The “He Isn’t Electable” Quandary
- By Simple Politiks
- 14 August, 2012
- 63 Comments
I have seen this phenomenon with Ron Paul and I am seeing it now with Gary Johnson. Heck, I’ve seen it before them. It’s always the same and I can’t stand it… I’m talking about people saying that certain candidates are “un-electable” or have “no electability”.
(I’ll be addressing third party situations in this post, not Ron Paul’s situation within the GOP electorate)
The people who are chosen to bear this title usually have an incredibly strong (but small) foundation of supporters. In many people’s eyes, these candidates are usually better than the mainstream candidates. Typically the main problem is gathering enough funds necessary to create a lot of publicity. Without the funds, their campaigns suffer. Since they are so far away in the polls or some other data, people don’t even think it would be worth showing their support. What’s the point if they’re not even going to be elected, right?
I have a problem with that type of logic. Allow me to explain why…
The thing is, America needs a third party candidate to get into the debates and give the American people another choice. There have been plenty of moments in American history when the two options on the table just weren’t good enough for a decent portion of the population. I believe this year is one of those moments. But how can we possibly get a third party candidate in the debates if everybody thinks he/she will never get popular enough? In fact, usually supporting a third party candidate means that you are giving your opposing party an even greater chance to win. Do you really want to give that person an even better chance of winning??
This tends to be the thought process that plays out for people choosing candidates. Thus, we’re stuck at a difficult quandary. You may want to support a third party candidate, but you just can’t bring yourself to do it because of the potential consequences. Well, I’ve got some news for all of you who want Gary Johnson (or some other third party candidate down the road) to win:
You’re going to have to bite the bullet.
Actually, let me rephrase that:
I’ve got some news for the American people if you’re truly interested in making our debates more reasonable with more candidates…
All of you will have to sacrifice some elections in order to get a third party candidate into the competition.
If you truly believe that a third party candidate is the best choice then I beg you, please vote for that person. There will be absolutely zero change in our system if we just sit on the sidelines to tag along with Romney or Obama. People need to set aside their feelings for the immediate elections and, instead, set their hopes for the elections of our future. In other words, vote for that third party candidate like Gary Johnson if you really do support him over Obama/Romney. Initially the support will be small… It will not remain small. As time goes on there will be more and more people who decide to vote for the candidate that resonates with their beliefs the most, regardless of his/her polling numbers.
We just need a surge of voters large enough to catch everyone’s attention.
The saying “He’ll never be elected, don’t waste your vote!” will be supplanted by something new and better! Maybe it will go something like “Vote for your candidate, he needs you to make a difference!”
And wouldn’t that be something?
So never compromise with your vote. Vote for who resonates with your beliefs. Vote for the man you want to see leading our nation!
There is no other way to vote.
Copyright © 2013
Thanks for following me. Nice blog, btw. Also, you might want to put your blog url on your gravatar page so people can find your website..I had to guess..it’ll greatly increase your traffic. A lot of people don’t know or think to do that.
You can find where to do this on your gravatar page in the edit options on the gravatar page. God bless you and thanks again.
No problem! Oh and thanks for the tip, I’ll be sure to do that asap. See you around!
No problem
I just know when I was newer, someone would like my page and I’d click on their gravatar pic and there was nothing there to tell me where their page was..and so I just shrugged my shoulders and x’d off. If you leave a comment, someone can click on your name beside your gravatar and go to your site that way, but if you just LIKE something, then no one can find you.
This is a great tip, Lyn. Thanks
There is an additional problem with a third party candidate, however – one that goes far beyond and is much more significant than if a person can get into office: can s/he govern? With our bipartisan system, an executive without the mechanics of a huge party behind him will be nothing more than a figure-head. Congress is still ruled by two parties. (There are, in fact, third party candidates already in Congress, and they have been forced to ally themselves with one of the two major parties for protection and assistance.) Congress does not require the president to function. So, if the executive branch (only in office for four years) isn’t backed up by muscle in the legislature (in office in some cases for seven years), Congress can simply wait until the changing of the guard at the next election cycle. It’s a far more significant problem than buying airtime during election season. A third party representative would not have enough influence to matter.
Thanks for raising that point, it’s certainly a valid concern.
Since we haven’t had a President elected from a third party, I can’t really answer that question with any certainty… But I can definitely tell you that I would be willing to give it a shot and see how it went. If you don’t give it a go then how will you ever find out if it’s good or bad?
There are also a variety of powers that come with the Presidency, so it’s not like a third party candidate wouldn’t be able to do anything without Congress. Especially during a time of an unpopular war. I still don’t believe that Congress wouldn’t allow anything to get done, though.
And by the time a President from a third party is elected, I have a feeling there will be a much higher percentage of third party members in our Congress. It would only make sense.
Still a valid point that should not be forgotten. There’s certainly risk.
Excellant insight by Shannon.
Have you ever seen this guy’s site? You and he would probably be a great asset to each other..you’d love his stuff! Similar to yours. http://votingamerican.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/obamas-brave-new-world-in-a-post-american-era/
*blushing* Thank you.
I thought your insight into the Tea Party’s impact (also, remember the “Contract with America” from 20 years ago?) was quite interesting. Important to remember, as well. Tea Partiers don’t like to identify with a party, actually. They vote by issue and support the local candidates which best represent their goals. Usually, these politicians are Republicans, but not always. My point with this detail is that they have elected enough local, home-grown officials to make waves in state and federal government, even with the two party system.
In my daydreams, government would do only what people can’t do for themselves. Protect my borders, facilitate my trade, keep my streets and towns safe, make friends with our neighbors as appropriate — and stop telling me who to marry, what to buy, what to believe or not to believe, taxing some of my personal habits more than others, choosing my curriculum in school, or even to buckle my seat belt or wear a helmet. It’s my choice to be a self-loathing moron if I want to be, so if I’m that stupid or my gene pool is that shallow, let me be! You go deal with your own drama; I’ll get mine. This is America, where we are supposed to be free to be kind or not, literate or not, sober or not, married or not, etc.
We were guaranteed the pursuit of happiness (and happiness is subjective and individual). The pursuit. Nothing else – and, what more is there than the pursuit?
________________________________
Again, Shannon, you have nailed it and based on your comments you are obviously up to speed on the issues. Big government produces small people. Or, the bigger the government, the smaller the people. One reason we have more recipients today is because we have more entitlement programs. Entitlements give a man a meal but take away his initiative. Another reason is the environment has become too complex and bogged down by regulation. It is too hard for the average guy to start a business today. Believe me on this one. I have formed numerous corporations in my earlier years. I drafted my own Articles of Incorporation is three different states, kept my own books and filed my own tax returns, and paid the employers portion of FICA. Today, I wouldn’t touch it. I would not be knowledgable enough and it would take too much time away from the activity of producing and marketing a product or service. There are just too many requirements, too much red tape. We have stiffled growth and ingenuity. It is just much easier to be a recipient and all becuase “they” have decided to protect us from ourselves. We are placed in the proverbial straight jacket and thrown in a padded cell to keep us safe.
A productive life is about learning, and learning comes from doing and making mistakes. Mistakes make the best teachers. You seldom remember the questions you got right, but you always remember the ones you got wrong.
My Dad used to say, “Everyone makes mistakes. Show me someone who does not make mistakes and I will show you someone who isn’t doing anything.”
I have probably made several typos in this reply. I wish it had spell check. I wonder, do you think spell check is the big government of word processing? Or is it just a tool? All I know is that I have become dependant on it, er, I mean “dependent” on it.
Some extremely good ideas here, both in your post and in the comments. I’ve been pondering the 3rd party idea for a while, and I sometime thing Americans can only decide between two sides of an issue. Our thinking often seems limited to the bilateral.
As for me, I’ve pretty much given up on both the Rs and the Ds, so this time I’m determined to find someone else to vote for. Although if it looks like Romney/Paul is clear to take it, it’s going to be a tough choice. (I’ve voted for 3rd party candidates before, and it’s usually felt like a wasted vote.)
Here is the thing I see about the 3rd party. The interest in it comes from those who are striving for something better, or maybe I should say for the best of all worlds. Such folk see all the hypocrisy in either of the other parties and they simply want to vote it out of existence and/or their precieved perfection. It comes from being idealistic, I think. So, what happens, in an attempt to rid us of all unrighteousness we take that vote and waste it, as you said. We take it away from voting for any evil at all, which means taking it away from the lessor of two evils and we end up with giving an edge to the greater of two evils. It is just one more vote that the greater of two evils did not have to counter. By this act they are one vote ahead. Even if you develop a three party system you will end up with a minority ruling the country. If you develop a four party system it will be even a smaller minority ruling the country. You must pick the party that is the least offensive and closest to your own agenda. It seems clear to me that representatives (including the President) do not represent the people, they only represent the people whose agenda mostly matches their own. This may be too basic, too fundametal to discuss at length and automatically assumed, but it is worth thinking about. Certainly, there must be consensus and compromise, or there should be, but once in office they are off on their own agenda and “to hell with those who do not agree and who did not vote for me.” Remember Maxine Waters, “To hell with the Tea Party.” How can this person be in office legally? Who is voting for someone like this? I don’t know the answer or the facts, but could she be a result of a divided multi-party system locally or apathy or stupidity? Who knows, who cares?
The two party system is the better of other alternatives I see, but what we must do is get in there and clean them up. It happened in the Democratic party only in a different way. The Democratic Party was transformed from within. Only I like to call it hi-jacked. It is no longer the Democratic Party of old, it is now the DSA as it is known to be in Europe. The name has just not been changed here in America yet. What is the DSA? The Democratic Socialists of America. Yes, that is correct. In 2006, Howard Dean gave an address in Madrid (I think Madrid) about how the Democrats in America have come around to seeing the light, meaning have become socialists in all but name only.
So, you see a party can be transformed from within and it is the only plausible way to do it. It just takes time to work within the system.
The only other option, which is not within the decency of Americans, is revolution. Not here, not in America where we have due process, the rule of law and orderly respectful debate. We must leave revolutions to the Marxists and Arabs.
Wow, I really got on a roll there and off point a little.
Yep, I think we’re largely on the same page here. I do think that idealism is not a bad goal, so long as one understands it’s not attainable. But working towards an ideal world is a Good Thing in my mind.
There is also that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is, at least in part, intended as a signal to the other parties. As a (former) registered D, I’ve been having words with all the callers about exactly why they should no longer call (basically, because they proved themselves utterly ineffective — the “herding cats” syndrome and because they are horrible at message and cohesiveness … show me you can do better, and I’ll come back). Meanwhile the Rs have gone over the edge on the right and aren’t a consideration for me.
Given the current circumstances (entrenched big money interests, for one), I’m not sure change from within is possible anymore. I had high hopes that the OWS movement would amount to something. In the end it became all but indistinguishable from a Grateful Dead concert. It sometimes does seem to me that revolution may be the only way… unless we can fix the broken education system and obtain a truly educated populace.
You have certainly done your homework and have a lot of good information and insights here. This is a good and exhaustive site. Regarding a three party system. Think a little more on it. It will never work and only result in the worst of the candidates being elected. Unfortunatley we must remain with a two party system and work within it until or only if, there is ever a large enough overwhelming shift in the American psyche. We must work within these parties and clean them up. Having said that, like them or not, this is exactly what the Tea Party has done. It has injected its influence into one of the parties and it just happened to be the Republican Party. I guess it was the most after the way of the founding fathers; conservatives in other words. The proof is seen in what a hard time Bohener had in trying to get consensus and comprise on the budget. The Tea Partyers simply would not allow him to bend. I am not saying that was good (or bad) or smart of them, I am just saying it is evidence of a cleaning up and cleaning out of the Party. And then look whose comting to dinner. Paul Ryan. Ryan is a kick ass kind of principled guy. My personal opinion is that it is too late. The country is reprobate, but if there was any hope, it would be most likely found here.
Solid writing, although I agree with the earlier assessment that a third party president would have a horrible time in office. Think of how hard it is for a Democrat President to get House and Senate Democrats on the same page (and vice versa). For me, the way to go for someone interested in a third party candidate would be to start at the grassroots level. Build up the party at a local and state level and expand outward. Then, when it comes time to run a presidential campaign, your guy will have that base of support they really need to give their campaign legs.
You are right about getting anything done, but I don’t think a new grass roots will work any better than it would on a national level. It would take literally generations to get this done if not a revolution.
I used to think it would take generations, as well. But now… look at how much has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union. Kids these days don’t understand what the Cold War was. Hell, last September a piece of the World Trade Center was in our town —– and most people didn’t even remember why.
Also insightful. I found this for you to add to my rant about the third party even though I completely understand its appeal on the surface. It is interesting that you mentioned gas chambers, because they came about as a result of a third party kind of Naiveté.
This is what happened in Germany in 1932
During 1931 and into 1932, Germany’s political crisis deepened. In March 1932 Hitler ran for President against the incumbent President Paul von Hindenburg, polling 30.1% in the first round and 36.8% in the second against Hindenburg’s 49 and 53%. By now the SA had 400,000 members, and its running street battles with the SPD and KPD paramilitaries (who also fought each other) reduced some German cities to combat zones. Paradoxically, although the Nazis were among the main instigators of this disorder, part of Hitler’s appeal to a frightened and demoralised middle class was his promise to restore law and order. Overt antisemitism was played down in official Nazi rhetoric, but was never far from the surface. Germans voted for Hitler primarily because of his promises to revive the economy (by unspecified means), to restore German greatness and overturn the Treaty of Versailles, and to save Germany from communism.
On 20 July 1932, the Prussian government was ousted by a coup—the Preussenschlag, and a few days later at the July 1932 Reichstag election the Nazis made another leap forward, polling 37.4% and becoming the largest party in the Reichstag by a wide margin. Furthermore, the Nazis and the KPD between them won 52% of the vote and a majority of seats. Since both parties opposed the established political system, and neither would join or support any ministry, this made the formation of a majority government impossible. The result was weak ministries governing by decree. Under Comintern directives, the KPD maintained its policy of treating the SPD as the main enemy, calling them “social fascists”, thereby splintering opposition to the Nazis.[58]
Later, both the SPD and the KPD accused each other of having facilitated Hitler’s rise to power by their unwillingness to compromise.
It is so difficult to see this realize on the ground. I was managing an election campaign earlier this year and came across this phenomenon at every turn. Another crazy occurrence was herd mentality while voting. A belief had grown among the campaign managers that the candidate who develops a perception among the electorate that he is going to win is going to end up winning. People would shed their thinking prowess and vote for the one who the rumor mills suggested is winning. In this stupid scenario, the pre-poll surveys became so important that parties started sponsoring media to rig the results of the surveys.
Raunak, You provide an intersting insight into the convoluted world of politics. I guess it is a kind of self-fullfilling prophesy then, is it not?
Oops, I forgot to click the follow up box
I have seen it work on more occasions than I would like to. I guess people like to be associate with the winner..some of them are driven by an ego satisfying drive that they voted for the winner.
Raunak, I have long wondered how much of our press is “rigged.” I don’t know if I find the confirmation encouraging (I’m not paranoid) or depressing (people are sheep). I think both.
As have I. It’s very frustrating because it’s impossible to truly control.
Not only “control.” You can take this farther, and posit that it is impossible to persuade people to listen to – to even realize that they need to seek out – real information as opposed to spin. One convincing con-man can sway millions of people by looking and sounding sincere, even when he’s lying through his teeth. An awkward, socially shy honest man, however, will be ignored or even ridiculed.
i find it incredible that an institution as powerful and influential as press is not held accountable for any of its actions…on most occasions!
It’s actually why I decided to not go into journalism. Also, why I decided to not finish up my CA teaching credential. (Yes, I was thisclose to being credentialed in History and English for high schools – and passed.) The institutions which form the foundations of cultural morality, thinking, social mores, and accountability are themselves corrupt. Perhaps they always have been, certainly they’ve been prone to misuse, but something about our current environs seems… worse.
Anyway, I can’t abide a lack of ethics (I don’t have to agree with yours, but dammit you better have ‘em!), so I abandoned those professions. Quit law school, too. Ended up in biotech – in Quality Assurance and Operations, and Regulatory Affairs.
That’s me, your friendly neighborhood watchdog.
Hello,
My blog URL has changed, please continue to follow me at my new address.
Thanks!
WAIT!!! Is the new address, “Music Creates Us?”
yes that’s it!
yes that’s it! http://musiccreatesus.wordpress.com
Good argument! Enjoyed your article. Bette
Johnson/Gray 2012 sounds good to me.
Reblogged this on Mermaids Singing and commented:
The following link to another blog is a complete departure from my blog’s recent book reviews, etc.
However, the subject is interesting and important. Please do check it out, and consider what is said. Join in, of course.
Will do! Thank you
So true! when I was in undergrad university, I rallied against this vary thing by campaigning for Ralph Nadar. He even visited my school and did a talk! But inevitably I would get mainstream two-party voters heckling the third party choice I was promoting, in particular, Democrats would say you are making it harder for us to win. A real catch-22 I’d say, but we cannot expect to have more viable options if we vote for one candidate out of fear of the other.
http://laveldanaylor.wordpress.com/
Thanks for a thought provoking article. Thanks also for stopping by my site. I appreciate that!
Did you ever go over and check out sam’s site, the link I gave you? I’m certain he would absolutely adore your website! Maybe I’ll send him your link in case you don’t have the time. Blessings!
Hi Lyn. I must say I’ve gone through my comments and didn’t see this.
Can you resend? I’d be glad to take a look! Thanks!
It’s still here..probably hard to see. The link is http://votingamerican.wordpress.com/
Thanks! For some reason I couldn’t see it. I’ll check it out!
I lived in the UK for eleven years, and I so miss the tight timetable, and three parties, even if the Lib Dems were small.
Thanks for stopping by my blog. Hope you enjoy the posts!
I hear ya and went through that last election voting for Ralph Nader, and the one before voting for Badnarik. This year I plan on voting for Gary Johnson as well. Screw the two party system! Not only should we have a third party, we need more, 5, 6, however many as there are perspectives to put forth. Because this isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about political parties above all else — it’s supposed to be about a vision for taking this country forward. The status quo has proven inadequate, and the times call for a new way of looking at things, at how we structure our societies and create jobs, at how we manage our own selves. Traditions alone are not enough in facing the 21st century and it’s high time we try thinking for ourselves rather than conveniently marking in a bubble for a party we profess loyalty for. No one party deserves our loyalty, not if its policy ideas are lame and its imagination is stunted and biased toward its own rank’s wealth generation.
well said indeed! We need more people like you, honestly!
I disagree!!! While I thing SimplePolitks makes good points and has good unbiased information, I disagree with this multi-party concept. It has been debunked long ago. It fragments the people into ineffective minorities.
Please, read what I have written. Anything more than a two party system will produce a takeover by a well-organized totalitarian state. Again, read what I have written and understand what happened in Germany in 1921. It is the same thing all over again. “Those who do not know (this) history, are doomed to repeat it.”
There is a solution, get off your ass and get involved in transforming the party that is already most closely aligned with your own ideology. I don’t care if it is Right or Left. And work, work, work, to decentralized government. We cannot have our freedoms taken or be oppressed by a totalitarian state like the one that existed in Germany if we do not allow there to be one strong central government.
Remember, the bigger the government that smaller the people. This is not just some ideological platitude and rhetoric.
You only need to look at the multi-party system in India to reject the idea. Up until 1985, India was for all practical purposes a 2 party democracy. 1990s ushered in an era of regional parties gaining popularity by working up regional sentiments. As a result, the 2 National parties have lost their stronghold on Federal Policies. Currently we have 7 national parties and close to 50 significant regional parties that contest elections in their respective states.The ruling federal government is a coalition of 10 parties!We are very close to becoming a banana republic because no decision is implemented on time. Small parties place regional interests ahead of national well being.Vote Bank politics overshadows logical reasoning.
While I am in favor of inclusive politics, unfortunately I do not see good examples of multi-party democracy anywhere in the world. Do you?
Raunak,
Excellent information and insight. I am glad to have that added information. What a resource you are.
I think we are nearly on the same page with some fine line discrimiations to be made. I am not making them here.
I favor decentralization for the purpose of avoiding an overly empowered centralized government that can become oppressive, but there are certain things, like protecting the borders and a viable postal system, that are better administered on a Federal level.
Consequently, what is and what is not a Federal responsibilty it is a matter of a national dialogue in which we should be engaged. Of course this debate will go on and on.
Good comments
But why must it be a party system at all? Why can’t individuals run for election on their ideas and the let the public decide from there? Because the two-party system is common throughout the world is not a good enough argument for keeping them. The parties trump all else in terms of important consideration and creates a tug-o-war among the populace. Besides that, we’re already a population made up of small factions and minorities — that doesn’t change just because people are primarily given two choices to choose from. If adequate representation is what we’re pining for, neither the Team Republican or Team Democrat can offer that to the vast majority of citizens, nevermind which we might vote for. So, if the system’s broke and ineffective, why keep it alive?
Your logic makes no sense my friend.
“No sense” is a rather all encompassing term. You must have missed the “fine lind discriminations.” Why is it that you say such a thing?
As a follow up read my recent post. Gasbagger.wordpress.com Please read it first.
Incorrect, poor, incoherent, little sense, flawed, maybe, but “no sense,” seems extreme, uninformative, un-insightful, and adds not much to the dialogue.
I am sure we can come to a better clarification if we engage in more analytical, substantive, non-judgmental comments.
Terry
Well considering I’m not made of time, you know, I didn’t feel like responding to that essay, though it was well written and so I do give you that.
I wish I had the time to properly debate this but I don’t, alas.
Good enough, Colton,
I certainly understand. Whenever you are ready, and are of a mind, I stand ready to be enlightened.
Thank you for your comment; I am very happy to get different perspectives on my views. This is how we learn, or at least how I learn.
Terry
Ok well generally the U.S. was founded with a multi party system, yes? Why do you feel this would be a bad thing? As the system is now, Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same coin.
How do you think only two parties would be better than multi parties when those two are extremes? Either far left or far right. With independents having no influence whatsoever.
politics is a ego contest at this point. I honestly think you give politicians too much credit dude.
Great post! I’d like to follow — do you simultaneously post on a wordpress blog so I can do so?
You should be able to follow via email subscription, it’s on the right side of the home page! Let me know if you have any problems.
I think we really can get the ball rolling for the 3rd party candidates if we trust each other and swap votes! https://www.facebook.com/VoteSwap2012
Great post. I decided in 2008 to start to vote my conscience rather than party lines- especially since both parties have proven themselves anathema to liberty. While in local elections I must choose either team blue or team red, at least for the presidential election I can show third party support.
Also, the incessant drone of “He isn’t electable” becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when the media repeats it enough. This further helps to stigmatize third parties.
Thank you. Exactly, it’s really disheartening.
Dude, remember 1992. A vote for a third party is a vote for Obama. No matter what you think of his ideology he has failed miserably. Someone, anyone, including Donald Duck if necessary, should be given a chance to fix what is becoming worse day by day.
I do remember 1992, and you’re right; one of the candidates from the major parties is going to win this election. However, I think this election is unique that many people are dissatisfied with both options and a third party can bring a unique message to the table and influence national discussion. Additionally, in my particular case, I live in MA, where it’s all but certain that Obama will win the state, so since my vote is “wasted” not matter what, I am more free to support a third party candidate like Johnson. Admittedly, if I lived in a swing state I might be slightly more inclined to vote major party, but the truth is that the major parties are more concerned about retaining power than good governance.
Good point.
Addendum: I forgot. Please go back in the comments and read the unfortunately long explanation of why third parties don’t work and what can be done about it and how exactly the two parties now are not the same two parties of yesteryear. The Democrats have reinvented themselves successfully. The problem is that they have reinvented themselves into the DSA. Their methodology is a good example to follow. Their ideology is one that will end America’s abiltiy to recover. The largest economy in the world $15 trillion a year, will become second rate. I think the next closest is about 8-10 trillion, if that much. I love Gyro sandwiches, but we don’t want to become another Greece.