December 14, 2004
Ground Floor Grassroots Effort to Unite Third Parties
Last month I wrote an article here entitled United: A chance! - Divided: No Chance! in which it was recommended that third parties find their common ground and goals, and unite under one umbrella toward those ends in the next election, pooling efforts and resources on the national level. I was alerted yesterday, that a petition to the third parties asking for just that, has just been opened up for signatures on the internet.
If you believe the Democratic and Republican Parties need to have some real competition in future elections forcing their agendas toward the common sense, middle or the road American citizens and policies, visit the Petition Online and add your name to the cause. It is quick and simple and takes less than half a minute to add your name to this most worthy cause.
Posted by David R. Remer at December 14, 2004 08:05 AMI’m not sure that there really is enough common ground for the third parties. The Libertarians could never stomach the economics of the Greens; neither the Libertarians nor the Greens could deal with the uber-social-conservatism of the Constitution party, etc. I doubt that such a union would be feasable to anyone’s satisfaction.
Posted by: Nick Mason at December 14, 2004 09:13 AMDavid
I’ve been thinking about this alot since you first posted it.
Cooperation of this kind, may be the only way we can take our govt back and have it represent the people again.
Me voting Green would cause many people I know to faint in shock, but I think I would be willing to do it for a common cause. Heck, I’m even trying to learn more about Greens and why they think all crazy like that.
As of now, this idea has my support. Hopefully soon, it will have my signature.
Posted by: kctim at December 14, 2004 09:49 AMThe last time a third party won states under the EC system was (if I remember correctly) 1946, and they didn’t come close to winning the election, or even coming in second. Perot in ’92 got more popular votes than most third party candidates, but he did not manage to win a single state.
With both candidates receiving more votes than ever in this election, I think It’s safe to say combining the third parties still would not yield enough voters for a presidential win.
Rocky made a good point in the last discussion about name recognition. The third parties seem to have their sights set directly on the presidency. It would be easier for them to run someone for President if they were already winning elections for state governments and Congress, but they don’t seem to be interested in that.
That being said, third party candidates really don’t stand a fair chance. I think you can use this topic as a very good argument for a run-off system. If implemented properly, (not an easy task) it would give alternative candidates a much better and fairer chance at getting elected. It would also give more people a chance to voice their ideas.
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 14, 2004 11:17 AMThe Traveller, Nick, and kctim, a third party candidate need not win a national election to influence the direction of American politics. By definition, a third party candidate will not be a winning candidate for a Presidential race. But some independents have made it to the House and Senate. The role of third parties for the foreseeable future is not to win the Presidency, but, to influence the direction of policy and agenda of one or both of the duopoly parties.
Ross Perot had that effect, due to both resources and message. There are a number of issues that Greens, Libertarians, and Independents have in common. To name just a few: Overhaul of the FEC to include third parties instead of exclude them, Forcing duopoly candidates to debate with third party candidates, fiscal restraint and responsibility, voter reform and national policy for national voting races, and federal penalties for violation of voter laws in national elections, real and effective border protection.
Only when an umbrella third party organization grows to the point of posing a real threat of winning national office, need the third party platform differences become a divisive factor. Until then, joining forces and resources to create an eruption of common ground issue in the public eye and mind, would benefit all of the third parties immensely over their divided and extremely anemic performance in the ‘04 election.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 14, 2004 11:36 AMI totally agree David.
I just hope we don’t end up like we are now, only with different party names and just as divided.
kctim, I agree. It is up to us to make it work, and the petition is the first toward making it work.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 14, 2004 12:44 PMDavid,
I agree that they can have influence. But if you’re going to play, why not play to win?
I think the third parties could gain even more influence by making a bigger push to get into Congress. Then they will have at least some control over what’s going on, as opposed to just voicing their ideas every four years. The name (and issue) recognition alone would help a presidential candidate.
By the way, I also agree with the issues you mentioned.
Posted by: TheTraveler at December 14, 2004 12:52 PMThe Traveller, I agree. The problem (not necessarily insurmountable) is that the closer the third parties get to winning a a race for one of their candidates, the more prominent their platform differences become as obstables to unified collective effort.
This is potentially surmountable however, to a large extent and for some time, by race sharing. I.E., based on some forumla for likelihood of winning, a third parties constituent size, and weakness of dupopoly competitor, the third parties could map out geographical races where say, the Green Party candidate would by collectively supported on District One, while the Libertarian candidate would receive collective support from all third parties in District 5.
This would not be without contention, but, certainly possible with the right leadership from each of the third parties who can maintain the superordinate collective goal as priority one.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 14, 2004 02:24 PMI agree. Voters must unite.
Voters need a party (or parties) to support and champion ONE unifying concept.
The concept must produce benefits.
The concept must be simple.
Any concept more complicated is unnecessary and will fail.
That ONE concept must resonate with most voters.
Voters must unite to use this
ONE Simple Idea , to Ensure that Their
ONE Vote Counts , to FORCE the
ONE fundamental change required to make
Government Transparent and Accountable:
_____ Vote out ALL incumbents.
_____ NO exceptions.
_____ Repeatedly , EVERY election.
_____ UNTIL things drastically improve (see UNTIL When? below)
____________________________________________________________________
QUESTION: Why ? Why vote out ALL incumbents ?
____________________________________________________________________
ANSWER:
[X] Because it matters less WHO you vote for, than whether they will
be ACCOUNTABLE after being elected.
[X] Congress must be treated as one entity or team (unlike now), to
force Congress to police their own ranks. If you play on a baseball
team that loses the game, you lose also along with the team, even if
you are the best player of both teams. Congress, together as a team,
corrupted the current system together, and cleverly over-complicated
the system to reduce transparency and make it difficult for voters to
know what is happening. So, treat Congress as one entity or team.
[X] This one simple idea provides the necessary FORCE required to give
ALL politicians an incentive to reform, and also apply pressure to ALL
of their fellow politicians to reform (i.e. police their own ranks).
[X] Also, any other approach is too complicated, which will fail.
The SOLUTION must remain simple, and unconfused.
[X] This is the ONE thing politicians are hoping you will never discover.
Politicians have no power except the power that voters give them.
We must stop empowering them to continue the abuse and corruption.
_________________________________________________
Currently, many in government are involved in pork-barrel spending, waste,
over-spending, bribery, petty-partisan politics, and corruption.
The decisions being made by Congress are not that complicated.
So, where are we going wrong ?
The problem is irresistible corruption within government, and insufficient incentives to resist it.
(1) There is insufficient transparency. To ignore government is to invite corruption.
(2) Power corrupts. Influence is for sale, and can be bought. Secret deals and bribes transpire.
(3) There is purposeful over-complication of everything, to reduce transparency.
(4) There is mismanagement and neglect (such as Social Security, National Debt, etc.)
(5) The environment breeds corruption, greed, waste, pork-barrel spending, pandering, etc.
(6) There is an arrogance in government that leads them to believe they
know better than you what to do with your money, property, and rights.
(7) Any person thrown into this environment would find the temptations difficult to ignore.
Thus, it is less important who you vote for, than whether they will
be responsible and accountable after they are elected.
This one simple thing will force Congress to
be accountable, force reform changes,
and lead to more transparency which is required to discourage corruption, and
give politicians an incentive to police their own ranks.
It will force the politicians to be responsible and accountable.
Many Democrats and Republicans see this same problem and are
also searching for something better.
A party (or parties) that champions this ONE simple idea may
acquire more support they ever before. They may win over many
voters from all pre-existing parties.
______________________________________________________
QUESTION: UNTIL WHEN? WHEN DOES IT END ?
When is it OK for voters to vote for incumbents ?
ANSWER: Eventually, politicians will get the message (e.g. after 8 or
12 years; maybe longer). Voters can ease up some:
(a) only after government has implemented the necessary
reforms (see below) which provides voters the means
(i.e. transparency) to quickly and easily identify only
the irresponsible politicians to vote out of office
(i.e. hold them accountable),
(b) and only after things have improved drastically.
______________________________________________________
I was wrong earlier:
The 1948 election wasn’t the last time a third party candidate won states.
An independent candidate, Harry Byrd, won a couple states in 1960.
Sorry for any confusion… ;-)
What is that…the resurrection of Gargan?
I think it’s entirely possible for Libertarians and Greens to work together, but not electorally. I think there’s much voter education to be done and that’s the best potential for cooperation.
For example, I am helping to organize a semi-informal speakers bureau between Greens and Libertarians. The idea is to have reps from each party speak for college poli-sci & high school classes about 3rd party politics. Hopefully, youngin’s will be attracted to either (or both..what the heck).
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at December 15, 2004 12:23 AMDavid said:
There are a number of issues that Greens, Libertarians, and Independents have in common. To name just a few: Overhaul of the FEC to include third parties instead of exclude them, Forcing duopoly candidates to debate with third party candidates
I’d have to disagree on those two, specifically with reference to the Libertarian Party. We’re talking about the party whose platform includes a call for the elimination of the EPA, here. It’d probably include a call to completely do away with the FEC. Also, any Libertarian who is going to force you to debate anyone doesn’t deserve the name. Just thought I’d point that out. Also, you said this:
the third parties could map out geographical races where say, the Green Party candidate would by collectively supported on District One, while the Libertarian candidate would receive collective support from all third parties in District 5.
Enh? What is this, a free political market? Sorry, my vote’s not up for trading unless you bring smaller government and a freer society to the table. Anyone who’d agree to this sort of arrangement values political expediency over principled living. At that point, you’re voting to get your party’s name next to an office, not to have any real vision from that party enacted in that office.
I think that the third parties have a chance to effect change on some issues, but it’s limited. Look at Perot’s influence (he took 19% of the vote, though no states). The result, I’d argue, was the Contract with America (and its attached Republican success), and a general swing of both parties towards the right. If the Greens or Libertarians could do that… well, it’d at least help. Still, I don’t think that, barring a breakup between the Religious Right and the small-government factions of the Republican party, you’ll see a third party gain any direct influence. We’ve gotta hit the duopoly in the solar plexus — in the ballot box — if we’re gonna get anything done.
Posted by: Nick Mason at December 15, 2004 02:04 AMI think it is VERY unlikely any third parties will ever unite unless
they have ONE simple incentive to unite.
Third and Independent party platforms are all very complicated, or nebulous,
some overlap, and some are whacky.
A few different political candidates to vote for is NOT the answer.
A lot of different candidates and vote out all incumbents is the answer.
Voters must do this to send a message to government that they will all have
short careers unless they reform.
Government will not reform itself.
Voters must force government to reform.
And if it doesn’t, voters will continue to vote out all incumbents, and vote in persons
that are not affiliated with any main party (e.g. Democrat or Republican).
Because something happens to them after they are elected.
So, it is less important WHO we vote for, than
whether they will
be accountable after they are elected.
So, voters must devise a way to make government’s behavior more transparent, which will
give government an incentive to be responsible and accountable and police themselves.
Voters must focus on Congress and the Executive Branch as one entity (i.e. government).
Because Democrats and Republicans have manipulated the system over
many years, and have things just the way they like it (easy to abuse
without out being observed or discovered).
And, ironically, voters empower them to continue it.
Neither Democrats or Republicans have sufficient
incentives to hold each other’s
feet to the fire for the corrupt behavior, because most are participators.
Therefore, there is insufficient incentives for government to reform,
be responsible, or accountable.
Congress does NOT have sufficient incentive to police themselves.
In fact, they have incentives to not reveal corruption, for fear they’ll be discovered also.
So, after they’re elected, they will likely
succumb to the greed and corruption, and no
longer be responsible or accountable.
And their party will spend big bucks to keep them
in office. And voters fall for all of this.
The two parties take turns screwing things up, blaming each other, and
pitting Americans against each other, and perpetuate the petty partisan
bickering.
The third parties are only minor irritants to
the Democrat and Republican parties.
Congress is so dysfunctional, they mismanage Social Security,
plunder its funds to spend more, and can not even resolve the most simple of problems.
Until voters treat Congress as one entity,
government will continue to be unaccountable,
corrupt, and dysfunctional.
Congress’ spending is like a rat in a cage sipping from a liquid cocaine dispenser.
The rat becomes addicted, and continues to consume the cocaine until it overdoses and dies.
Likewise, Congress will continue the spending, and corruption until the nation is destroyed
(unless Voters force them to reform).
Thus, there is a flaw in the voting system.
Voters can NOT seem to unite to ever view
Congress as one entity (i.e. team), which is
why Congress will never be forced to reform,
and Congress will not do it themselves.
It’s definitely an interesting idea. I agree it’s time to remove the Dem/Rep hegemony.
Posted by: Greg at December 15, 2004 12:33 PMI don’t think that will accomplish anything accept compromising the Libertarian Position. Also, it would help the greens too much, who definately don’t need to be making policy. In a perfect world it would be Libertarians versus Greens. So why band together? Remember the anatomy of compromise? Only “evil” can benefit from an agreement with “good”
Posted by: Jon Piekos at December 15, 2004 07:24 PMThere are several different groups around working on the concept of a Coalition. Simply Google Third Party Coalition. There “We the People Coaltion”, a Coalition of Independants looking to unite. There is the Revolutionary Coalition working on it. There are a lot of informed, intelligent people working on laying the groundwork right now to make this happen.
If we do it - we are playing to WIN. This is not simply considering the marginal percentage of registered 3rd party voters, but also the Independants who comprise 1/3 of the registered voters, and would presumably break towards change!
The trick here is to negotiate a platform that is designed to Unite, not divide. We have to focus on common issues that we agree on, not the divisive issues that have taken the spotlight for FAR TOO LONG. The federal government should not be wasting time debating abortion and gay marriang. That what the 10th ammendment was for. Those powers should be left to the states, or respectively, the PEOPLE!
Anthony, absolutely correct. ! Thank you for the motivating me to write this article. If Jon is not a Republican or Democrat, he should be. The old, divided we conquer rhetoric of the duopoly at play in his comment.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 16, 2004 10:52 AMThat’s ridiculous David. Let me see the platform that unites Greens and Libertarians. What will it look like? Divide and conquer, unite and rule? Do we want to take the party of principle and turn it into another political monster? Playing to win? At what cost? What will the prize be?
Posted by: Jon Piekos at December 16, 2004 02:09 PMJon, the answer to your questions are in the article. Guess you missed them. Rediculous? OK, in your minority opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it.
Your position sounds like a good excuse to just go on wasting time and effort and money like happened in the November elections, to me. Third parties failed utterly in November. And this is all you have to recommend? :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 16, 2004 03:19 PMCitizen education. It’s all about citizen education on the issues that affect our lives. The average American apathetically trusts that our government will do the right thing, and it’s wrong. Unfortunately the government, by manipulating education and the media, can influence this to keep people naive and keep itself in power.
Once enough people realize that neither of the primary parties are looking out for our interests and that both of them are too far beholden to the sponsors and contributors that got them there, that’s when there will be real grass-roots change.
Posted by: Tad at December 17, 2004 11:03 AMLook, on the surface that seems like a good idea. However helping the greens in any way is too much of a bad idea. There are far more brainwashed socialist leaning people that if the greens become powerful enough they could actually take over the system. I am not advers to adhoc cooperation with them, but actually voting for them? Not a snowball’s chance.
Now why don’t you insult me some more? It works better than your legitimate arguements.
I was reading an article in the Daily Kos today about Montana as a swing state and noted some vote totals. Kerry got 38% of the vote comapared to a lower figure by C;inton, who won the state because Perot took a significant bite out of the wing nuts.
I believe if the Democrats want to win in 2008 that’s got to be their goal: to get a viable wing nut to run on a third party ticket.
Posted by: Greg at December 19, 2004 03:37 PMIt’s absolutely to be expected that both the sides of the Republocrat Party will be fanatically opposed to this idea. It would shatter their plutocracy, and put “The People” back in charge.
Within a coalition, the existing third parties all stand to benifit. They would still be pushing theit own platform and running their own candidates at the state and local levels. The Coalition would really focus on the National Position, the Presidency. As has been made abundantly clear, no third party has a chance on it’s own; yet together…it’s a different story. There is a broad spectrum from which to draw votes.
Yes, with the right mediators, the third parties could agree on things. Mostly that corporate influence in politics is absurd, and must be dealt with. Ballot access restrictions are impossible. The federal government is way out of the bounds of the constitution. Pork spending is a waste of our money. Debating gay marriage is a waste of our time, and money…and the 10th ammendment says it should be left to the states, or the people, respectively. I see the beginnings of a platform here.
You see, I think the Two Parties are both soo deep into corruption that they cannot expose each other. It is like the “mutually assured destruction” of the cold war. If one side starts blowing the whistle, they will both obliterate each other with the truth. If the Public only knew.
Yes, this is possible, and it makes perfect sense!
Posted by: Anthony Partin at December 19, 2004 09:20 PM
