Calling all independents!

Deckard,

Yeah, I think they would be much, much stronger today. However, I don't think it was necessarily a bad move at the time. It was going to come down to the wire, and the Greens thought they might be the difference (which they were). So, theoretically, that in itself could have forced the dems to incorporate some of their positions for this election to get the Green vote.

Of course, as it stands, gwb has unified the dems like no one else could, so they really don't need to take up any green issues. It clearly backfired.

Now I don't know what was going on behind the scenes in 2000. Was Nader approached by the Gore camp? Did he ever approach Gore? Maybe he had less of a choice than we think.

 

They could have had at least one cabinet post, imo. Nadir could have had his pick of a couple and a chance to raise his stature and that of the Green Party. At least they would have had a voice.

 

Hey Deck,

do you know what dems are members of the Democratic Freedom Caucus? I was reading their platform and I like a lot of the views they take.

 

Someday, we'll probably know. Nadir could have made his desires clear to the Gore camp which, close to the election, must have seen the numbers the Green Party was siphoning away. Did they approach Nadir? He's a pretty prickly guy. My guess would be that there was some back-channel talk. Gore could never chance a public rebuff. That would have been terrible publicity at a crucial time.

 

Thank the Lord Almighty they do not. Read that platform and find out why. These people are whackjob kooks of the first order, little different than AL ("Earth in the Balance") Gore.


link

Here's the kicker, pure socialism!

 

Geez, I've been tried and convicted without a trial.

My AmericanFirst Party name was my idea. I've never heard of any of those organizations. I've never seen that website.

This is unbelievable...

BTW, I did agree with virtually all of your post. If we can alternately vote for Democrats and then Republicans without bringing this country down, surely we can find people who will put the country before their party and move them both ahead.

I await those apologies...

 

Great thread, andymoon. As long as two parties are holding the American voter hostage, positive change will be excruciatingly difficult to undertake.

Voters shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils. As it is, both parties have strangleholds on "their" votes because of the "Who else can you vote for?" issue.

 

I can't find anyone on Google that I recognize who is associated with it. Seems like they would have someone "front and center" on their website if there was.

That's what Nadir brought to the Green Party... a face and name people knew. And that gave them credibility with some folks. As for the platform of the Green Party (having seen bama's post), all I can say is that I'm sure there are things in both major party platforms that rarely see the light of day or have an impact on Bush's policies and, if Gore had been President, I'm sure we could say the same. You don't have to agree with everything in a platform, but when you have a chance to exert some influence, like in 2000, it's crazy not to take it. Having Nadir in the Cabinet wouldn't have made a Gore Administration socialist. That's silly.

 

I agree, it is natural for both parties to drift center and then say, "You can't vote for anyone else or you'll help the other guy." That line of reasoning, while sound, is frustrating and makes me want to vote 3rd party even more.

That's what I was afraid of.

Obviously the dems would not pick up all of the greens platforms if they tried to 'incorporate' their voters. For example, the libertarian party is in favor of repealing all minimum wage laws and letting immigrants come and go to the U.S. as they please. It will be a cold day in hell before either of those actually happen, but I think by taking issues such as those it widens the debate and gives more room for compromise.

 

Exactly. If you get yourself at the table, you can have influence. If you stay outside, "jumping up and down and waving your arms"... all you've gotten is Andy Warhol's 15 minutes. You don't have a lasting impact, unless it's a negative one like the 2000 election.

 

No ideas as to format, but it should involve beer.

 

First off ... I'm not against your idea or anything. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and point out the challenges you face. Please don't take any of this any other way. The biggest problem 3rd parties face is that they are fads. People think they are great ideas and then they move on. As a result, they never stick.

We don't have to run someone that will take votes away from candidates we see as lesser evils (Nader in 2000), we can instead choose to focus on what the existing candidates have to do to get our votes.

If you're just endorsing other candidates, you're going to have problems. If your party is one moderate individuals and moderate ideas, then by definition you're going to be in the middle of the two candidates, most likely. As a result, some of your membership is going to lean slightly towards one side, and the rest is going to lean slightly towards the other on every single issue. If you're all about compromise and reasonable solutions, your party will never agree on who to endorse, because both candidates are going to be appealing in some ways and not others, and your party is going to be right in the middle of them on every issue.

But the one thing that these independents have in common is that they are not in lock-step with either of the majors.

Sure - but they wouldn't be lock-step with the 3rd party either. Everyone has some issue they really care about, whether its abortion, drug policy, environment, foreign affairs, etc. If you're in the middle on all of these, that's not what sparks activism and energy.

For example, one of the most divisive issues of our time, abortion, still has plenty of grey area that can be explored. Many of us (myself included) believe that reducing abortion is a noble goal.

I think most Americans would agree with this.

We also believe that there are some circumstances where abortion should continue to be available with reasonable controls.

Let's say you lost 33% of the American people who think abortion is murder right here.

We further believe that some forms of abortion (e.g. late term) should be banned.

Now you lose 33% who feel its a slippery slope and a women's right to control her body take full precedence.

We know that banning abortion altogether will not work, and so we work to find reasonable compromises and solutions in our positions that do not compromise our principles.


Now you have 33% of the population left, and you have the chunk who are in the middle and feel least passionately about the issue. These are the people least likely to volunteer, to vote, etc. And that's only on one issue. Ultimately, people are going to vote with the party that represents the issues that they are passionate about... and if you're constantly seeking compromise and middle-ground solutions, you're not going to get many people to support this party. It's great in concept and people say they believe in 3rd parties and want middle-ground solutions, and in governing, they certainly do, but when it comes to supporting candidates, they want the ones they feel strongly in one direction or the other.

Major, I agree, but where third parties can make an impact is "crashing" election parties. What I mean is this: Say 20% of republicans are moderate socially but want limited government. They are probably fed up with Bush. If just half of them vote Libertarian this election, their voice would be heard loud and clear. The republicans would realize that with all of their pandering to one sect (religious/moral/extreme/big government right) they have left out an important group. I guarantee you they would not make the same mistake next time around.

Perhaps... But that's not what happened with Nader. The Democratic Party didn't come out and say "oh, we need to consider Nader's views" this time. They are saying "look what you did by voting for Nader last time - fix this by voting for us!". Similarly, if 10% of people voted Libertarian and got Kerry in office, they'd all get annoyed and say "we're not making that mistake again" and vote for the Republican the next time. That's why 3rd parties are fads. People believe in them for a while and then realize "this is just hurting me" and go back to the major party that best represents them.

 

The problem with having a successful third party is the winner take all aspect of our Presidency and the majority rules in the legislature. Until those are changed third parties nationally will always end up being merely protest votes or swallowed up into the super coalitions of the two majors.

My vision of a successful third party is one that works from the states up. Gradually winning governorships and state legislatures. Then winning a few congressional seats here and there. In a close legislature a third party that just has 6 seats could make a big difference. Only then would that party be prepared to run a major national campaign. This is the way the Repub party came about as an abolitionist third party.

 

By default I am back working with the Dem party in MN because I won't to see this current Admin defeated. I still get into trouble when I dare to talk about things like trade and vouchers with local Dems. Of course I live in one of the most liberal parts of a liberal city.

My precinct caucus went for Kucinich.