In several states, which have had a historical preference for
one corporate party or the other, such as North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and
Oregon, those changes are already underfoot. Within the next 14 years (or
sooner), those states will have Independent majorities. Other states following
closely on the same track include Florida, New Jersey, and the upper
Northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
While some pollsters and pundits like to pretend that
Independents are merely "homeless" voters or individuals who are
uncertain about which party they should to belong, choosing instead to be Independent
while leaning to the Republicans or Democrats. This couldn't be further from
In fact, they come to those questionable conclusions based on
biased worded questions designed to create a false positive answer toward one
or the other party; taking the lazy approach of lumping them in with one party
or the other instead of treating Independents as the separate political
demographic that they are.
So, just what is an
Independent? Many Independents are former moderates/centrists who were purged
out of one or the other corporate owned party by the extremists within that
particular party. Independents are, by nature, not extremists. They also can't
be pigeonholed, which frustrates the Status Quo.
They are interested in practical and rational solutions to problems, not lockstep dogma. In short, they like to think for themselves. I imagine most of us were the troublemakers who always asked questions you encountered from school all grown up now and still asking questions.
An Independent wants a realistic solution regardless of where
that solution comes from. Those who follow partisan dogma will accept the
"solution" offered by their party, no matter how outrageous that
"solution" is. To make matters more complex, both parties are owned
by corporate money, and thus, so is their solution.
There's no questioning that.
Their lobbyists "contribute" to legislation (which is obviously
meant to benefit them). They "advise" legislators. They help get
legislation passed. Those who go along are rewarded, financially and otherwise.
Is it any wonder that the majority of former legislators work for lobbying
Thus the "solutions" presented by partisan
politicians are by definition designed to benefit corporate interests, not our
interests. Independents, as a whole, reject this. They want solutions which
benefit society first and foremost. Generally speaking, Independents prefer
policies and laws which promote fiscal responsibility which protecting
individual liberties. They seek a
In terms of foreign policy, the majority of Independents prefer diplomacy
over military action. However, they will support the latter if all efforts at a
peaceful resolution have been exhausted. As an aside, most Independents support
global trade while protecting American jobs. They also believe in keeping our
noses out of other country's internal affairs and wars over resources.
Now, let's discuss Open Primaries, Ranked Choice Voting, and other changes which are likely come along with the rise of Independents. The majority of these are aimed to help make elections more fair (and honest) by creating a level playing field and giving everyone a voice.
Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting, now the bane of
Republicans and Democrats bosses, will likely be a matter of fact in all 50 states.
Currently, in 30 states, they are already a matter of law.
Open Primaries allow anyone not registered as a Democrat,
Republican, or to another party, to choice which, if any, partisan primary
to vote in. Why would that happen? Simply this. Taxpayer dollars pay for
Republican and Democrat primaries. Yelp, you read that right. Your tax dollars pay
for both partisan primaries.
If you're an
Independent or member of a third party, that means your tax dollars go to a
strictly partisan political event without either your consent or ability to
participate in. Doesn't exactly sound like a "representative
democracy" to me. Does it to you? Then again, we're not. We're a
Corporatocracy led by Oligarchs.
Here's another thought for you. Even if you're registered
with one or the other corporate owned political parties, under our current
"winner take all" system, that means if your party loses, your
political views aren't represented for the duration of that individuals terms
the way it would in a parliamentary system, yet you get to continue paying
taxes for policies and legislation you don't support.
To add salt to the wound, given the current use of political
gerrymandering and in the absence of term limits, it means that the opposing
party is likely to hold that seat for as long as they want (incumbents have a
98% reelection rate, which is higher than the Chinese Communist Central
Committee and Politburo of 62%). As far as they are concerned, you can move;
leave your home and your neighborhood. Not exactly fair is it?
Other changes coming to the political landscape (whether the party
bosses and their corporate masters like it or not) could include term limits.
Our Founding Fathers never intended on holding public office to be a lifetime
job (in fact, they didn't even think they should be paid; it was considered to
be a civil duty).
In a 2020 poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates, a Republican
polling firm, found that 82% of all Americans favored a Constitutional
amendment setting a fixed term of office for elected office holders. 52% of
Americans also thought that Supreme Court Justices should also have set tenure
on the High Court.
Of course, politicians and the folks pulling their strings,
strongly oppose any attempt to replace their puppets. They'll use every trick
and lie they can come up with, and why not? Tenure means more power which means
more money. It also means having someone who jump when they're told to jump. Do
you think they're going to give that up willingly? No. But term limits benefits
us. It reduces the opportunity for corruption. It also means we'll see more
fresh new ideas. Innovation is something that we are woefully lacking in
We should expect to see partisan gerrymandering ended. For
those who don't know what that is, partisan gerrymandering allows a given party
to redraw district lines to ensure that their party keeps a specific seat. It's
how we get these unnatural looking districts whose neighborhoods and
communities have little or nothing in common with each other except having the
right number of partisan voters. It's why some neighborhoods get things done
for them while other neighborhoods get squat.
Communities could stay and grow together.
The hardest change will be financial, and that includes
Citizens United. Citizens United came about in 2010; the result of an ill
considered Supreme Court decision. It decided that corporations were de facto
"individuals" and thus, had the same rights as you and I. It further
held that money was "free speech". Thus, supporters declared it a First Amendment
victory. However, it was anything but.
Corporations are artificial creations. A legal fiction. Those
who are employed do not get a vote on where the money goes. That's done by the
board of directors. Secondly, corporations aren't capped on the amount of money
they give while you and I are. Naturally, corporations can donate millions
compared to the insignificant amount working class individuals and small
business donors can give.
Even unions can't compete. Typically, for every dollar a
union gives a candidate or issue, a single corporation will give five dollars
(not to mention there are far fewer unions than corporations). Thus, Citizens United
not only distorted the intent of the First Amendment, it effectively eliminated
citizens from having a voice.
Additionally, it made running for office so prohibitive
expensive, only the wealthy need apply. It's worth noting that many legal
scholars have acknowledged that Citizens United was a huge mistake since it all
but removed ordinary citizens from the election process.
It's doubtful that either option will be adopted. Even if it
were, "dark money" would continue to filter in and
"unofficially" back certain candidates. The only viable option is to
remove corporate money---direct and indirect--- altogether from politics.
Limiting all contributions to individual donors only, and then, capping the
amount to keep billionaires and millionaires from buying candidates and
elections as they do now.
Other likely changes will include eliminating ballot access
restrictions. That means requiring the same number of signatures to get on a
ballot. For instance, a Republican or Democrat might only need three, while an
Independent or third party candidate might need hundreds...or thousands for the
same seat! Also, requiring that all
candidates on the ballot be eligible to participate in public debates, which
doesn't happen now.
Citizen initiatives or referendums are prohibited or
restricted in a few, most backward, states (Kentucky comes to mind). I guess
they're afraid of voters. Nevertheless, we, as citizens, have the right to
express our opinion in the form of placing a question on the ballot for
everyone to decide. We don't need the "permission" of legislators
trying to protect their turf.
On a personal note, along those same lines, I think the
voters should have the final say on tax, fee, or rate increases, as well as
salary increases for anyone elected to office. Politicians have long shown they
can't manage our money. We know what we can and can't afford. Damn few
politicians have ever met a tax or rate increase they didn't like. It's our tax
dollars, therefore, it should be our decision.
They've tried to divide us at every turn in the hopes that
our manufactured anger will be directed toward each other and because they
believe they control all the levers of power, we can be controlled or
distracted. Independents are, by nature,
not likely to be controlled or manipulated by anyone, especially out of touch
millionaire politicians or the media. We
ask questions. We do our own research, and to the utter horror of the Status
Quo, we think for ourselves. We speak our mind without worrying whose sacred
silk slippers we step on.