Third-party guys: Educate me

[AZhitman]

Something Steve (srellim) posted got me thinking:

On the incredibly off chance that an Independent (or other party) candidate somehow won the election... how does that affect the system of checks and balances we currently have in place?

What would Congress look like?

What other effects (that aren't so obvious) would we see on our current system of government?

Sorry for the dumb question, but I know several of you here can probably give me an informed answer.

[Jimefam]

Nothing would happen to our system of checks and balances as they are not meant to balance the parties but rather the branches of government. Congress would be far more independent also because for an independent candidate to win the highest office in the land they would also have to have a much better representation in congress than we currently see. I dont see how a different party in power would change our "SYSTEM" of government just possibly how that government conducts business.

[srellim234]

My guess would be, given the current way that Washington works, you would probably still get nothing accomplished. The two major parties would merely stonewall for four years in an attempt to sour the populace from the third party movement and "prove" they aren't viable.

Realistically, third parties could move the major party direction if they are used in a manner consistent with my "wasted votes" thread, but getting the top job without lower level support won't help much.

Getting reapportionment out of the hands of the two major parties and designing districts based on geography and not party demographics is the key. The system has to change from the lower levels and work its way up.

[96Qowner]

I just posted this in the "wasted Votes" thread, but it applies here, as well. Go ahead and dump it if you think I shouldn't have double posted it.

In another thread someone (can't find it in Search) mentioned John Anderson in 1980. I was 28 years old and I voted for him. I had voted for Ford in 1976, and wrote-in Humphrey for 1972. So, I'm somewhat experienced in protest voting. At the time I was supporting Anderson, my father tried to convince me that I was wasting my vote. At that age, I felt I knew enough not to have to listen to an older entrenched man, and I distinctly remember trying to get him to understand that a vote should be in favor of the candidate you think is best, not the candidate you think might win. It's not like betting on horses, where you get some reward if you guess right. He argued with me, but still let me save face and think I was right. Since then, I've learned that he was indeed, right.

Here's the problem: This country is not run by individuals - it's run by political Parties. If a President has no political Party to support his goals, he is a lone individual with absolutely no power at all. There is absolutely no reason anyone at all needs to cooperate with him. He can't get his Legislature to listen to him, he can't get his Legislature to fear him. They will go on about their business as they see fit, no matter what he says or thinks. A President needs to have Legislators on his side and in his Party who are indebted to him and are afraid of what he can do to them.

A Legislator also needs his colleagues. Any Independent can offer his vote to one of the 2 Parties and be relevant, but he has no power at all to pressure the 2 Parties. He'll never wield power, himself - he can only choose which Party to help.

So, regardless of whether your 3rd Party guy can get elected or not, he will be able to accomplish nothing if he wins. For a good case study, check out Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. For the last couple years of his term, he was irrelevant, frustrated and cantankerous, because the Legislature had no reason to pay any attention to him at all.

A politician needs a Party to unite with him. Without a powerful Party, he's just an interesting novelty.

[srellim234]

Pretty much what I posted above. I agree. The change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.

[Encryptshun]

The only way I can function is if I maintain at least SOME degree of hope and faith in our government, so I have to disagree that a 3rd-party candidate would be able to get nothing accomplished.

The first big accomplishment would be to send a message to Republicans and Democrats that their anachronistic views are now irrelevant to the average American. That alone is meritous. Second, having a POTUS who acts based on the issues and not to tow the party line would be a good thing, as he'd be in no one's party pocket.

The reason I'm an Independant is because I believe we should have an American President, not a Republican or Democrat President. And I also hope that one day, rather than someone who "reaches across the aisle", we have a government where there IS no aisle. For those reasons, I'd love a 3rd-party individual to shake things up a bit. Dems and Repubs are trying to make Americans fit with their idiology, when it should be the other way around.

[srellim234]

Enc- I would like to agree with you, but I based my answer on what I see in the government right now. An independent would have to have enough grassroots support to intimidate the two parties to get anything done. Otherwise, they just wait him out.

[Encryptshun]

^ I understand. I just have to be hopeful about something. I love my country, but I don't really like it very much right now.