Outside The 2008 Ballot Box: Gonna Take A Miracle?
Conventional thought suggests that third party candidates are spoilers who do little more than cost one of the two major party nominees the eventual victory. That belief tends to preclude many voters from even considering an unaffiliated candidate. In understanding that likelihood, the two parties tend to take voters for granted and focus their attentions [...]
Conventional thought suggests that third party candidates are spoilers who do little more than cost one of the two major party nominees the eventual victory. That belief tends to preclude many voters from even considering an unaffiliated candidate. In understanding that likelihood, the two parties tend to take voters for granted and focus their attentions on drawing distinctions with the other major party candidate while ignoring the independent challenger.
It would be easy to heap blame on the two parties in light of the above dynamic…but that would be giving them more credit than they deserve. No doubt they’ve learned the art of opportunism…but those opportunities are being handed to them by a voting public that cedes its power all too quickly. By accepting the established formula, voters shut the door on the possibilities and by default, endorse the very mediocrity they lament. Instead, they look for the major party’s to craft the latest frontrunner out of all too ordinary and familiar cloth…cloth that makes a nice place setting but rarely delivers the sought after meal.
With continued speculation that Mayor Bloomberg might enter the 2008 presidential race…coupled with today’s announcement that he has changed his affiliation to independent…it will be interesting to see whether voters will reconsider the status quo. What makes Bloomberg an intriguing prospect is that he can overcome the obvious obstacle that leads voters to discount third party candidates…even if they have star potential…the lack of money to be competitive.
Michael R. Bloomberg, a longtime Democrat who switched to the Republican Party to run for mayor of New York City in 2001, announced this evening that he is changing his party status and registering as an independent. His office released this statement at 6:05 p.m. (EST):
I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city.
[...] Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.
On Monday, the mayor gave a speech at “Ceasefire! Bridging the Political Divide,” a conference intended to improve the quality of public discourse in America. In the speech, he said, “The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed — leaving our future in jeopardy.”
Should Bloomberg enter the race, the outstanding question will be whether voters are willing to demonstrate the vision they so frequently say they’re seeking in their political candidates…a vision that can see past convention and break with longstanding traditions…traditions that have led us to the very place so many of us bemoan.
In the end, a visionary emerges when ordinary citizens employ their own extraordinary vision to see beyond the prescribed and the routine. I don’t know enough about Michael Bloomberg to determine if he is the visionary America needs. At the same time, I grow increasingly skeptical that one will emerge out of the existing malaise we call our two party system. Notwithstanding, until American’s demonstrate their own commitment to thinking outside the box, don’t expect any miracles.




The biggest question about any third party candidate is not “can he win” but “if he wins will he be able to govern?” Who will support him in Congress? Can he count on anyone there to support his program? This is what the voters who might choose Bloomberg would have to ask themselves and answer to their satisfaction.
Hi Chuck,
Not to be glib, but he couldn’t do that much worse than the current state of gridlock. I’m not suggesting that electing an independent candidate to the presidency is the be all and end all. However, sometimes…like with a broken bone…you have to break it before it will properly heal. If nothing else, the prospect of losing to a third party candidate might light a fire under our all too comfortable politicians.
Regards,
Daniel
The whole concept of a Bloomberg run is intriguing, and would change the Dem and GOP dynamics dramatically. I’m not completely comfortable with a guy like him essentially trying to buying the White House. Plus, I have to question his motivation - is it an ego thing as much as a true desire to serve and get the country back on track?
Anyway, here’s an interesting poll comparison on how Bloomie might impact the presidential race next year. It’s interesting that the impact of a Bloomberg candidacy would be felt more on the R side than the D. That kinda goes against the conventional wisdom that he’d take more D votes away.
I think the relevant question vis a vis “who will Bloomberg’s entrance into the race benefit” or “whether he should run” is whether it will help advance America. Independents are beginning to make the statement to all the presidential candidates (and Bloomberg will not be excluded from this, should he run) that they’re going to have to convince us that they’re more interested in changing America for the better and getting us on the right track than getting themselves elected. Independents are happy to see him become “unaffiliated,” many want him go further – namely to positively “affiliate” himself with independent voters and the independent movement. The American people – and independents in particular – have already been through an experience where a wealthy businessman stepped forward and ran for president as an independent, but turned out to be an unreliable ally in building a lasting movement to fight the negative impact of partisan gridlock. We don’t want to end up in a Ross Perot-type situation again. Mike Bloomberg has been a good mayor and has helped to popularize the idea of non-partisan governance. At the same time, we want to know that Bloomberg will do his part to empower the “on-the-ground” independent movement if he moves ahead.
For more on the history of Bloomberg and independents, read The Bloomberg Story (by Jacqueline Salit who ran Bloomberg’s independent campaign for mayor in NYC) at http://www.independentvoting.org/Bloomberg.html