This is how Zeese summarized the merits of having the backing of three parties and showed how they were not mutually exclusive but complemented each other:
The Populist Party stands for economic fairness for working families and recognizes how the U.S. has rigged our tax laws, finance system and corporate welfare to help the wealthiest while shrinking the middle class and undermining those whose work makes our country great.
The Libertarian Party emphasizes the central value of liberty � freedom � which is under attack in the United States with laws like the Patriot Act, eminent domain and a government that intrudes into private life. We need to consider the question of liberty in every action the government takes because it is our basic freedoms that unleash the creativity, entrepreneurship and greatness of Americans.
The Green Party's ten key values are a common sense outline of where our country needs to go. These values include: grassroots democracy, social justice, ecological wisdom, non-violence, decentralization, community-based economics, feminism, diversity, responsibility and future focus.
What should the American public demand from the federal government? Besides a number of electoral reforms, the issue of money is critical. We need a federal Clean Money/Clean Elections program. It would provide competitive government financing of campaigns for candidates that voluntarily agree to take no other funds, except small contributions from individuals. This approach has been successfully used in several states. It not only opens up races to third party candidates. It helps remove the corrupting influence of big money from corporate and other special interests, because honest major party candidates can also participate.
Now, third-parties are fighting a losing battle to improve the quality of our democracy and government. For the good of our nation, they need our support. A little publicized nationwide poll this past April by Princeton Survey/Pew Research Center reported that 53 percent agreed that we should have a third major political party. What a worthy goal!
If the Democrats now in control of the Congress want to demonstrate their commitment to fighting political corruption and providing more incentives for Americans to vote, then Clean Money/Clean Elections should be aggressively pursued. Will they voluntarily loosen their grip on our political system? Or do they fear stronger competition?
The time is long overdue for Americans to stop voting for candidates that can win, and start voting for those that should win. What lesser-evil voting has produced is entrenched two-party evil. We can do better. If we open our political marketplace to more competition.
[A full range of actions to promote competitive third parties are in the author's new book; check it out at www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments.
This issue of campaign finance is probably the greatest long term problem that our nation faces today. People just don't "get it" when we explain how corporate and special interest money has actually "bought" our democracy. Unless you are funded by the Democrats or Republicans (and they are financed by the Corporacracy), the chances of winning a seat in congress or the Senate are practically nill. There is a simple solution and you touched on it. Deny Corporate and Special Interest money to finance politicians. I have one more article up my sleeve that I've been working on for days that I think I'll have ready before tomorrow. Maybe someday we will hit on just the right combination of words that will spur people to action. You would think that what you just wrote would convince most Americans. I don't know what it's going to take for people to realize that all of the problems we have been dealing with come back to this same problem...billion dollar campaigns financed by institutions that don't have America's best interests at heart. In fact, many contributions are not even coming from Americans! They are financing politicians for profit, not because they would do the best job for the country.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 1:10:26 PM
They work in parliamentary systems but not in our system which relegates far too much power to the Presidency. Our consitutional system is not going to change. Third party activists are much better off working within one of the main political parties. As far as dealing with campaign finance and our "bought democracy", way too little attention is being paid to voter education as a solution. The money goes to ads and the ads only affect the uneducated.
by
Patrick Coony (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 1:20:25 PM
then, in my opinion, you are giving up on ever truly rennovating our democracy, government and economy. There simply is no conceivable way that either of the major parties will ever take responsibility to fix what they have broken. There is no constitutional or structural reason why third parties cannot play a key role in improving things. To give up on third parties is to be defeatist and nihilistic.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (113 articles, 20 quicklinks, 46 diaries, 428 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 2:53:56 PM
Joel has reiterated this main idea on several occasions, and I don't see how anyone with a few functional brain cells can honestly disagree.
I try to vote my conscience, I guess believing on some deep level that the Universe will ultimately respond when we all "come clean."
And if this presumption is false, then I guess on some even deeper level my inner being says, "Fuck this show--it's a pile of dogshit and why should anyone in their right mind lift a finger to make a difference anyway?"
I realize that's grist for a whole 'nother article, or perhaps several books, but it's the essence of how I see my voting choices. (The only other option I can imagine is that homo sapiens outgrows the need for "leaders," which we just might to in another two or three billion years.)
Thus I voted for Nader, I think twice, and I probably would have done the same had I lived in Floriduh, rather than Utarh.
In any event, I agree 100% with Joel that election reform is a top priority and that the two party system has been bogus since the get-go.
Ironically, however, the best ideas I've seen for voting reform come from deep within the Democratic Party--so deep, unfortunately, that they never see the light of day.
I wish the author had not used such a negative view of the effects of the Libertarian votes on the outcome of the election because I believe that it reinforces an incorrect stereotype that third party votes are negative ones, and plays into the hands of those who lack the vision and call Nader's two candidacies a reason for the defeat of Gore and Kerry, such utter nonsense, really, as if votes are obligations to any candidate, or as if those who voted Nader would have automatically voted Democrat, or voted at all.
It is my contention that the single most important issue facing America today is the myth of the two party system and the real allegiance of these parties to corporate monies.It is obvious, at least to me, that both parties are quite comfortable with this duopoly and will absolutely never consider the very real reforms necesary to end the stranglehold of money on elections.
The only way to reenfranchise those who are alienated from the process and to make very real and necesary reforms to the process is through the intercession of third party ideas and ideals on the system,and one that enumerates several important reasons for voting third party. I have often noted that the key to changing our corporatocracy back to a democracy lies with the 60% of the electorate that chooses to alienate herself from the process. Third Party politics gives that non voter a way to reinvest in the system, and by reinvesting changing that system for the better.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 7:11:21 AM
As a Green since 1992, I would suggest that discussion begin to be focused on the structure of political entities and the form of their representation if this discussion is to move beyond campaign finance reform. I am an advocate of bioregionalism and that necessarily means that local politics be determined by local people. Water management, urban planning, mass transit, energy transition and growth decisions have long been dominated by the two parties and economic interest groups because third parties are handcuffed by the process AND the entities themselves are not designed to represwent a wide range of stakeholders. Real estate interests and home builders have an inordinate influence in urban land-use policies because there are no representatives sitting who represent urban water users, water specialists, water managers, agricultural users and environmental advocates. Adaptive governance mandates that all stakeholders have a proportionate role in working with others in resource management issues and land-use matters. This is not a revolutionary concept but is one that is utilized in many localities around the world.
Although I am not a Green, I am proud that Rich Whitney, Green Candidate for Governor in Illinois garnered 11% of the vote in the 2006.
Joel, you was speaking of funding, Whitney had $110,000 to the Republicans 3.6 million, but the Democrat Rod Blagojevich won not so much because he had more money, but the Republican couldn't connect with the people.
Ron
Founder/CEO, WeDemocrats.org
by
Ron (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 6:42:10 PM
