Forum Post: Third Party Redux
Posted 12 years ago on June 11, 2012, 3:47 p.m. EST by gnomunny
(6819)
from St Louis, MO
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I was going to post this as a comment on LeoYo's The Cooperative Party thread but thought it might be better on its own.
In regards to just the math, without regard to the actual reality of our two-party system, my earlier post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-numbers-are-there-it-just-take-determination-a/
I've done some homework since then. In order for one to understand the underlying problem with our current election process, you need a passing familiarization with what's known as "Duverger's Law:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
An interesting quote from Wikipedia regarding third parties: "A third party can only gain power by exploiting a weakness in one of the other parties." Food for thought.
One of the major problems is, of course, the Electoral College, something I believe should be abolished (but don't expect that any time soon).
That being said, here's a pretty good site (IMO) detailing what's involved in forming a new political party:
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/NewParty/
Another interesting fact from Wiki is, out of the 39 national political third parties in existence in the US, almost half (16) have been formed in the last ten years, 7 since 2008. It's clear that voters are getting sick and tired of our rigged two-party system. Here's a USA Today article from last year that describes the flight of voters from the R and D parties:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1
It's entirely possible that in November, the Independents will again split the vote (this is what I'm predicting. I anxiously await the post-election numbers). Maybe then, you passionate (but misguided) "vote for Obama to keep Romney out" guys will finally get with the program. Personally, you guys are probably right, but I just can't bring myself to vote for that guy. I have to vote my conscience. Then, after November, we can all get down to the nitty-gritty.
EDIT: Here are two essential links for details about our political parties, their backgrounds, platforms, and so on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
Good points. And, yes, the Electoral College system is a huge problem.
I've been against the Electoral College for years, mainly because I viewed it simply as a "let's count the votes behind closed doors," something I'm extremely distrustful of. It stems from my days in a construction union and we had to vote on a contract every three years. I didn't realize the scope of the problem (with the Electoral College) until I read that "Duverger's Law" entry. It pretty much shows that the EC, and the 'winner take all' concept is the main reason third parties have little chance of winning. It does NOT represent the will of the people.
I agree with eliminating the EC. It benefits low population states and is therefore anti minority, anti big city. One person, one vote. We should also have open primaries since the current primary system benefits the existing 2 parties. we should have mandatory voting for all citizens over 18. We should have shortened campaigns, publicly financed campaigns, all money out of politics. no ads! debates every week with all parties during the shortened campaign. So much more. Until then though we have an election in 4 1/2 mos so all progressives should vote the issues and do not play into the 1% hands by splitting the progressive vote!
I'm not sure about making voting mandatory. It's tempting, though. It drives me nuts how many people don't vote, but if they did I feel most wouldn't make an effort and many would end up picking at random or based on who their friend says they're voting for.
I think you could be right. I do not think the rate of "at random" or "friend says" voters would be much different than we have now. I DO think the act of voting can be an incentive for citizens to inform themselves. In any event informing voters better is necessary with existing voters and will be so with a larger electorate as well. larger turnouts scare the 1% most of all!
It's entirely possible the vote's going to be split this year regardless of what the members of this forum do. I'm predicting that's what's going to happen. A lot of people have been dropping out of the R's and D's lately. Unfortunately the D's have lost a lot more voters than the R's, but thankfully the D's still outnumber them. So, this November may be the most "interesting" one in years.
Agree with most of everything you say. Not sure of the mandatory voting age, I'll have to think on that one.
I assume it takes a Constitutional amendment to rid ourselves of the EC, correct?
I suppose. Flyover hayseed states would be against. We should also enlarge the number of house members. Probably double it. That would create better representation for more people. Why would you not want all eligible voters to vote? Make 'em vote!!! It's a privilege! A responsibility! Civic duty!! And it is what the 1% fears most!
I'm not against all eligible voters voting, of course. I just haven't spent enough time thinking about it being mandatory to give an informed opinion. I do like the idea of enlarging the number of house members. Double it, at least.
If it weren't for that pesky 1st Amendment protecting people's freedom of speech, people could be easily coerced into voting against their own will.
Damn that Bill of Rights!! (just kidding, of course.)
Nice post.
Thanks, hc. Surprised you missed it the first time around. Not sure who bumped it tho. They deleted their comment.
Every election there is a huge rush of "I have to vote this way this time, and after this we will organize something else" , but there is such a motivational let down after the election its hard to get momentum again.
True. I've noticed a little momentum building up lately, I think. That's a good sign.
Ya, there definitely is.
It's you who doesn't "get with the program."
We are in a Class War. Voting is our defense. We don't turnout, they do. There are only two viable parties, one (Con) is on their side, the other (Dem) is under-supported. KISS! STFU and Vote!
Yeah, how's that voting dem been working out for you? This post isn't to encourage anyone to vote Independent, asshole. It's a collection of facts about the realities of third-party politics. It's you, JS, that needs to shut the fuck up. Stupid fucks like you that continue to play this two-party bullshit are one of the reasons we're in this fucking mess.
[Removed]
Your vulgarity and name calling reflects your weak arguments.
We have this corrupt govt because progressives got demoralized and apathetic. They surrendered their natural party (dems) to the corp 1% and let the dems move right and vote for right wing policies. The dems CAN be made to serve the 99% again. Whether you believe it or not.
The people united, can never be defeated"!
The Dems can be made to serve the 99% again? Tell that to Dennis Kucinich. It is impossible to get the Dems to serve the 99% because corporate money rules. It is completely impossible to face the juggernaut that is corporate influence on presidential (and even senatorial, gubernatorial, etc.) campaigns. Just ask Ron Paul, as well.
Learn the history on the corporate takeover. It goes back to the business roundtable of the mid-70's formed to combat all of the environmental groups that were beginning to lower the ceiling on corporate profits. That is why ever since Carter there has been no hope for the Dems. 30+ years of working our asses off to reform the party hasn't even shown SLIGHT improvements. In fact, the Dems continue to get worse and worse.
On the other hand, third parties have proven their worth over and over again in the past. Dramatic victories without even having to win an election. If you want the Dems to reform you HAVE TO PRESSURE THEM! You can't do it from the inside anymore. You just flat out cannot.
What have you tried?
Well, I haven't run for congress if that is what you're asking. However, I have tried my very best to promote progressive candidates like Dennis Kucinich during the primaries for the 08 election. Lot of good that did! I heard the same sorry ass excuses from liberals as to why they can't vote third party. "Kucinich is great, but his poll numbers are too low. He's not going to win. We need to prevent so-and-so from winning party nomination because they are a front runner we dislike!"
Kucinich was my choice, too. But he is too short. I probably voted for Hillary.
Would they be hating on Hillary as much as Obama? Probably. The reality is that the low information voters decide elections. It sucks.
What I was asking is if you have tried working within the system? Been to a city council meeting? School board? Party meeting? We have found just showing up to be surprisingly affective because so few people actually do show up.
You're talking to a brick wall, WageSlave. VQ's been pushing that bizarre fantasy since he first arrived.
Nope. I think it is going to take more than that. It works for the Tea Party. It works for Ron Paul. Maybe it only works on the Republican Party. Is that it?
It works for Ron Paul? No, it hasn't. Ron Paul has one of the most rabid followings in recent memory and it hasn't got him squat.
As for tea party success -- think about it! Why is it the conservatives can get things done and liberals can't? Because the policies they are advocating benefit the corporations!
I'm missing your point. What works for the TP and Ron Paul? I was merely commenting on VC's belief that the Dem party can be co-opted by the "99," something I believe is a complete fantasy.
Do you remember the 2010 elections? Do oyu see what they are doing now? Hell, they wanted the nation to default on its bills!
The Tea Party Caucus has Boehner by the ying yang. They have made him the worst Speaker in history.
Have you not seen what the Paulies are doing in the state conventions?
Isn't Kucinich a Dem? More like him might get the party to serve the 99%.
"learn the history of the corp takeover" HA! What arrogance. The right wing corp 1% have been working continually since the new deal was passed to undo it and any progressive policies that have come along.
The progressive/liberal movement has NOT worked their asses off since Carter. Sorry. in fact as a result of his loss the progressive/liberals have become increasingly demoralized and apathetic. Just what the corp right wing 1% want!
What is missing from the possible co opting of the dem party is a strong active progressive movement. With that, the people could even take the party from the 1% corp plutocrats. The people united, will never be defeated. The people can do anything.
That is more likely than a 3rd party winning. I support many 3rd party causes and would support a 3rd party but I don't see any way the 2 parties would allow them to succeed.
Before a 3rd party succeeds we must change much in our election law. Which I support. But We disagree that the path is through a 3rd party.
If it happens I will be there with you.
"That is more likely than a 3rd party winning." -- Once again, who said they had to win? They ended slavery, obtained women's rights, child labor laws, reduced work hours, social security benefits... How many elections did they win to do that? Pressure, pressure, pressure. Third parties have forced change in the two main political parties throughout history by running presidential campaigns without having to win. The amount of votes they obtain shows public support for stances on particular issues. Why do you think ballot access laws are so outrageous? The two parties KNOW the threat of third party politics. It is time we the people begin to understand why. If we stand up and be counted, we can force the Dems to change or get out of our way.
Ok. I understand that. I support many 3rd parties. I voted for Nader. Green, Working families, independent, liberal, socialist. I'm not against 3rd parties. Good luck.
What can I do?
Third parties are currently engaged in a number of lawsuits with regard to ballot access and are working heavily on promotion of electoral reform policies such as instant run-off voting (on both sides of the political spectrum). Even if you plan on voting for Obama, getting involved with such local rallies, petitions, and so forth may help considerably in spreading awareness and showing support. Too many people identify with the Greens (as one example), but leave the heavy lifting to the die-hards. I think we need to change that, and not assume other people will do the heavy lifting for us. If we volunteered at our leisure to do our part, these causes would really gain considerable momentum. Even so much as volunteering free time here or there to work to obtain signatures for ballot access helps. Some states have some pretty insane barriers, so every person matters.
Remember, the more support third parties acquire (in whichever form, whether votes or activism), the bigger an issue electoral reform becomes, and thus the closer we are to obtaining it. We need leverage.
I can get behind all that and I will look around in NYC for something I can lend my body to.
What's your take for hawking for Obama, mate? http://pastebin.com/9bLFYdFZ
What's your take for hawking for Obama, mate? http://pastebin.com/9bLFYdFZ
That comment wasn't directed at you, VQ. My vulgarity and name-calling reflect my shitty mood right now. And the fact that Jiffy called me stupid first, then told me to shut the fuck up. Interesting you glossed over that. And what weak arguments are you talking about? Once again, for those of you that have limited comprehension skills (that would be you, obviously, and JS): this post isn't about persuading people to vote Independent! It's a collection of facts about third parties. Next time, why don't you let Jiffy speak for himself?
I haven't prevented JS from doing anything. I saw a post and I commented.
Don't like it. Tough! get over it!
Your in a bad mood. Get over THAT! We need to deal with each other as if we are gonna be working together for a long time.
Take a break. It'll do you well.
I've been on a break for two weeks, VQ. Then when I log in, the first thing I have to deal with is some asshole calling me stupid and telling me to shut the fuck up on a thread that should've died a week ago. Then I get you on my ass jumping to his defense. Fuck off, VQ. Don't bother me again.
At least I don't resort to name calling and vulgarity. No need for "f$#king hypocrite"
why are you so hostile.? I haven't done anything to you. I am within my right to prefer civil discussion.
aren't you interested in building a coalition?. Growing this great movement? why would you make such an effort to exclude and offend people. Is it just people who disagree with you?
C'mon you can do better than that.
You are a fucking hypocrite. You gave JS a free pass for calling me stupid and telling me to shut the fuck up (which started this whole conversation), then when I called him an asshole and for him to STFU, you jump to his defense and tell ME to show some respect and to grow up. I get it, VQ. He's pro-Obama and I'm obviously not, so he gets a pass and I get called out. In my opinion, that's bullshit. And this is the second time you disrespected me, VQ, so it's clear to me that you and I won't be seeing eye-to-eye. Don't remember, do you? It was in our very first exchange when I tried to caution you to not blatantly endorse Obama because endorsing candidates is a violation of the forum rules and I didn't want to see someone as pro-OWS as you getting banned. In your bizarre self-absorption, you took it as a personal attack and, like a whiny little bitch, you reported me to the admins claiming I was harassing you. After I already apologized! Ring any bells? I gave you a pass on that one and now here you are disrespecting me again. Once again, this conversation started when JS disrespected me, not the other way around. If you can't get that through your thick head, then my first impression of you, that your comprehension skills suck, is probably right on the mark.
By the way, my support of OWS is above reproach, as any regular here can attest. My problem, if there is one, is with some of the people within it.
This comment is full of more hostile disrespectful vulgar insults. Don't you realize that you cannot bully people in a virtual environment. You must have the threat of physical violence to make schoolyard bullying tactics effective.
I avoid vulgar insulting hostility because the plutocratic threat we face requires that we find a way to bring as many people together as possible. We have to treat each other with respect as if we will be working together for a long time. I haven't disrespected you. That accusation is untrue.
why can't we all just get along"? RK.
So like my 12 year old used to say "he did it 1st!". Give me a break.
We have to be a little more mature than that.
Even if you don't like my politics we should get along. You hate Obama I get it. But that doesn't mean I can't defend my Pres from inaccurate accusations. And don't worry nobody has banned me. 'cause I ain't doin anything wrong. I never curse anyone out. Thats childish. I don't take anything personal. Thats unproductive.
I think our problems are the right wing policies that spineless dems have voted for. We need progressive policies implemented.
What we don't need are people who lose control. People who can't bring others into our movement. Name calling and vulgarity = weak positions. We are better than that no?
Now I'm a bully? Jeez, I was right. You have zero comprehension skills.
"zero comprehension skills"? -insults. I'm an accomplished successful educated 49 year old man who can express himself maturely without resorting to the vulgar insults that does not serve this movement.
"Whiny little bitch"? name calling bullying. "f#@king hypocrite"? more name calling bullying.
It may be that "any regular can attest" to your class and humility, or your un raproachable OWS support. Who knows. I have no interest in polls. I don't take votes, nor do I need anyone to tell me how great I am. I'm a grown man who thinks for himself.
I do not see your comments as classy or as those of someone with humility. I won't question your support for OWS. I will question your commitment to bringing people together. I do question your ability to discuss important issues in a civil way.
We are different people. I prefer treating people respectfully. Even those I disagree with. Please refrain from calling me more vulgar insults. (Isn't THAT against the forum rules?)
Peace, Love, and Soul
I don't take the time the read the whole conversations
Hey, Matt, you don't think this comment was directed at you, do you? It was for VQ.
I could apply it to myself
You're insane, Matt. Truly, truly insane. ;-)
Jus' kiddin'. . . . I think. . . .
the military rules through suppression backed by violence
I imagine a permission society
Hoozah!
Have some respect!. At least for this forum if not for yourself.!
Stop complaining.! Grow up!
Dude, 'gno' showed good grace and humility in his comments, which only served to heighten your ire ! Not nice !! + No need for further internecine strife !!!
verbum satis sapienti ~{:-)
He told me to "F%$k off". I disagree with your description of good grace and humility. Sorry. More respect is required and so I said so.
Dude(tte), you've had far worse and what was his tone before that ?! multum in parvo ...
He was angry, insulting, and hostile. I still haven't insulted him with vulgar disrespectful comments. Or you. thats not my style. I could, but I prefer we treat each other as if we might work together for a long time. Perhaps he is a good guy. Perhaps I agree qith his positions. I don't know. Haven't gotten past his insults, vulgarity, and disrespect.
Good grace and humility indeed.
Sounds like you know him. I do not. But I don't see how you can describe his comments as" good grace and humility." that is incredible.
Mate, you need to calm yourself & dismount your 'high horse' !
Sounds to me as though you actually may have acquired a touch of what 'gno' was referring to with : "That comment wasn't directed at you, VQ. My vulgarity and name-calling reflect my shitty mood right now. And the fact that Jiffy called me stupid first, then told me to shut the fuck up. Interesting you glossed over that." !!
Now I'm outta here in case it's somehow catching cos I only beat up on Randian Nutters ... and neither of you two are that !!!
ad iudicium ...
Randian Nutters there's nothing magical about radiation pollution
that sets it apart from other pollution
And now you are hostile. It isn't a high horse to prefer respectful civil discussion.
We disagree. For you it is ok. I think my way is better. I suppose you think yours is better. Whatever.
Peace.
Chill 'V' ! Maybe IF we can all get together we can make "better" bro' !!
How so "hostile" ? Relax rhetorical question & please re-read the thread !!!
dum spiro, spero et pax, amor et lux ~{~
I am chill. I ain't attacked anyone. I have been attacked.
Peace & Love.
Thanks for the props, shadz. Not necessary, of course, but appreciated nonetheless. You see how the Obama drones think; give each other a pass for bad behavior and disrespect, but call out anyone else. Go figure. Fucking hypocrites.
One for your consideration :
ad iudicium ...
I like Hedges. We need more like him to undo the conservative policies that benefit the plutocrats.
To undo NDAA, patriot act, warrentless wiretaps, citizens united/corp personhood. we need to protest vigorously, bring legal challenges (like hedges did) support orgs like "move to amend".
There are many thngs we can do together to make change. The progressive apathy is partly responsible for the plutocrat 1% amassing so much power.
There is nothing the people can't do if we are together fighting the power of the 1% right wing plutocrats.
Just goes to show how sick people are of Dems and Reps and all those that support them
Im still waiting for the video of you speaking at a GA and trying to convince a bunhc of people that hate them all that we should choose one of the two sides.
[Removed]
Here is a third party idea: http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com/
I actually have this site bookmarked. I should've linked it in my OP. Thanks.
Apologies for not responding sooner (was off the forum about a week).
This can wait. Julian Assange needs our help NOW!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-julian-assange-ask-ecuador-to-grant-him-polit/
Thanks for the link. I will look at it tonight (soon).
I'm sure Julian is honored that you might be able fit his urgent struggle into your busy schedule...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-julian-assange-ask-ecuador-to-grant-him-polit/
Why the sarcasm? I've been absent from this forum for about a week and just got back on about an hour ago. So, be sure to give Julian my apologies for not dropping everything and going to your link the same microsecond you posted it.
In fact, fuck your link. I just deleted it. You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar, man. Or haven't you learned that yet?
This person is some kook spinning his propeller hat in his basement (not worth it).
Agreed. He's apparently been all over the forum tonight with the same cut-and-paste. I was going to check his link, but now I don't think I'll waste my time.
He wants you to call your family and friends and ask them to save him.....
This forum just gets better and better :)
It certainly has an 'eclectic' mix of individuals, eh, hc?
I love it. Political chats are always a great mix of freaks and brains :)
That's a good way to look at it. A great mix of freaks and brains. Excellent!
If you are an OWS activist, ACT LIKE ONE AND HELP JULIAN. If you are just another forum slacktivist, stop wasting my time.
I think I heard on the radio that until recently, I think about 30 years, there were no primaries, the party bosses just picked the candidates. Not even a pretext of democracy
I used to think it was a 100% complete sham. But from what I've gathered the last few years, I now think it's manipulation. They pick who they want in the seat, then do whatever it takes to make sure he gets there. It's like Vegas; they don't actually break any laws, but the game is so mathematically rigged, the outcome is almost assured. In the Vegas analogy, you could almost compare the Electoral College to the adding of the two green numbers ( 0 and 00 ) to your standard roulette wheel (they didn't used to have them). It skews the math in favor of the house. A lot.
Thanks for this link. I hope it resonates with all the two parties are evil crowd. I believe a third party is possible but just not probable. For a third party to be viable, it would have to begin on the state level and proliferate from state to state, and only then would it have the numbers to effect federal policies. Thinking we could get a third party presidential candidate in office, is a pipe dream, especially with our majority takes all form of government.
Agreed, as things stand now. A third-party President is definitely down the road a ways, if ever. Impossible this year, of course. The reason for the link that describes what it takes to actually form a party was to show the third-party crowd how incredibly difficult it is to actually get it done. It's a huge uphill battle. It's almost a given that, unless we had a recognizable name as a front-person, it would probably be better to "occupy" an existing third-party. Then there's that damned Electoral College, which has kept the whole third-party thing mostly impotent.
demand elections be national and state holidays
Totally agree. Limiting voting times is voter suppression.
indeed
A much cleaner solution - that is much closer to fruition -
HJR29 is the first step to eliminating all money going from non-citizens to pols. Ban all corp / union / party $ flowing into politics. It is not easy - but it HAS BEGUN
Got a link to info about HJR29? I'd like to read it.
Bill HR 29 Constitutional Amendment XXVIII Introduced in Congress
by Rep. Rick Nolan (D-MN) & Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) I originally had HJR29 - sorry for m y mistake!
Section 1. Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Section 2. Money is Not Free Speech
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
Consider your key project – jobs, military, elections, education, tax reform – ANYTHING
Now imagine that the 1% opposition cannot spend to get their way against you
This responds to hundreds of local & state resolutions and Move To Amend for a “We the People” Amendment - The movement for constitutional reforms that would end “corporate rule”. The Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that: Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to government-created artificial legal entities; and that Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment. Government belongs to the people & must not be for sale to the corporations and the wealthy and the 1% special interests. The Move To Amend coalition of nearly 260,000 people and hundreds of organizations has helped to pass nearly 500 resolutions in municipalities and local governments across the country calling on the state and federal governments to adopt this amendment. This bill is specifically different from the other proposals that have come forward in response to Citizens United because it also specifically addresses corporate personhhod. In every single community where Americans have had the opportunity to call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate personhood, they have voted to end “CP”. The Citizens United decision is not the cause, it is a symptom. We must remove big money and special interests from the legal and political process entirely with this amendment.
If you want to understand Citizens United & Corporate Personhood & the Amendment Process Please visit our OWS Amendment site: http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com 70+ videos & 40+ documents on this issue from Sanders, Chomsky, Maher, Hedges, Lessig, Warren, Grayson, Hartmann, Hightower, etc
►►Support this bill HR29◄◄
Write & email your congresspeople house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
Rep Rick Nolan 202 225 6211
Thanks again mideast.
HJR29 corrected to HR29
Thanks. I'll re-bookmark it to check out your links.
[Removed]
I mean, I don't mind the idea of a cooperative party, but parties like the Green Party of America also support cooperatives (as part of their explicit platform), but they're not so one dimensional (for instance, the GP also supports participatory democracy as part of its platform).
I haven't gone into too much research as to what the various parties stand for yet, but plan on doing it soon. I'll also check out your post about the Green Party. They're one of the biggest parties, aren't they?
You can find a party that stands for your positions 100% - that can never win a federal election.
Or you can push electable candidates closer to your positions.
Clearly OWS brought the 99% - 1% to the forefront of American politics.
I would rather Green would push D further to the left than to possibly do what Nader did in FL again.
I have never met a Green who can acknowledge the numbers:
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE INDEPENDENT;
Relax, Nader Advises Alarmed Democrats, but the 2000 Math Proves Otherwise By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM February 24, 2004
In answer to a question on Monday morning after a speech at the National Press Club about his decision to run for president, Ralph Nader said, ''My candidacy is not going to get many Democratic Party votes.'' My support will come largely from ''conservatives and independents who are very upset with Bush administration policies,'' Mr. Nader said, and he urged ''the liberal establishment to relax and rejoice.''
But based on who voted for him four years ago, his analysis is incorrect. Voters leaving polling places in 2000 were asked by Voter News Service, a consortium of television networks and The Associated Press, how they would have voted if George W. Bush and Al Gore had been the only candidates on the ballot.
Nationally, among Nader voters, 45 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Gore, 27 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted.
In California, where Mr. Nader received 4 percent of the vote, 46 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Gore and only 14 percent said they would have gone for Mr. Bush.
Because there is no reason to believe the breakdown was not similarly lopsided in other states, it is safe to assume that Mr. Nader cost Mr. Gore states that Mr. Bush narrowly won.
In Florida, Mr. Nader received 97,488 votes, 1.6 percent of the total, and Mr. Bush carried the state by 537 votes. In New Hampshire, Mr. Nader won 22,198 votes, 3.9 percent of the total, and Mr. Bush carried the state by 7,211 votes. Had Mr. Gore won in either state, he would have become president.
Mr. Nader said at the Press Club that surveys of voters leaving the polls showed he had received more Republican votes than Democratic votes in New Hampshire in 2000. That is true but New Hampshire has 30 percent more registered Republicans than registered Democrats.
But people there did not vote a straight party line for president in 2000. On the question of whom they would have voted for with only two candidates on the ballot, 3 percent of those who said they would have voted for Mr. Gore voted for Mr. Nader, and only 2 percent of voters who said they would have voted for Mr. Bush voted for Mr. Nader.
Of the 2.9 million voters who supported Mr. Nader in 2000, 58 percent voted for a Democrat for the House of Representatives, and only 27 percent voted for a Republican.
Before he announced his decision to run, Mr. Nader said he was holding off to see if Howard Dean would become the Democratic nominee. But Dr. Dean's overriding goal now, like that of so many other Democrats, is to defeat President Bush. On Monday, Dr. Dean, who dropped out of the race last week, issued a statement urging his supporters to stick with the Democratic candidate.
''Ralph Nader has made many great contributions to America over 40 years,'' Dr. Dean said. ''But if George W. Bush is re-elected, the health, safety, consumer, environmental and open-government provisions Ralph Nader has fought for will be undermined. George Bush's right-wing appointees will still be serving as judges 50 years from now, and our Constitution will be shredded. It will be government by, of and for the corporations -- exactly what Ralph Nader has struggled against.''
Many of Mr. Nader's longtime friends and admirers have expressed disappointment at his decision to run.
Steve Cobble, a top adviser to Mr. Nader in the 2000 campaign, signed a letter early this month with others on the left wing of the Democratic Party encouraging Mr. Nader to mobilize progressive elements behind the Democratic nominee rather than make ''a diminished presidential run that allows the media to ignore or ridicule or isolate you.''
Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, first became interested in tax policy working for Mr. Nader in the early 1970's. Speaking of himself and other onetime acolytes of Mr. Nader, Mr. McIntyre said: ''I don't think anybody's very happy about it. When everything we've worked for all our lives is being destroyed, it's not very appealing.''
Do “Greens” vote FOR Nader or AGAINST D+R?
Nader won 2.73% of the 2000 vote.
If the primary motivation of Nader supporters was pro-Nader ( and NOT anti D+R )
Why did his support fall to 0.38% in 2004? And 0.56% in 2008?
Even in 2012, ALL of the non-D+R votes totaled 1.7%
I have “interviewd” a few Nader / Green voters & supporters but they do not take the pragmatic view – they disagree with Dr Dean, Steve Cobble, and Robert S. McIntyre -
Your favorite candidate may be best for America -
but it is best to vote for the best ELECTABLE candidate.
Now for the question – who has done more to help America in the last year –
Nader / Green as a political party inside the system
or OWS from outside the system?
I don't follow politics enough to give an informed answer to that question. I'm of the school that is highly suspicious of the legitimacy of the electoral process.
to avoid the electoral college - check out www.nationalpopularvote.com
rove launched huge computerized voting machine fraud for many years. I do not know how much was done in 2012
I like the looks of that. I'm going to give a thorough look in a couple minutes.
The only alternative that really supports what we support (in virtually every aspect) ... that I'm aware of, and yeah, I think they're probably the biggest third party in the US (but I'm not 100% sure).
Even after all the hard work to get parties on the ballot, the duopoly has created so many financial barriers to staying there that instead of promoting the party and spreading the good word, all hands on deck are scrambling to pay the fees that the two power brokers have created.
The only hope I see for a viable Third Party is to breathe life back into the Independent Party. I saw a report on the numbers of registered voters in this last Wisconsin debacle - and I believe if I rememberize correctly they reported 38% Independent 32% Democrat 28% Republican. I believe this was stated as being fairly representative of the growing voter preferences Across the country - Independents on the rise with no cohesive Party to attend to just issues to support or deny.
How do you feel about Occupy running candidates all across this country(on the national and local level) on the platform of NEVER taking outside money, only public funding. Getting corruption and bribery out of our political system. Financial reform, Education reform, etc?
What differences do you perceive would exist between the proposed Occupy candidates and Green Party http://occupywallst.org/forum/green-party-of-america/ candidates?
I think running candidates under the Occupy label could be a hinderence for both the candidates and Occupy. Supporting (contracted) Independents keeps both Occupy and the candidates free of any political baggage that could be negative.
I think running Occupy Candidates as Independents(while openly saying they represent Occupy) is the best way to go because besides the other two parties "Independent" is universally recognized by the people in this country as the alternative. It allows us to run without latching onto either of the main two parties. While allowing us to enter in the electoral process without anyone confusing what we stand for.
I do somewhat agree with you though about the Occupy label being a potential hindrance for the Candidates we run. But I agree for difference reasons. As i've state many times on this forum I feel the Anarchists are whats holding this movement back in many ways. One way is how they make the entire movement look. Yes our corrupt main stream media sucks but that does not give the Anarchists excuse to cause property damage and clash with the police(a lot of it is the police fault but a good amount is also due to entities like Black Bloc egging them on and making the situation worse).
So if we were to run Occupy candidates without resolving these serious issues in Occupy(establishing a core goal, more structure, and deciding if we're going to continue to allow a leaderless movement to be lead by Anarchists with completely different goals than the majority of the Occupiers and the citizens of this country) it could actually end up really hurting the candidates.
But I still think we should run candidates under the name of Occupy as Independents. Because only part of the goal is winning. The main part of the electoral goal is to spread the message of Occupy in many different ways and platforms. We use these many different platforms to gain support for the movement. Winning is one of the goals and a major plus but its not everything.
The Anarchists are still the biggest problems for the movement. Its going to be hard moving forward with anything while we continue to let them determine what the movement does...
Once you put a label on a candidate, you confine that candidate to everything that the public perceives about that label. And once a candidate or an elected official has a skeleton exposed, the public scrutiny of that person becomes associated with any specific political label that they represent. Better to support an Independent candidate who supports issues in common with Occupy and other Independents than to limit a candidate's political appeal to other Independents by having that candidate represented under a specific label. To have a platform geared towards Independents, it must first be ascertained just what it is that most Independents seek. What that is, may or may not be what most Independents perceive Occupy as seeking. Political success would only come from finding common ground between Independents and Occupy and focusing on those issues for creating an Independent platform. Even without the Anarchists, Occupy would still have the negative stigma of being a bunch of lazy, whining, wannabe hippies. Promoting the issues of Occupy would come with the ongoing dissemination of information to the voters along with the push for initiatives for bringing about change regardless of who's in office. Under an Independent label, these issues would hold greater currency with Independent voters.
In essence, what is needed is not another political party but a political organization that pushes for initiatives at the local level and at the state level in ballot initiative states while pushing for those same state level issues in the non-ballot initiative states and also for federal level issues in all states in the form of contractual terms for candidates to publicly sign to in a legal contract.
What differences do you perceive would exist between the proposed Occupy candidates and Green Party http://occupywallst.org/forum/green-party-of-america/ candidates?
I agreed with you all the up until "Even without the Anarchists, Occupy would still have the negative stigma of being a bunch of lazy, whining, wannabe hippies". I couldn't disagree more with this. The reason we are seen the way we are seen right now is because the Anarchists play right into the narrative of Faux news and the corporations that want nothing better than to see this movement fail.
Anarchists are whats stopping this movement from defining a core message, developing a better structure and having more power over PR, etc. We fix these problems then the potential of this movement is limitless. Mainly because with simple core messages that strike at the heart of this countries problems this movement gains the ability to gain long term support from the public.
We combine that power with running candidates as Independents that take no outside money no matter what. That will create a new exciting dynamic for us to achieve what we're trying to achieve.
But I can't argue with the fact that as of now due to the Anarchists holding back the movement,running candidates with Occupy tied to them would probably be negative in the eyes of many.
The problem with this Green Party(or any other new party) is that due to the outside money in politics that breeds the bribery and corruption that is the root of the corruption in our system, it is just a matter of time before this party is corrupted by that. Any new party under our current system is just doomed to failure because of this.
"The problem with this Green Party(or any other new party) is that due to the outside money in politics that breeds the bribery and corruption that is the root of the corruption in our system, it is just a matter of time before this party is corrupted by that."
That would go for independents as well. At the moment, the Green Party refuses corporate campaign donations.
The Independent party is not an official party in the same sense as the others. But it is much more recognized as another other form of a third option. The Green Party is far less recognized and it doesn't get much publicity for multiple reasons. So I disagree with the premise that running as an Independent automatically means corrupt. Because it doesn't. Occupy could completely take over the Independent option and redefine it all together.
On the subject of issues, what differences do you see between the proposed Occupy candidates and Green Party candidates?
Assuming the Anarchists weren't a problem anymore; Occupy candidates would deal with the core issue, getting outside money out of politics. The reason the special interests are able to get their way is because they are allowed to bribe and payoff politicians. The reason why most of the debates that get started are started on lies are because the special interests rule the politicians. Ultimately it all leads to a system that is rigged for the ones at the very top.
Occupy candidates would be in a unique position if the Anarchists weren't running the movement. If Occupy was seen as an outright positive thing it would gain sustained massive support. Support equals power. Occupiers occupying and staying in the news and the hearts and minds of people all year round means a constant, vocal and powerful sector of support for Occupy candidates. Win or lose, Occupy as a whole wins since our message would be spread on multiple fronts. But of course winning would be much better.
Now the Green Party's heart is in the right place just like alot of other potential third party. But because of our current corrupt system there is no way a new party could survive without becoming corrupt themselves.
Issues. I'm simply inquiring about issues. Do you perceive any differences in the issues focused upon between Occupy and the Green Party?
I think getting outside money out of politics is an issue. But other than excluding that and some other issues like financial reform, education reform, etc I do think the Green Party has similar interests as Occupy(not counting the interests of the small portion of Anarchists that are sinking the movement)
Okay, that's all I was asking about.
Are you familiar with the PIRGs http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-organization-rather-than-political-party/ ? I think that the whole idea of a political organization based on initiatives and candidate contracts could be modeled upon the PIRG organizations.
Approaching electoral politics as a political organization rather than a political party. I actually don't think thats a bad idea.
I think there's two problems happening in Occupy, from what I can see:
The meetings and gatherings are still "occupy" type of protesty rally get togethers. Its outside, in the open, still fairly disorganized, still fairly chaotic, anarchists and plans (you know there are some, from the gov, other interestered groups) and the cops are just waiting, ready to stir up trouble if none gets stired up naturally. Find venues, rent them out, make it clear who was a delegate from what occupy group, and who were registered speakers and presenters, and who were just other occupiers. Don't have to register who you are, but should have to come 'check in' and keep a record of who's come, how many, etc. Do it professional, away from the police.
And two, on that note: you might have to deal with police even if you rent a space, indoors or outdoors. How people react to the police is a big problem. If you see the police arresting or hasseling someone, do the peaceful thing. You can throw yourself on to your friend, to share their beating, and hope others join you, or you can form a crowd around the police and question what is happening. You can ask the other police to come join you in trying to find what is happening. If the police begin to move in with bad intentions, sit down. SIt down and hold hands and state your peaceful intentions. Ghandi and buddhist monks who set themselves on fire put up with far worse, peaceful black rights activists put up with far worse, and the more you can be shown as victims, not agitators, the better. The more you can GET WORK DONE, instead of simply getting the message out (good job, that part worked)
As far as third party politics, it's the only solution. Independent, Green, Libertarian, it doesn't really matter as long as its not the two party duopoly. Supporting other candidates now can get them in the debates! If enough support is found, maybe Ds and Rs will have to compromise on some issues, or the non corrupt will form a union for electoral reform, but at a minimum, you are starting the move away from the corrupt two party system. You should do it at every level, "strategic" voting be damned.
I assume you mean the actual party (formed in 1998, there's also the "Independence Party," formed in 2007). I haven't read up on what each of the parties represents yet, so let me check those guys out today and maybe have an opinion. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Rocky? He's about the only one I've heard much about so far. I do think, after Nov., we all can get into some discussions and maybe be able to pick one to develop, rather than start our own, which could take years. The only downside, as you know, is, any existing party will already have a 'brand.' I favor starting from scratch, but would defer to what's most expedient, if that's the route we think best.
I edited my OP with a couple links that have detail about all US parties.
I will have a look at the additional links.
Rocky? Don't know him - will have to do some research.
I was just thinking independents in general as there are more people registering to vote under that designation - I don't believe that they are registering a party affiliation - just that they are independent.
You're right about Wisconsin. People can talk about unions and citizens united all they want but many here support both Walker and Obama. They see this as being an 'independant' thinker. I don't think they're thinking at all.
Well they are and they are not. They see costs and they see a sick economy. They have not gotten to the point of seeing to the heart of the matter - and that would be poor business practice domestic and foreign. They have not found the concept of looking at benefits for all. Face it education is lacking and it shows most clearly in the inability to do critical thinking - analysis of cause and effect. That is why it is up to those who "are" aware to share their insights.
Those are some surprising numbers. They suggest some truth to the USAToday article, I guess. The problem would be trying to get a significant number behind one particular candidate. I imagine those that register Independent are pretty spread out in there choice of parties (everything from Christians to Nazis). In that USAToday article, their numbers for how many registered Ind nationwide was 25% when they did their study. If that's true what you say about the Wis. numbers being representative of the nation, that's a huge increase in just a year or two.
I could be mistaken - but my approach would be for someone to run on issues. As issues is what attract independent voters. To hell with the glad handing. Issues.
OSTA
White Collar Crime
Money in politics
Corpo-rat personhood
Green energy
Fossil fuel subsidies and regulation of speculation
Free trade agreements the undercut domestic business
Living Wage
Outsourcing jobs to foreign sweatshops
Environmental responsibility/accountability
Conflict of interest in government
Earmarking
Firing incompetent or corrupt officials
And well you know. Run on issues - get the people involved.
Hey, that's an interesting concept. No party, just an affiliation of voters that will support the candidate that most reflects the voter's wishes. Correct?
That's the basic idea. For or against issues. Support issues that benefit all and shoot down issues that are detrimental. People over profits - health and prosperity for all. Export peace.
I think you're on to something, DK. I'm definitely going to think on that
It is how I try to base my posts and comments. I don't always do that great a job of getting the concept across though I guess.
Unite in common cause - Health and Prosperity for all.
Now that I think about it (actually, it was a while ago. I was absent the forum for the last few hours), you did say this before, I believe. Are voter rolls private information? In order to reach the Independents, and try to mobilize them, we would have to have a way of contacting them. We could go through the individual parties, I guess, to get these names. Is this possible?
This I do not know. I think besides using social media - it would perhaps work to contact party headquarters of those with sympathetic leanings. Parties should have on-line contact capability.
We'll have to start working out a game plan sometime soon.
Yes - I think the best approach would be to post contact information and have a letter writing campaign to join forces over issues. Does not matter who is in office if they are not following the peoples direction.
You may want to check out an idea I had a few months back http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-548143 http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-550085 http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-553695 http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-520047. It involves voters holding candidates accountable with legal contracts. A lease contract can be used as a template to modify into a desired contract for candidates to sign.
Overall, an advertising campaign approach will be needed to find out what most Independents want and how to package those issues into an appealing platform that can be represented in a contract for political candidates to sign. This should also involve regular a dissemination of information for the facilitation of an informed electorate, perhaps in the form of newsletters. Of course, that will require a budget dependent upon the level of support that can be organized. It certainly won't be easy and will take far more time than expected. Obsticles will continually arise that will have to be managed to achieve your goals.
The article at the link from PeterKropotkin should definitly be posted to the forum if it hasn't already. I would have replied directly to the poster's message but there was no 'reply' to click on.
Have you seen this shit yet? http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/13-5
Okay, what's going on? I'm trying to reply to people but the 'reply' is currently absent in posts.
In responding to DKAtoday, an oath is general and not a written contract for specific issues between a politician and voters. It's important, if possible, to have the contract be written in such a way that its violation constitutes fraud and therefore a prosecutable crime. Though it would probably be dismissed in court, such an act would stand as a blatent testimony to voters of just how corrupt the system is and therefore how important it is to seriously unite against it.
I have also thought about this. When a politician takes the oath of office - is that not a contract? Defend this country from foreign and domestic threats?
Pollution = domestic and foreign threat.
Corpo-rat-ions = fracking drilling mining = foreign and domestic threat.
Corpo-rat-ions = financiel meltdown = foreign and domestic threat.
For profit health care = domestic threat.
For profit education = domestic threat.
Politicians not working to resolve these issues in favor of the public interest should have already breached their contract / oath of office.
The thing is to fire their lousy asses and get in a replacement.
Any system of government/society is vulnerable to the same abuse.
Any system that is not cohesive with public involvement/ownership of the process of government is wide open to abuse/failure.
I'm not sure if you ever saw my reply to your reply about oaths since the 'reply' wasn't available to click onto. So, here are my responses to both you and another person who also had the same question http://occupywallst.org/forum/third-party-redux/#comment-761921 http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-organization-rather-than-political-party/#comment-763899 http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-organization-rather-than-political-party/#comment-764504.
"Couple of weeks." heheheheh
Definitely worth a 'twinkle' or two.
Stink positive - I intend to reek - to those with a corporate corrupt criminal nose.
Good points. I'll start working on it soon then.
Cool - I hope to dig in soon myself - we need to keep moving and adding - spread the word and wake up the world - I know I know - it might take a couple of weeks - but it will be worth it.
I might start getting the contact information together for the various parties. We probably shouldn't plan on doing much before November though, aside from getting a plan together.
Sure but getting the contact information is huge. Once that is done whether we coordinate for action now or for future action is all in the contact. I believe that like here we should discuss issues, as there are actions that can be ongoing between elections. See this is the thing - it is a non-stop process - you begin and expand and never walk away. This is how government stays representing the people.
Agreed.
I will start looking for ways to implement - might take me a while to get started though - I said the same thing when ( back when ) we 1st discussed the possibility of petitioning as a form of direct action.
This could be the key to what we were talking about earlier - the links you attached. Too tired right now will look at it some more tomorrow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
GoodNight EverBody