Forum Post: How to get a third party into office next election
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 4, 2012, 10:34 p.m. EST by Shayneh
(-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have been thinking about this for awhile and I think I have the answer to the problem of getting a 3rd party candiate into office.
If you think about how we talk about candidates we "name tag" them. In other words we call them Dems or Repubs. Well, when you continually do this like anything else you associate them with that name and all the people associated with that party.
Well we need to stop doing that. Instead of saying that Obama is a liberal Dem or Romney is a right wing conservative instead just call the person a "candidate" without labeling him to a party.
So here we have candidate Obama who leans towards using government as a way to provide people with a means of getting back to work.
On the other hand we have candidate Romney who thinks the best way to put people back to work is to expand small business.
So, when you use the word "candidate" it takes away the label and the focus is more on the candidate and what they stand for rather then associating them with a label that encompases not only them but everyone with the same "name" tag.
Doing this has the potentiial to "individualize" the individual and places te focus on the person instead of the party.
What's your thoughts on this concept?
Democrats and republicans will do whatever it takes to ruin the credibility of other parties or individuals.
I used to believe that it's the person not the party. But over the years I find that knowing the party who gets the president elected is a good predictor of what the elected president will do in the future. I don't want to spam this topic with issues, princibles, special interest and elites of the big two political parties. I don't feel either party respresents me. So I plan to vote a protest vote for someone I know isn't going to win. And I have thoughts of leaving the USA.
Lets say that people start doing this - do you know how much of an effect it could have on getting the "right" person into office instead of people that the media wants to get into office. I think it could happen.
It will also take away the "anger factor".
30% arent registered. of those that are, 47million are indies, 42million are dems, and 38million are repubs.
Half the population doesnt vote. Of those that do, near half are ready for different options.
So, how hard would it be to start getting the word out to do it this way. I think people would be open to doing it - do you know if it has ever been tried?
I haven't and think it would work - it's like anything else - educating people into thinking this way - remove the label.
It all starts with the individual. We had a discussion a ways back at OccTampa about "What was the future of OCcTampa"...I said its about what is the future of you (pointing to them all). It all starts with the individual.
Get your thoughts on paper, get some print done up, and hit the streets. Intersections are best for this, lots of reach. Get someone to do up a press release for you, send it out to all the print, radio and tv stations in your area, notifying about the time you are going to be doing it, and also notifying you are available for interviews.
If someone says they want to help, tell them the best way to help is to find two more people who want to help.
It all starts with you dude. How much, and how hard are you willing to work?
You are right - it does start with the individual - so the question that has to be asked is - what is the best method for getting this out to people -
Word of mouth is a start - encourage people you know - whom they know - blogging, texting, tweeting, facebooking - that's a start.
The one thing about looking at a candidate as a candidate instead of an enemy, this way of doing it - it's not off the wall - it's sounds practical and if it does work it will get more people involved without being "pissed off" because there will be nothing to divide people-
Thats why the media pushes labels and parties so much. That way, one person can do something, and you can attack the whole group. Its a total scam.
Until the people decide enough is enough, its only going to get worse for everyone. Usually, by the time the SHTF its too late.
So do you think this might work if everyone starts doing it - is it possible that over time people will do away with labeling candidates but instead focus on what they say or have to offer?
Honestly, the people will do whatever the TV tells them to do. The TV is controlled by the establishment, hence their banning of all other people in anything political debate oriented.
So honestly, it could happen. But its going to take groups of people getting a reach that is more than the TV. I believe the demand is there from the general population, but unless its put in front of them, it stops there.
Please don't blame the commercial mass media. When you run a presidential campaign, you have to get funding and spend a lot of money on ADVERTISING. When you buy enough airtime you will see talk and information about a serious candidate, such as Ross Perot - at least until he betrayed his supporters by bailing out.
Paris Hilton puts a bump in her hair- one year later, all the girls have a bump.
Jersey Shore starts fist pumping- one year later, its everywhere.
Apple announces the new Iphone 5- just another phone- lines overnight.
The media puts a topic out, the chat rooms automatically fill up with the debate.
The propaganda machine runs through TV dude. Its very powerful stuff. Its why commercials with a big reach are so expensive.
No one gets the money for political airtime without selling out. Unless they are already rich and out of touch.
What you are talking about is "social media" and the vast majority of the younger generation is "hooked" on it.
A recent survey showed that most of the younger generation always have to be in touch someway or some how because that is their social outlet - So, sure a vast majority can be persuaded - how do you change that?
Well there's only one way to find out and that's to inform people to start doing it - I think that it could work - people are tired of labels and the time may be "ripe" for this to start happening.
I'll be willing to bet if you talk to people you know to encourage them to try this it may catch on.
How hard was it for the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to get started:
The Democratic Party emerged in the 1830s, consisting of those who supported Pres Andrew Jackson against his opponents, who then called themselves "National Republicans" and later "Whigs."
Democrats often claimed a longer ancestry as supposed heirs of the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson, but this claim is tenuous as many former Jeffersonians became Whigs
So, as you can see it was conceived by individuals who had their reasons for doing it.