The only way to solve our problems is to change the current paradigm.

The only way get the things we need is to stop arguing about them for long enough to combine with our rivals to remove the obstacles for change.  

The only way for a new party to succeed is to be wholly and fully "new"... It cannot drag along any old baggage, and  preconceived perceptions that will automatically discount large segments of the possible pool of voters.

And the only way to make this all happen is for us to fully realize that nearly ALL Americans are victims of the same criminals, not just us here who read this stuff, or Libertarians, "honest" Conservatives, Centrists, or the flat earth society for that matter.  We are all in this severely leaky boat, and we all have to bail it together or go down.

Our real enemy are the sharks that are circling hoping for another feed; not the others in the boat. Polarization and division was a great tactic, it has worked for many years now. But it won't work forever. Eventually, this idea of combining forces to free us from the control of criminals is going to happen one way or another.

Let's make it happen before the really severe damage happens first.

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:51:25 PM

  (0+)

To start a new political party and to reform the system, we have to end the Bush era of sending out the goons to squash those spreading the opposing political ideas.

Ken Krayeske was a campaign manager of the Green Party. He had policy disagreements with Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell, was put on the secret State Police, “Enemies List” and then arrested on sight. [story]

I was asked by property owners and small business owners in downtown Stafford Springs, Connecticut, to run for selectman to deal with the problem of drug dealers, vandals, and prostitutes. I was placed on the secret State Police “Enemies List” going to prison for resisting being mugged on my own property. [story and pictures of the Connecticut State Police Goon Squad] scroll down

My point? What is done in Connecticut as far as abuse goes, ends up spreading across the nation, and example is Eminent Domain [video]

If we can get the Private Attorney General bill through the Judiciary Committee this January in DC, maybe we can end being spied upon for political excuses, to be able to prosecute corrupt officials and their friends ourselves, and have a country as our forefathers intended. We can then be safe to start another political party that has a chance.

If 6'5 Homeland Security goons are installed in schools to grill 13 year old girls if they are lesbians for passing notes in class. [video] Are any of us safe in this environment?

Yes, our current government is "Beyond Ridiculous", and yes we probably need at least one new political party to help clean up the above mentioned mess.

by Steven G. Erickson (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 57 diaries, 218 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:53:25 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul did something brilliant during the 2008 election. He brought the third party candidates together and got them to agree on four points. These four points were going to used to solicit support for a third party option in this election.

Paul was right that people should have voted third party. But, the four points were wrong. At that point, the four points should have been focused on altering the paradigm.

My frustration with The Left always comes from how much esteem The Left has for plurality. This plurality is dividing us and muddying our efforts to affect and effect change.

I don't normally support or advocate for centrism or pragmatism. But, in this critical moment, I think pragmatic idealism.

The Left needs to see that if we do this and this then we will get to this better society where a certain agenda may be advanced. They must understand that without shifting the paradigm and forming that coalition to shift it certain agendas which The Left promotes will never go anywhere.

I would like to see a coalition of electoral reformers who wish to work to build up citizen groups and fundraise now for the organization of presidential debates in 2012. Such organization could make the Commission on Presidential Debates irrelevant and alter the paradigm for 2012 in a way that would supremely bolster democracy in America.

...To be continued...Thanks Joel...I know what should be the topic of one of the next articles I write.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:55:18 PM

  (0+)

America's experience with third parties is that they act as spoilers, siphoning off votes.  In a winner-take-all system like ours it is hard to make your case for a third party being influential.  It's because the two major parties divide up the seats in the House and Senate that the system works.

by Richmond Shreve (30 articles, 70 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 157 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:25:29 PM

  (0+)

Joel, the election data on which you rely has been repeatedly shown to be so flawed as to leave us with no basis for confidence in reported results.

when you then suggest a strategy based on faulty data, the suggestion has to be faulted also.

I suspect O beat McP 80-20 or 90-10, rather than the 51-49 reported.

Another consideration is that the debates excluded and mainstream media ignored 3rd party candidates - and researchers have shown that lack of MSM exposure kills a candidate's chance for a good showing (or success). Some great articles have been written to this effect.

So, I wouldn't wash my hands of present day 3rd parties on the grounds they reportedly gathered only 1% of the vote.

the entire system is rigged for the duopoly - if we address THIS, we might be able to articulate a sensical strategy.

my vote is not to vote - the system is gamed.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:43:24 PM

  (0+)

Are you advocating that we ask the Green Party or the Libertarian Party or the Socialist Party or any other minor party in America to shut down?

I didn't entirely get that impression so I just wanted you to clarify this. I think what you want is the minor parties to suspend the improvement of their respective party and instead come together with other third parties so the paradigm can be altered significantly.

Then, when third parties can flourish, minor parties can return to the advancement of their agendas.

And I would like to see this done. 

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:51:19 PM

  (0+)

I really would like existing third parties to shut down; they have had enough time to prove whether or not they had what it takes, and ALL have failed.  The fragmentation among the dissident (I use that term broadly) community dooms real structural government reforms (including what Rob Kall mentions in his comment).  And please note how I ended my article: I want people to think of forming a new political party that would at the outset have the ambition to be a new MAJOR party, just the way it has happened in the past.  But first we need to gather numbers and force by joining together in SOLIDARITY behind a new party focused on revitalizing American democracy.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:18:55 PM

  (0+)

You really nailed it, I think. We know that they rigged the vote count to put in Bush in 2004. Just because Obama won this time doesn't mean that the vote was reported correctly. You are right. There is no way that Bush has 24% approval and McCain got 48% of the vote. They are trying to make us think we are more divided than we are. And although Bush in 2000 jumped right in and started the right wing agenda, although he lost by over 200,000 votes,(officially) we are told that Obama can't change things too fast because the count was too close. Third parties have every right to run. Even if 99% of voters chose one of the two corporate candidates doesn't mean that the clear eyed 1% shouldn't keep on keeping on. But not voting may be the most meaningful act of all. It says that you refuse to participate in the farce that are elections in America today.

by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 311 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:21:39 AM

  (0+)

Before any third party efforts will get anywhere, we have to pass federal laws requiring that all candidates must win by 50% plus 1 to win. Then, we throw in Instant Run-off voting or something like it and we have a system that truly supports third party voting. Start with the 50% plus 1 to win rule. That's simple and is a meme that anyone who believes in democracy can get behind. The rest will follow.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2088 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:14:41 PM

  (0+)

I would like to see all third party efforts consolidated for the time being. Suspend ideology and come together and unite behind key electoral reforms and key democratic reforms. 

A system which allows for third parties to operate must be created first before third parties can effectively operate.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:44:17 PM

  (0+)

The IRV or some variant is good.

A level playing field might be nice, with uniform provisions nationally for ballot line access, not some unattainable goals as now exist in some states, but rather, a process that shows serious intent but is not so onerous that it takes forever to reach ballot  status.

Next, and perhaps most importantly, we must get corporate money out of the electoral process. Publicly financed campaigns. This, more than anything, to my way of thinking, disorganization, lack of ballot access and difficulty in attaining ballot access, and a number of other issues has left the Green Party behind. We make a point of not accepting corporate handouts, which means that we have trouble raising funds for media, etc etc. A serious lack of funds means we have trouble gaining signatures on ballot petitions, working the media for national segments of our campaigns...

Debates-should be turned back to the League of Women Voters or another comparable non-partisan group that would administer the debates equitably. The third party and independent candidates would be included throughout the campaign season.Allowing Nader, McKinney, Barr and Baldwin access to the public through expression of their ideas and plans would be wonderful.

With the clean up of the electoral process itself, some form of paper trail, or paper ballot and hand counting, whatever works and is verifiable, we would gain.

No more caging, felon roll eliminations, no more attempts to keep legitimate contenders off ballot lines, all need to be emplaced.

We need to overhaul the entire system, not come up with the garbage HAVA, and the electronic voting scams we have now.

It is doable. It just depends on where it falls on the list of priorities for the Obama administration, and who and what resources are allocated to the project.

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:32:21 PM

  (0+)

There are actions that the people can take. We can take them without Obama. And we can have an impact on the 2012 Election.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:37:32 PM

  (0+)

I expect nothing from Obama, no change, more of the same.

Change has to come from us. 

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:35:45 AM

  (0+)

What do you propose?

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1794 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM

  (0+)

An amalgamation of progressive interest groups under an umbrella group that focuses on political action only. (I.e. the use of a third party-I am a Green so I will assume use of Green political activists) Say a group wanting to block GE/GMO foods and cloned meats joined in an alliance. They come together for strength in numbers and shared brainstorming. They then turn to the political arm to implement needed activity to get the attention of politicians on the relevant level of political action.

The use of such a political arm could be very advantageous in getting the attention of Congressional types for things like a national referendum (think bailout here) or a national recall of legislative, judicial or executive branch members who are not acting in the best interests of the country (think Halliburton et al and cronyism, or torture and rendition).

The point is speaking truth to power from a position of power. Just a couple of examples. I have many many more I have worked up over the years.

For example using the law to rein in corporate power abuses by restricting their ability to abuse the law, the consumer. Writing restrictive local or state ordinances that do not leave room for corporate person-hood or that limit or exclude corporate political donations as 'free speech'.

Many ways to look at and deal with the issues. 

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:26:13 PM

  (0+)

I just cannot understand why otherwise intelligent people can write such long essays without mentioning preferential voting. It is perfectly clear that elections in the US can never discover what the voting public really wants.

Most other nations solve this problem by using preferential voting.

There is no chance that any third party will ever get into power in the US as things stand because most voters know that if they vote for a new party, and it doesn't get in, as will probably happen, their trip to cast a vote will be a waste of effort, as they will have had no influence on the choice between the two main parties. They don't want to lose this influece, so don't vote for a person who may not get in. 

I will explain the preferential system one more time. It is simple enough. 

On the ballot paper is listed all the candidates. The voter places a number beside each candidate in order of preference, 1 for the first preference, 2 for the second and so on. For arguments sake let us assume there are four candidates. Mrs Green is keen on renewable energy, Mr Clean is keen on driving out corruption, Mr Howitzer is a republican and Mr Sword is a Democrat. 

Suppose the voter believes that diminishing oil supplies will produce chaos, and that is the most worrying problem we face, he will vote Green 1. If he then thinks corruption is a severe problem he will vote Clean 2. Then he will place 3 and 4 beside the remaining candidates in the order he prefers. Suppose he prefers Democrat he will vote Sword 3.

The beauty of this system is that though he votes Sword in the third last position it is likely that his vote for Sword will be counted. This will happen if Green and Clean don't get enough votes. Clearly he has shown his preference without risking losing his influence over the choice of Democrat versus Republican.

Not only does this provide the only rational way of selecting the candidates, it also works like a poll, enabling legislators to perceive what the public really thinks about the issues which the minor candidates raise. This will facilitate logical shifts in policy. 

There is much at stake. Why not give it a try?

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:50:52 PM

  (0+)

This would certainly help as would other forms of proportional voting (Like IRV mentioned above). The systems available must be vetted to ensure constitutional compliance.

Check fairvote.org from the Center for Voting and Democracy for more on types of schemes and their relative merits.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1794 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:47:35 PM

  (0+)

If Barack truly cared about America, he'd put some third party candidates into top administration posts, instead of Republicans. This would give these parties the cachet they desperately need to be taken more seriously, and might even attract disaffected GOPers (and Dems) into joining them.

The two party system is broken. All it leads to is gridlock, excessive partisanship, and little substantive legislation getting done. Plus, too many people think that there's really no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. In many respects it's true.

Imagine Green and Libertarian party members in key posts. That would do more to chart a corrective course for this country than "reaching across the aisle" and bringing the Tweedly Dums in to help the Tweedly Dems.

by Mark V (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:06:30 PM

  (0+)

Some have suggested, for example, finding a senior post for Ralph Nader; I would also remind everyone that during the long campaign period all the cable and network news shows kept having large numbers of Republican and Democratic strategists or advisors but NEVER had anyone who would rightfully be defined as an Independent strategist.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:08:10 PM

  (0+)

you expressed here on including third party and Indie types in the Cabinet. I would extend that to high level executive agencies as well, I think.

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:31:28 PM

  (0+)

Mark V,

Do you not see that the preferential voting system would get a sprinkling of these candidates with fresh idea into congress? That would achieve the effect you desire, would it not? 

If it ever happened that a third party got a bit of support it would be represented. The day might even come when a third party ousted one of the majors. This couldn't happen the way things are. 

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:03:25 AM

  (0+)

I agree with Rob, Jack and Gravity:  We need an IRV system of TWO choices instead of one, and I've been harping on this for years!

If we don't change the very nuts and bolts of this system to create a more level playing field we will never break the two-party stanglehold, or get the larger changes we need.

Every argument I've heard against it (Too hard to count, too complicated, etc.) turns out to be facetious when weighed against the reality, or the value of increased Voice for the People.  

Working for this kind of systemic change is the best that third and Independant parties can do right now to have any cred for the future.  

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 761 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:26:41 AM

  (0+)

Party politics is just another form of centralization of power, which plays into the hands of the money power which is always dominant. It seems to me totally delusional to think that a third party or a replacement for the republican party could get anywhere without somehow "representing" significant money power, thereby securing adequate campaign funds to be viable. But then the party is sold out on day one. The only exception would be if (A) the electoral system were truly fair and open(1), and (B) something like Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy were instituted to provide effective citizen checks and balances against the other three branches of government. But heck, you know what's going to freeze over before all that happens... No, what's needed is not a populist party, but a populist movement. Mass action aimed precisely at the money power that has co-opted the government and managed our economy as one gigantic for-profit corporation. A corporation which it has now bankrupted. A national strike for sound money would be a good start. Then another one for fair and open elections. I was just rereading Ronnie Duggar's article "A Call to Citizens: Real Populists Please Stand Up!" (2) and found this poignant passage: "What is government about? As a worker told reporter Barry Bearak last spring about the U.A.W. strike against the Caterpillar corporation, government is about ''control, you know, who controls who.'' Ernesto Cortes, Jr., the exceptionally important organizer who helps people in communities in the Southwest to act together in their own interests, once exclaimed: ''Power! Power comes in two forms: organized people and organized money.'' To govern ourselves, power is what we need. To get it we must want it and organize for it. (1)By "fair and open elections" I mean to include (1) publicly funded campaigns, (2) instant runoff voting (3) proportional representation (4) election day national holiday and (5) paper ballots publicly hand-counted at the precinct. (2) at www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/html/eng/1270-AA.shtml, Reprinted from "The Nation", August 14/21, 1995.

by Jim Eldon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 253 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09:27 AM

  (0+)

The two party system is a perfect form of tyranny based on fear and false hope.  Republicans abuse and Democrats enable.  Yet we just can't get any traction in a real political sense.

The Democratic party specializes in covering up and then enabling Republican crimes.  It is all about crooks running a good cop - bad cop stunt.  The Democratic and Republican parties are AIPAC parties, but that is nothing new.  Sometimes they are just the rich parties or just the traitor parties for comic relief.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM

  (0+)

nor is it the message. 50%+1 and instant runoff voting are good ideas that help, but by themselves are not solutions. The problem that is crying out to be addressed is organization. It is also the most daunting problem. That's why it remains unaddressed.

A viable political party is one that can effectively govern. People are not particularly fond of experimentation in government, and while that can be thought of as a negative, it is to be lauded. It promotes continuity, and when thing are going well, or even tolerably, that is what the people want.

If you want a new party, you have to grow it from grassroots, and the roots must be springing up nationwide. It must also be capable of competing for offices from the bottom up. That means slating candidates at every level from a minimum of state legislature on up.

For people to give it a look at the presidential candidate level it must first show itself to be competitive at the congressional level. None of the third parties running this year were capable of being so competitive, so people decided not to risk their vote on their conscience when dire practicle matters dictated otherwise.

You can start a new party, but moving an existing one will be much, much easier. The key to success will be a huge organizational effort over time, and a message that attracts popular support. The message without the organization, however, is just a poster on the wall.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1794 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM

  (0+)

It has always fascinated me that both the Libertarian and Green Parties have continually tried to justify to existence by pointing out that some candidates running on those party labels win local government offices; that is true, and has been going on for many years, BUT it never has helped these parties move on to state and federal levels with success.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:11:27 PM

  (0+)

is the campaign funding. We Greens have won and continue to win, many local elections. It does not translate to national level elections because we do not take corporate money and the game is rigged against us by the D's and R's who do not want to give up power.

Were we to install publicly financed elections, it would, perhaps, be a different story. It might also break the lockout by the MSM on articles and attention that we face now.

The two major parties had something approaching $400 million JUST for their conventions alone. That is a total obscenity. We could devise an equitable formula for public financing that would include serious third or indie candidates. Perhaps based on ballot line access, if that was equal and neutral also.

Anyway, the parties are out there. The blockages are devised by those who do not want to lose power, even tho they often do not deserve the power they have, and I would rather re-cycle, like a good Green, than re-invent the wheel.

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:41:02 PM

  (0+)

As I explained and advocated in my book Delusional Democracy, we know what the solution is to corrupting money in politics; it is called the Clean Money/Clean Elections approach to public financing of campaigns.  What is tragic is that none of the mainstream Dems and Repubs have gotten behind this approach, which has already been shown to work in a few states.  This tactic and a number of electoral reforms could create real political competition that clearly the two-party plutocracy does NOT want.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:32:10 PM

  (0+)

Obama won through his organisation skills, not just 'hope'. He also won because people cared enough about our country to vote.  When I read about people who supposidly 'care' about our country, who spend much time posting and also brag about not voting I have to wonder in which way they think they are doing their duty to this country.  Expressing an opinion and failing to vote is just bumping gums. 

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:43:29 PM

  (0+)

Joel S H,

You started this thread with a call for a more democratic process. You have entered comments but have never mentioned preferential voting. What have you got against it? It is used in many countries around the world. It is easily understood by the voters and it produces a much more democratic process. 

As things stand the party in power can introduce appaling legislation and get away with it, as is painfully obvious. If there is a sprinkling of independents and thrd party members this is much less likely to happen as it is harder for the main party to get the numbers. 

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:44:16 PM

  (0+)

Cindy Sheehan intends to create a new party called the first party.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:27:56 AM

  (0+)