting air pollution by putting a plasic bag over your head.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 14, 2007 10:34 AM

Lee said: “Your solution is like protesting air pollution by putting a plastic bag over your head.”

Now that was memorable. LOL!!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 14, 2007 11:57 AM