Until and unless the election system is reformed to remove the “good old boys only� clauses we’re probably mostly stuck with the donkey and the elephant.

And, unfortunately, those same good ol boys are making the rules that continue to make it harder for independants.

As the Texas article I read mentioned, the main reason why there are more independents running is because the Republican is running unopposed – the petition to get on the ballot has to contain 46,000 signatures *from people who did not vote in any primary*

That means in any race where there are 2 or more significant candidates in each party, the pool of potential petitioners for any independent is much smaller.

I’m sure similar or worse situations exist in many other states and municipalities, and also if I recall the presidential race also has a pretty high barrier for independents and third party canadidates.

Until and unless the election system is reformed to remove the “good old boys only” clauses we’re probably mostly stuck with the donkey and the elephant.

The problem here is money and organization network — unless the Independent candidate is independently wealthy and willing to finance their own campaign — an average Independent candidate is going to be unsuccessful.

Back in the late ’50s, the Hobson electorate (the very northernmost bit) elected one Vernon Cracknell who became a very “profitable” member for the region. In his six years in office (two terms) there was more roading and other government works carried out in the region than in the previous thirty years. Vern was actually elected on a Social Credit ticket, but was the only representative of a third party elected since the 1930’s.

With the introduction of MMP (as disctinct from FPP) we now have some 6 “minor” parties in the House, four of which are represented as part of the government itself – allied in various ways to Auntie Helen’s mob.

Is the Vern example a good thing? Yes and no. Would a government of “independants” last? They would go before lunch – if only because individual electoral demands (euphemism for “I want to have power and continuance”) would get in the way of cooperation and progress…

Is the MMP example the way to go? It is certainly better than FPP. It would be an impossibility for the US for as long as you have your present Presidential system. If the President were elected from within the House and Senate structure then MMP might be a goer.