The Ellsworth American newspaper in Maine has this article in its February 10 edition. It explains how one 72-year-old woman, Ruby Sprague, persuaded her state legislator to introduce a bill so that independent voters would be referred to as “Independents”, not “Unenrolled.” The bill, LD3, is pending in the joint Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee.
Politicians of both major parties claim the word “independent” as a political affiliation or a party name creates “confusion,” but the truth is they are afraid to allow the word “independent” to become in vogue among voters. More and more voters are sick of all parties – and not just the Dems & Reps. The possibility of a mass movement of “independents” demanding an “open primary” for nominating “independents” for office is a major party politician’s worst nightmare.
Voters think “independent” means no party, so this is a good change. The “unaffiliated” moniker is accurate terminology but gives the impression of being a non-participant.
The idea of having an independent primary would defeat the purpose of indpendent candidacies. We should have as many serious candidates on the ballot in the general election as want to run.
That is why the “top two” n e o – c o m m u n i s t electoral system is so evil. It takes all the choice off the ballot. Only the two branches of the state controlled Party are allowed to run in the general election.
I don’t know what school “Coming back to the LP” took his math classes at, but when you have multiple independent candidacies in a general election, it divides up the vote of the anti-“top two” neo-communist electoral system (as he refers to them). Then the “top two” continue to have a better chance of winning and retaining power.
“Coming back to the LP” and other 3rd partisans need to understand that a U.S.political system dominated by multiple doctrinaire parties would result in unmanageable government – on both the federal and state levels. You think we’ve got problems now with Congress, just imagine a stalemated Congress with 4 or 5 parties evenly divided with members, and all refusing to compromise or budge! Anarchy would soon follow.
What America’s voters want are public officials committed to good government and not party politics – especially doctrinaire politics. We know we will never get it with the Dems or Reps. But with independents – whether they are “libertarian,” “constitutionalist,” “green,” or “other,” we will have a better chance for the reality of such than with the current crowd who hold public office.
Originally all voters in the United States were independent voters. There were no organized political parties until the election of 1800. George Washington and John Adams both said that political parties were the improper representation of voters that would result in tyranny.
What independent voters need to do at the present time is just register as candidates for office under whatever un-Constitutional requirements exist in the states where they reside. For instance, here in Arizona an independent has to get 20,000 nomination petition signatures to run for the same office a Republican or Democrat has to get 4000 nomination petition signatures to run for or a Libertarian has to get less than 100 signatures to run for. As soon as independent voters break the stranglehold that the two major parties have on elections, Americans can begin to start to solve the problems that political parties have generated.
Independents should resist any attempt to turn them into another party, such as the independent primary election proposed by some. The more independent candidates and independent voters there are, the better the government. Primary elections were a party device invented about 1900 to suppress Populism.
Robert B. Winn
Wake up Alabama:
1)”Top-two” is an electoral system adopted in Washington state that allows only two candidates on the General Election ballot and prohibits all others. They give a lot of BS lip service to allowing participation in primaries that are ultimately rigged by the system itself.
2) The idea that having multiple parties in a legislature would lead to some kind of stalemate is not applicable to the American system.
In Europe, with the parlimentary system, the parties must form coalitions to elect a Prime Minister and to rule. A vote of “no confidence” can bring down the government.
In the US, we can compromise one bill at a time and there is no vote of “no confidence” to bring down a government when some issue becomes unpopular.
Further, having single member plurality districts will always result in two strong parties and the rest being weaker. This is a good thing, because it gives the system more stability.
However, having fewer parties in our congressional system is more likely to lead to stalemates than it would to have a mix of independents and smaller parties represented as well.
It is the ballot laws coupled with the foolish efforts of some third party people to fiddle with the electoral system instead of running winning campaigns that prevents the Libertarian Party and a few others from making inroads into the Legislative and Executive branches.
Robert B. Winn obviously has a better understanding of what independents could accomplish than does “Coming back to the LP.” Independents would have to organize to accompish this objective, and they would have to understand that the purpose of the “Open Primary” is for independent voters to nominate the best independent candidates and not let it evolve into a party primary. American voters want the “best” answers to our nation’s problems – not “Democratic” answers, not “Republican” answers, nor “Libertarian” answers. As we see more and more voters register (in those states where political affiliation is allowed or required)as “independents” and even as “No Party Affiliation,” “Unaffiliated,” or “Unenrolled,” we will eventually witness a movement that cannot be stopped. Hopefully, one day soon, someone or some organization, can provide the leadership that such a movement will need.