Posted by
Pasadena Phil on Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:39:26 PM
Anyone who has followed this blog for the past year should be familiar with my argument that our two-party system cannot survive much longer, at least not with these two parties. Combined registrations for both parties had already shrunk from 78% about ten years ago to 58% as of November 2004. That number is now lower but just try getting the real number.
Is it fair to say, as I have been arguing, that in a "two-party" system, the Republicans' 25.7% share no longer qualifies for "major party" status? Is the Democrats' 32% that much better when more than two-thirds of all voters are not members of the leading party? Headed into an election year where both parties seem on a path to nominate two very unpopular liberal clones by February 5, is it also fair to say that the opportunity is now at hand where one of these failing and non-representive parties will be knocked out?
To start this election campaign so early has proven to be a big mistake. Nothing has been accomplished but to demonstrate how rigid and "bought" both parties are. It was also a mistake to bunch up the primaries so close together. Not only did it compel some states to re-schedule earlier, it has created a nine-month window for independent candidates to wage viable populist campaigns to attract the vast pool of disenfranchised voters. Nine months is an eternity.
Not that I believe any of these candidates could win, but all it would take would be for a Ron Paul to garner 15 to 20% and a couple of others like McCain/Lieberman (5-10%) and Hunter (5-10%) and suddenly we are looking at the winner having to split 65-75% of the vote. Having either Hillary or Rudy winning a close race with 38% of the vote or less would mean that they won an election where two-thirds or more of all voters voted against them. That is not the result a two-party system is supposed to produce. In a parliamentarian system, you get a run-off election. Here, you get a lame duck. It would represent an utter systemic failure brought about by the usurpation of the process by special-interest globalist money.
As kooky as that scenario may have sounded a year ago when McCain was the prohibitive favorite, amnesty was a done deal and the Iraq war was hopelessly lost, that very scenario is now taking shape. Today, Matt Towery makes a compelling case in his column "The Ron Paul Factor" for how Paul might influence the outcome. No, Ron Paul is not going to be the GOP nominee. I never thought his campaign for the GOP nomination was anything but a prelude to staging an independent run by gaining name recognition and momentum. Ross Perot had a standing start in 1992 and garnered 19% of the vote. With a running start and against such unpopular opponents, why couldn't Ron Paul at least match Perot's 19%? People were not as fed up in 1992 as they are today.
In the absence of strong favorites, what is going to stop other viable independent candidates from running? If you think you are sick of Hillary and Rudy already, just think how sick you'll be of them after February 5th and staring at the prospect of another nine months of these guys. Nine months is an eternity for a Ron Paul, John McCain and Duncan Hunter to stage credible campaigns against such distasteful and flawed opponents.
Get ready for it. It's going to be a wild year in 2008. We may be headed for an electoral college crisis followed by Congress determining who the lame duck president will be for the next four years. Could the end be at hand for one of these "major" parties? I hope so. We desperately need a second party.