Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: STRATEGIES NEEDED: New Two-Party Alliance to oust Democrats & Republicans

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 18, 2013, 6:04 p.m. EST by MarioGA2012 (3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Brothers and sisters of the struggle, i'm writing with ideas of a new election strategy. We must occupy elections with a new two-party system. This is not an endorsement of any party, but a request for brainstorming ideas in an effort to unseat Democrats and Republicans nationwide and restore integrity in government.

The status quo, the Democrat-Republican establishment, and Beltway bureaucrats have deprived the U.S. of modern solutions for the myriad of modern issues facing us. Tea Party & Ron/Rand Paul activists have correctly identified a split within the Republican Party, just as Ralph Nader's Green Party did in 2000. These two evidently opposing ideologies nonetheless have many things in common: decreasing defense spending, halting the drug war, strengthening the First and Fourth Amendments, and perhaps most importantly - shared loathing of the current two-party system which has now proved itself entirely untrustworthy and unable to govern.

Based on these commonalities and using joint strategies to appear on ballots and hold events, I believe fundamental reform is possible through mass rejection of Democrats and Republicans, beginning at the local and state levels, and the election of representatives from a new two-party system, Green and Libertarian. Strategies and feedback are needed, please.

37 Comments

37 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Principals not parties. The same strategy for conducting the building of social movement for article V can work to create TESTS for politicians. Only those that consent to being tested and do well get any votes.

The tests are to determine the basic constitutionality of the politician.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Libertarians are nothing but repelicans - often of an extreme nature.

That said, it may be possible to elect libertarians who lean further left than their campaign would suggest, in select districts where the demographic is hardcore red.

Generally it is inadvisable to attempt to take over both parties at the same time. Identify the weakest links, district by district, identify and highlight incumbent lies and present demographically acceptable alternatives.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

they are they "hip" pot smoking republicans. ha ha ha. literally. if you find a pot smoking conservative chances are they identify as a libertarian.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

sounds like dumb and dumber

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Well, there goes the Green party.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The problem is NOT the two party system.
attacking the two party system, using a third party gave us bush.

The problem is who OWNS the two party system.
Parties are not the problem. Parties are not the solution.
severing democracy from capitalism is the real answer
PEOPLE are the answer
Make it illegal for any non-citizen to contribute anything to any pol
Make it illegal for any citizen to contribute more that $1000 to any pol see
HJR29
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

a 2 party system is easier to manipulate than a multiparty system

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I maintain that if ONLY humans can contribute to candidates up to $1000,
and only candidates can spend money on their own campaign, the "manipulation" would be minimal no matter how many parties there are

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the corp own the media

does media attention really have much to do with how much a candidate can pay for advertisement ?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Under "my" HJR29 plan, that is a good point.
With people giving the most money directly to the most popular candidates, this might be ameliorated. Parties - as corporations - would be excluded from donating or spending so a candidate from party X will be on a (mostly) level playing field with D & R

$ ▬► citizen ▬►candidate ▬►media

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

politicians doesn't need money for the nightly news spots

they need connections

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I understand your point - I dont see any easy or quick fix
but leveling the playing field for candidates is the first step

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I'm not sure how restricting money to candidates will help

if most publicity is not determined by it

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

since we are talking about "publicity" not advertising, I agree. If candidate A has a rally with an hour speech & 25,000 audience
and candidate B issues a one page press release,
how can the press treat this equally?

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Yes, silly rabbit. Remember H.Ross? What other third-party candidates from elections past can you name (besides Nader)?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I'd have to say elections, voting in a system of opposing parties is the problem. It's false democracy like any system we criticize for lacking democracy. Not only is it a complete scam, we waste way too much resources in the process. If you ask me I would say Obama was destined to be the President before the public knew who he was. That's just a guess, but a smooth part of the scam.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

A few words on political parties from George Washington.

"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If you seriously consider my proposal above, what happens to political parties - as corporations that cannot get or spend or donate political money?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Over 10 million registered democrats voted for Bush yet you focus on a few thousand people that would never have voted for Gore in the first place.

The real reason Bush won - CORRUPTION MONEY IN POLITICS

The reason it was bush v gore in the first place was because of corporations buying politicians and funding campaigns.

You want people to blame for Bush? Blame republicans. Blame the supreme court. Blame corruption. Blame the corporate takeover.

Nader is fucking awesome. Creator of OSHA and so much more. He is a champion of workers rights. Your assault on people like Nader is bullshit spin propaganda. The people that vote for Nader generally do so because they know the 2 party system is venal for banks and corporations.

But go ahead and keep propagandizing for people funded by Goldman Sachs. How much did Bush and Obama vote to give Goldman Sachs? I know it was over 10 billion and that was just in 2008.

Get the money out of politics was the only accurate part of your comment.

You think I would have voted for Obama or Romney if there wasn't a third option? I wouldn't have voted for either of those fucks if they were the only 2 options. I'm the type of person that votes third party. Go ahead and blame me for Bush even though I didn't vote for him. I'll just blame you for your voting record that lead to Goldman Sachs being propped up by taxpayers and endless war.... and child soldiers being armed by US dollars and weapons in foreign countries. Because the person you voted for participates in that. I voted for someone who didn't want to do any of those things.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

██████░████░..█░░░░█░.█████░░██████░██████░█████
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░██░░░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░█░█░░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░░░░░█░░█░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░.██..░█░..░██░█░░░░█ ░█████░░██████░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░█░░░░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░█░░░░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░█░░░░█
██████░████░..█░░░░█.░█████░░█░░░░█░██████░█████

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Ignorance is your forte

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If your post is full of personal attacks & lies you will be


██████░████░..█░░░░█░.█████░.░█████░-██████░█████
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░██░░░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░█░░░.█
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░█░█░░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░░░░░█░░█░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░.░█-░█░░░░░░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░.-██░█░..░██░█░░░░█ ░█████░░██████░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░█░░░░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░.░█-░█░░░░░░█░░░░█
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░█░░░░█░█░░░░█ ░█░░░░█░█░░░░░░█░░░.█
██████░████░..█░░░░█.░█████░░█░░░░█░██████░█████

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

if you can point out ONE lie in my previous comment, I will never comment on your democrat propaganda posts ever again.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"Your assault on people like Nader is bullshit spin propaganda"
This is a lie or it is not
I contend that if Nader did not run, that Gore would have won.
Is that the truth?


FYI - I could not care what you say to prove me wrong, but slamming me & using vulgarity helps nothing. I assaulted no one.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

It is false because all the people that voted for Nader would have voted for another 3rd party candidate.

When you push spin propaganda, you are insulting everyone.

Blaming Nader for Bush is spin propaganda designed to destroy liberal organizations outside of the 2 party system. That's all there is to it.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

look at it this way

If Bush didn't run, would the republicans have voted for Gore or would they have voted for the republican running in his place?

You forget about logic when you blame Nader.

[-] 1 points by MarioGA2012 (3) 1 year ago

State and local elections are a must! This kind of strategy can only work at the state and local levels before it even makes a blip on the national screen.

The beauty of modern & social media is that ideas can take hold and spread much easier.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Just dont make the mistake that too many campaigns are making- focusing all on social media and not making enough of an effort with boots on the ground.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MarioGA2012 (3) 1 year ago

Voter suppression and the hurdles to third party entry are definitely HUGE issues. The consequences of voter suppression are real and deserve attention, but existing voters also need to be shown a two party alternative presented in a way that doesn't undermine one establishment party in favor of the other. Stark, fresh choices can be presented as a "package deal" in an explicit way not unlike the way only Republican and Democratic nominees ever appear in publicized events. I emphasize the Tea Party as an example, because even though I disagree with many of those policy proposals coming from that group, its momentum & ability to attract certain candidates consistent with many Libertarian principles show that the Republican party is ready for a tectonic shift.

Accordingly, we must recognize that the Democratic Party does not respond to demands for change from our constituency, takes our votes for granted, and in fact is as deeply embedded with the capital class as the conservatives, and utterly self-serving in its lust for perpetual rule. These ideas support a rejection of two parties in exchange for two alternatives. While not guaranteeing solutions or results, our country needs this change.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

1st we MUST stop the vote suppression efforts, the electoral vote redistribution, and the current laws that freeze out all 3rd parties.

support movetoamend.org,

nationalpopularvote.org

opendebates.org

election day holidays would also help.

[-] 0 points by Einsatzgruppen1 (-56) 1 year ago

Are you serious? Really?

[-] 1 points by MarioGA2012 (3) 1 year ago

Definitely serious, but tough to execute. Our Georgia Green Party is nonfunctional at the moment, so jumpstarting that would be an early priority in this idea. I'm not proposing we take on Libertarian policy positions, but that we "piggy-back" off their momentum in order to gain publicity and toss out the Dem-Republican system.

[-] 0 points by MarioGA2012 (3) 1 year ago

Thanks for the insight. I tend to agree with much of what you said. Libertarians (or Greens, for that matter) do not share all my values and passionate policy arguments will always remain a part of American democracy.

My proposed strategy addresses the illness & ineffectiveness of our two-party establishment, not the details of legislative goals. It's my belief that our legislative goals are unobtainable through the two parties currently in control. It is also my belief that there are exposed and yet-unexposed contingents within each of those two parties that hunger for more honest political debate and modern solutions. Say what you will about the values of Libertarian policies, but at least their ideology is clear. When faced with a choice between Democrats and Repulicans, many voters feel it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, with not much substantive difference. When faced with a choice between Greens and Libertarians, I propose, voters will know they are choosing between stark choices that more accurately represent the values and priorities of 21st century America.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats stand for anything, and Occupy, along with other potential allies, can help. Let's brainstorm strategy.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

"Neither Republicans nor Democrats stand for anything"
Republicans don't stand for obstruction? the 1%? lying us into wars? paying for wars with debt? privitization? low taxes for the rich?

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

How about we get rid of the Democrat/Republic term and replace it with "representative" or "Statesman/Stateswoman/Statesperson" whichever term you think will make you "politically correct". Sounds a lot better doesn't it -

So instead of voting for a Democrat or Republican you vote for the Statesman/Stateswoman/Statesperson" whom you think will do the best job. And for those who want to run for office all they have to do is register - no tags attached.

Seems to me this would be the "easiest" route to take. How hard is that to do? All it takes is people to start thinking that way and force our representatives to stop "name tagging" themselves

[+] -4 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Many seats go uncontested. If you are looking for campaign strategy in terms of getting politicians into office that are on your side, determine which seats went uncontested in your state. See if there is a trend. There is your opportunity. Establishing presence in state politics is whats leads to national.