This is from another thread. and I will want responses from anyone BUT members of the two estabilished parties. I got a flyer from a Libertarian out of Nevada awhile ago. He had this idea for Libertarians.
However I think this could work very well in actuality. At the very least we can make candidates do Stupid Pet tricks trying to gain our votes. Anything that causes disruption in the system is good in my opinion.
There are some issues that people of the non estabilished parties can agree on, There are probably candidates that we can all agree on. At least enough that this could very well work and gain us at least a little of the change most of us hope for.
It would obviously be chaotic, and the actual unity on issues would be severly limited to specific causes. Immigration, Tariffs etc.

Is this idea viable?

Would it have the desired effect of changing the system?

Can't we all just get along

Oh yeah, that's a very good idea!

The list of issues that several of us third party types can agree on is short but it does exist. Improved ballot and debate access for third parties at least. Libertarians and Greens are certainly agreed on liberalizing drug laws and on some civil liberties and privacy issues. I'd say start with those and run with it.

I doubt it'd work. The left can rarely agree on anything, and when you put them with a group as radically different as the libertarians then it's just a powder keg waiting to explode. Eventually it'd break up and turn into, like before, lots of little parties. The only way you'll ever get the left to even come close to unifying is to have a very intelligent, very charismatic leader that will give everyone some of what they want, and when combined with the libertarians that's junt not gonna work.

I am not saying form a party. I am saying find one of the few things that seems to be agreed upon by the disparate groups and unify only long enough to accompilish an objective. The end goal is to gain one singular result. Not a broad party coalition. The total number of the different groups is more than enough to sway and election. THAT would be the goal. IF you support this idea, and WE get you enough people elected to accompilish this thing, You have our vote.
On a limited basis you have enough power to assure a real shot at acheiving a particular focused goal.
If they screw you over, well aint nothing like revenge. It would be even easier to accompilish than winning the goal. Getting even with a politician is on most Americans short list of things to do if possible. Look at the fear of the Democrats of Nader right now. It would be simplistic to unify long enough to put false politicians out of office the next time around. You wouldn't even have to organize it. People would take a vacation day just to really enjoy their retribution.

A mess, yes it would be. Informal chat room talks would have to begin early. But it would be easy to finally pick a singular point of legislation and then find the people who would actually do it if they were assured the voting power of the combined bloc in an election. kind of a political version of that cell phone Mob.

christopher,

Finally someone who sees things as they should be, instead of how they are made to be!

I one hundred-percent agree with your post. I don't even see how the opposition to it can justify itself.

I see voting for a statistically favored candidate (merely because they are favored) a complete farce. Do people actually think their vote counts more if they follow the 'herd'? Do they think they will get their name published or they will be quoted for all time and eternity for their one vote?

I presented this very question in the casual conversation forum "defending the indefensible" and I would invite anyone here to take a crack at it.

I've got the issue all the 3rd parties should be able to rally around - energy independence.
1. Creates lots of local jobs.
2. Removes half our reason for needing an expensive military over seas.
3. Cleans up the environment because we would be switching from polluting sources.
4. Helps eliminate our trade imbalance.
5. Puts a premium on home cooked solutions.
6. Helps build community.
7. Weakens monopolistic, undemocratic business cartels in favor of smaller more competitive manufacturers.
8. Encourages more efficient transportation and bike/walk alternatives.
9. Focuses us more on cradle to grave product manufacture and recycling which is ultimately cheaper, more efficient and more life affirming.
10. Perhaps get us to revamp our pricing system so we make purchase choices based on real cost pricing, the ultimate integrity based laissez faire economy.
11. Less problem with our jobs being shipped overseas.
12. Removes the principle incentive for terrorists to attack us and insures as a consequence a greater level of individual civil liberties.
13. Feel free to add your own.

Does that seem like the one issue that could pull us all together?

Fantastic! Except for the fact that all of us "alternative" party/philosophy members (Socialists, Greens, Libertarians, Reformists, Independents, etc...) would not even agree on your list of "solutions/benefits" much less a universal and concerted policy proposal to contrast with the RepubliDems.

Don't get me wrong! I too yearn for a world in which "we all just get along", but let's not forget that we all have very different overall agendas and heartfelt philosophies behind them. The desired outcome of issues we do agree on (as far as government involvement is concerned) may sometimes coincide but the underlying principles that lead to such conclusions may differ greatly!

I think this strategy could be successful to a degree, but only as far as changing single issue outcomes one at a time. Nothing wrong with that! But....

For instance: Greens and Libertarians could get together and promote the LEGALIZATION of Marijuana (yeah, I said it! Not "decriminalization", but LEGALIZATION!).

But even if we were successful, We are then faced with a core difference in our beliefs. We Libertarians would celebrate that human beings are once again free to choose one more method to "recreate" or "medicate" or alter our own consciousness without interference from government so long as we do not violate anyone's "rights".

The Greens/Socialists on the other hand, would rejoice for a minute or two, and then propose taxing the ever lovin' (expletive deleted) out of Marijuana production in order to create a plethora of amazing new government programs to help all of those poor souls whose lives have been (through no choice of their own) destroyed by the avarice of the Evil Pot Corporations whose deceptive advertising portrays pot smokers as happy, mellow, non-violent folk who snack alot. Not to mention any other "program" or cause that they believe to be "underfunded".

I'm only familiar with the tenets of the US Green Party and the Libertarian party, so I will necessarily focus on these. My personal views are pretty close to this.

Well, the obvious first pillar of the Coalition of Independent (disenfranchised?) Voter's Platform should be election reform. This could be supported by ALL independent and 3rd party members.

The second would be to devolve some Federal functions to the states: obvious for the Libertarians, but the greens also support decentralization. Other 3rd parties would probably get on board this one as well.

The third, obvious for the Greens, would be some sort of pollution tax...which the Libertarians should get behind in the spirit of 'internalizing' market externalities.

The fourth would be tax reform. This would be difficult to reconcile between the two groups, however, shifting the burden of taxation to the states could probably be a compromise. I'd like to see a land-value-tax a la Henry George, which has some support amongst 3rd parties, but I'm not holding my breath. Some sort of progressive consumption tax might be a good interim step.

The fifth would be ending the Patriot Act.

The sixth would be ending the war on drugs.

The seventh would be migrating our offensive military to a defensive military.

The eighth would be.....

The variety of opinions and (often extreme) political views held by such prospective voters preclude the generation of any meaningful solidarity. Other than being unhappy with the current system, and turned off by the Dem/Rep dichotomy, there really isn't anything people of the third party persuasion can rally behind.

Unfortunately, a political platform based entirely on legalizing weed and minimizing pollution won't enable the 'disenfranchised' to effectively compete with the two major parties.

Legalizing weed would not help much in dislodging the two party monopoly. Think that we (the Third party members and the Indies) should focus on at least these three issues:

Tax reform:
Our current tax system is a bit wacko . In addition, reforming the income tax in my view would not be worth it because it might re-lead to the messed up system we have now. Yes, I can see a progressive consumption tax to be a intermediate step, or, possibly, as a part of a more permanent reform.

Decentralization:
Won't effectively work unless the 10th amendment is given some teeth (the best method is amending the U.S. constitution). One of the best ways is to give the State Governments and effective say in national policy. How to effectively do that is a matter of debate. But, one way is to replace the 17th amendment.

Electorial reform:
Something like IRV+NOTA (Instant Runoff Voting + None of the Above) would help Electorial reform.

I don't belong to any party but am a registered active independent. Having a platform may get some power among certain like minds but lest you are centrist in your values you'll only attract a minority . Having extreme views does not serve everyone which is a leadership goal, the majority party has not excercised leadership wisely and practices extreme agendas which is the cause of the polarization. As you may have noticed both parties are desparate to understand how to attract the hold-outs voting independantly. A club of individuals with no platform holds more power than formal blocks of people forming eccentric diverse platforms no majority can identify with. As things are today more and more people are independent and the majority parties are recognizing the disenchanment.