tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9134513818572463271.post7649060322891426506..comments2023-10-26T03:05:29.080-07:00Comments on 8 Short Years: The Power of GridlockAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18275415979843134079noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9134513818572463271.post-68600303250986569562008-01-03T15:26:00.000-08:002008-01-03T15:26:00.000-08:00Chris, Thanks for the link and kind words. I linke...Chris, <BR/>Thanks for the link and kind words. I linked to this post from my most recent <A HREF="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2008/01/carnival-of-divided-government.html" REL="nofollow">Carnival of Divided Government</A>, but thought I'd copy my comments here also:<BR/><BR/><I>"We agree far more than Chris may think. Like many Independent Centrists, Chris believes that a strong 3rd party is the political cure for what ails us. I have been dismissive of 3rd party efforts in the past, but would like nothing better than to be proved wrong. The primary difference in our perspective is that I fundamentally do not believe nor have I seen any evidence that the pool of true "Independent Centrists" in the electorate is as big as Chris or other third party fellow travelers believe. Ross Perot set the recent history high water mark for 3rd Party efforts, topping out at about 20%. I believe that number is empirical evidence of the maximum vote a 3rd party can accomplish, and even that number was inflated by disgruntled partisan Republicans angry with ("Read my lips") GWB41. The other 80% of the electorate are hardcore partisans, regardless of what they claim to be. In the privacy of the voting booth, they always vote like partisans. At a presidential election level, this limits a "successful" 3rd party to a spoiler role, serving only to elect the greater of two evils by drawing away support from the major party that is closest to the third party platform (Perot elects Clinton, Nader elects Bush43).<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if that 3rd party impulse can be organized to <A HREF="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/05/vbo-voting-by-objective.html" REL="nofollow">vote for political objectives</A> by switching between the two major parties on an election by election basis, then as little a 5% - 10% of the electorate could shape the political destiny of the country in a positive way. This holds true only for as long as the country stays roughly balanced along polarized partisan lines, which is to say - indefinitely. In fact, I'll submit that organizing true independents in this manner is a necessary pre-condition to the creation of a viable third party capable of electing candidates to office."</I><BR/><BR/>Good luck with the blog (it looks great), and I'll take that cup of coffee if you are ever in the neighborhood. You are buying.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.com