Independent in name only?
By Damon Eris | 02/29/2012 | Legislators, Movements, Open Primaries | 8 Comments
salon.com
Over the course of the last three decades, there has been a steady increase in the number of unenrolled voters in Massachusetts, which appears to have come at the expense of the Democratic party’s rolls. In 1982, Democrats accounted for the largest segment of registered voters in the state – at 45.5% –, but Independents were not far behind, making up 40% of the electorate, while Republican affiliation stood at 14.5%.
By 1992, the unenrolled were already the largest block of registered voters in the state, outnumbering Democrats by a significant margin. That year, 46% of the state’s opted not to register with any political party, while 40% were registered Democrats and 13% were Republicans.
Ten years later, Independents were on the verge of constituting an outright majority of the state’s voters. In 2002, 49% of Massachusetts voters were not enrolled in any party, while 36% remained registered Democrats and just 13% were members of the GOP.
Yet, despite these numbers, Massachusetts is of course a Democratic bastion. Senator Scott Brown is the only Republican in the state’s Congressional delegation as well as the only Republican to currently hold a statewide elected office. The state legislature is dominated by the Democratic party. In the 160 seat House, Democrats hold a 127 to 33 majority over the GOP. In the State Senate, there are 36 Democrats and 4 Republicans.
Yet, despite the fact that barely 1 in 10 Massachusetts voters is registered with the GOP, Republicans remain relatively competitive with Democrats in the state’s elections. For example, in the commonwealth’s 2010 gubernatorial election, incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick won with a plurality of 48%. But Republican Charlie Baker was not very far behind, with 42% of the vote, while Independent candidate Tim Cahill received a modest 8% support and Green Rainbow party candidate Jill Stein trailed with 3%.
Though it may sound counter-intuitive, Independent and third party candidates for office may have the best chance of success in Democratic and Republican party strongholds such as Massachusetts or Utah, where the minority party, or whatever is left of it, is not seen as a viable alternative to the majority party. In Massachusetts, as in many other states across the country – the two-party system is in fact a one-party state. And, in fact, there were noteworthy third party and Independent candidates in six of the ten races for the US House in Massachusetts.
If those who have already unenrolled from the major parties were to support alternatives, it would provide further incentive for worthy candidates and help to open up the political system, while potentially delivering an electoral upset. The unenrolled do not do so in large numbers, however.
Does that mean that they are Independent-in-Name-Only?
Leave Your Comment →
8 Comments
jen
02.29.2012
That is good to hear
ivnus
02.29.2012
Well you have to have a creditable Independent Candidate to support….which is difficult to find.
Damon Eris
03.01.2012
imo, there is no lack of “credible” independent or third party candidates. I’d even say that virtually ANY independent or third party candidate is more credible than a Democrat or a Republican. But they won’t be perceived as viable until people start opening their eyes to the fact that there are alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, and until we begin supporting them, we will continue to suffer Republican-Democrat party government.
Rbwinn3
03.01.2012
People should start registering as independent candidates for all offices no matter how they are perceived by anyone just to keep the possibility of being an independent candidate there. Party politicians have been busy little bees in some states writing legislation to try to keep themselves in control of elections.
Since the federal courts are proclaiming that Republicans and Democrats are national parties, independent voters need to just concentrate on voter registration until they outnumber party members in the United States.
Rbwinn3
03.01.2012
There is a reason why an independent cannot run even in a state where there is some kind of ballot access. The news media will not publicize the candidacy of an independent candidate except to perhaps say that an independent cannot be elected. The two major parties take unimaginable amounts of money from public revenues and give it directly to the news media in return for exclusive coverage of their candidates.
Secondly, there are states like North Carolina and Arizona with large percentages of independent voters who have no possibility of running for office because they are required to get as much as five times as many nomination petition signatures as a Republican or Democrat.
So we will not see much change in political appearance until independent voters outnumber party members nationwide. With only seven percentage points until that happens, the parties are now starting to become panicky because their best efforts to stop independent voter registration have only increased it and made parties even more unpopular. Party politicians have had a long run and caused a lot of trouble for Americans since they took over the government in the election of 1800. They can still stop independent voters from being candidates for office, but once political party members are a minority, independent voters will be able to be candidates, and the two major parties will fade away.
Damon Eris
03.01.2012
Yet, even though Indies and third party candidates face higher hurdles to get on the ballot than D’s and R’s, there are still hundreds if not thousands of them on the ballot nationwide in major election years. And you’re right about the media. Media orgs often say they don’t cover indy candidates because they have no showing in any polls, but the pollsters don’t actually gauge support for any indy candidates. Their reason? Because indy candidates don’t get any coverage in the media! It is rigged.
Heatdeath3
03.21.2012
The way to achieve a multiparty system is through multimember districts and proportional representation. Under the current system, “independents” have to choose between one of the two usual parties anyway, thereby perpetuating it.
Robert Winn
04.05.2012
Independent voters need to start telling the truth. Political parties are incapable of providing good government. This was first pointed out by George Washington. So now after two hundred years of party domination, we find that the court system of the United States is saying that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not apply to independent voters. This is the same court system that said that Dred Scott could not be a United States citizen, therefore, he was not eligible to sue in federal court.
Abraham Lincoln advised Americans to ignore the Dred Scott decision because it was wrong, and it only applied to the Dred Scott case in any event. That may seem like strange advise to people who think all law comes from case law. Independent voters have to increase the number of independent candidates if they expect to defeat party candidates. I think every independent voter should consider becoming a candidate for some office. When there are state and local offices that have only one party candidate running, it would appear that independent voters are not very serious about self-government. Leave it to political parties, and you will eventually find that you have lost your freedom, which is what independent voters have already found out with regard to elections. You will not regain ballot access by voting for party candidates.When did independent voters have ballot access?They had it until the election of 1800 when the Republican-Democrat Party took over the government.Just outnumbering party members is not going to get independent voters back into the government. They are going to have to register as candidates for office. Once they do that, they are not going to be immediately elected. The Democratic Party has about a million sideshows to distract voters. Both parties can buy votes from public revenues. Political parties organize faction by creating division among the voters. That is what the Democratic Party is doing now with women v. men, unions v. management, Occupy Wall Street v. Wall Street, blacks v. whites, etc. Political parties are not going to solve any of these difficulties that they use to organize faction. They are too valuable an asset to party organization. It will take independent voters to resolve these difficulties. They will not be solved until independent voters are running for office against independent voters, and there is no advantage to candidates in making problems worse instead of solving them. That will require free and open elections, something both parties will continue to oppose.