THE lines are drawn between two national political parties; just read each political party platform. There one finds the big differences on major policy issues: pro-life or pro-choice (for or against Roe v. Wade), for or against universal health care, less income taxes or fair progressive income taxes, more or less government regulation of Wall Street, and more or less military spending. Clearly, each party contains differing viewpoints on each of those crucial matters.

For analytical reasons (and perhaps media created distinctions), the Republican Party is represented by the color red for conservative, and the Democratic Party is blue for liberal. Obviously, the committed members of these two identifiable partisan groups are not necessarily going to determine the outcome of the election on Nov. 6. Even if all the members of the two political parties vote for their candidate, there is still a large number of voters identified as independent or undeclared, and therefore not committed to one party or the other.

Many voters are in the middle of the political spectrum; they often are indifferent to the main issues, and they certainly are motivated for a hundred different reasons not easily understood. The most basic aspect of personal voting behavior lies in the evaluations of the character and personality of the candidates; those voters often determine the outcomes in elections, and they may be the most important in the coming general election this year.

In my view, this significant number defines the election outcome. The undetermined electorate will consider the last three years of congressional gridlock. As we all know, bipartisanship has declined in this Congress. There are few members of the Democratic Party and a fewer number in the Republican Party who will work together.

As of this time, independents are the voters focusing on their individual understanding of the strategy of obstruction. Those voters and their particular perspectives of the GOP congressional leadership and their announced plan "to defeat Barack Obama" at all costs becomes a significant factor in each of the congressional district elections.

For the majority of the House of Representatives (all 435), and for the members most identified with the gridlock (Tea Party members), they are facing the doubts of the independents. Those incumbent members most identified with the strategy of obstruction may be in jeopardy of losing their seats. The notables most identified with the nasty strategy of gridlock in the House of Representatives: 7th District VA Eric Cantor, 1st District WI Paul Ryan (GOP vice presidential candidate), and Majority Leader 6th District OH John Boehner. Also, the obstruction in the U.S. Senate is widely known. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has led a record number of filibusters to stop worthwhile recovery legislation. Republicans deliberately vowed to defeat Obama in the 2012 election; thus their main reason for not compromising with the president.

In my opinion, the fallout from this “worst Congress” ever – for not getting more done for economic recovery – provides us a view of voter rebellion. The chances are good for a turnaround. Some might call it a backlash, but the polls indicate a favorable outcome for those who worked hard for the legislation providing solutions to the financial collapse in 2007 to 2008.

President Obama has laid the foundations for economic recovery with the Recovery Act of 2009. In addition, he presented Congress with a jobs bill and a proposal to keep the existing low income tax system for everyone earning up to $250,000. This tax proposal would raise the upper-end earners to a higher (or progressive) tax on their individual income. Thus, the President is asking for a fair share from the Warren Buffet crowd. That’s certainly not unreasonable.