Independants apparently don't count
Is it odd to anyone else that in all the projections about the Senate balance of power Independant candidates seem to simply be lumped in the Dems? Can the national media not cope with a non-dichotomous power balance?
Joe Lieberman, who most likely will retain his seat in CT, is running as an Independant. Bernie Sanders, likely to win a seat in VT, is also an Independant.
Yes, both of those candidates are likely to vote more on the Dem side than the GOP side. But that doesn't excuse the intellectually lazy media from omitting that aspect of the race. And the fact that everyone seems to think that the only power than matters is power that's branded Red or Blue is galling to me. And yet everyone will complain about partisan bickering until they're blue (or red) in the face. They're just not willing to accept a reality that is slightly more complex, and, gasp, potentially pluralist.
It's the same line of thinking that says "a vote for Independant candidate X is really a vote against Dem candidate Y." Which is total crap and ignores the basic dynamic of democracy.
Joe Lieberman, who most likely will retain his seat in CT, is running as an Independant. Bernie Sanders, likely to win a seat in VT, is also an Independant.
Yes, both of those candidates are likely to vote more on the Dem side than the GOP side. But that doesn't excuse the intellectually lazy media from omitting that aspect of the race. And the fact that everyone seems to think that the only power than matters is power that's branded Red or Blue is galling to me. And yet everyone will complain about partisan bickering until they're blue (or red) in the face. They're just not willing to accept a reality that is slightly more complex, and, gasp, potentially pluralist.
It's the same line of thinking that says "a vote for Independant candidate X is really a vote against Dem candidate Y." Which is total crap and ignores the basic dynamic of democracy.
posted by cuznate at 9:32 AM
6 Comments:
A couple of thoughts, I'd be interested in your response.
1. Bernie Sanders has a long-established reputation as a "true" independent. Lieberman is an independent only since (and only because) he lost the Democratic primary.
Lieberman is indendent only as a matter of necessity and convenience. If he is reelected, he won't remain an independent.
2. How about: "a vote for Ralph Nader is really a vote against Al Gore." Or for George W. Bush.
Nader's candidacy in 2000 cost Al Gore a substantial number of votes - maybe enough to change the outcome of the election.
That's what I believe. In what way does that ignore the basic dynamic of democracy?
Responses to your points...
1. I agree on Sanders but am not aware of any specific pledge by Lieberman to be part of the Dem party if elected. I know he's a prominant Dem historically, but he's gotten largely abandoned by the party during his election. That said, you're right, he's highly likely to be more or less a Dem, if not actually a Dem. What gets me really is; a) counting Sanders as a Dem, because he really isn't at all and b) the tendency for the media to not even mention the concept of Independants in their "power balance" projections. Partisan power is retained by a massive number of structural protections that the GOP and Dems work together very closely on to make sure they retain a monopoly on power. And they've basically gotten the entire country and media to think only in terms of red and blue, and to ignore as insignificant or oddball any type of political power that does not fall within those bounds.
Which leads me to...
2. We're in agreement on the basic concept here, I was expressing distaste for the smug and smarmy way that the major parties use that line to patronizingly dismiss people who express interest in third party or independant candidates. I was not arguing that such votes do not have practical outcomes that lend truth to parts of such a statement. I'll expand (mostly because I'm taking a study break and want to waste more time)...
First and foremost, a vote for Nader in 2000 was a vote for Nader. To the extent that any vote for one candidate is indeed a vote against all other choices (which my posting ignored), yes it is a vote against Gore. But it's also a vote against Bush, and the concept it's a vote "for him" is laughable in my mind. It may well have influenced the outcome of the election, much like Perot's candidacy unquestionably had a big impact on the 1992 election. But the idea that somehow they "spoiled" an election for someone else suggests that some other candidate has some intrinsic level of increased power in the election simply because they're affiliated with a certain group.
The basic dynamic of democracy that I refer to is that voters vote for a candidate that they want to vote for. Sure, perhaps some voters want to use the vote gaming paradigm to make their decision, and that's their individual choice. But to say that thinking solely in terms of the fight between Dem and GOP is the ONLY viable decision making strategy is to say that voters should be compelled to buy into the two party system whether they like it or not. It's an extension of the "monopoly on power" paradigm from my first point. Just because I don't like Bush (I voted for Gore) doesn't mean I automatically "owe" my vote to whatever candidate the Dems throw up there. And if a third party or independant candidate threatens one of the major party candidates then so be it, that's democracy.
In another example, in Maine this year the incumbent Dem (Baldacci) is running fairly close with a pretty socially conservative challenger (Chandler Woodcock - how blue blood does that sound!). I'm likely going to vote for either the Green candidate or the Independant candidate. If enough people do that, Baldacci stands a decent chance of losing. Do I weigh that risk in my decision...sure. But does that mean my vote for Barbara Merrill is a wasted vote or a vote for Woodcock, absolutely not. I will be standing by my principles by not voting for a guy I think is at best a mediocre governor in a state where we need better. I will be sending a message that you can't count on my vote just because I don't like social conservatives. And I'll be potentially lending support to further independant and/or Green candidates.
If Woodcock wins, I'll have to live with my decision. But even so, I won't let someone convince me that I owe my vote to Baldacci because he's the lesser of two evils.
Nate,
I hear what you're saying. I think a lot of the grassroots activism on the left right now stems from deep frustration that the Democratic Party is run by party hacks from deep inside the beltway who have done a dreadful job of crafting a mass appeal that connects with voters looking for an alternative to the GOP. They are trying to change it from the inside - if that doesn't work...
I suspect that if the GOP takes a beating next week, a similar movement might emerge on the right.
I still think it's weird that there are only two viable politcal parties here. If Americans were offered so little choice in any other aspect of their lives, they'd freak out.
MJ,
Maybe that's just it. Americans are too busy with all their other choices (Do I want a grande non-fat half-caf no-foam latte, or a tall non-fat mocha extra whip?) that they don't even have time to vote, let alone notice that there are only two parties.
dems get the house, and the senate stays on the right. you heard it here frist. har har.
Post a Comment
<< Home