Rob,

While as a Libertarian Party activist (from Montgomery County, PA) I applaud your call for 3rd party participation,  you're wrong to call for federal intervention. The answer is state level activism such as the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition. The last thing we need is for the fedgov to take over elections completely (which is the direction we're going in) & dictate to the states even more.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:20:22 AM

  (0+)

Touche for your remarks. The Libertarians would leave the middle and working classes to the tender mercies of the corporate capitalists. It was government historically that tempered and moderated the excesses and inhuman aspects of laissez faire. The economy is like a cocktale. Too much free enterprise sours it while too much government may lead to totalitarianism. The meekness and emptiness of the Democrats is revealed in the empty suit that is Harry Reed.

by philip rosen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:37:44 AM

  (0+)

Touche for your remarks.

The Libertarians would leave the middle and working classes to the tender mercies of the corporate capitalists.

It was government historically that tempered and moderated the excesses and inhuman aspects of laissez faire.

The economy is like a cocktale.

Too much free enterprise sours it while too much government may lead to totalitarianism.

The meekness and emptiness of the Democrats is revealed in the empty suit that is Harry Reed.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM

  (0+)

said the elephant as he danced among the chickens."

by vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 300 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:01:36 PM

  (0+)

... says a guy who calls himself vidiot as he steps over the dead bodies his favorite organization left on the ground. You really live up to your name.

Try to redeam yourself. Give me an example of the failure of laissez faire capitalism.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:35:33 PM

  (0+)

You can't look around and see them for yourself?

Why do you think the Corporations are so out of control? They haven't paid taxes since 1994 or something! Why do you think US CEO's make 600 times what their workers do?

Why are there a filthy-rich 1% while the working middle class is sinking into poverty!?( What, you still think it'll "Trickle down"  someday? Poor Fool.)

Why are Banks defaulting home loans, while getting their asses bailed out by the Government? 

Why are there so many food poisonings and bad drugs on the market, while people can't afford the necessary ones anymore?

Why are big Insurance companies screwing people every time there's disaster?  (Obviously, I could go on, but I'm sure others get the picture, even if you don't)

NO REGULATIONS! NO Oversight, NO Rule of Law, and THIS is where it's gotten us.

THAT is what government is for, to PROTECT its' People, NOT allow the rich and strong to run roughshod over them.

 Laissez-Faire Capitalism is just for the big guys these days, and in reality it's just Capitalism run Amok, and as such, it has hopeless polluted our Democracy.

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:43:59 AM

  (0+)

Bia,

Thanks for the reply (though you are unnecessarily insulting). You're the first to take up my challenge to try to show me capitalism's failure. Now to make you regret your courage. 

You can't look around and see them for yourself?

Why do you think the Corporations are so out of control?

They haven't paid taxes since 1994 or something!

Why do you think US CEO's make 600 times what their workers do?

Why are there a filthy-rich 1% while the working middle class is sinking into poverty!?( What, you still think it'll "Trickle down"  someday? Poor Fool.)

Why are Banks defaulting home loans, while getting their asses bailed out by the Government? 

Why are there so many food poisonings and bad drugs on the market, while people can't afford the necessary ones anymore?

Why are big Insurance companies screwing people every time there's disaster?  (Obviously, I could go on, but I'm sure others get the picture, even if you don't)

NO REGULATIONS! NO Oversight, NO Rule of Law, and THIS is where it's gotten us.

THAT is what government is for, to PROTECT its' People, NOT allow the rich and strong to run roughshod over them.

 Laissez-Faire Capitalism is just for the big guys these days, and in reality it's just Capitalism run Amok, and as such, it has hopeless polluted our Democracy.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:39:38 PM

  (0+)

...oh wait.  Never mind. 

by waldopaper (15 articles, 3 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 609 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:38:46 PM

  (0+)

If third party or Independent candidates aren't supposed to run in presidential elections yet?

This question isn't specifically for you Rob or anybody here at OEN.

I think Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr have to fight this battle for the public to see in order for Americans to understand the need to organize. They have to see the obstacles so support can be organized to tear them down.

They have to know about Bonusgate in Pennsylvania or they have to know that Democrats in Illinois worked hard in 2004 to keep Nader off the ballot by arbitrarily throwing out as many signatures as possible.  

They have to organize Super Rallies to call for the opening up of debates run by a corporation, the Commission on Presidential Debates, which was formed in 1987 by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

I'm racking my brain for something better, but I just don't see advancement of a multi-party system going anywhere if other parties do not organize awareness campaigns during an election year---awareness campaigns which may potentially prevent voters from showing up to vote but are necessary if in the long term we want to move away from such a broken and rigged system.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:39:11 AM

  (0+)

and more,  the millions of disgruntled democrats have to get together and demand that legislators at the state and federal level even the playing field.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM

  (0+)

I certainly agree with the spirit of your article. Yet I question the possibility of coming together.

Interestingly enough, I wrote an article today for Op-Ed that questions whether the divisions of the American people have become so polarized as to allow any acceptable salvage of our country that does not alienate equal numbers to those who are satisfied with given changes. Do red and blue ever blend to purple?p>

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM

  (0+)

Of course i agree wholeheartedly with all you said there Rob.

If i may expand on one point, that i usually soft-ball in the "New Coalition Reform Third Party" religious tracts, lol:

The endeavor of a Third Party is in itself very worthy, if only just as a wake-up call to the mainstream parties. This is what is needed to shake up the very smug and arrogant grand-scale ward heelers we are saddled with in the leadership. And it will tell Congress to get off the pot and into real action; that people are starting to wake up now, so watch out.... They know they could never get away with the stuff they pull if there was vigilance by the people.

And if a Third Party prospers, so will we all.

How to do this: Imo, there is only one way to go about this with any chance of succeeding: "Make the Nation safe to argue in, before continuing the argument"....  Create an all-new Coalition Reform Party. That has no preconceived perceptions to weight it down. That has no dogma-laden platform planks which only cause division. That has only one thing in mind: Ending the behind-the-scenes control, and restoring the control of the People as our forefathers who wrote our Constitution labored for.

Throw out the money-changing lobbyists from the Temple of our government. Replace them with vigilant and concerned citizens. Get rid of the corrupting influence of money on campaigns. Free the media from the omissions and suppressions. Restore and protect our Liberties from those who would create problems, so they can steal our Freedom with phony solutions.  

These are things that so very many of us can agree on... Honest Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists, Progressives. All of us who fear that it has gone on too long, that it is now too late to solve.... We together CAN solve this: By first removing the barriers that stop all real and desperately needed change from happening.  

Support an all-new Coalition Reform Third Party. Write our reform leaders and urge them to coalesce, to work together, to put aside the hopelessly polarizing issues for the moment... Until there is a real chance for seeing them debated and enacted. IT IS NOT too late. Only we can make it so, by refusing to act.    

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:17:06 PM

  (0+)

 Here's my dilemma with the two party system here in Bucks County ,Pa.

If I would vote for either candidate running  for congress it would go to the very core of my duty and privilege to vote for either one. 

They both have shown a blatant contempt and disregard for the constitution by participating in an illegal invasion and occupation of an  innocent country,one Vietnam and his son to Iraq and another who was in  the kill zone and recently voted for FISA (repeal of the fourth amendment). So who in the hell would represent my desire for a non military country. Who would speak for me in this choice. I'll vote for neither .

My dream this past winter was Al Gore would have come out as the Green Party candidate. He would have split the vote and carried one or two senators plus a handful of congressman. At that point , as Crammer would have said, Al would have said"I'm driving the bus now !" You think he isn't a chastened man from Al Gore 2000? Imagine where the country would head with the need for compromise and coalition building needed to get anything done. Imagine that !

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:20:23 PM

  (0+)

...there was no "I Don't Know" or "Other" in your poll.

The last thing we need is dozens or scores of presidential candidates.  That sort of thing has happened in other countries.  It can enable winners with nearly no popular support.   I DO like the basic premise of more fair and uniform access to the ballot - but I just don't think I'm for UNLIMITED access.

You also raised instant runoff voting, which I do support.  For that alone I would certainly have voted yes!

by Donald Rankin III (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 60 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:45:29 PM

  (0+)

All right we the people have to clean out this garbage of a Vice President, Dick Cheney and President, George Walker Bush.  That should be number one.  We the American people should not be made to pay for security on these men.  All of the money that they would think that they would get for being vp and p I wouldn't let them get.  In fact,  I would make them pay it all back for the eight years that they have been ruining our nation, among all the other nations!  Then I would have the income tax people look into all of their shares, and see how much of it is in the OIL business.  Because you will notice that as long as we had Bill Clinton he kept the OIL PRICES down. 

 I think that if the Democrats so want to win in NOVEMBER we should make Hillary Clinton President.  I think that if Barack Obama thinks that he can go and talk to these other nations, we should allow him to be Vice President or Secretary of State.  I think that with either psition he would have the tenacity to do just that!  And maybe he would get those other guys to listen.  In Iraq a young military man who was fighting over there in Iraq, that my son knew, is being laid to rest in INDIANA, Aug 14, 2008.  He was 20 or 21 years old and his name was JON.   

Ever since GWB has been in power WE have been scorched by the HIGH prices at the pump!  And it has been coming down hard on food prices, clothing prices, let alone the cost of keeping up a home and many of our people are getting stuck with those prices going up on the LOANS!  WE WANT CHANGE AND we need it NOW!

by nestacal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:48:18 PM

  (0+)

I am 49 years old.

There has not been a President elected in my lifetime who was not bought and paid for by the Corporate State.

Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.  Each and every one of them a thoroughly corporate-controlled office holder.

Differences?  Sure, superficial ones.  Carter cared about human rights and could see the big energy picture (didn't hurt that he had to deal with a massive oil boycott -- nothing like hard times to learn a lesson from).  Clinton was a total sell-out to the corporate state, but you could argue he had no choice -- he was standing on an economic precipice and could see the whole country tumbling over the cliff if he made one wrong move and pissed off "the powers that be."

And now, of course, we elected two OIL men and are suprised that gas went from $1.15 a gallon to $4.15 in seven years?  To be suprised by that, you would have to be suprised by GRAVITY.

It is impossible to be elected to the office of POTUS without the support and cooperation of the Corporate State.  Totally impossible.  Ask Gravel.  Ask Kucinich.  Ask Edwards.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:00:54 PM

  (0+)

   Always had a feeling Clinton would have been a good president but there was already too much corruption so he could not quite do it. Thanks for verbalizing that. 

by Theresa Paulfranz (23 articles, 1 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 326 comments [35 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:24:09 PM

  (0+)

There are two fundamental things that have to be to done in order to create an environment that allows diverse ideas and diverse politics.  One, take all of the money out of elections and the only funding of any type available whatsoever will be  public funding.  Two, re-establish the Fairness Doctrine and break up the media conglomerates in the name of anti-trust violations. 

   The political landscape would take a sudden and dramatic turn.  We would have the thing that the corporate world is truly frightened of........representative democracy.

by vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 300 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:43:51 PM

  (0+)

I am interested in data that shows where Instant runoff voting has helped third parties become stronger.

Australia has used IRV for decades yet - they still have the duopoly.  Ireland has had a near one party country.

So of interest is data showing that IRV has strenthened third parties.

by ncvoter (19 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 112 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:06:03 PM

  (0+)

Instant runoff voting accommodates voters having more choices. Just like traditional runoff elections, it gives voters much more freedom on their first choice to vote the way they want. This isn't supposition -- it's based on fact.

In Australia, for example, the MEDIAN AVERAGE number of candiates in house races last year was seven - the fewest in any race was four (we often just have one, but that's another matter). Greens ran in every single district and won 8% of the national vote. Yet every single race was won with more than 50% of the vote. Votes had real choices, but having those choices didn't elect people opposed by a majority.

True, it does take a majority to win with IRV. IRV is a winner-take-all system, and getting more than 50% support isn't easy. But it can happen and freed of "spoiler" calcuations, third parties and independents with the capacity to win that high a share of the vote will have a crack at winning. The Australian Greens and third parties would typically want proportional representation. But they certainly prefer instant runoff voting to plurality voting systems - -they use it for their internal elections, for example.

As to Ireland, it's ludicrous to call it a one-party country. I know you often shoot from the lip with incomplete information (or, rather, some factoid / weblink you think helps your belief, even if you know it's highly misleading or simply untrue), but do some research and explain why Ireland has several parties represented in its legislature -- and that there isn't a single legislative district that has representatives of only one party. That comes from using the ranked voting method of proportional representation, but IRV in its presidential races has handled choices -- two of the last three Irish presidential elections went to the second round of voting, and one (1990) was won by a candidate outside the two traditional parties.

I should add that given that you erroneously think IRV means touchscreen voting, Ireland and Australia use hand-counted paper ballots. In Ireland, the leading verified voting activist is a firm supporter of IRV and proportional representation.

by Rob Richie (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:51:51 PM

  (0+)

While I fully support advocacy of third parties, an alternative does exist which would have either or both of the duopoly respond to the social and economic needs of the nations citizenary rather than the special interests of corporate and private wealth.  Firstly, a constitutional amendment requiring public financing of all state and federal elections, including primary elections.  Thereafter appropriate levels of cost could be legislatively determined including perhaps defined levels of free air time imposed upon TV and Radio licensees for their continued use of the public airwaves.

"Candidates for and members of State and Federal Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government shall be reimbursed from the respective public treasurys for all those expenses associated with running for or with fulfilling the duties of their elected office including travel and imposed additional living expenses while denied receipt of anything of any value from any other source for whatever purpose, other than the federal congressional franking privilege, except upon pain of death."

In and of itself, these considerations would not deny the equivalency of money = free speech and the influence of soft money but it sure as hell would go a long way to hold elected officials accountable for their responibility to the voter(s).

by Harold Hellickson (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 97 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:10:56 PM

  (0+)

...there is only ONE "party:"  the MONEY PARTY... the "Vampire Elites."  The 1% pays their hacks and stooges (9%)... and the rest of us cattle moo down the chute thinking we have a "vote" in how the stockyard is "managed." 

The only hope is giving up on the idea that there is a "two-party system."  Right now, "ideolgy"  has very little to do with "reality."  "Monetary culture" maintains its hold on the illusion... for now. 

What's next?  "Pay the soldiers well, and not to care about anyone else."

by waldopaper (15 articles, 3 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 609 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:31:55 PM

  (0+)

Things Are Both Simple and Complex, So Where is the Simplicity? The universe is so vast that even astronomers can not wrap their minds around how vast it is, I imagine. And yet within the realm of the first three dimensions we are conscious of a few simple elegant equations that explain things on a fundamental level. Things work that way. If things did not work that way then it would be impossible to study and come to understanding about the nature of things and science would not be. Applying this to the political arena is much more difficult. The human is a truly complex thing. But here too there must be simple elegant basic overarching things as well. But what are they? It would seem to me that we have lost sight of those things and are therefore lost in a quagmire of circuitous discussion. None the less it is good to see people talking. It is very encouraging.

by Theresa Paulfranz (23 articles, 1 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 326 comments [35 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:30:47 PM

  (0+)

No, mommy can't stop daddy from being mean to me, but I know she loves me and that she would if she could. I'm a smart kid and I've read all that stuff about mommy being dependent upon daddy or loving daddy more than she loves me, but I know it isn't true. Mommy really loves me. She does. And she wants to stop daddy from being so mean to me, but she can't.

In the above paragraph, "daddy" is a metaphor for the Republican Party and "mommy" is a metaphor for the Democratic Party. I highly recommend the late Walter Karp's classic book, Indispensable Enemies, for those who really want to know how the duopoly retains its iron grip on U.S. politics.  

Unfortunately, nothing is going to change unless Child Protective Services intervenes, and they might make things even worse. We might end up in a foster home or juvenile facility that is even more abusive and dysfunctional. But no matter how much we ask "daddy" to stop being so mean, and no matter how much we beg "mommy" to try to stop him from being so mean, they aren't going to change.  

Rob has a point, that what we need to do is get big enough to punch "daddy" in the nose and buy "mommy" her own house. The problem is that we're forty years old and we're still living at home and don't have a job, so we can't. So we keep asking "daddy" not to be so mean and begging "mommy" to try to stop him from being so mean to us, but there really isn't anything we can do about it that might not make things worse. We aren't going to get any bigger, stronger, or more powerful.

But maybe, just maybe, we can find two jobs, because one won't pay enough for us to be able to move out, and try becoming self-sufficient. It will be scary. Daddy won't be there to pay the rent and mommy won't be there to cook our meals and do our laundry. But we have friends who have done it and they tell us that we can too. The question is, do we dare to try? It will mean the end of the world as we know it. Isn't a dysfunctional family better than no family?

Well, we've been thinking about it for more than twenty years now. The thing is, when grandpa and grandma died, they left us a trust fund. And every four years we get a lump sum payment from that trust fund. And every four years we hand it over to "mommy" and "daddy" and then we're stuck there for four more years because we can't afford to move out. And our next lump sum payment is due in November, so we're really thinking about it. Do we want to turn the trust money over to "mommy" and "daddy" again, or do we want to use it to move out?

Now some people are suggesting that we turn it over to them and move into their house with them and they'll take care of us just like mommy and daddy did. That sounds pretty tempting. But one of those funny books we read was by a radical psychiatrist and he defined insanity as living under somebody else's roof. He explained that when you live under somebody else's roof, they make the rules and they can keep changing the rules so that you can never quite live up to them. Then they can keep criticizing you for being unable to obey the rules that they keep changing, and sooner or later you get loco in the coco from trying to obey their constantly changing rules.

So it sounds like what we really need to do is get our own roof over our heads where we make the rules. When we make the rules, we aren't going to drive ourselves nuts by constantly changing the rules so that we can't keep up with them.

But you know, a funny thing happened. Daddy got lost on his way home from work and and when he finally got home he couldn't remember mommy's name. And mommy started being mean to me the way daddy used to be and won't listen to me. She doesn't act like she loves me any more. And she doesn't do the laundry or cook any more either, she just spends her days taking things out of my room and putting them in their master bedroom. Somebody told me that they both might have early Alzheimer's and that I should consider putting them in a nursing home.

I've got a lot to think about. And November is coming up pretty quick....

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:18:48 PM

  (0+)

I have a feeling this coming election will see many defectors from both parties.  Nader is already on the ballot in 28 states and working towards 45.  Cynthia McKinney also has a large following.  On the other side, all those Ron Paul supporters certainly won't be voting for MCain and will probably vote for Bob Barr or the Constitution party candidate. There will definitely be a lot more write in votes this time around to be sure.

It's time to take a stand against a corrupt system that leaves us with no choice but to vote for evil because the lesser of two evils is still evil.  The democratic party has long since stopped serving the common man to hobnob with the elite. Have we forgotten what we put them in congress to do ? What have they done to deserve our vote? Simply because they aren't republican?  Good god.  Talk about low standards.

 We need to unite and send a message loud and clear to the corporate duopoly that we the people are mad as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore.  With a huge third party turnout, they will certainly notice. Perhaps they may even care.

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:48:42 PM

  (0+)

It may be that the path along our political system has evolved is a dead end.  Communism was a dead end as well.  Socialism as practiced by the Northern European countries such as Denmark and Finland seems to be popular with their citizens.  Collapse of our system is going to bring a LOT of misery along with it, but our citizens seem to be intent on breeding ourselves out of existance.

Veteran, '66-68

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:56:04 PM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   Rob, I'm glad to see this article. It's a great advance since you called supporters of third party and independent candidates psychotics. Still no apology, but clear respect for our position. I, too, don't really know how to get there given the dominance of the duopoly parties. Monopolies and duopolies don't usually give up their power without a great deal of struggle. We might concentrate on just a few examples to try to make a public case. One is the Federal Elections Commission. It is the most flagrant case of conflict of interest in government in this country. It is made up entirely of representatives of those that are supposed to be regulated. Almost all appointees have been heavily involved in fund raising for the two parties that have been the problem. The law sets it up as divided equally between the two problem parties. The composition proves that Congress was not serious about regulating elections. It would be like setting up a commission to regulate the oil industry and requiring it to be composed of equal representation of each of the five largest oil companies. Would the public buy that?

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:24:55 PM

  (0+)

It's conveniently incomplete and thus unable to do a damned thing. Very handy for the mischief makers on both sides. Maybe if each candidate identified people of real integrity who would be appointed to it, that might make some difference.

I'm as unhappy with the Dems as the rest of you. But I don't want to give away my vote only to see another repug. That, to me, is a worse evil and it does not make sense to take an action that produces a lesser evil, even if the action does not directly move toward evil. We're talking more about chess than ping pong here. 

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:11:05 PM

  (0+)

instant run off voting is a good idea, and these incumbent scum should not have an easier time getting on the ballot than people that have integrity and want to clean the filth out of DC. 

All members of Congress, including Kucinich and Paul, are for some reason treasonously failing to call the peremptory Article V Convention; 567 applications have been received, from all 50 states; Congress proposes Amendments and they are obstructing the People from doing the same:

http://foavc.org/

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:51:03 PM

  (0+)

There is enough time before the election to start mobilizing for IRV (Instant Runoff Voting).

I suggest we start with our own states and communities. Do a symposium and some "Practice Balloting" workshops to show people how it works when you have 2 choices instead of one. Then apply for a petition to get the measure on the NEXT ballot, gathering the petition names AT THE POLLS this time. This election is an excellent opportunity to alert people to this and gather the necessary signatures, especially among those many who are disgusted with the few viable choices they have. By the next election, we could, at least on the State level, have a chance to vote IRV in, so it could actually be in place for future elections. 

NOW is the time to get started on this, the Polls is the place to get the support, while people are focused on the process.  

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:06:15 AM

  (0+)

... See www.instantrunoff.com for the basics on how well IRV is doing at the ballot. This is winnable.

by Rob Richie (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM

  (0+)

We don't need more political parties.

We need an end to partisan politics, and an end to the winner-take-all partisan contest for monarchial (presidential) power.

We could learn something from the ancient Greeks. After all, one of them wrote that "power should be in the hands of the whole people," rather than in the hands of one monarchial chief executive or an oligarchy of a relative few. They had the right idea, and a study of that era is worthwhile.

As the Greek democracy matured, the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that "all citizens must be equal, and in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them."

Today, Joseph J. Adamson is the only one calling for a reformation of government to put an end to commercial partisan politics and ensure that the poor and the average majority of people have more power than the rich.

He proposes a way that we can actually establish government, of, by and for the people.

Here is how:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/NewDeclaration.html 

And this:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/InheritTheEarth.html 

And here's why:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/PartisanPolitics.html 

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:07:01 PM

  (0+)

I would rather take a chance at throwing away a vote on someone that may not win than throwing away my country voting on a loser.

We are long over due for a New First Party. It is time to let one of the corrupt parties we now have deal with the third party ramifications.

by Carson Dugal (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 20 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:48:49 PM

  (0+)

A few years back I conceptualized what to me is the ideal political party aka

"The Real Party" which would stand for a few things

-represents the MAJORITY of Americans (as opposed to the way the dummicraps represent the extreme left MINORITY and the repukes represent the extreme right MINORITY)

-upholding the US constitution (wouldn't sweep presidential 'high crimes and misdemeanors' under the rug in an attempt to win re-election)

-REAL solutions to REAL problems via compromise

by Ben Marble, M.D. (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 230 diaries, 349 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:57:20 AM

  (0+)

A few years back I conceptualized what to me is the ideal political party aka

"The Real Party" which would stand for a few things

-represents the MAJORITY of Americans (as opposed to the way the dummicraps represent the extreme left MINORITY and the repukes represent the extreme right MINORITY)

-upholding the US constitution (wouldn't sweep presidential 'high crimes and misdemeanors' under the rug in an attempt to win re-election)

-REAL solutions to REAL problems via compromise

by Ben Marble, M.D. (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 230 diaries, 349 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:57:25 AM

  (0+)

Rob wrote:

If you don't like Obama or McCain, and you're considering throwing your vote away on a candidate who can't win, you should, at least, in addition to complaining how both candidates suck, be woring your ass off doing all you can so that the next round, when you vote for a third party candidate, your vote will count. Fail to do that and it makes no sense to use your vote to send your message of dissatisfaction-- political masturbation-- fantasization that gives you brief relief.

From psychoses to a masturbatory fantasy doesn't seem like much respect to me.

Rob, I noticed in your bio that your radio shows are archived by the White Rose Society. It takes its name from a small group of young people who opposed Hitler in Nazi Germany. They knew that they couldn't succeed in ousting Hitler from power. Yet they wrote anti-Hitler brochures and stood on street corners and handed out their brochures and white roses to anyone who would take them. They accomplished nothing and were beheaded for their efforts but they and their group's name are still revered among anti-fascists.

Were they psychotic? Were they engaging in a masturbatory fantasy? Should they have supported Hitler and his candidates so as not to waste their lives on losers?

People of conscience who oppose wars of aggression and crimes against humanity don't consider ourselves to be psychotic or masturbatory just because we won't vote for the popular candidates with a chance of winning. They are both committed to the wars of aggression.

Those of us who don't understand how the central tabulators can (and do) undetectably flip the votes, will vote for third party candidates who oppose war crimes. These voters aren't psychotic or masturbatory in my opinion, they simply don't want to vote for policies they oppose and candidates who don't represent them. Those of us who understand election fraud won't vote at all because we don't want our votes being flipped to candidates we didn't vote for.

Imagine a high school where the playground is dominated by two different gangs led by two different bullies. Most kids join one gang or another for protection. But a few do not and they get beat up on all the time. These kids don't imagine that they can win because the gangs are too strong and well established. Another essential book everyone interested in U.S. politics should read is Gangs of America by Ted Nace, where the gangs in the title refer to corporations throughout U.S. history.

Some people don't think that other issues are as important as the fact that millions of innocent people have already been killed and more are being killed as I write, in our wars of aggression based on lies. It isn't that we don't care about other things like health care, reproductive rights, etc., it is just that after The Holocaust we learned from the Nuremberg Principles that crimes against humanity must take precedence.

Even if this time we are the aggressors instead of the victims.

Many good Americans like the "good Germans" of WWII are indulging in the Pastor Niehmoller fallacy. Yes, they're killing Moslems, but I'm not a Moslem. Yes, they're rounding up, detaining, and deporting undocumented immigrants, but I'm not an undocumented immigrant. And history repeats, so that when they eventually come for us, there will be nobody left to speak out.

So we, the psychotic fantacizers continue to speak out. We get mocked, censored, and frequently banned. We know we can't win. But we won't compromise our consciences and our principles anyway. If you cannot respect our choices, perhaps you can respect our right to make those choices. But only our voices and our bodies can be silenced -- our ideals, unrealistic as they may be, are immortal and do not perish with us. It is that knowledge that gives us the strength and courage to go against the tide.

--Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:46:14 AM

  (0+)

Mark S, excellent points and my sentiments as well.

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:07:31 AM

  (0+)

Rob,  I respect your opinion and advice about working for viable third parties but I disagree with you that we should vote for the  dem  AGAIN this time because he's not a republican.   On what are you basing your opinion that Obama is not a republican?  Is it his single payer health plan? nope.  Is it his burning desire to end war? nope(iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, iran)  Is it his strong desire to bring the bush crime family to justice? nope  Is it his strong stance on upholding the constitution and citizens civil liberties? nope (fisa, patriot act) Is it his need to end the abuses committed by blackwater? nope (he's keepin 'em)  Is it his anti nuke stance? nope.  Instead of progressive ideals I see a man who admires Reagan, stands with bush on most issues and said he would consider a republican running mate.  He's way too eager to reach across the aisle.  Supreme court?  Don't expect a progressive nominee from him.  We'll be lucky to see a centrist that leans right.  And that's such a non issue anyway.  You think the reps will let anyone who doesn't suit them slide onto the court as easily as the dems let Robets and Alito slither in? ha !  If McCain gets in, the dems can always fight like a republican to block anyone whose values they don't like.  Ha ! As IF, they'd disagree with his choice !

But I digress.  Back to voting for Obama.  Now you may say he's just saying what he needs to say to get elected. I say, au contraire.   He's revealing who he truly is.  A man who will say and do anything to achieve the power he so desires.  He was put forth by those that rule and the corporate state controlled media.  I can't vote for that.  He is no different than McCain and in fact, I'm sure the elite prefer him.  He is a much better salesman for their nwo agenda.

Our so called "democratic process" is a sham. I'm only voting for Nader and encouraging others to do so, to prove a point. Nader's values are my values. So are McKinney's. I'm not compromising my principles this time to vote for a candidate who walks in lockstep with the fascists.  But the others on here are right. The fix is already in.  The ruling class shall have whomever they desire most.  Our vote doesn't mean a damn thing. With a simple click click on the black box our vote is void. The fix is already in.  Sad to say but only a general strike or massive protests that even msm can't ignore will change the state of this union.  

by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:58:12 AM

  (0+)

Nothing will change unless the media is freed from the yoke of the CIA and corporate manipulation. All the grand ideas, all the good wishes will do nothing if the vast majority of the people remain hypnotized and misled. 

Internet (soon to end as we know it now) notwithstanding. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:43:44 PM

  (0+)

Along with universal single payer healthcare, we should be fighting for free internet access for all as a way of providing access to the real news, not the propaganda that spews from the main corpstream networks.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:14:32 PM

  (0+)

The BBC does a pretty good job informing a whole lot of folks, as does NPR and public television.

The problem of the American corporate commercial news media could be solved by reforming the whole news media system, taking commercialism, profit-making and corporate control out of the picture.

Along with that, we need to train journalists to return to the ethical roots of true journalism, to keep politicians and government honest, by uncovering the real truth, and telling nothing but the truth.

The problem now is that we have "conservative" media vs "liberal-progressive" media, and both tend to be biased. 

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:04:24 PM

  (0+)

BBC is and NPR is big time.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:46:01 AM

  (0+)