Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Why 2016 is ripe for an independent presidential candidate
This article explores the possibility of having one or possibly even two independent candidates running in 2016. The author acknowledges that this is highly improbable, but advocates that if it were to happen, 2016 would be a good time. I thought that this article ties back in with our curriculum because we are often realizing the large number of different ways that our political system favors a two-party system. So after reading this, I'm wondering if it is possible for something like this to happen in the next election, or any election for that matter. We know that it is essentially futile to have three candidates running in the same general election, because one of the party's voter base will be split between the two candidates. But what if it were possible to have four candidates? Then the voter base of each party would be split. But then does the candidate who is elected actually represent the majority of people, in our country? And would that lead us more away from a two-party system, or would it make most American unhappy with our legislature because it is more polarized than before?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article brought up a few good reasons why Senator Sanders could get a good amount of support if he ran for president. However, I don't believe he would be able to take The White House. At least, not yet. The two parties are on the decline at the moment due to recent events that will likely pass over by 2016. The GOP will be forgiven for the shutdown in 2016. The Democrats will have (hopefully) worked out the kinks of Obamacare's website in three years. Both parties have seen better days, but I don't think an independent will be able to overtake both parties.
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting that the public is even acknowledging the possibility of having an idependent presidential candidate, but if Sanders is a "democratic socialist" then how much of an independent is he really? I also find it surprising that this article is so confortably with calling some poiliticians socialist or communist. I also thought that people used these terms in a negative connotation, and maybe that's what the article intends, but the article seems to just use them as common adjectives to describe the politicians.
ReplyDeleteA weird part of me is really excited to be watching all this because it's really interesting, but I think this is all really crazy. I think also that this reveals not only how divided America is, but also how decisive this coming election will be. I really think a new Congress will have a lot of influence on what direction America go, followed by another shock in the 2016 presidential election.
ReplyDeleteI think a strong independent candidate is just what our country needs. Someone who could easily facilitate a bipartisan effort on all issues would greatly increase the productivity of our government. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the country is ready for an independent president yet. I think that with the presence of corporate money in elections that it would be very hard for an independent candidate to run a successful campaign.
ReplyDeleteBernie Sanders was the mayor of Burlington (VT) when I was in college at Middlebury, just down the road. He self-identified as a "Socialist" then, so he doesn't consider it to be a negative label. Bernie Sanders for President? That would be the most radical political event ever in American history.
ReplyDeleteI found this article funny. I liked the quote that President Obama is literally less popular than dog feces. How do categorize that? I think that Mr. Sanders by saying "I might have to run" is really saying that he wants to run. I know nothing about him and I think he might have a hard time getting publicity, but I do think there are plenty of people who would be open to voting for a third party candidate, maybe not Bernie Sanders.
ReplyDeleteIt definitely would be a lot of fun to watch an election like this, but I really don't think anything like that would happen in just three years. We also have no idea how either party will be viewed in 2016, because it could either get a lot worse or better in the coming years (hopefully the latter). Although maybe people are thinking right now with the combined frustration over Congress, the president, and the government in general that independents could make a move, but who knows what will happen between now and then. Either way, I'm interested to watch and see.
ReplyDeleteEven with 2 independent candidates running instead of just one, the voters from each party would be split. Like Noelle mentioned, the winning candidate would not truly reflect the wishes of the American people. And with the population split between radicals and moderates, the two independent candidates still would most likely do poorly. Americans tend to be more moderate than radical, so radical candidates usually don't do as well compared to their more moderate opponents.
ReplyDeleteIt would certainly be interesting to see what would happen if an independent surfaced as a candidate. With that being said, like the article said, it would be very difficult for a third party to gain significant support to even possibly overcome the two-party system. Sure, it has been done before where a third party candidate made a significant run for president (Teddy Roosevelt, for example), but they have never emerged victorious. It would be interesting to see which of the two parties would be affected more by an independent running.
ReplyDeleteI think the article did a good job in raising the idea of an independent candidate both running and winning the 2016 election. Although that sounds great to many americans in our dreams, I have a hard time believing that anyone in politics has what it takes to win an election as an independent in this country. After all, Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent and for as well as he did (88 electoral votes, 2nd place) he didn't come close to winning the presidency and no one in government is of Teddy's caliber, let alone Bernie Sanders.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to see how much attention is being paid to the possibility of a third party candidate. Even thought the election is still very far away and an independent candidate realistically does not have much of a chance to win the presidential election, I think it says a lot about the current state of American politics that they are even being considered. The United States has such a strict two-party system that I think including a viable independent candidate will be an interesting change in the 2016 election.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be good for our country to have a third party candidate in the presidential election. However, I feel like this is an unrealistic idea because of what Noelle and Sam mentioned above. An independent candidate who holds mostly democratic views would likely be very hesitant to run out of fear of taking votes from the Democratic candidate and ultimately helping the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though most people have the right idea in our class. A third party would be a good idea; however, if that person took votes away from his/her group that he/she relates to more, that would be unfortunate. It is unfortunate, but that is the way that our elections are run.
ReplyDeleteYes a third party would be awesome, but the odds are none to none almost. The Republicans and Democrats are both very un trust worthy right now, so if there was a time to go for a third party, the time is now. But the Republicans and Democrats can agree on one thing; a third party would be bad news for both of them.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be interesting, and it raised some interesting points. Despite that, an independent running for president and actually winning is merely impossible as we know. Our two-party system is so divided that it would be extremely challenging to win as an independent, despite moderate voters.
ReplyDeleteIn a country in which Congress is less popular than dog feces, a radical event like this would make for an exciting election. That being said, I agree with everyone that this might not be realistic, especially given all of the obstacles in the way: the presence of corporate money in elections, the short amount of time, and of course our habit of a two-party dominant system. Changes in our political system tend to develop slowly, so I doubt this is a possibility so soon.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest question I see here is how will Chris Christie adapt to voters who are different from
ReplyDeletethose in New Jersey? The things his opponents will dig up are an obvious fact he will have to
deal with, but he adjusts his view to those of his national parties is more up in the air. In his
current state, his persona is consistent, but like the article said this may not work on all
Republicans. In addition, demographics of voters are changing, and this is good for the country
as a whole. We have yet to see how it will affect a presidential election.
This article was very interesting and brought up a lot of good points. I think the idea of an independent candidate is good. The problem will be carrying it out and running a successful campaign, because as we know, in our two party system it is extremely difficult for independents to run.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of a third party in the upcoming election would almost certainly destroy at least one of the primary parties chances at winning as has been demonstrated in third party elections of the past. All a third party would do is weaken the party that most closely identifies with its beliefs by dividing its constituency.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be intriguing to see some independent candidates get strong support in the 2016 race. Having four candidates would shave votes from both of the two major parties, making things a little more even. With such low approval ratings currently, why not try something different, like a third party president. Maybe it is the answer that we are looking for.
ReplyDelete