The real problem is the judicial branch of
government, which upholds the un-Constitutional state
election laws that prohibit independent voters from
being candidates for political office.  It is an
obvious violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to
require independent voters to get 23,000 signature to
get on the ballot for an office that Republicans get
4,000 signatures to run for.  Since federal courts
habitually uphold election laws like these, and the
Supreme Court has refused to hear a case brought by a
minor party or independent voter for more than 20
years, independent voters cannot hope for a judicial
resolution of the matter. 
    But it is already too late for the two major
parties.  Independent voters only need seven more
percentage points before they will outnumber the
total number of political party members in the United
States.  When that happens, politicians will have to
give independent voters ballot access.  They will
have no choice.  When that happens, the two major
parties will fold up like the houses of cards they
are.  Independent voters want to see more than two
candidates on the ballot, and that is what is going
to happen. 
  In the meantime, everyone needs to remain calm
and wait for voter registration to take care of the
problem.  The reason why the best efforts of
political parties to stop independent voter
registration have failed is because everyone knows
that the writing and adoption of the Constitution
created independent voters, not political parties. 
In 1796, when he left office, George Washington was
still calling political parties “self created
societies” and telling the people of the United
States not to support them.  He said that political
parties would not be able to provide good government. 
  So now we see that George Washington was right,
and political parties are not going to be able to run
the government effectively, so free and open
elections have to be re-established.  Political
parties and their members are getting panicky;
independent voters are not.  We are just going to
wait until there are more independent voters than
political party members.  Then we will re-establish
free and open elections.
  As I said, political party members need to remain
calm and not do anything foolish.  I know it is a
little much to expect, but that is what needs to be
done.

In #32995, Hewitt wrote: “Democracies formed later than ours were able to learn from our experience, and created the parliamentary system, where typically three to six main parties form the goverment.”

A very quick search surfaced the fact that the Parliament of England’s history dates back as far as 1386 - give or take about 400 years BEFORE the USA “democracy” came into being - hell, more than 100 years before the North American continent was “discovered.”

I believe it was Churchill who said something like ‘democracy is the worst political system - except for all the others.’ It seems that all systems have strengths and weaknesses which I won’t go into here.

But something must be done to accommodate virtually HALF the population who wind up with no effective voice when their party doesn’t achieve a SIGNIFICANT majority of the votes as has happened recently in the USA and Mexico. Perhaps a coalition government should be made mandatory unless one party receives more than 2/3 of all the LEGITIMATE votes cast.

But even more important, in my view, is an EDUCATED ELECTORATE. It’s just not good enough to be allowed to vote when a person hasn’t a clue what he or she is voting for… just “following orders” from the union, pulpit or peer group. In order to vote you should have to pass a course… just like to earn the right to drive you must have achieved a driver’s license before you’re allowed out on the road unsupervised.

I like to dream. I’ve often thought the same should be required of those who decide (by commission or omission) to become PARENTS. To attempt to raise a child in today’s world when you haven’t a clue what you’re doing, and have NO MONEY TO DO IT, is simply RIDICULOUS.

I am 53 years old with four children, ages 25, 23, 21 and 12. I was 18 when 18-year-olds were given the vote and have never failed to vote. I always registered Democrat, but sometimes swung my vote. I registered Republican after 9/11 so I could vote in Republican primaries. In the 2004 presidential election I voted for John Kerry because my son was in the Army and had not received his absentee ballot; I offered him my vote, unconditionally. I would have, at that time, voted for Bush.

I am NOT going to vote for a SINGLE Republican in the upcoming General Election. I am an independent-thinking Vietnam-era American mother whose heart is broken every day by the deaths of our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. You better believe Iraq is the issue.

I am a native New York Citier who was swayed by the BS of emotion after 9/11. A friend of mine who is a Vietnam vet told me in ‘04 that Dick Cheney was/is an evil man.

Count me 100 percent AGAINST ALL REPUBLICANS on November 7.

Obama might have a name that sounds like Osama but he is as close to a real person as you can get, forget that he is a junior, so was Bushie junior, and what experience did he have, his parents were born with a silver foot in the mouths, you know some Republicians are more like Democrats and some Democrats are more like Republicians, what this country needs is (1) get rid of the electorial college, it is two centuries out of line, after all the founding fathers let the president elect take three months before he had to take office, so what is the rush to know who the winner is on election night.

(2) Get more independent parties in the system, I think that we can afford to have a larger choice than we now have, independent parties will not be beholden to special interest groups and why should big business be more important than voters?

Margaret from Vancouver, Washington

P.S. I also think the media does the west coast a disservice by trying to tell us who the president will be before the polls close in Calif.  Those states that have write in ballets will not know for certain who is the winner.

Anxiety is high because Independents are not likely to contribute dollars to political parties - the ramifications of which are huge. 

Maybe that’s the straw that will finally break the back of the camel loaded to the max with the zillions of bucks being spent on the stuff of performances, appearances, photo-ops, meaningless ads and just plain pandering that presently constitute political campaigning in this country. If so, it can’t happen too soon.

Well, independents are realy important. Especially ones who don’t buy the propaganda efforts of either of the two main parties.
  Unfortunately two parties are the natural state in a winner takes all system like we have. Democracies formed later than ours were able to learn from our experience, and created the parliamentary system, where typically three to six main parties form the goverment. The other nice feature about this system is the vote of no confidence, by which a seriously unpopular chief executive can be removed mid-term.

So the political consultants are having a harder time scoping the electorate because so many of them are “independent.”  This is a bad thing?  Seems to me it might force more candidates to state their intentions and let the chips fall where they may, the way elections are supposed to work.  LIke that might happen.

It also creates a huge opportunity for new parties, that might actually stand for something.
So far, the various “3rd” parties are missing a bet:  one of them should call itself the Independent party, and scoop up a third of the electorate.

Under our antiquated electoral system, in a 3-way race you only need 34% to win. (The “winner” of the recent presidential election in Mexico, under the same system,had only 38%.  So did the “loser.”)

Or, of course, you could call yourself “A Plague on Both Your Houses,” and win lots of elections.  This, of course, is the real reason for so many “independents” - they detest both main parties, with good reason.

There is a much better system on offer:  preference voting, which provides a runoff in just one election. Voters rank their choices of candidate; then, if no-one gets a majority on the 1st choices, you start eliminating lower-ranking candidates and counting their voters’ 2nd choices, and so on until someone gets a majority.  Evidently, it’s crucial that it be easy to get on the ballot in the first place; with a runoff, there is no reason for it not to be.

You get to vote for the candidates you really want, without “really” voting for the one you really don’t want - the devil’s choice our present system allows us.

With more real choices and a motive for candidates to appeal to each others’ voters (2nd choices, remember?), we might start having real elections.  Obviously, no state legislature will go for something like that, so your best hope is the initiative process, in the states that have it.

It’s not just the “young” people who consider political parties “irrelevant.”

I’m well into retirement years and I wouldn’t vote for anyone representing either of the two major parties, and I’d be thinking more than twice about voting for anyone fronting for one of the more minor parties as well.

When will these politicians get the message that WE THE PEOPLE AREN’T SENDING EXPENSIVE REPRESENTATION TO CONGRESS SO THEY CAN ACT AS RUBBER STAMPS FOR WHAT THE “PARTY” LEADERSHIP WANTS?

I want MY views presented and heard. I’ll vote for the candidate who does that… and no one else.

Wake up America - how can America be so full of blithering idiots that simply follow the party line?! Whether Democrat or Republican - it doesnt matter - neither are looking out for the interests of its citizens as THE MAIN priority. Power, Special Interests and self-preservation have become the Priority of the parties. America needs ATLEAST one other strong party to force our representatives to remember who they are working for. Once done, maybe that will dilute the power base of any one party, maybe we’ll be able to elect based on an individuals qualities and platform, rather than a party label.

Wishful Thinking in Virginia

I’m just afraid that with more independants on America’s electronic voting machines the easier it will be to hide fudged ballot returns.

I have always considered myself an independent, and I plan on remaining one.  With only two candidates to choose from it’s no wonder our country is in the shape it’s in.  This is especially true if they are in bed together, as is often the case, or seems to be.  Lately it seems to me that you are voting for the devil you know, or the devil you don’t know.  I feel that is the reason voter apathy is as high as it is, no matter who you vote for all you’re going to get is a politicians, and who are the politicians concerned with, only themselves.  A number of years ago a celebrated Oklahoman said,“I never met a man I didn’t like,” well I say he never met a politician.  When America goes back to electing patriots instead of politicians, then maybe America can get back the respect that she has lost because of political a-
buse she has had of late.

            Thank you,

            Gary W. Bell
              Tulsa, Ok.

Why should we have only two political choices?They are both owned and operated. I don’t have a hope of leadership that really takes care of it’s country. Two war fronts and a huge deficit! Lies! It breaks your heart. These people were elected twice. Well, at least once.Instead of having parties that are supported like sports teams, how about one that will really do what is good for a country and really support welfare of a people. A party that is not influenced by money. However, with our political gridlock, this hope is only a phantom.

I lived in California (also AZ), and was registered without a party affiliation in both places, though my votes were consistently to the left (I lived in Waxman’s district, and enjoyed voting for him every time).

The biggest reason I recall for this “independent streak” was that, in California, I could vote in any party’s primary elections if I registered as “decline to state,” whereas attaching a party meant I could only vote in that particular party’s primaries. Too bad the NY Times story didn’t consider this factor…no wonder they can’t figure out what’s going on.

Other than that, what they say about party irrelevance rings true. With the rise of the DLC in the 1990s, the difference between Republicans and Democrats began to vanish. Really, the right-left spectrum doesn’t translate into parties as clearly as they’d sometimes like us to think. Thus people are justified in saying neither party is competent to run the country’s affairs, and perhaps partisan gridlock would be better (at least things couldn’t get any worse in that scenario).