Good news today for those wanting easier ballot access for third parties...

Quote :

"5/5/2006 Today we have won an important victory in the lawsuit brought by the Libertarian Party of NC against our state’s extreme ballot access barriers. Judge Orlando Hudson has signed the order denying the state’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit. This is excellent news! Now we move on to the real heart of our case. All of the preliminary motions are out of the way and we can have our case heard in NC Superior Court. This means the state will have to explain to the judge precisely why they have set the ballot access barriers so high in North Carolina. It also means we get the opportunity to present all of our evidence in court and put the arguments of both sides into the official judicial record. Our attorney, Michael Crowell, has briefed us on the next step. We will need to discuss with the NC Attorney General’s office how much is needed in the way of discovery and set a schedule of future hearings. Our goal is to get a Superior Court ruling in time for the elections coming up this November. Fortunately, the good will we have developed over the years with the State Board of Elections and the Attorney General’s office is now paying off, and they are fairly cooperative in setting these schedules to meet our needs. Although the victory is procedural, its importance cannot be underestimated. According to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, no one has won a ruling below the state Supreme Court level in any similar ballot access lawsuit since 1982. Today’s victory means we get to argue our case on our terms and gives us the momentum going to the next level. But our lawsuit is unlike any similar suit that has been brought before. Our challenge to the state is not just that their ballot access restrictions are unfair. We are alleging that these restrictions are part of an entire scheme of election law which favors Democrats and Republicans over anyone who does not want to be part of those two parties. Many have fought against ballot access laws before and lost, but we are the first to try to show that these oppressive laws are part of a broader scheme to prevent the equal participation of all voters in our elections. This strategy has allowed the NC Green Party to join our lawsuit, and leaves the doors open for other parties, independent voters and even non-voters to join with us. The Greens have jumped in with both feet. They have enlisted the support of the ACLU to represent them. ACLU involvement is our lawsuit is a huge asset for us. The Greens’ lawyer, Hoppy Elliott, works very well with Mr. Crowell and together they made a very powerful and effective presentation for us at last week’s hearing."

5/5/2006 10:58:26 PM

I have a question: is there a constitutional provision preventing a state from pooling it's available house representatives and apportioning them in proportion to the votes received?

I know it wouldn't mean anything in small states with few reps, but California or Texas would work quite well. For example, California has 53 representatives, the parties submit a list of patrons in order of importance and if the Republicans received 51% of the votes then they get 52 seats, etc. Such a system would guarantee the presence of 3rd parties in Congress and make everyone feel safe voting for 3rd parties.

It might also cut down on the push for small-scale pork as to get elected you must impress the whole state and buying off one communitywon't help much.

Quote :

"Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

[Edited on May 6, 2006 at 12:42 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/6/2006 12:39:54 AM

^ No, but it's in the interest of the Republicans and Democrats that are the elected representatives to keep things as they are. Despite California having 53 seats, there are only 2 or 3 districts that have competitive elections every cycle. So even though Republicans hold less seats in California, if you were a Republican whose district was gerrymandered so that it was overwhelmingly Republican to keep Republicans out of neighboring Democratic districts, you're not going to complain if you get 80% of the vote every election. There was more turnover in the old Soviet Politboro between sessions than there is in the U.S. House of Representatives for a reason.

I think such a system could work, although like instant runoff voting, people would have to be educated on it and there would be a lot of people that would be initially against it.

You could setup a list based on statewide primary results. The person that gets the most votes in the primary would be the #1 candidate on the general election list, and then have people vote for party. So for example in North Carolina (with 13 seats), lets say the following results happened.

Not necessarily realistic

Republican 50%
Democrat 43%
Green 5%
Libertarian 2%

100% would be 13 seats. So for every 7.69% of the vote, a party receives one seat.

Republican 50% - (6 seats * 7.69%) = 53% - 46.15% = 6.85%
Democrat 43% - (5 seats * 7.69%) = 43% - 38.46% = 4.54%
Green 5%
Libertarian 2%

So there are 2 seats remaining. What you do then is take the highest remaining percentages and give them seats. So the final makeup would be:

Republican 7 seats, Democrat 5 seats, and Green 1 seat. The top 7 candidates from the Republican list based on the primary are elected, as are the top 5 Democrats, and the #1 Green.


Pros: More equitable distribution of seats, no more having biased legislatures gerrymander election districts, top two parties are no longer able to use "the Nader excuse" for why to not vote for third parties, election for representatives will actually be competitive, still maintains a minimum level of support needed to get a representative that is more workable

Cons: Foreign concept to most Americans, regional elections for districts no longer used, the top two parties are not going to realistically push for a system that possibly takes away power from them and gives it to another entity

[Edited on May 6, 2006 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

5/6/2006 11:53:18 AM

What usually happens with regards to viable 3rd parties is that the GOP or the Dems will morph and "steal" the populist mantra that makes said 3rd party so popular.

The only way I see a 3rd party emerging in this country is if one of the two major parties collapse and another one fills the void and takes their place. I don't see that happening.

5/6/2006 1:56:00 PM

^^ Exactly right, I think it could be a better system. However, the current system, even heavily gerrymandered, is not entirely politburo worthy. If the Republicans receive 80% of the vote every election that just makes the primaries that much more important (the 20% that are democrats should change parties to Republicans and sway the republican primary towards democratic values).

5/6/2006 2:54:52 PM

^^ I don't know. The Democrats have been a complete joke of a party the last six years.

An important point to make is that there are third parties that have emerged somewhat, it's just at state level.

[Edited on May 6, 2006 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2006 4:32:24 PM

That's an interesting question. What is the highest political position that is held by a 3rd party candidate in this country at the state level (socialist Bernie Sanders from VT is an "independent" and I'm pretty sure he's still in Congress).

5/6/2006 4:42:14 PM

Quote :

"The only way I see a 3rd party emerging in this country is if one of the two major parties collapse and another one fills the void and takes their place."

Wlfpk4Life is right. first time for everything, i guess.

The US formalized the national "First Past the Post" voting system with amendments the Voting Act in the 1970's, but it's been effectively in place since at least 1824.

Duverger's Law proves that any First Past the Post voting system GUARANTEES a 2-party system.

http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/Duverger.html




[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 3:57 AM. Reason : ~ ]

5/7/2006 3:51:17 AM

Quote :

"That's an interesting question. What is the highest political position that is held by a 3rd party candidate in this country at the state level (socialist Bernie Sanders from VT is an "independent" and I'm pretty sure he's still in Congress)."

Sanders is giving up his Congress seat and is running for the Senate this November. The Democrats, partly because they know they will lose, are not even running a serious candidate. Sanders, although not a member of the party, had a political party in Vermont set up around his views, the Vermont Progressive Party (left of the Democrats, this party was set up by people independent of Sanders), that has six members in the Vermont State Legislature and the Mayor of Burlington, the state's largest city.

In the past 15 years, there have been various independent (or third party) governors for Alaska, Maine, Minnesota, and Connecticut.

[Edited on May 7, 2006 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

5/7/2006 9:43:53 AM

If the two parties continue on their current paths, we may not even have a party system of any kind. Instead of having a realignment, we may end up with a dealignment (as was suggested by David Brooks last year) where voters are so turned off by both parties that they just stay home.(emphasis mine)

The System
The problem is in fact the FPTP voting system. Unless we can find a way to get to a more suitable system, the nonsense in Washington will continue.

Quote :

"The only way a third party can ever succeed, is if it takes the place of one of the current two parties."

That and making one of the current parties or both of them minor parties that are regionalized like the BQ in Quebec.

The fact is that both parties continue to ignore vital issues and bicker over all of these bullshit wedge issues just for the sake of keeping their base happy.

The Public
Another way for a third party to prosper is for the American people to stick it to the Establishment (aka, the media, the usual pundits, political consultants, the major parties) by refusing to vote for "lesser of two evils" in 2008 and instead vote for a candidate/party who will address the issues they care about.

However, they have to stop acting like the abused spouse who runs back to her husband. IOW, DON'T be swayed by the Establishment simply because they want us to hold our noses and back the "least objectionable" candidate.

As far as I'm concerned, 2008 may be the last opportunity to elect a candidate not affilated with a D or an R. Don't squander it, America!

Back to That Realignment Issue...

Quote :

"it is about time for one of the parties to shift.... and actually it seems like both of them are headed that way with the Democrats needing one the most..."

By the looks of things, they talk a good game, but I'm somewhat pessimistic on this happening. Sure, the Democrats are splintered between the DLC and Dean wings and the GOP has been exposed for its own spat among social conservatives, libertarians, and moderates, but will any one of these groups actually leave their parties to either form a new party or a coalition party with someone from the other side of the aisle.

How to Produce a Productive Third Party
This is something that I may discuss in detail in its own post. It's quite simply the layout for a third party.

The platform:

Quote :

" 1. Replace the income current tax with the FairTax (National Retail Sales Tax) (http://www.fairtax.org) 2. Major immigration reform must be implemented 3. The need for a balanced national transportation policy 4. Get serious about alternative energy sources 5. Reduce the role of Big Business in politics. There's a fine line between capitalism and corporatism, and we are about to cross it. 6. Free trade agreements to play a reduced role in foreign affairs 7. Replace multiculturalism with the sense of community 8. Start promoting different voting systems at the local level like the central voting rule (http://www.accuratedemocracy.com) 9. If there are to be any changes to the current voting system at the national level, they would only apply to the House of Representatives 10. Remove the arbitrary cap of 435 representatives by letting the House grow by 5% in size per decade 11. Repeal the 1967 law mandating single-member districts for races in the House and let the states decide the number of representatives per district 12. Encourage Electoral College reform at the state level 13. Move elections to Saturdays and make Election Day a national holiday "

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 9:29 PM. Reason : oops]

[Edited on May 10, 2006 at 9:30 PM. Reason : Thank you, Boortz]

5/10/2006 9:28:31 PM

Stop acting like we only have two choices. If we don't like either of the candidates from the major parties we have only ourselves to blame. The primary process is no longer back-room, it is almost exclusively democratic. If everyone would just vote in the friggin' primaries then we could be assured candidates we like.

Look, the U.S. democratic process is exactly like automatic run-off voting. There are two election cycles, in the first one anyone that wants to run can run for either party, then the two winning candidates hold a run-off in November.

We don't need another system, the system we have is already rediculously democratic. What we need are better voters (that actually bother to VOTE in the primaries) and better candidates (all systems suffer from this problem).

5/11/2006 8:47:47 AM

Quote :

"Stop acting like we only have two choices."

stop thinking you have anything BUT two choices. if you pick any third party candidate, your vote is made worthless. our voting system (single-winner, plurality aka "first past the post") guarantees it.

Quote :

"the U.S. democratic process is exactly like automatic run-off voting"

your wrong. instant runoff voting (Australia, Ireland) is totally different from plurality (U.S., U.K, Canada, India) voting. IRV at least "pretends" that you could have two winners from the same party face off against each other in the final. But Duverger's Law still holds for IRV, and a two party system is likewise guaranteed.

Quote :

"There are two election cycles, in the first one anyone that wants to run can run for either party, then the two winning candidates hold a run-off in November."

boy, are you simple? what part of this don't you get? you only have two choices. the choices are between the two major parties. Choose either the Red or Blue. No, you can't have yellow or purple. what's more you can not have a final choice between two of the same party.

Third party candidates have no hope, and people aligned with that third party have absolutely no voice in the government, except as much as they can try to influence one of the two major parties closest to their positions.

Quote :

"We don't need another system, the system we have is already rediculously democratic"

that's just "rediculous". unless you think being democratic means forcing everyone into one of two camps, and marginalizing anyone who chooses to go a different route.

if you ever bothered to investigate, you'd see that Proportional Representation (aka "Range Voting") is a far more democratic voting method, and allows multiple parties to participate in the governing process. Perhaps you're familiar with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland ... among others.

Duverger's Law mathematically proves that Plurality (aka "first past the post") voting as found in the US forces a two party system. ever wonder why no third party has taken the presidency since 1824? the only chance a third party has is to wait for the death of one of the major two, and take its place




http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/Duverger.html






[Edited on May 12, 2006 at 3:50 PM. Reason : link]

5/12/2006 3:40:50 PM

Quote :

"Stop acting like we only have two choices. If we don't like either of the candidates from the major parties we have only ourselves to blame. The primary process is no longer back-room, it is almost exclusively democratic. If everyone would just vote in the friggin' primaries then we could be assured candidates we like."

What planet are you on?!? Either you belong to one of the two major parties or you have really have no clue as to what goes on in the primaries.

The only thing that I'll agree with you on is that no one has a right to complain if we have two very shitty choices for president but the media have played more of a role in that happening in that they hyped Bush and Gore to the moon in 1999-before a single primary vote was cast. As a result, no one gave a shit about anyone else unless it was McCain and that ended once McCain was dealt with insurmountable odds after Super Tuesday. It's already happening TWO AND A HALF YEARS BEFORE the '08 presidental election with Hillary.

You have to realize that some states have closed primaries where independents CANNOT vote for Democratic or Republican candidates. What happens then? I'll tell what happens, it is the base that decides the nominees so nine times out of 10, the guy who gets the nod for November is solidly liberal or solidly conservative, and if '04 is a harbinger, then the new strategy is to appeal to the base and hope that independents get swayed on their own. Otherwise, indies are SOL. In short, your argument is null and void.

[Edited on May 12, 2006 at 6:17 PM. Reason : edit]

5/12/2006 6:17:09 PM

Quote :

"you only have two choices."

Odd, in 2004 I saw far more options than just two.
Just on the Democratic side there were: Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich, Gephadt, and Lieberman.

This is why independents are allowed to vote in most primaries, so they DO get a say in who the two parties nominate. We don't call it a run-off system, but the effect is the same. In May, an election is held which cuts the number of candidates down from 12 to just 2 candidates, then in November an election is held to see which of the 2 becomes presidnets.

5/12/2006 6:58:48 PM

now you're just being dense.

5/12/2006 7:22:51 PM

^ Why don't you explain it to me?

I conceed there are only two parties. But who gets nominated by those parties is a democratic process. Is there some nefarious reason Ralph Nader cannot run for the nomination of the Democratic Party? Yes, he'll have to start calling himself a democrat, and he probably will never actually win the nomination, but he'll have a better chance than winning the Presidency as a 3rd party candidate.

[Edited on May 12, 2006 at 7:53 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/12/2006 7:52:30 PM

It's like he explained it to you completely

and you didn't even read it.

5/12/2006 8:50:17 PM

He explained, conclusively, that the U.S. system has, and can only have, two parties. He did not address the existance of a primary election cycle and the plurality of candidates that participate in that election.

If I haven't made myself clear, everyone should join one of the two parties and then actually VOTE in the May primaries. In the event that you do not like any of the candidates in the Democratic party, then you should switch parties early enough to vote in the Republican primary. By doing this, the American system is nearly identical to instant-runoff-voting. The only restriction is that the final run-off cannot be between two democrats or two republicans, a situation that would be very unlikely in a true run-off system anyway.

5/12/2006 11:12:00 PM

Poll:Majority of Americans want viable third party
Fact:You don't always get what you want

5/12/2006 11:20:17 PM

I think another major problem is that, when the majority of americans say they want a viable third party, what they mean is that they want a major party that identifies with their beliefs 100%.

5/12/2006 11:34:13 PM

Quote :

"You don't always get what you want"

But if you try sometimes, well you might find you'll get what you need

5/13/2006 12:11:45 AM

^^ But they do, in a weird hackish sort of way. Ralph Nader used to be a democrat before he started his 3rd party. Barry Goldwater was as good a Libertarian as most people could hope for, and he actually won the nomination in 1964.

5/13/2006 8:55:30 AM

Quote :

"I conceed there are only two parties. But who gets nominated by those parties is a democratic process. Is there some nefarious reason Ralph Nader cannot run for the nomination of the Democratic Party?"

My opinion of the simple reason: we live in a democracy and these parties aim to win in that democracy's election, which makes the parties set themselves up as a dictatorship to ensure they can win the democratic election cause they need to minimize internal discord. For example, you never see conventions where the nomination part is nothing but a formality.

There is a convention somewhere, two years ahead of the actual election in the case of the presidency. After this convention is complete, every insider official in the party goes for that one guy and tells donors that have their ear to give money to that one guy. I think John McCain recently won this convention for the Republicans for the 2008 nod. The Democrats haven't had theirs yet seemingly.

What you're asking for really is Howard Dean circa late 2003/early 2004. And notice how most every official Democrat came out against his candidacy saying he's not electable.

[Edited on May 14, 2006 at 5:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2006 5:35:00 PM

Interesting conspiracy theory. So, are the ballot boxes at the conventions stuffed or rigged in some other way?

For example, Howard Dean was unelectable, but he did win a few a few state primaries, just not any after "AEEHHEEEY!" or whatever that sound was.

5/14/2006 8:48:13 PM

Quote :

"The Time has Never Been Better for a Third Party Sierra Times ^ | 5/17/2006 | Jeff Adams For quite some time, 20 years at least, conservatives, constitutionalists and traditionalists have been frustrated with political reality in America. The ‘Republican revolution’ of 1994 bore small fruit, that establishment Republicans let wither and die on the vine. In the place of promises of smaller government, fiscal responsibility and stronger defense of our liberties and sovereignty, the Republicans have given us what the Democrats wanted to give us: bigger government, larger debts, and big-brother government with fading liberty and sovereignty. The Democrats are nothing but pandering socialists who have sold out to corporate globalists, whereas Republicans are pandering corporatists who have sold out to socialistic globalists. There’s not a whole lot of difference is there? What we have running our country are a bunch of power hungry one-worlders who basically chose up sides to play their game and are only concerned with their team (political party) being in control. Either way we get the same raw deal. Not since the 1850s has the political environment been so ripe for the emergence of another political party onto the national scene in a manner that will allow it to ‘play with the big boys.’ Back then, it was the newly formed Republican Party that came on the scene and eventually eclipsed and killed the Whig Party. If a political party, whether it were to be a newly formed party or one of the current third parties, was to make the right move, it could dominate the right, become a defender of the Constitution, and truly get into the game with the ‘big boys.’ The Democratic Party has sold its soul to socialism and every leftist special interest or perversion known. The Republican Party is tearing itself apart due to the left-leaning elites that control the party, ignoring its conservative base. A new conservative party could pull in the disaffected voters who’ve given up on our political system, and also draw in conservatives hopelessly clinging to the Republican Party. The remaining liberal Republicans would simply fold themselves into the Democratic Party, where there hearts really reside already. According to a recent Scott Rasmussen’s survey, a third party candidate could easily take a third of the votes in a national election if they made preventing illegal immigration and enforcing our immigration laws their key issues. In fact, if Hillary Clinton was to run for president in 2008, without a third party candidate focused on illegal immigration, the survey shows nothing can stop Hillary from winning. Basically, we will have another Clinton in the White House in 2009 if a conservative third party candidate doesn’t come forth and champion U.S. sovereignty and fight illegal immigration. The survey shows that a third party candidate can win in a three-way race. Hillary wins in a two-way race between Democrats and Republicans. But a third party President facing a Congress split between two opposition parties could mean a seriously failed presidency. That is why a third party would have to ensure candidates run for the House and Senate at the same time, and do so with a ‘joint game plan’ with the presidential candidate. If the ‘Contract with America,’ where candidates ran on a group platform, worked in 1994, it can work in 2008, linking a third party’s presidential candidate with that party’s congressional candidates, all sporting the same key issues and ‘running together’ after a fashion. With this in mind, neo-con Republicans would no longer be able to scare conservatives into voting for them simply based on the idea that ‘if you don’t vote for us, the Democrats will control everything.” This worn out line has really lost its impact; especially with how the Republican controlled Congress and White House have spent the last five years acting like Democrats. But what party to form, or which party to look to? To try and form a new, independent party now, looking two years ahead, is a daunting task. I question if this can be done in a manner that will be effective. Looking at existing third parties, which ones have fairly viable organizations that stretch across the country? There are only two I’m aware of that meet the organizational criteria: the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Both, overall, tend to hold fairly sound, traditional views on limited government, fiscal responsibility by government, and limited international involvement (leaving that involvement to be purely economic). It’s in the area of immigration that these two parties differ. It is the Constitution Party that holds the view the Rasmussen survey shows can take the White House. If the American people wish to break the stranglehold that the current two-party system holds over them (and will surely lead to our financial, cultural and political demise), then anyone who considers themselves a patriot should look to backing the one viable party that stands for American sovereignty and the control of our borders: The Constitution Party. Cast off fears that not voting Republican will mean Hillary gets the White House. The survey shows that that very fear will ensure she gets the White house. It takes courage to take a new path, and it’s time all conservatives, constitutionalists and traditionalists got in the one vehicle that’s currently available to take us back to the constitutional republic our forefathers left us. I’m not saying that every official position of the Constitution Party is going to appeal to all conservatives/constitutionalists/traditionalist, but neither do all the planks in the Republican or Democrat platforms. I’m just saying that if the citizens want to take back their country from the elites and globalists, it’s time to break with the establishment one-worlders who are selling us down the river and take action via a political party that is working to preserve our Constitution as intended, not as interpreted (or ignored) by elitists. The Constitution Party stands for more than just defending against immigration, and people should read up on them. At the same time, the Constitution Party needs to promote more of their fiscal views. Currently, they are known mostly as a pro-life party. They can’t ride an anti-abortion, one-trick pony to the White House or to Congress. To be viewed as a truly viable party, the Constitution Party needs to promote their other views concerning limited government, fiscal responsibility and halting illegal immigration. Getting a truly conservative, Constitution-honoring political party into Congress and the White House would help to steer the U.S. back towards sanity. A three-way split in political parties working in Congress could be really beneficial to the health of our Republic. I know there will be Republican supporters out there that will tell me I’m dividing their ranks and now is the time to fight to keep the Republican Party on track. I can only say that not only is the Republican Party not on track, it has derailed and had a horrible wreck. At this point in time, it is a fool’s errand to attempt to change the neo-con party. I’m also confidant that some Libertarians out there will tell me I should be backing the Libertarian Party rather than the Constitution Party, as they are the real party of true liberty. The Libertarian Party has a lot of good positions on issues. However, as I stated earlier, the big issue that is the turning point for making a third party a true player on the national level is illegal immigration, and the Libertarian Party doesn’t have the correct position on it to take advantage of the current situation in America. In looking for the best vehicle to break the stranglehold that the Republican-Democrat system has on public office, the Libertarian Party simply isn’t positioned properly to be that vehicle. I freely admit that I’m not a Republican any more (I haven’t been for about 10 years now), and that I’m not a Constitution Party member…yet. However, the time is ripe for change, and I’m tired of being a disaffected conservative. Thanks to the spinelessness of establishment politicians, the climate is right for a new major political party, and the Constitution Party is right on the issue of immigration to take advantage of the times. This is not just a chance to shake up the two-party system, but a chance to take our country back and make it a home again for citizens rather than territory to be conquered by the illegal invaders."

A strongly conservative third party (without the pro-life stuff) would be a very appealing option. But I still remember how we got Perot'ed into a Clinton presidency in '92. I think a third party would be more effective and less damaging if it went after House and Senate seats first.

5/18/2006 10:44:28 AM

I remember a bunch of exit polls that had John Kerry winning a landslide

still though, I would like a 3rd party that has a chance in hell of winning something

5/18/2006 11:57:45 AM