Here is some commentary about independents and minor parties:
MARTIN FROST - Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 1995 to 1998; representative from Texas from 1979 to 2005.
"A third party in the United States might appeal to some, but it could have a dramatic and unwelcome effect on how we elect presidents if it weren't accompanied by electoral college reform.
Under our current system, if no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election is thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives, with each state having one vote.
Should a third party win any significant share of the electoral vote by carrying a few states, elections would routinely be decided in the House. You could have a very undemocratic result, with one candidate winning the most popular votes and another candidate winning the election in the House because of the number of state delegations his or her party controls. This result can occur in the electoral college in a two-candidate race, but it rarely does.
Also, even if the same candidate placed first in the popular vote and then won the vote in the House, his or her election could be seen as less than legitimate because of the general disgust the country has for Congress.
Our current system provides for an orderly transfer of power. A third party could make us look institutionally unstable and lead to all kinds of backroom deals in Congress that may not serve the national interest."
NEWT GINGRICH - Republican speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999.
"One of the great strengths of the American system has been its two-party structure. For virtually America's entire history two parties have been the centers of organized political effort. The collapse of the Whig Party and its replacement by the Republican Party has been the only significant change in a two-party structure that has existed since the election of 1828.
There are two powerful virtues to this structure. First, it forces both parties to accommodate a broad range of interests internally and makes internal compromise unavoidable. This leads to a conflict and values management process with much greater adaptability than the multi-party models in which each party is a center of rigid beliefs.
Second, it focuses responsibility. When Republicans failed to manage things effectively, they were held responsible. Democrats are now being held responsible. Multiparty systems blur responsibility and focus on politician-to-politician negotiating rather than politician-to-citizen accountability. That is not a path America should follow."
JOHN ANDERSON - Republican representative from Illinois from 1961 to 1981; member of the board of FairVote.
"It's no secret that I believe Americans deserve elections with more than two choices. I offered an independent candidacy for president in 1980 because my priorities were different from those of my opponents. Millions agreed and were more likely to vote and think about issues involving the environment, taxation and foreign policy that otherwise would have been ignored.
Third parties and independents, in fact, regularly contest our elections despite voting rules that deny their reality. They help us hold the major parties accountable and sometimes win, as was true of my friend Lowell Weicker, a former governor of Connecticut, and as may happen this year in Florida and Rhode Island.
I fervently hope that we join most of the civilized world in adopting proportional representation to open our legislatures to new voices. But broader consensus can be achieved more quickly for a simple rule change that would accommodate more choice: the "instant runoff" alternative voting system used in Australia and a growing number of American cities. Australians had an average of seven candidates in their last House races, yet every winner earned an electoral majority, and no candidate was criticized as a "spoiler." It's time to enrich our politics by embracing voter choice in America."
DAN SCHNUR - Director of the University of Southern California's Unruh Institute of Politics; communications director for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign.
"There's no such thing as a raging moderate. Periodically, the aggrieved centrists in one or the other of the two major parties make noise about the need for a new, centrist political entity that will free the country from the grip of liberal and conservative extremists. There's a legitimate argument to be made that the hyperpartisanship that increasingly dominates the nation's political conversation is preventing much of the cooperation that's needed to address our most critical policy challenges. But it's unlikely that a third party is the magical solution to those problems, and identifying and cultivating the necessary emotional firepower to make that party into reality is even less likely.
For those donors and activists who do think a third party is necessary, the next six months present the best opportunity they've had in many, many years. If angry centrists from across the country converged on Florida to elect its governor to the U.S. Senate, that would be precisely the type of jump-start that a new national party would need. And a movement that included Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), and other besieged middle-of-the-road political figures could conceivably remake the American political landscape. But when moderates get angry, by definition, they are no longer moderate. So don't hold your breath waiting for that third party to happen anytime soon."
MARK PENN - Chief executive of Burson-Marsteller; adviser to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign; pollster and adviser to Bill Clinton from 1995 through 2000.
"So starbucks has 155 combinations of coffee but America and Great Britain only have two parties? The election in Britain could be a game changer if the Liberal Democrats get nearly 30 percent of the vote. For the first time the major parties agreed to debates, and the results so far have been stunningly favorable for the outsider party.
In the United States, we have the structural issue that there are many Democrats who are socially liberal and economically more conservative than the leadership. And the Republicans have many members who believe in the economic philosophy of the party but reject the religious right. Both groups are not entirely comfortable with their party and have see-sawed in their voting.
On top of this, we have a record number of independents in the country, along with new, open media and Supreme Court rulings that make it easier and easier for non-party interests to participate in politics. This is why it is critically important for Democrats to welcome the vital center.
But if party primaries are driven farther to the left and the right by partisans, we are going to see more independent candidates at all levels. It's part of the natural change in politics, and I think all eyes will be on Britain to see the final result."
KEITH APPELL - Republican strategist, former national spokesman for Steve Forbes' presidential campaign and senior vice president of CRC Public Relations.
"The rise of the Tea Party movement is a healthy manifestation of our democracy. Much media attention has been paid in recent days to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's decision to go independent. But Crist's switch is less about third parties than about his inability to win a Republican primary while his state suffers from record unemployment even after he embraced President Obama and his stimulus package.
On the broader issue, the Tea Party movement has driven much of the political discussion in recent months and has motivated many thousands who weren't previously politically active and brought them together with veterans, retirees and small-business people who legitimately see the growth of government and deepening debt as red flags.
Additionally, it has been fascinating to watch the media's evolving definition of the Tea Partyers from ignorant Obama opponents to "AstroTurf" (as though these people weren't real grass roots) to angry mob to being motivated by racial distrust. The movement stems from Washington's elitist disconnect from common constituents: enacting consequential legislation without reading it (stimulus); enacting far-reaching legislation over public opposition (health care); and an overall instinct for lecturing instead of listening.
Like Crist, congressional Democrats now own this agenda. Like Crist, they face unfavorable economic conditions. Democrats may suffer the consequences Crist is likely to face in November."
Joe Raedle/Getty Images"Gov. Charlie Crist announced on Thursday that he would run as an independent for the United States Senate. There is currently no reason to think that the 2010 election will produce anything different. The dominance of the Democrats and Republicans stems in part from the mechanics of the electoral process.
Ballot access poses a big hurdle: it can be difficult and costly for other kinds of candidates to get on the general election ballot. Then they find it tough to get campaign money. The major parties have well-established fundraising networks, including contributors seeking to curry favor with incumbent politicians. Those on the outside have nothing comparable.
They also have to contend with the “spoiler” image. Voters worry that, by supporting a minor candidate, they could be helping a major-party candidate that they dislike."
In 2000, Ralph Nader drew votes from Al Gore, thus tipping Florida to George W. Bush — a result that most Nader voters probably did not intend. Six years later, a Republican senator from Montana got “Nadered” by a Libertarian, and his loss enabled the Democrats to take control of the Senate.
Of the few victorious off-brand candidates, most have not been true independents at all, but Republicans or Democrats carrying on a factional struggle. In 1970, New York State elected James L. Buckley as a Conservative. He won because many Republicans saw him as a more faithful representative of their party than incumbent Charles Goodell. Once in the Senate, he caucused with the G.O.P.
Governor Crist is hardly avatar of independence. He was very happy to receive the endorsement of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and was looking forward to the support of the party establishment. He bolted only because rank-and-file primary voters were about to reject him with a thump.
His decision to run as an independent is not the tip of the iceberg. It is a lonely chunk of ice with very little beneath."
Susan Sullivan Lagon - is a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University and has taught American politics and constitutional law at Georgetown.
"More voters may be rejecting party labels lately, but the candidates they have to choose from won’t be.
Even the much-hyped Tea Party movement has been more influential in endorsing major party candidates than in offering up its own. Despite voters’ clear hostility toward both major parties this year, independent candidacies for federal office still face long odds simply because the electoral structure is designed for and by Democrats and Republicans.
Charlie Crist was the Republican heir apparent to the Senate seat vacated by Mel Martinez and his lead was seen as insurmountable as recently as a few months ago. His moderate views have often put him at odds with his party but his decision to run as an independent is a simple political calculation in light of polls showing that he could well lose the August 24 primary to the more conservative Marco Rubio.
It was a move reminiscent of Arlen Specter’s poll-driven “conversion experience.” Opportunism? Maybe. But the tip of an independent iceberg? Hardly.
True, the two major parties are becoming even more polarized, as primary challenges to respected incumbents like Sen. Bob Bennett, Republican of Utah and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, attest. But that doesn’t mean we’re gearing up for a flurry of independent candidates.
Ballot access laws in all 50 states automatically list the Democratic and Republican candidates, while others have to jump through hoops (e.g., paying a fee, petitions with verified signatures, etc.) just to be listed on the ballot. Even the much-hyped Tea Party movement has so far been more influential in endorsing major party candidates than in offering up its own.
Governor Crist can mount a viable campaign as an independent for the same reason Senator Lieberman could. He’s a known commodity with a solid base of supporters who are stunned that their candidate could be treated so shabbily by their respective party establishments.
Just as Senator Lieberman saw many of his colleagues campaign against him when the more liberal Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary, Governor Crist has already been disinherited by the Republican establishment. Even George LeMieux, who was appointed to the Senate by Governor Crist after Mel Martinez resigned last year, won’t support him now. Should Charlie Crist win the election, with which party would he caucus?"
Marjorie Randon Hershey - is a professor of political science and director of the Leadership, Ethics, and Social Action program at Indiana University. She is the author of “Party Politics in America,” now in its 14th edition.
"We prize it as a cultural value, but independence — both among voters and among candidates — is the exception, not the rule. It’s true that about 40 percent of respondents tell poll-takers that they are politically “independent,” and this has been the case for a long time.
Pure independents tend to be less knowledgeable about the candidates, less interested in politics and a lot less likely to vote. Yet just one follow-up question usually reveals that the great majority of these self-professed independents actually lean toward either the Democrats or the Republicans, and these “independent leaners” behave in as partisan a manner in their attitudes and voting behavior as do most party identifiers.
Note that independent voters can still be very important in American elections, even though there aren’t many of them. Most Democratic and Republican identifiers will vote for the candidate of their party, and the proportions of Democrats and Republicans in the American public are relatively balanced; there are more Democratic identifiers than Republicans, but the Republicans are more likely to come out to vote in elections.
As a result, those who are not party-identified, if they swing toward one candidate rather than dividing evenly, may well decide the outcome of a race. That is not always a happy thought; survey research has told us for decades that, contrary to the idealized image of the thoughtful nonpartisan, those who classify themselves as pure independents are less knowledgeable about government and the candidates of the specific election, less interested in politics, and therefore a lot less likely to turn out at the polls than are party identifiers.
Independent candidates are rare as well, and for good reason. It takes a lot more effort and resources to run as an independent, because state legislatures make the rules governing access to the ballot, almost all state legislators are Democrats or Republicans, and in almost every state they make it harder for independents (and especially for minor party candidates) to qualify for the ballot.
And because most voters are partisans, there’s less of a natural constituency for an independent candidate. So we find, as we did with both Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, that support for independent and minor party candidates tends to shrink by Election Day.
Further, I suspect that the experience we’ll have with independent candidacies this year will not encourage candidates’ independence in the long-term.
Both parties have moved farther toward the ideological extremes in recent decades — the Republicans toward the right, the Democrats toward the left. Given that voter turnout in primaries is usually low and dominated by strong partisans, who tend to be more ideologically extreme, it’s standard for candidates to appeal more to their party’s extreme wing in primaries.
But this year we’ve seen some upheavals in the Republican ranks in favor of far-right candidates. Sometimes (as in the case of Crist in Florida), the more moderate Republican has become an independent after being pushed out by the right wing. In other cases (as in the New York 23rd House district last year), it’s been the right-winger who has run as an independent or third-party candidate after the more moderate Republican has been nominated.
In both cases, this divides the Republican vote and gives the Democrat more of a chance to compete. That’s not a situation that will benefit the Republicans in the long run. Ideological purity wins races only when voters value it. In a system where most citizens want both lower taxes and more government services, the value of ideological purity is fairly limited."
Julian E. Zelizer - is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of “Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security From World War II to the War on Terrorism.”
"Charlie Crist’s decision to run as an independent shows a deep frustration that exists among many moderate Republicans. The problem for moderates is that, over the past three decades, both parties have gradually moved farther toward the extremes of the political spectrum.
Historically, the major parties respond to discontents by adjusting their agenda or scaring off the threat. The trend has been especially powerful within the G.O.P. where conservative activists have dominated party decision-making and liberal Northeastern Republican voters have vanished.
The rise of the Tea Party movement has further fueled this “conservativication” of the Republican Party. Without anywhere to go, some members of the party, like Governor Crist, will bolt from their political home when they find it impossible to accept the policy demands made by conservative leaders.
There have been other moments when frustration with a major party spurred movements toward third parties, as happened in the early 20th century when former President Theodore Roosevelt ran as the Progressive Party candidate in 1912 against the conservative policies of Republican President William Howard Taft.
Although there are a few moments when these bursts of independent campaigns turn into something larger, such as the formation of the Republican Party in the 1850s, generally these efforts fizzle.
Historically, one of the major parties responds to the sources of discontent by adjusting their agenda or they exercise their muscle by scaring off the threat. Democrats, for instance, were able to win over many of the progressive Republicans under F.D.R. in the 1930s. Republicans were able to get Sen. John McCain to shed his maverick tendencies after 2000. The fact is that the major parties have the organizational and financial muscle that makes independent challenges difficult to sustain.
More realistic than a new era of independent politicians is the possibility that some Republican leaders attempt to respond to Governor Crist’s decision by creating more space within their party for the homeless center. Otherwise, Republicans will have to confront the very real possibility that conservative Democrats will welcome that vote themselves."
Norman J. Ornstein - is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
"Senator Joe Lieberman plowed the road that Gov. Charlie Crist is now following — a high profile officeholder popular with the middle of the electorate but unable to win over his party’s base, turning instead to an independent candidacy that requires only a third of the voters to hold (or win) a major office.
In the long term, if the two major parties cater increasingly to the fringe elements in their own bases, a revolt will be more attractive. There are differences, of course; Senator Lieberman was denied renomination by Connecticut Democrats to a Senate seat he had long held, while Governor Crist was on a path of defeat for nomination to an open Senate seat he craves. But the similarities are more powerful.
Both are well-connected, well-known and well-financed. Senator Lieberman saw a clear path between a very liberal Democratic nominee and a conservative Republican; with Florida Republicans on a course to nominate a candidate from the right edge of the spectrum, and Democrats ready to nominate a liberal, the middle is also wide open for Governor Crist to compete. In both cases, the election system left time for the candidates to switch to Independent status and be on the ballot in the fall.
Is this the harbinger of a major trend to come? There are other signs of hope for Indies, including Bernie Sanders in Vermont and a history of Independent governors in Maine. But a major trend is doubtful. It is true that the electorate is showing more signs of voters drifting away from firm identification with the two major parties — but most of the drift is not to pure independent status, but to a continued affinity for one party or the other (what we in the trade call “leaners.”)
It takes an unusual combination of circumstances for a candidate to have the name, money and broad appeal to gain enough traction to win statewide or other key offices against well-financed and entrenched candidates from the two major parties. There will undoubtedly be more independent candidacies, but in the near term most will not be coming from the middle but from the edges, like Tea Party insurgents from the right or the new left-wing North Carolina First Party, which was started by the service employees union.
The longer term may be a different story. If the two major parties cater increasingly to the fringe elements within their own bases, as the Republicans are doing with enthusiasm now, the opportunity for a genuine revolt of the middle, with a lot more candidates like Charlie Crist, will be much more apparent and attractive."
David C. King - is a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he is also faculty chair of Harvard’s Executive Program for Newly Elected Members of the U.S. Congress.
"Florida Governor Charlie Crist is a strong politician with a stable base of Republican party moderates in Florida. But while independent and third party candidates occasionally win, the party system is tilted against them.
If the Democrats offer up a pragmatic centrist, the Senate seat will be theirs for the taking. Indeed, there has only been one electorally successful third party, the Republican Party, which challenged the Whig Party’s northern base in 1856 and wiped the Whigs out after the 1860 elections.
There’s a certain logic to two-party dominance, even though third parties have been incubators for good ideas. No matter how many candidates there are in a race, whoever gets the most votes wins. So there’s a strong incentive to form majority-winning coalitions before elections. Notice that this doesn’t happen in “proportional representation” systems, where majority coalitions form after elections.
With the Republican exception in 1860, every significant third party movement in U.S. has been absorbed by the two parties within three electoral cycles.
What of Governor Crist? The Florida Republican party is so deeply divided that the governor has an opening to win — as long as independent-minded Democrats vote for him. That will be a tall order.
Think of this race as similar to the presidential election in 1912 when a much-loved moderate Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, ran as under the Progressive Party banner against his more conservative Republican nemesis, William Taft. The winner? Woodrow Wilson, with just 42 percent of the vote.
If the Democratic party runs too far to the left in this campaign, it will open up space for Governor Crist to win as an independent. But if the Democrats offer up a pragmatic centrist, the Senate seat will be theirs for the taking."
What do you think?
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
