Why can’t Independents make up their mind?

Question

We have a two party system that works just fine, why do they feel we need another? I just don’t get it!!!

Answer 1

Friend, I don't think you actually feel that way. People need to stop rooting for "the team" and start listening and making decisions based on the individual. I may vote Republican on many issues, but I absolutely do not agree with every point. The same with the Democrat point of view. I think when we get down to a real level with people, we find that most would classify themselves as "moderate" in this direction or "tendencies" in that direction--all of which is independent thinking. We should all be able to agree that that is a good thing for our nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my voice.

Answer 2

I think we need to have Independents and other third-parties in order to keep the other two honest. Great change has spawned from the breakdown and evolution of political parties. The Republican party's formation during the 1850s and subsequent split of Democratic party into northern and southern factions produced President Abraham Lincoln. The word "independent" means having an open mind toward presidential candidates and toward the political process in general. Unfortunately, Independents are unable to make up their open mind when asked to choose between two like-minded, uninspiring dolts for President. Let us compare the elections of the 1990s with those of this decade.

Independent H. Ross Perot, while not gaining a single electoral vote in the 1992 and 1996 elections, gained 18.9% and 9% of the popular vote, respectively. Funding his campaign largely out of his own pocket, he ran on his own ideas rather than those of large corporate sponsors. Corporate and media interests have since denigrated third-party candidates to obscurity, while Republican and Democratic strongholds have emerged in the South and Northeast, respectively. One judges a candidate's ability to connect with the middle-class not necessarily by much wealth they possess, but by their motives and their ability to ignore big interests for the sake of their own platform. Ross Perot did this, and in doing so bettered the other two candidates.

Unfortunately, he haven't had an Independent "filter" in recent elections. Al Gore and George Bush were the first two presidential candidates to receive over 50 million votes. Rather than demonstrating their strength as candidates (neither was a great choice at the time), this shows the concentration of political power in a two-party system which awards the best campaigner rather than the best-qualified candidate. Though one would want the "Commander in Chief" and "Leader of the Free World" to be ready for the task at hand, neither Gore nor Bush appeared ready. The 2004 election was much of the same: independents were unconvinced by John F. Kerry's readiness, leaving George W. Bush as the president-elect by default. (Interestingly, the 2nd-term president was certainly not ready for a major disaster at hand.)

I enjoy the primaries, where we place our hopes in a multitude of fresh faces and any number of combinations can become the Republican and Democratic tickets. But once the general election cycle kicks off, it boils down to a "mano a mano" competition between two political powerhouses. Though it is true that we can have only one President of the United States, why should we spent a full 9 months (between Super Tuesday and election Tuesday) pulling back and forth between a mere two choices? Because the gap between Primary and General elections is the biggest ever in 2008, the media will be playing the longest game of tug-of-war ever waged. Independents will refrain from deciding their President until election day, secretly wishing for a third candidate to enter the frame and mix things up again...

Answer 3

it's not that we can't make a decision. In fact, we may be the most honest voters of them all. We don't blindly ask stupid questions about why every single person of the opposing party behaves a certain way, or believes in this issue, or wants to steal this right away from our party.

We focus on issues when we vote. We don't throw our vote away on our party's candidate if we don't believe in them, simply as a way to thumb our nose at the other party.

Answer 4

You think that the two party system is just fine?

Democons and Republicrats have ruled for many years and ruined this nation due to their thirst for power.

Most Americans are Independent and have some Conservative and Liberal views.

Nothing is entirely "Black and White".

There are many shades of grey my friend.

Answer 5

Pardon me? As a registered Independent it isn't due to a lack of decision making. It is due to not wanting to be part of a corrupt 2 party system. But still wanting to participate.

Answer 6

You can have BOTH of those bottom feeding parties. Speaking as a true Independent, we look at issues, not parties. Your all-or-none mentality is the problem we all are forced to deal with.

Answer 7

The two-party system is really one party with two names, and it does not work "just fine." Hence, the need for a third party.

Answer 8

Simply, I am not loyal to one party. I look at the issues and the candidates, not what the letter behind their name is. This is making up my mind, as I don't follow blindly one party or another.

Answer 9

Maybe because when given the choice of being burned alive or boiled in oil, independents are kind of hoping for a third and less painful option.

Answer 10

Because both parties have failed us. Until a large majority of Americans vote for a third party, we are doomed to make the same mistakes. But, it has to start somewhere, which is why I am switching to Libertarian.