can you say "aisle hoppers"?

[welshTerrier2]

there's been a ton and a half of speculation about what Lieberman will do if he wins the Senate seat ... it's very possible the Senate "scorecard" will end up with 50 Dems, 49 republicans, and Lieberman ... if he votes with the Dems, we control the Senate; if he doesn't, the republicans will control the Senate because Cheney will cast the deciding vote ... should Democrats be worried about Lieberman? the best answer is: maybe ...

one thing worth pondering, if only for a little mental exercise, is the possibility of a new centrist party being formed ... I watched the CT debate yesterday ... Lieberman is happy as a clam bashing Democrats AND bashing republicans as well ... "l'etat c'est moi" ... Joe may just form his own country ... he's just loving freeing himself from all the wrongs that have ever happened and blaming both parties ... "look at me" he says ... "i am the non-partisan voice of reason unlike these other jerks on either side of me." ... what a guy ...

if the vote tally goes as described above, Lieberman could carry considerable clout ... any time he wants, he could jump across the aisle ... and probably back again if he feels like it ... but perhaps this "one man centrist party" is not quite as alone as he might appear ... and perhaps there will never be a third party in the center at all ... the article below raises some interesting points about a different script for the centrists; perhaps instead of a third party, they'll become "aisle hoppers" ...

maybe the most cogent model is one that envisions several aisle hoppers coming towards the Democratic side ... skeptical? well, there are certainly no guarantees ... but consider this ... ideologically, centrists seek a blend of left and right ... they presumably would like to see a less partisan environment especially in the Senate ... if the centrist republicans remain as republicans and the Senate remains in republican control, the result is one party government and that leads to more right-wing extremism ... the balance centrists seek is just not possible with one party control ... so if "tipping the balance" can be effected by republican aisle hoppers, i think it remains a very real possibility ... viewed through that lens, Lieberman may not be quite as relevant as he has seemed ...

and, finally, take note that the seemingly irrelevant republican in the CT Senate race totally dominated yesterday's debate ... neither Lieberman nor Lamont held their own ... Schlesinger has ZERO chance of winning but if he can keep up what he delivered yesterday, he might just hold on to a bunch of his base ... if that happens, Lieberman could be in trouble ... Lieberman needs those republicans to win ...

source: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/10/17/look_out_for_party_switchers.html

Look Out for Party Switchers

The morning after the 1994 election, while Democrats were licking their wounds, they got kicked again when Sen. Richard Shelby announced that he was switching his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Shortly after Shelby's switch, Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell jumped to the GOP side too. In addition, several more House Democrats who were reelected in 1994 from mostly southern states, switched to the GOP making the 1994 election a good old fashioned ass kicking of the Democratic party.

There is a realistic possibility that if the Democrats pick up at least five Senate seats on Election Night, several current Republican Senators could switch to the Democratic side of the aisle. Remember, Shelby switched because he felt Democrats were incapable of moving away from liberalism and Campbell switched because he felt Democrats were beholden to cronyism and did not respect other views among colleagues on issues important to Campbell. In 2006, cronyism is alive and well in the GOP ranks: Arlen Specter is shunned by the GOP leadership and White House for his views on domestic surveillance while Olympia Snowe, John Warner and Chuck Hagel are shunned for their views on Iraq.

[robinlynne]

1. I certainly would not call lieberman a centrist.

[welshTerrier2]

3. i am using the term as follows

trying to position himself in-between the two major parties ...

[robinlynne]

4. oaky, then I'll forgive you.

[pwb]

2. Lieberman says stay the course.. which means he will lose

[Eric J in MN]

5. It should be illegal for a candidate to swtich parties until after...

...he's completed the term he was last elected to.

People who vote or donate to a candidate expecting him to count for one party shouldn't be betrayed.

Of course, it's currently legal for them to switch at any time.

[welshTerrier2]

6. a fascinating topic you've raised ...

probably deserves its own thread ...

i'm not quite sure what to make of your argument ... it's a really tough call ... i can see plenty of good points on both sides ...

consider this argument: it should not be about the rights of individual politicians; it should be about what's best for the country and what best promotes democracy ... for example, we've seen lots of threads and discussions about "limiting free speech" when it comes to campaign ads ... personally, i'd like to restrict ads to just having the individual candidates talking ... i would not allow sinister announcers ("if you elect my opponent, everyone will die"); i would not allow marching bands and aircraft carriers and kissing babies ... none of that serves our democracy ... we should not allow our candidates to be marketed like products ... this stuff is too important to leave to Madison Avenue ... we need to know who these people are and exactly what they'll do if elected ...

but the argument is inevitably made that this would restrict the candidate's rights to free speech ... first, i disagree; let the candidate's say whatever the hell they want to say as long as they're the ones saying it ... and second, it's like the argument about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre ... we should put the country's interests ahead of such nonsense ...

as for not allowing "aisle hopping", that too is a tricky business ... to some extent, it gets back to whether voters are electing a person to represent them or are they electing a party ... there's not necessarily only one answer to that ... it's not clear voters wouldn't support their candidate's switching parties ... i mean, perhaps that's what they would prefer and perhaps not ...

and how far do we take the "campaign promise"? suppose a candidate campaigned loudly and clearly against a war and then turned around and voted for it after getting elected ... should voters have to wait 6 years to vote that senator out of office?

in the end, perhaps the best we could do is switch to a parliamentary system ... or, as a compromise on the party switching issue, maybe a special election should have to be held if an elected official wants to switch parties ... at least then, the voters, not the candidate, would have the final say ...

[Eric J in MN]

7. With regard to free speech,

...a candidate should be free to announce he considers himself a member of another party at any time.

But in terms of his official designation for control of Congress, he shouldn't be allowed to change until after getting the other party's nomination and starting a term having been elected since.

[LeftishBrit]

8. I am in a different (parliamentary) system, so perhaps I see things

differently. I think party-switching as such cannot and should not be prevented. A former cabinet minister, Clare Short, just left the Labour Party to become Independent and I support her actions, given what the Labour Party has become.

I think that party leaders have too much power in our system, and the possibility of party-switching is one of the counterbalances to this. Also, in the UK, we tend, at least recently, to have trouble with excessive majorities for the winning party (disproportionate to its share of the vote) and sometimes independence and party-switching can counteract this.

I am not saying that party-switching does or should happen continually in the UK, but it's an occasional significant feature of our system. Winston Churchill had switched parties twice by the time he became PM.

I am thinking of party-switches mainly in terms of rebellion against major leadership changes or fundamental changes in a party's direction. Switching parties simply to go with the majority or selling yourself to the highest bidder, are not ethical or democratic actions.