1-on-1
This head to head competition provides most people a simplified way to identify and streamline their own personal beliefs, and it helps to more easily sum up and convey these beliefs to others. For example, if I were to say, "I'm a Conservative Republican," most people would assume that I hold a Pro-Life stance on the issue of Abortion and believe in protecting traditional marriage. Likewise, when someone claims to support a Liberal candidate, I call to mind the platform of the Democratic party, and it helps me surmise their general outlook on various issues.
However, in hopes of widening their appeal to both sides, we have seen a "land rush" of politicians running to the middle ground, eroding their once-hardline stances on social and economic issues. The apparent mediocrity and lukewarm nature of such candidates has opened the electoral playing field to a new type of contender. Coming from the outside of the two-party system, the rogue, Independent candidate, wells up from splinter-cell Parties or perhaps as a lone-wolf "fortunaire," eager to shed some light on an otherwise dim ballot.
The free-spirited and eternally optimistic sides of me often yield a flicker of interest whenever someone sets themselves apart from the so-called "Corporate" politicians. I've always admired those figures who will persevere toward the prize, no matter the opposition - the ones that are so driven by their own convictions and aspirations that nothing can dissuade them. These guys and gals are in the race for the long-haul, and not just for the fortune and glory.
Yes, No, or Maybe?
But, in this case, life does not imitate art, and for the most part, these "alternative" candidates usually end up offering no more than a third bubble on the ballot sheet, and in the past, have caused a good deal of mayhem to the Presidential election process. The most effective independent in recent history was Ross Perot, during the 1992 election. The Democrats had sent up Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton to threaten the incumbent Republican, George Bush in the general election. Bush was enjoying a warm wave of public opinion following the successful military campaign, which removed the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and many felt confident that Bush would ride that wave to another four years in the White House.
However, the smooth-talking sax player from Hope had a few cards up his sleeve, as well, and the campaign began to look like an evenly matched, Heavy-weight bout. But when a dark horse billionaire from Texas threw his cowboy hat in the ring, things went haywire. For the first time in recent history, voters began to feel hopeful in supporting an alternative candidate, and the traditional Red vs. Blue battle lines turned to purple. Ross Perot captured the attention of American voters like no other outsider had in a very long time. His confrontational attitude and exhaustive library of financial pie charts led to an upheaval of the delegation process. No longer would voters feel constrained by only two choices, and many of them took that opportunity to voice their criticism of the two-party system...nearly 20 million people (or about 19% of the entire vote), in fact.
By the Numbers
Given the structure of America's Electoral College system, Perot's 19% earned him virtually no claim to the presidency. He never won a majority of a state's popular vote, and it's fair to say that he would have been easily defeated even if he had somehow won the candidacy of either major party. However, by examining the state-by-state breakdown of votes, there is good evidence that Perot greatly tipped the scales in favor of Clinton. Perot, although liberal on much of his platform, somehow appealed to moderate Republicans more than moderate Democrats. It is fair to surmise, then, that a good portion of those votes could have gone to Bush, had Perot not been in the race.
Consider the breakdown of the popular vote for the entire nation: Clinton won about 45 million votes, and Bush took just over 39 million - a difference of 6 million, i.e. a landslide. Perot came in, as previously mentioned, nearly 20 million. However, percentage-wise, we're left with an odd, non-decisive breakdown. Clinton 43%, Bush 37%, Perot 19%. So, we're saying that far less than 1/2 of voting Americans wanted Clinton to be the President? That doesn't seem right.
But, we're looking at the election, "sans-Perot" so why don't we take the electoral votes from the 11 states that Clinton won by 5% or less, and swing them over to Bush.
NJ, OH, GA, LA, TN, KY, CO, NV, MT, WI, NH = 107 Votes.
Clinton originally had 370, so that puts him at 263
Bush originally had 168, so that puts him at 275.
Take the third-party candidate out, and you might be left with a very different outcome.
2008
So, "Why did we just spend all this time talking about an election that happened over 15 years ago?" Good question. The reason my brain got wrapped around this subject and compiled all this opinionated data is the current media hoopla surrounding the possibility of an independent candidate jumping into this year's Presidential election.
One such candidate, New York City Mayor - Michael Bloomberg, has been conducting independent research to determine what success he might see in an Independent campaign for the White House. And, he has developed a growing crowd of supporters. http://www.runmikerun.com/ http://draftmichael.com/ , not to mention the mainstream media, who has been promoting the idea since the last election.
After once switching sides from the Democrats, Bloomberg once again abruptly jettisoned his alignment last year, this time to the Republican party, but balked at returning to his former allegiance. Instead, he's forged a staunchly independent platform and bi-partisan prerogative, albeit, still based on his moderate-liberal ideology. Like Perot, Bloomberg is also independently wealthy, and some experts speculate he could spend an unfathomable amount on his bid, upwards of a billion dollars.
Personal opinions on Bloomberg's politics aside, a casual observer could be encouraged once again by the entrance of yet another third-party candidate to this year's election. And, with a seemingly flaccid field of Republicans and Democrats from which to choose, the passive voter might err on the side of rogue. However, Bloomberg is hardly a "dark horse" candidate, and it is all too possible that his successes in NYC and center-of-the-road appeal could pull a large portion of votes from both the Left and the Right. But, would his effect on the 2008 election mirror that of Perot in '92? Could the US be once again given a President who did not win a substantial majority of the popular vote? Or, would Bloomberg's campaign even lead him to win the electoral votes of a states or two, denying all three candidates of the 270 votes needed for election? One definite notion is that in a one-on-one fight, there is only one winner. And, considering the razor-thin margin of victory of several previous elections, a third party would definitely tip the scales unfairly in one direction. Whether it's to the Right, Left, or somewhere else is anyone's guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment