Electing Independents To Congress Can Hasten Change
By J.C. Adamson | 10/15/2012 | Congressional, Elections 2012, Electoral Reform, Featured, President | 20 Comments
Photo Credit: Sarah McCammon
Americans clearly want a different kind of politics. Repeated sampling by respected pollsters like Pew and Gallup is unequivocal: nearly 90% of Americans are dissatisfied with Congress, half or more want a viable third party, and near 40% say they are political independents. On blogs and social networks, citizen-writers clamor for independent and minor-party candidates to be included in debates, and to get universal ballot access.
Two points are vital to the discussion on a potential new American politics:
- Electing independents to Congress will be more achievable and more effective than electing a President, and
- Electing independents may be a better strategy than electing 3rd party candidates.
Congress, Not President
The first point can be quickly addressed: Indy and 3rd party presidential runs haven’t worked—and aren’t likely to. Finding a candidate with national appeal, and then building a national campaign are too daunting. And in the antagonistic congressional environment of recent years, even a president with party congressional support has been severely limited in his ability to govern. An independent or 3rd party presidential candidate is almost certainly unelectable and, if elected, would have difficulty governing with no party support in Congress.
Congressional runs, on the other hand, have potential for success if mounted in winnable districts, with the right candidates, strategies and execution. (See the author’s earlier article: “A Political Marketplace is Developing for Independent Candidates”). And even a few elected Congressional independents would have the potential to exercise some political power, especially in a closely divided House or Senate.
Indies, Not 3rd Parties
The second point in this discussion is that electing independents is preferable to electing minor-party candidates.
Fewer than 1% of Americans regularly identify themselves as members of a minor party. Greens and Libertarians often net higher than 1% vote totals in elections, but few people declare themselves as members of a minor party.
Compare that with independents. Though people use the label in different ways, there is an existing “Independent” brand and 35-40% of Americans identify with it. If the goal is political change, it may be better to start with brand-recognition at 40% rather than half a percent.
Granted, there’s a problem as well as a benefit with the independent brand: independent candidates have a reputation for poor election performance, especially at the national level. However, that reputation applies equally to minor parties. Every presidential election offers dozens of lesser-known candidates, some serious, some not. Some run as independents, some as party candidates, but none of them do well. In the sixteen presidential elections since WWII, only 104 of nearly 8600 electoral votes have been cast for someone other than the two parties’ candidates.
Beyond branding, two benefits of an independent candidacy over a minor-party candidacy are: fewer ideological limits, and access to broader constituencies. Parties have positions in people’s minds. A voter hearing “Green Party” will likely think immediately of environmental issues, hearing “Libertarian,” she may think of small government, or marijuana legalization.
Suppose a candidate, or a citizen’s group has determined that environment, small government, full employment, and increased educational spending are all important issues in a particular congressional district. No party exists to address all those issues. An independent candidate, though, isn’t bound by party ideology, so she can openly support all of those ideas, and use the positions to set her apart from any party candidate. She won’t be constrained by a party, and won’t have to soft-pedal one or more of the positions to protect a party candidate who might be running for a different office in the same media market. She can build part of her constituency from parents and educators, part from environmentalists, and part from conservatives. It’s her personal constituency; if it works for her district, it doesn’t have to work anywhere else.
In some ways, independents will also be more resilient in campaigns. Individuals are harder to attack than parties. A national PAC might assault the Green or the Libertarian Party with a scurrilous attack, and if it gains traction, it will immediately mar any candidate who runs under that party label. But an independent could escape the attack, even though his positions might closely parallel the party.
A final advantage is that once elected, independents can cooperate on matters of procedure and governance without cooperating on policy. For example, independents from the right and left might work together, and with a few major-party House members, to change an obstructionist House rule. Then all of them could turn right around and use the new rule to take vastly different tax measures to floor debate and votes. All would be served by the new rule because their measures would be heard.
Party Power
It might be tempting to think that party power must be fought with party power—what works for the Democrats and Republicans is also the best way to work against them. But that means building the same kind of national juggernauts, and doing it without access to the levers of governance that the parties control. That approach has been extraordinarily difficult to execute. By sidestepping the party power fight, political independents can access many of the advantages of scale, without its disadvantages. Today, citizens working in communities across the nation can cooperate through websites and social media, learn effective political strategies, and help each other succeed, all without building mammoth national efforts.
Community-Based Politics
Nationally, third party presidential candidates have been emerging and failing almost continuously for more than six decades. A different kind of opportunity presents itself today. Community-by-community, district-by-district, voters can analyze local needs, identify where party candidates fail to meet those needs, find and develop independent candidates who can meet them, and put those candidates in Congress. Even a few successful elections could profoundly impact the nation’s political culture.
Are there difficult challenges in that approach? Of course there are. If it were easy, it would have been done by now. But it is doable.




Leave Your Comment →
20 Comments
Chad Peace
10.15.2012
@Chad_Peace
I think you have a lot of solid points. But I think the biggest thing independents would need is an infrastructure; like a “legitimizing” platform that can act to distribute messages, provide things like voter files and PR capabilities. These all take time; and time will tell whether a “market” develops for them.
J.C. Adamson
10.16.2012
@themuser
I agree, and I don’t think the platform has to have mammoth participation. The more the better, but realistically, this change will issue from handfuls of people in a limited number of House districts–and probably a few small states for Senate contests. Relatively few people can have great impact. The popular appeal will occur after some success has been demonstrated.
Blaz Gutierrez
10.15.2012
@blazgutierrez
I think it starts with campaign finance reform. The parties have written themselves very lucrative advantages when it comes to fundraising.
Emma Goda
10.15.2012
@emmagoda
I could not agree more Blaz and makes it unfair to third party candidates
Alex Gauthier
10.15.2012
@alexg
they’ve also failed to justify why their partisan grip on politics is the only legitimate avenue to conduct elections through
J.C. Adamson
10.16.2012
@themuser
We’ve been pursuing campaign finance reform for 40+ years. The Federal Election Campaign Act was passed in 1972–McCain-Feingold in ’02. All have failed to change the trends. The same for election reforms such as ballot qualification and open primaries. They are laudable goals that must be pursued, but if we can learn how to win elections for Indies and 3rd party candidates with the rules we have, we’ll be better able to change the rules.
Lucas Eaves
10.15.2012
@lucaseaves
Great article, I hope that this will happen more often. But a parties offers organizational support and more importantly financial support that does not help people break ties with them.
J.C. Adamson
10.16.2012
@themuser
Thanks! Parties have great advantages for incumbents and party players–not for citizens, and progressive thinkers. That’s where their vulnerability lies. Citizens can learn to take back their government.
Jane Susskind
10.15.2012
@jsusskind
Electing independent-minded representatives to Congress is especially important this year, where we see moderates and independent-minded partisans leaving office. Great article.
J.C. Adamson
10.16.2012
@themuser
Thanks. And we will elect one new Indy Senator this year. From where I sit, I don’t see any likely House wins–but I’m not seeing any California polling yet–are you? We need many more. That’s why I’ve been focusing on ’14 for months.
Michael Higham
10.15.2012
@michaelhigham
I definitely agree that the independent “revolution” has to start with Congress instead of the Presidency, easier for community-based activism to play a role for independent success. If an independent theoretically won the Presidency with a two-party Congress, I imagine that the Ind. president would have the hardest time trying to accomplish his/her goals. I’ve constantly asked how third party candidates would deal with a partisan congerss, but I feel like independents would have their backs against the wall.
J.C. Adamson
10.16.2012
@themuser
Thanks for your input. Agreed.
Ian Dawes
10.15.2012
@iandawes
Community organization and support is key to indy campaigns’ survival and success. Financing can be a problem for many independent candidates running on grass roots platforms for congress.
J.C. Adamson
10.16.2012
@themuser
Of course money is always money. But I think that’s where Indies need to realistically select their districts. In many urban districts, almost no media money is involved in House campaigns. It’s yard signs, direct mail, dialing and door-knocking. Of course the price tag goes up when a safe seat becomes a swing seat, but if money causes people to quit without trying, big money wins without evening opening the checkbook.
Terri Harel
10.15.2012
@tlharel
I’m all for community based politics and solutions from the grassroots. Independents that know their constituents well and have heavily been involved in local politics in the past will be imperative to creating viable solutions to a wide range of americans. Extreme partisanship is only stalling progress.
J.C. Adamson
10.16.2012
@themuser
Thanks for the comments–we agree.
Michael Dishmon
10.15.2012
@bizurk
Every election cycle we hear more and more from Independents. It may take a long time but it will eventually happen.
J.C. Adamson
10.16.2012
@themuser
All the more reason to start now for ’14 and ’16. Thanks.
John Morningstar
11.25.2012
The main problem with any third party or any Independent is they caucus mainly with the Democrates. Without a platform and national organization the effort will be crushed by both parties.
Ron Dornseif
01.27.2013
Thank you for your article. I see considerable merit to your approach to focus on the independence of the individual rather than a party and on congressional offices vs. the presidency. I would like to suggest maybe an affiliating mission statement (not as a party) that indicates their committment to individual independence on behalf of their constituents and to a process focus on continuous improvement to achieve effective and efficient governance.