July 20, 2004
Rise up you disenfranchised!
Only a few decades ago, the electoral map showed 40 states up for grabs, demanding the candidates fight for votes in each and everyone of those states. This year only 16 to 17 states are up for grabs, called swing states. That means votes in 32 to 33 ‘solid’ states are going to be completely taken for granted in this election cycle. In fact, your vote in any of these solid states won’t even count in determining the election outcome. This constitutes a subtle form of disenfranchisement brought about by the electoral college which predetermines the race in the majority of states.
I for example live in Texas, a state taken for granted as belonging to the Republicans. Thanks to gerrymandering and redistricting, there will be no contest in Texas. If I don't choose to support Bush with my vote, my vote has no meaning, whatsoever, in determining the outcome of the election. The same is true of a Republican voter in California or a Democratic voter in Montana. So, should we all just stay home?
Absolutely not! And here is why. This year there is a unique opportunity for the 74% of the voters whose votes won't count (that is 50% of those who are likely to not vote and 25 to 26% of those who will in states where there vote is disenfranchised by their choice opposing the Electoral College majority). What if just 5% of those disenfranchised and otherwise non-voting adults instead decided to vote third party, either Libertarian or Nader? Such an action would be tantamount to a political earthquake. Our political landscape would be changed for decades, and the two major parties would realize the folly of taking solid states for granted.
Here is how the earthquake would unfold. In at least 5 to 10 states which the Electoral College pegged as solid, the outcomes would be reversed. Statistically, this number of states would experience a drain of votes from the dominant party sufficient to throw the vote to the opposing party. BAM! No more taking votes and the Electoral College for granted. In those states which would still follow through with the predicted wins, the threat posed by disenfranchised voters for the next election cycle would again, force the major parties to work for those votes in electoral college solid states out of fear of becoming one of the statistically reversed states in a future election cycle.
Finally, the windfall of potential power conferred upon current non-voters and upon third party leaners, could easily force one party or the other to reach out to third party efforts much as some Republicans are now reaching out to support Nader ballot signatures in battleground states. It is not a stretch to see the potential for such a movement, political earthquake if you will, to crumble the barriers to third party ballot and debate access.
Your vote is meaningless if you vote according to pattern in one of the solid states, or if you are one of those who does not support the two major parties and your decision is to just not show up at the polls at all. However, the potential of making your non-major party vote, or losing party vote in your home state an earth shattering event, is very real. Combined with 100's of thousands of others who make a similar decision, your decision could completely rewrite the political calculus of American politics. And nothing special is required. Just go vote for any candidate that "does not have a chance" in your state. The effect could be overwhelming. Rise up you disenfranchised voters, and dictate your terms.
Posted by David R. Remer at July 20, 2004 10:25 PMAll this article is trying to do is get “likely voters” to not vote, and to not care about voting, so maybe your third party candidate might draw more than 2%. Any one of those 33 states could change if one group, or party, or organization could draw a hefty 10,000 more to the booths for one candidate.
Posted by: Derek Larsen at July 20, 2004 10:33 PMDavid:
An interesting way to bring more power into a third party. How about an alternate, if longer term idea.
Why not alter the Electoral College from the winner-take-all version to a modified version?
Currently, as you said, a state that is likely to go one way or the other is ignored by the candidates, since they either win or lose the entire state. But if they got a percentage of the Electoral College vote, the candidates would have a reason to campaign in these states.
For instance, if Bush took 75% of the votes in Texas under the current system, he would win all the Electoral votes for Texas. But under my modification, he would win 75% of the Electoral votes.
This would still keep the Electoral College in play to give smaller states the desired power they deserve, but would also bring us a step closer to the idea of one vote-one person.
Whattaya think?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 21, 2004 01:17 AMjbod, I am all for that idea. Need to come up with a mechanism however, if possible (and it may not be), to offset the candidate’s tendency to focus on large metropolitan areas and states with heavy population concentrations and ignore rural concerns and states like Wyoming, under such an arrangement. Otherwise, ammending the constitution would not be possible in this regard. Perhaps a straight plurality of popular votes AND carrying a plurality in 51% of the lowest populated states based on last census. Failing both, a runoff among the lowest populated states. This would in either case force due attention upon minimally populated states, say the lowest 20 populated states.
As far as I can figure, there is no simple replacement for the electoral college system - but, there are certainly more democratic options in which plurality has a greater role in determining election outcomes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 21, 2004 02:12 AMDerek, that’s not what I wrote, but, if that is what you read, so be it.
Posted by: David R Remer at July 21, 2004 02:52 AMJoe,
An alternate idea is what Maine does (and maybe Nebraska). Since there are as many electoral votes per state as there are senators and representatives, the electoral votes are split up. Two of the electoral votes go to the winner of the state, winner-takes-all. The rest of the electoral votes go to the winner of each congressional district.
So, in Illinois in 2000, the two “senatorial votes” would have gone to Gore, plus all the votes in the Chicago area. The rural votes in the districts in the southern and central parts of the state would have gone to Bush.
Of course, such an idea doesn’t do as much for third party candidates as the proportional approach does, and it wouldn’t change a thing for small states with only one representative like Wyoming and Vermont, but I still think it’s an interesting approach.
Posted by: LawnBoy at July 21, 2004 10:07 AMThe 2000 election had one of the worst voter turnouts in history. Democrats like to claim that Gore won the popular vote; however, if the true will of the majority was followed, the White House would be empty right now, as over half of eligable voters didn’t vote. Die-hard Republicans voted for Bush; Die-hard Democrats voted for Gore; a few of us voted for Nader; and the rest of us stayed home.
Why? Because neither of the major candidates excited us. They were both mere mouthpieces for their parties, touting the same old stale issues, while ignoring the concerns of the rest of us.
This is the lost lesson of the 2000 election. I say this is the “lost” lesson, because neither party listened to the “silent majority”. They only care about the people who will actually go to the polls.
The fact is that there wasn’t a single state in 2000 that couldn’t have been reversed had the “silent majority” gone to the polls. And any 3rd party candidate who could have awoken the “silent majority” would be president today.
Unfortunately, people (like me) stay home because they don’t see a candidate that represents them. Most of the people who did vote feel the same way. I would wager that at least 50% of the people who voted in the last election voted AGAINST the “other guy”, instead of voting FOR “our guy”. And that’s exactly what the “Anyone but Bush” crowd is doing today. Kerry doesn’t inspire them; he just frightens them less than Bush does.
What we need to do is remind the two parties that this “silent majority” is there. If there’s a candidate that inspires you, vote for him. If there isn’t, DON’T vote for “the other guy”. Instead, write in a vote for yourself, or for your mom, or for whichever cartoon character you think would do a better job than the yahoos in office now.
When this election day rolls around, one of the two major party candidates will win. We aren’t going to change that. BUT, if there’s somewhere near 90% voter turnout, and the winner has maybe 30% of the votes, and the loser has maybe 28%, that will send a MUCH different message than 51% vs. 49% will. It will remind both parties that there are untapped masses out there, who are just waiting for an inspiring candidate.
Maybe then we’ll start seeing better choices than what we have now.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 21, 2004 11:06 AMGentlemen:
The real problem is that the only time anyone expends any energy on the issue is at or near election time. Notice how Hillary, among others, was sooo going to change the system back in 2000—she was creating paper left and right. But the impetus wore off and now we’re pretty much the same as we always have been.
It never becomes an issue until its already an issue, and then its too late. (Yep, that’s what I said—-while it may not make sense totally, it DOES make total sense in the Washingtonian world of politics).
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 21, 2004 11:10 AMQuite right, Rob Cottrel. Even if previous non-voters show up and right themselves in, the implication that they could be rallied by a non-major party candidate in the next election cycle is pregnant with potential for disrupting the duopoly party system. As you indicate, if 65% turnout on November, and only 50% vote for either Bush or Kerry, the political landscape will be so hugely altered in 2008. Simply because that 15% non-duopoly vote will be up for grabs, politics as usual won’t be able to get that vote. A third party or independent candidate could dictate changes in part to the Dems and Repub’s. if they want to garner a piece of that voting block. And the Dem’s and Repub’s will ignore that vote at their peril.
Very astute!
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 21, 2004 03:36 PMRob, the 2000 Election turnout percentage was actually higher than in 1996 or 1988. Al Gore got more votes than any other candidate in history.
Joe, your proportional voting suggestion is quite interesting. Interestingly, in 2000 Gore would have *lost* under such a model. The great Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 site examines this possibility in detail.
The result: nobody wins. Well, more specifically, nobody gets 270 electoral votes, in part due to minor parties. In California, for example, Gore’s 53.4% yields 29 EVs, Bush’s 41.7% yields 22 EVs, and Nader’s 3.8% yields 2 EVs. The remaining 1.1% of the vote was scattered over a myriad of tiny parties, so nobody got the final EV. To actually introduce such a proportional system, a lot of attention would have to be paid to the formula for rounding. According to the constitution, if no candidate receives a majority of the EVs, the new House of Representatives chooses the president, with each state having one vote. In 2000, the Republicans controlled a majority of the state delegations, so Bush would have been chosen. Having the election go to the House is not hypothetical. It happened in 1800 and again in 1824.
LawnBoy, do Maine and Nebraska really break it down by district, or do they simply divvy up the votes based on the formula described above?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 21, 2004 07:21 PMCf,
Both Maine and Nebraska use this method
In all but two states, the party that wins the most popular votes becomes that state’s electors, essentially a winner-take-all. The two exceptions are the states of Maine and Nebraska, where two of the electors are chosen by the popular vote statewide, and the rest are determined by the popular vote within each Congressional district. For example: Maine has two congressional districts. Of the votes in District 1, Jones gets 20 and Smith gets 15. In District 2, Jones gets 3 and Smith gets 32. In this situation, Smith would receive three of Maine’s electoral votes (two for receiving a plurality plus an elector for winning District 2), with Jones getting the fourth (for winning District 1). This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither has ever split its electoral votes. [wikipedia]
One of the electoral vote predictors even takes Maine’s districts into account when drawing his red/blue map. I don’t know why he doesn’t do the same for Nebraska.
Thanks for the link to the 2000 results re-done proportionally. I had seen it, and I tried to refer to it when I commented above, but I couldn’t find it again.
Posted by: LawnBoy at July 21, 2004 09:56 PMAl Gore got more votes than any other candidate in history.
Sorry, Cf, not quite true. In 1984, Reagan got 54,455,000 votes, the only total in history that exceeds Gore’s 50,999,897. These numbers are from Wikipedia, but others have slightly different numbers, with Reagan still ahead by about 3 million.
Posted by: LawnBoy at July 21, 2004 10:03 PMAs I have voiced repeatedly on this board, and as I plan to write a book on some day (its in the works already :)), our electoral system needs to get passed the out-moded method of representation that we use in the Senate, and abolish any influence of that form of representation when it comes to choosing the president. My favorite quote on this issue was said by James Wilson, one of our most respected founders, as he fought against the small states’ power grab at the constitutional convention:
“General Government is not an assemblage of States, but of individuals for certain political purposes… the individuals therefore not the States, ought to be represented in it.”
Notice this does not mean that our national government is all-powerful, but that for the limited purposes (well not so limited anymore thanks to FDR and co.) that our government is to serve, our government is the a government of the people, not a confederacy like the articles of confederation. It is unacceptable that a president can recieve less votes from teh American people than his opponent and still be chosen the leader. The system has to change, I hope to play a role in changing it some day.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at July 22, 2004 10:23 AMMisha, I agree, entirely with doing away with the electoral college. I would however, want to maintain the Senate as the more deliberative body of Congress. The more slow and cautious half of the Congress. And I would like to see 16 year term limits for the Senate and 12 year term limits for the House.
You probably oppose term limits, and I would compromise with you on the Senate. But, the House requires term limits to insure that the populace is represented by the people, not entrenched special interests. I see a kind of corruption of the mind that takes place in the House more than the Senate, where party supercedes all other interests in casting votes. I believe term limits in the House would aid in diminishing this party line superiority of priorities.
Ok, blast away, my friend!
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2004 10:52 AMRob Cottrel, not exactly accurate on the voter turnout. Slightly more than 50% did turn out to vote on my last review of the numbers.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2004 10:56 AMDavid- I was not specific enough. I do not want to do away with the Senate, nor the long term limits. My proposal would be for each Senator to represent the same number of people. So California would have like 5 Senators, and then there would be one Senator from a couple of less-populous states. Some may argue that this would cause people in small states to be disproportionately ignored- but that is not so. The ratio each american would have to each Senator would be the same, so each American’s vote would count the same when it came to the Senate’s decisions. As it should be.
as for term limits- I do oppose them. In places where they have been tried (Costa Rica, for example), they have led to even more corruption, as congressmen become responsive to the people who will give them jobs after their term-limits have expired rather than their constituence. If you have interest in this topic, I strongly suggest that you take a look at Term Limits and Legislative Representation by John M. Carey. Its a comperative study of term limit and non-term limit regimes in other nations and how they have worked.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at July 22, 2004 11:21 AMa little more detail- So lets say California would have like 5 Senators- each Senator would represent a finite # of Californians and would be voted on only by those Californians. So there would be like 1 million people per senator (just as a round number). Lets say the people of Wyoming and one other state add up to a million people- they would also have one Senator. Therefor there would always be about a 1 million: 1 ratio for every American to their Senator. I think thats only fair.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at July 22, 2004 11:25 AMhow exactly is
gerrymandering and redistrictingto blame for Texas voting for Bush. I can understand if you were talking about congressional seats, but how is that related to the electoral college. I am from a tiny state so maybe there is a different set up down there. But in RI, the candidate with the most votes in my state gets all 4 electoral college votes. Posted by: miguel at July 22, 2004 12:07 PM
Thanks for the article, David. I agree that this is the direction we need to go - if anyone thinks it can’t get worse than Bush, think again. At this rate, with the Patriot Act in place, if they cancel they election because of a terrorist attack, we’ll be living in a police state.
Maybe the info you provided will help enlighten folks. There is a strong resistance to the idea of voting for a 3rd party, it’s equivalent to mass hysteria. I was talking to a great friend today, who used to be a hippie chick in the 60s, we got on the topic of Bush for a while, which we both agree he needs to back to crawford on a one-way ticket, but then she said that ‘she feels like shooting Ralph Nader in the head’. My jaw nearly dropped to the ground. I know she’s not serious but I couldn’t believe it. But I have seen this everywhere. Ralph Nader and his supporters are being abused and discriminated, treated with hate speech and threats.
The target of people’s hatred is misdirected. They are aiming their hatred at people who are trying to help. We don’t discriminate people based on the color of their skin, their culture, their sex or sexual orientation, how much money they have, their religion or their political beliefs…or do we? Because someone is different and has different but sound ideas, they are marginalized. It’s not right. We have to stop treating people this way. If we value our freedom and we live in a democracy, then people should stand up and protect civil rights, free speech and the ability participate in the political system. It just goes to show you how far to the right our country has slipped, and what a joke our ‘democracy’ really is, and we’ve lost sight of our constitution. We’re going to need to do a lot more than just get rid of Bush.
It’s too bad that Kucinich didn’t come through with aligning the Democrats to adopting a progressive anti-war stance. That is going to cost Kerry some votes. He was recently quoted as saying that “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush”. So much for our constitution and democracy - It just goes to show that the democratic party is not going to change. So now, we have to do something different at the polls this November.
Posted by: pax at July 22, 2004 08:11 PMmiguel, the answer to your question is coattails and straight party ticket voting. My motivation is less to show up at the polls in November if I do not support Bush, in this Republican dominated Texas state. By not showing up at the polls, I also don’t support other candidates, like Governor’s, representatives, and state and local officials. This has a huge effect on redistricting, marginalizing opposition party political activities, donations, and voting.
Remember the voting turnout is much higher in a Presidential election than in any other. It would be far greater if voters did not stay home in opposition party solid states. The effect this has state legislator races is huge, which in turn affects redistricting, etc. setting the stage for the state becoming even more solid one party state in future electoral college counts.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2004 08:37 PMMisha, I see your point, and I am unable to decide at this moment whether your proposal would have the intended effect. I do know, that the arguments launched against your proposal would hinge upon diminishing the representation of a small population state. Utah has the same representation as N.Y. in the Senate. Their economies, natural resources, demographics and industries could not be more different from each other. Utah would argue tieing Senators to numbers instead of specific states, would diminish their representation. Specifically, Salt Lake City would be represented by 1 million votes while the issues affecting all of the rest of the state, would be diluted. With NY having 5 senators and Utah having only 2, rural Utahans would barely have a voice on issues where NY City and Salt Lake City senators have common interests based on urban needs or issues.
Your proposal has merit: but, I have to think about it some more. Giving each state equal representation has its downsides but, it also has the feel of fairness where state differences on issues are concerned.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2004 08:49 PMDavid,
I don’t get your math. 5% of the votes for a 3rd party candidate would not turn a “safe state” into a swing state. Instead, the difference it would make is in future elections. Earning 5% of the votes entitles future party candidates to matching federal funding for campaigns (I think this is only the presidential level, but I’m not sure).
Anyway, I really doubt Nader will get near the 2.7% he got in 2000. People are highly PO’d with him. There’s also the other progressive candidate: the Green Party’s David Cobb (www.votecobb.org). The real question is if people are interested in progressive candidates (or at least fed up enough with the two-party system) to vote for both Nader and Cobb, with the total being higher than it was in 2000.
Also, since Senate candidates serve 6 year terms, it’d be difficult to limit the number of terms they serve to 16 without changing the length of each term.
Personally, I say let’s do away with the electoral college all together and institute IRV or something like it (www.fairvote.org).
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at July 23, 2004 12:44 AMDaniel, I was referring to 5% of the registered voters voting for anyone other than Kerry or Bush. That 5% will be up for grabs in 2006 and 08, and given the extremely close races this country is experiencing, 5% is very, very significant. 5% will force the duopoly party to embrace third party policies in an attempt to gather a substantial portion of that 5% vote.
We are already seeing Republicans working to get Nader on the ballots in a few states. The next election cycle may well see the Dem’s working to get Libertarian candidates on the ballot. This will increase the visibility of third party views and candidates. The potential for a revolution in American politics is there. It is just a matter of awakening the non-voters and potential 3rd party voters to the potential and getting them to the polls.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2004 02:41 PM> Sorry, Cf, not quite true.
Thanks, LawnBoy! I remember hearing my false factoid back in 2000, but whoever said it was obviously full of crap. Hmm, maybe I got my numbers from the Democratic Party Remote Control Chip installed in my brain!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 23, 2004 10:47 PMSo, what you’re saying is that if 5% of those who generally don’t vote or whose votes weren’t counted properly in former elections suddenly go third party then a safe state would turn into a swing state. If so, fair enough. The real test will be whether 3rd party candidates (and Nader too, though he’s an independent) will be allowed to participate in national debates. This has always been a point of contention of 3rd parties, that not only do they have to overcome massive obstacles to getting their name on the ballot, they are often not allowed to participate in major debates. The excuse is that they are not relevant or serious enough, or don’t represent enough of the votes. That’s bunk, though, as we could easily create a tiered debate system.
Anyway, just to share with you and anyone else that’s interested, we’re doing our share to give voters in Maryland several choices this year:
Six Maryland Greens Announce Congressional Candidicies
We had a press conference today and got picked up by AP which this local station’s website published as did this DC station’s site.
Posted by: Daniel at July 24, 2004 12:35 AMSorry, I didn’t do the links in my previous post correctly:
Six Maryland Greens Announce Congressional Candidicies
Two AP articles (essentially the same article):
WBAL (Baltimore TV/Radio news)
and
Posted by: Daniel at July 24, 2004 12:39 AMthey have to overcome massive obstacles to getting their name on the ballot, they are often not allowed to participate in major debates
Daniel, what is the criteria for getting on the ballot and getting in a congressional debate in Maryland?
Daniel, I agree the debates being opened to more candidates than those of the duopoly, are very important. That is at the heart of the Nader campaign. He is fighting as I type to get the resources necessary to get on the ballots, a prerequisite to qualifying for the Open Debates, if not the debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates controlled by the Dem’s and Repub’s.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2004 05:02 PMAmerican—For ballot access you need to be officially recognized by the state as a political party. To do that, you need 10k signatures (I believe).
For debates, well that’s another story. It depends largely on who’s running it. For example, the League of Women Voters holds “presentations” not really debates, but still a public forum. If there are state-sanctioned debates then I believe the campaign must have a treasurer and able to garner a certain percentage of the vote (I think 1%, but I’m not sure).
Nader didn’t get into the CPD debates in 2000 and he probably won’t this year either, despite the fact that the Dems’ illigitimately call him a spoiler. If he gets on enough ballots (which is looking dubious I’d say) the CPD still will not let him in despite the spoiler title. Ironic and convenient, ain’t it?
Posted by: Daniel at July 25, 2004 01:57 AMPerot got in the debates for the ‘92 elections. But he was a serious contender, polling at 30-plus percent.
The requirements you mention don’t seem like “massive obstacles”. If a 3rd party candidate can’t get 10k signatures and 1% or more in the state polls, how representative are their views, really?
What would you propose as ballot and debate criteria?
A. Pundit, that is the rub. The requirements are different from state to state. That fact alone makes it difficult. Some states require qualification for third parties that are different and more difficult than for the two major parties. Of course, what is really needed is a national public political channel for radio and TV, where free and equal access is given to any party or canidate who polls 2% in a national poll conducted by perhaps the League of Women Voters.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 26, 2004 07:13 PMAP, you’d be surprised how difficult it can be to get 10k signatures. People generally either don’t care, or don’t like to sign petitions. I think the Internet could play a big role in decreasing this obstacle, but I’ve yet to see it happen (is Nader doing this?).
One of my Green Party colleagues came up with a great idea: tiered debates. That is, the top contenders have their debates, while lesser contenders have their debates. By law, the media has to provide equal coverage of candidates when they address the masses. A tiered system only needs to be organized and probably financially backed in some way. I mean, aside from the 4 largest, well-known parties (Dems, Repubs, Greens, and Libs…I really don’t think the Constitution party has a huge following) there’s probably a ton of everday Joes and Josephinas that run for President every year all over the country. We certainly don’t get to hear from all those “long shots”. I don’t find that democratic, do you?
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at July 26, 2004 11:33 PMAP, you’d be surprised how difficult it can be to get 10k signatures
No, I wouldn’t. :)
That’s what I’m talking about, though. If you can’t get 10k people, out of millions, excited about your candidate, you might want to go back and work on the message. :)
Actually, I’m pretty sympathetic for 3rd parties. I agree with David that it’s tough to get the message out without cash and airtime. If there’s a bill requiring the media to provide free radio and TV time for candidates, let us know. I’ll shoot off some emails in support of it.
I’m already shooting off emails to my representatives in support of campaign finance reforms that should make it easier for 3rd parties to get public funding. If you know of any initiatives like that, let us all know.
I think you’d be surprised at how many people actually favor making politics more accessible to 3rd parties. But unless you have a really good wedge issue (Perot’s was financial responsibility), it’s going to be tough to get people excited. The Dems and Reps do a pretty good job trying to get all the wedge issues on their platforms.
Another thing you might want to consider is winning a bunch of seats at the local level. Prove to people that your party is responsible and good at government.
I think most people are very conservative with their politicians. If it ain’t broke, they’re reluctant to take a chance on a newcomer or new party fixing it.
AP—As far as I know, the law already exists that media that operate over publicly owned airwaves are required to provide equal time to political candidates in an election. Remember the California Governor’s race? Jay Leno, for example, had all candidates on his show at once, filling an entire section of his studio with them. I think this is part of the various telecom acts that have been enacted over the past 70 years. It may have been part of 1996, but I’m not sure. I’ll find out though.
In regards to petitioning, it’s not only message. People are generally disinterested or highly suspicious. They tend to be suspicious of gov’t and anybody’s attempt to reform or change it (unless of course it’s a talking head on TV). I’ve canvassed neighborhoods and worked large fairs. But then, if it was easy, it would probably not be worth doing!
So far, the best approach I’ve found when trying to collect signatures is to ask, “Do you believe in Democracy?” I mean, who’s really going to say no to that! (Thank goodness we in MD don’t have to collect signatures anymore.
And just a point of clarification: We’d need 10k signatures to get official party recognition, and 1% of voters in any given district on a petition. That 1% is the real challenge. So, in my district of 300k voters, a 3rd party candidate would need 30k signatures.
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at July 27, 2004 10:49 AMDaniel, but not free time. That is key to permitting 3rd party positions to be made available to viewing audiences. I am not certain, but, I believe a station that gives a Dem 30 seconds in air time costing the Dem $150,000 is only obligated to offer the same deal to other candidates. If they haven’t got $150 G., their tough luck. Letter of the law observed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 27, 2004 12:08 PMYes, that’s true David. I was strictly thinking in terms of free press, i.e. interviews. But you make an excellent point.
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at July 27, 2004 02:21 PMDaniel, if I were the Green Party strategist, I’d start packing the local seats with Greens: city council members, mayors, state representatives & senators, etc. And make sure all of them did something the Greens could point to with pride.
Politics is all about “What have you done for me lately”. What have the Greens done for me lately? Did they relieve traffic congestion around my house? Did they lower my garbage bill? Did they reinvigorate the downtown area? Build a park near my house?
The Greens have a good message, but how well do they govern? What are their achievements in running a city or a county or a state?
All the free air time and debates aren’t going to get you anything without achievements to point to. The Green message is universal, no one wants to breathe dirty air or drink poison, but can you guys run the buses on time and get the garbage picked up, too?
A. Pundit, you would make a very good strategist, almost as good as the one the Green Party has, because that has in fact, been there successful strategy for years, and inroads are made to local offices every election cycle.
Daniel, thank you for that link regarding the Greens congressional campaigns. That is great news. Greens are popping up all over the country in local elections. I figure 8 to 12 years to make a serious dent in the national congressional races by Greens. By then, it should be Hillary and Jenna Bush going at it, and the country will be willing to try any other Green option than those two. :-)
Posted by: David R Remer at July 28, 2004 07:30 AMAP—David’s right, that’s exactly our strategy (for the most part). That’s why we’re running 8 city council candidates in addition to the 6 congressionals. I think we still need candidates at the higher levels to help get the message out, though. This is particularly important in districts that are either large in population or geography.
As far as “what have you done for me lately?” Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, NY, and a Green performed same-sex marriages. He was charged with 24 counts of misdemeanor, but those charges were dropped for fear of a major constitutional backlash.
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at July 28, 2004 11:37 AMA. Pundit, you would make a very good strategist, almost as good as the one the Green Party has
Dang! I just finished typing up my resume. Oh, well. :)
Posted by: American Pundit at July 29, 2004 10:45 AM
