United: A chance! - Divided: No Chance!

Here's the Debate:

1.) Is it a possibility that a coalition of third parties could coalesce and nominate one and only one presidential candidate in the '08 Presidential Election.

2.) If a legitimate third party coalition were to form, could they compete with the Republocrats on a national level?

1.) Is it a possibility that a coalition of third parties could coalesce and nominate one and only one presidential candidate in the '08 Presidential Election.

It would be nice. However, I don't think it is possible. The basic reason is that, IMHO, most third party members are ideologically fixed and quite stubborn about it. There may be third parties out there that are very similar to their own, but it's those one or two ideological differences that keep them apart.

I go into somewhat greater detail on this on the Centrist Revolution (My Blog) page.

2.) If a legitimate third party coalition were to form, could they compete with the Republocrats on a national level?

I think they would have a better chance. However, third party candidates still have an issue with getting on the ballot in every state (regardless of the size of their following, though larger is better) and I don't think all of the finances of all of the third parties combined rival the fundraising numbers of the RNC or the DNC. Though, the increased chances of success could possibly lead to increased donations.

Then there is the possibility of actually pulling large sectors of votes from those groups who feel like their party has abandoned them. It could be possible (though I am not sure how probable) that a third party candidate, with a reasonable possibility of winning, could for example pull the Fiscal Conservatives, and the Liberty Caucus from the Republican Party, or maybe even pull Organized Labor, and the Urban voters who support school choice from the Democratic Party.

Honestly, I just don't see these various groups getting over the two biggest humps. The first being the negative opinion of compromise on any ideological position. The opposition to "sharing the power" when it comes to all the various little "political empires" out there is the second.

1.) Is it a possibility that a coalition of third parties could coalesce and nominate one and only one presidential candidate in the '08 Presidential Election. Anything is possible, but what would be the point? I have more in common with the Democratic and Republican party than I do the socialist party. Whose positions, of this motley assortment of 'third party' characters, would the chosen candidate represent...other than not wanting to call themselves a member of a primary party?

2.) If a legitimate third party coalition were to form, could they compete with the Republocrats on a national level? I'd love to see a third party candidate WIN (if he was honorable and represented my views, of course). What I'd hate to see is a viable, competetive third party candidate lose but take all the votes away from the lesser evil. 51 percent is hard to take, but it's at least a majority. Imagine if 63 percent of the population voted against the winning candidate. Allende got elected in Chile with less than 37 percent of the vote. A reasonably competitive third party candidate is likely what gave Clinton the presidency the first time with 43 percent of the popular vote (Yes, I'm still bitter, but they didn't have the term PEST back then so I was left without professional help ).

Edited to add: It may be tempting to view the third party candidate as an option outside of the corruption of a primary party. Less of a sellout. That isn't necessarily the case...it MIGHT be true initially, but would last for a very short while. Take the Italian example, with it's eight + viable political parties. In theory everyone should have his/her views represented under such a system. In practical reality, the system is extremely corrupt, bribery is rampant, and the most radical elements (and "sell-outs to special interests") wield much more power because they need a very small percentage of the vote to win.

1.) Is it a possibility that a coalition of third parties could coalesce and nominate one and only one presidential candidate in the '08 Presidential Election.

Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? No. Just as Mrs. P puts it: the ideological gulfs between third parties are often greater than those between a third party and one of the primary parties.

2.) If a legitimate third party coalition were to form, could they compete with the Republocrats on a national level?

In my opinion, the only way to have third party voices play a role proportional to their support is to institute instant runoff voting. Instant runoff could in theory permit a third party candidate to be elected due to 2nd choice majority. That is, in plurality conditions Republicans and Democrats would null each other out for their primary choice so the secondary choice becomes important. This means that third party voters would have a larger impact on the voting process than they do now. It would also move them from "spoiler status" to "viable candidate status". For the Presidential election, in addition to IRV we should pass an amendment forcing all states to use proportional representation for their Electoral College members.

Anyway, to answer the question more directly, I don't believe that a third party coalition would ever form. But, if it did, I don't believe it would compete with the Republocrats.

[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,Dec 15 2004, 08:33 AM]
1.) Is it a possibility that a coalition of third parties could coalesce and nominate one and only one presidential candidate in the '08 Presidential Election. Anything is possible, but what would be the point? I have more in common with the Democratic and Republican party than I do the socialist party. Whose positions, of this motley assortment of 'third party' characters, would the chosen candidate represent...other than not wanting to call themselves a member of a primary party?

I'd like to create a platform of "unification" that addresses the commonly occuring platform planks, and that is designed to purposefully avoid "divisive issues" To be part of the agenda, any item would have to have an overwhelming majority of support from the Coalition partners. This would be the Coalition aganda: common grievances, and solutions. We do not need to spend more time on divisive issues that there is simply NO solution that is acceptable to both sides such as abortion, gay marriage, etc... those issues inherently divide the nation.
The republicans and the democrats have so much in common that it is hard to tell them apart anymore. At least within a third party coalition, there would be diversity of opinion, and dissenting voices. Current trends within the duopoly are leaning towards less and less diversity, and less dissent.

1: Possible, though extremely unlikely if the purpose of the candidacy is that of the typical presidential candidate.
2: Still extremely unlikely. Such a candidate would flounder because people are attracted to those third parties because they're specialized enough to represent (or attempt to represent...) them more accurately than the major two parties can. Everyone would know that were the coalition candidate elected, they (the voter) would not be represented as fully as their third party could were it alone. As a whole, these parties would probably do worse together than individually (provided the purpose of the candidacy is the typical one, to win and influence policy). This is part of why a coalition is so unlikely in the first place.

However, I think that a coalition could work if it's purpose was to simply to shake up the present voting system. Find a likable and honest candidate who runs on a platform of making no changes to present policy, other than fighting the two party system through pushing for instant recall voting and laws which don't give extra help to the two major parties. If the candidate is trustworthy and believable (finding such a person would be the toughest part of this plan), then I think a coalition really could work. The best part is that this candidate wouldn't even have to win to have an affect. Combined, our numbers would look a lot better than they do separately. And that'll have a snowball affect, as people see that more and more others aren't satisfied with the current system.

[quote=Alexander,Jan 8 2005, 01:35 AM]
[quote]1.) Is it a possibility that a coalition of third parties could coalesce and nominate one and only one presidential candidate in the '08 Presidential Election.

2.) If a legitimate third party coalition were to form, could they compete with the Republocrats on a national level?[/quote]

An interesting concept but unlikely...these 3rd parties have too many differences and worst of all,too much pride.The only chance this coalition would have would be with a very charismatic candidate! Powell or Schwarzenegger may be able to pull it off. The constitution would have to change for the Govenator to enter the mix.
These men would have to have clear differences with the GOP before they would leave their party. I would like to see Bill Mahr as a 3rd party candidate,that would really shake things up!

I'm trying to let others post opinions here to check and see what everyone else thinks. It's clear that there are vast differences in the world-views of the diverse third parties. What a statement it would make for them to unite. There are some common areas that seem to reoccur as reforms that need to happen that don't seem to be possible from within the two party system. There is mutual gain to be had for all the parties around who participate.

Things like banning corporate campaign contributions, term limits for congress, holding media accountable for the truth, fairness and accuracy, and a few others seem to be items that almost every party agrees on. Ballot access, and undoing the restrictive laws that the "two-party duopoly" have put in place to hinder third parties is also a major uniting issue. The Constitution, and Bill of Rights are also pretty much unanimously supported by everyone (current administration excluded) To get a formadible coalition going would give rise to a Citizens movement. It may also give us a venue to talk about issues that can't otherwise get air time. Why are there only two candidates in the Presidential Debates? What about Cobb, Bardnarik, Nader? Don't we have the right to hear what they have to say also, in debate with the Republocrats.

It's important to note that no party is in danger of losing any autonomy by forming a coalition. All parties would retain infrastructure, and run their own candidates at state and local levels. It's not as if any of the third parties stand a chance at the Presidency otherwise. Just getting on the ballot in all 50 states is an enormous undertaking that would be simplified through a Coalition.

This movement is a Citizens movement. It's just plain old people trying to make something happen for the good of the country. Those of us paying attention to the rise of fascism in America: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/...sm_America.html
Don't want our country to be that way, and realize that information and education of the citizenry is the only way to make a difference.

I'ts my understanding that the Republican Party came into existance (in it's current form) as a Coalition of smaller parties, in the wake of the collapse of the Whig party. I see no reason that it cannot happen again. I do however, not believe that the two-party system is the only way.

I honestly don't see the point in creating a Coalition of parties which agree to work together on the basis of some of the issues, while simultaneously expecting them to abandon issues which are just as fundamentally important to them. You seem to be suggesting a "devil's in the details, so let's just ignore them" approach, but it's those details, in the case of third parties, which are often the most fundamentally important. In that one paragraph above, you suggest that the "duopoly leads to less dissent and diversity" while simultaneously advocating "unification" of third parties by eliminating dissent. Isn't that contradictory?

One small example of missing detail...the parties ostensibly all advocate "fiscal restraint". Which programs should be cut? Well, third parties are just as divergent (arguably more so) on that point than the duopoly. We all "support the Constitution and Bill of Rights". To me, that would be a fairly strict interpretation of the enumerated powers...but a Socialist would certainly disagree.

I like logophage's idea about the instant runoff voting. Otherwise, I don't see the third party Coalition as viable, or even favorable. The duopoly exists, in large part, for precisely the reasons you advocate a competing third party. Compromise built into a system with inherent incentive traps. Numerous viewpoints are thereby able to have a chance at obtaining representation, but forced to compromise in order to do so. The smaller the parties are cut up, the less the likelihood for that representation (with the exception of instant runoff).

Small parties exist NOT to get into power, but to provide a way for people who care about a particular issue to make themselves heard. If a large enough number of people vote for (say) the 'adopt a moose' party, then generally Republican or Democrat politicians will make policies based on moose adoption - seeing votes to be seized...

So I would argue that it is unlikely that a third party candidate would arise in such a way. Third parties tend to succeed in proportional democracies, rather than f.p.t.p democracies such as America.

I honestly don't see this happening. I don't believe that you can get greens, libertarians, and say....members of the constitution and socialist parties together to agree on anything more than they oppose the "republicrats" Many of these parties can't even agree with those of their own stripe. The greens have the G/GPUSA as well as the GPUS?/Greens who can't agree to merge. For a more colorful example, trace the pattern of socialist groups that morphed into other smaller groups.




I honestly believe that they could not take the White House. Take a look at '92, which provides us with the largest third party vote ever by the citizens of this country. Perot by himself garnered 19.7 million votes, while the other two averaged 37 and 44 million respectively. Toss in the other groups voting for Perot, and you are lucky to get over 5 million tops. I don't believe that the 27 million gap between Perot and Bush could've been surmounted if the other parties had agreed to support him or come together in general.

1.) Is it a possibility that a coalition of third parties could coalesce and nominate one and only one presidential candidate in the '08 Presidential Election.

We already have 2 parties that seem to be a conglomeration of widely differing views. The Republicans are leaving me behind, and the Democrats are too far to the left for me to want to join.

2.) If a legitimate third party coalition were to form, could they compete with the Republocrats on a national level?

The only 3rd party I want to see is a Moderate based party. It would be interesting to see if there are enough of us to put some fear into the extreme liberals and ultra conservatives.

The main thing that has been problematic for me is the extremism of "divisive" issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc... and their position as a "smokescreen" that stands in the way of true reform. I guess what I am truly looking for is a "CENTRIST REVOLUTION" from the people, who demand something different. Our Congress should not be spinning it's wheels on such issues while there are more important problems to address, that have need of real reform.

There is a difference inherent in the purpose of a candidate running for President, and one running as say, Representative, Senator, or any other state or local office.

The job is different, and the Constitution designates different responsibilities. Here is where it makes sense to have a coalition that "ignores the details" when it comes to the Presidency. Those details are largely subject to the debate of state elections. Not Federal Elections. Here is the difference.

I also believe that the parties have become dependant on special interest money from big donors, and cater to them behind the scenes way more than we know. I think that system has got to be broken up, and I cannot think of any other way to possibly do it.

The problem is you are looking for a "centrist revolution' when most members of third parties are not. I am looking for a radical reduction in the powers of the federal government. Powers reduced to the enumerated powers that Mrs. P. referred to earlier.

To claim the details are largely subject to the debate of state elections is absurd. That has not been the case since the New Deal. The federal government has usurped the powers of the individual states and the 9th and 10th amendments are now little more than words on paper. Sorry, I won't accept a socialist candidate just because he agrees with me on a couple minor issues.About the only thing third parties agree upon is election reform.

The Reform Party is Centrist. The Libertarian is looking to "constitutionally limit" the federal government. The Veterans party is interested (a former presidential candidate is on my petition) I've been facilitating dialogue, and attempting to bring people together. Rick Stanley's Revolutionary Coalition is a good example of what I am trying to create. Just beringing people together. It may happen. I wish I could count on the Dems, but I don't think I can. The Republican machine is horrible for America, and in fact the World in my opinion. Their divisiveness will cause generations of war. We will never get out of this middle east conflict at the current rate. I can see a real end to America's lone Super-power status coming soon.

Check out the Revolutionary Coalition.

http://stanley2002.org/docs/Coalition.html

There will be a Summit of Third Parties. I will work to mediate a platform of agreeance, along with many others who are a part of this movement.. If It happens, it will undoubtedly be Centrist, and not focus on "divisive" issues.

I know it's not easy to imagine...but I am ready to try. I think it is long overdue, and now is the time.

I think a third parties coalition can form around issues that affect all of them - namely, increasing democratic freedoms. Many of the third parties want to institute proportional representation and instant-runoff voting in elections. Such voting systems allow for multiparty systems, and all third parties want that.

I believe that you're right on this Frozny. IRV, proportional representation, as well as other election reform issues would be something that the diverse parties could agree upon. I think you could also get them to make trade-offs on certain issues. Greens and other leftist groups could get their minimum wage increase if they agree to meet libertarians and other groups like that in the center and back a proposal to allow businesses to exempt money paid over the minimum wage. You could also get compromise in terms of increasing government programs for the environment, while completely abolishing others. The We The People party is one that is working to try and work on such things. Then again, how realistic is it that libertarians or greens would compromise on issues that led them to form their own party because they couldn't get their way 100% of the time in the first place?

I don't think a third party coalition should take stances on anything other than third party rights (i.e. PR & IRV.) That would alienate parts of the multipartisan movement. Imagine, for example, if the coalition took a pro-choice stance. That immediately throws out the support of conservative parties, such as the Constitution Party, from the coalition.

Such a coalition would probably fragment after it achieves its goals, however. But that would be a good thing. It is better to have a choice of Libertarians, Greens, Reforms, Socialists, and Constitutionalists in a PR system then to have three blob parties.

Absolutely! And that is the problem.

Can anyone honestly see the American Patriot Party and the Socialist Party USA agreeing on anything, other then not having any rules at their first gang fight?

Third Parties are primarily made up of ideological Zealots. The majority of these people felt so strongly about their ideology that the left the Democratic and Republican Parties to join a party that mirrored their own ideology so they would not have to compromise.

Their unwillingness to compromise politically is strong enough that they would rather maintain their pure ideology, then win elections.

The possibility that these people would willing meet with their political opposites is nearly non-existent. Compromise, for the majority of third party members is simply not an option.

I don't fault Their desire to seek a better place to hang their political hat. I became an independent awhile back because I could no long stand what my party of 10 years was doing. But, the zealotry can blind them to reality. Failure to deal and compromise means you will likely never have the opportunity to be heard by the people or those in power, let alone effect change.

This coalition simply won't happen. I signed the petition, and I wish it would happen but the history of third parties would suggest that it is not a realistic possibility.

I'm glad to see others who are willing to think "outside the box". There is potential here. The Constitutional Rights are an area that pretty much everyone can agree on. They are also in jeopardy. I think that the Constitution itself, and what it's place "should be" is something that third parties could coalesce around. There are many many divisive issues, but I believe that the interests that we all have in common are far more important than the ones that separate us.

.

It looks to me that the Republicans and Democrats are zealots in their own right. I see a whole bunch of Moderate or Centrist Americans who feel that the divisivenes of the two parties is destroying the nation. The focus on divisive social issues is zealotous. It's noteworthe that a third of the voters aren't part of either party because they don't agree with the idealogy of the Republocrats. Both of those parties have been so corrupted by special interest lobbying that they no longer represent the people. there are a few politicians that do, but as Parties, they are currupt. People know that, and want a viable alternative. They are not Zealots because of it. The religious right that's running our country are the Zealots.




There are other issues that would stand to benifit all third parties. Ballot access laws. Fair media practices. Media reform. Term limits for Congress. Etc...etc... You could build a small platform that addresses these issues that will be benificial to all third parties. You are right about the divisive issues, though. They are mostly social issues.

I don't think the Libertarians would support regulations on the media. Besides, it would not be necessary if a third party coalition gets PR and IRV in place. When the third parties start winning seats, the media will take them more seriously.

1.) Is it a possibility that a coalition of third parties could coalesce and nominate one and only one presidential candidate in the '08 Presidential Election.

No. Their views are to disperse.

2.) If a legitimate third party coalition were to form, could they compete with the Republocrats on a national level?

No. The combined votes of all the third partys doesn't exceed about 1%.

This is a dead on comment that I've experienced personally. I use to be a member of a third party and participated in state level meetings. If one candidate diverged from the platform in any way-if he ate meat, supported any war, or believed in the 2nd amendment, then it was as if we nominated a stalwart republican. Third parties continue to wallow in the minority because the two major parties have different "wings" or "tents" Southern conservatives call themselves democrats just the same as northeastern liberals do. Conservative economic republicans call themselves by that title as much as a Rockefeller east coaster who is for some governmetn republicans refers to himself by that title. Until the greens and other parties learn how to compromise on some issues, they will definitely be pulling down single digit electoral numbers.

No, as long as a coalition tried to deal with actual issues, it wouldn't work. We disagree about the fundementals too much to even base it around the constitution. Consitutional party people would disagree with the libretarians over free-speech and pornography laws, and the libretarians would disagree with the greens over the goverment's ability to regulate the environment via the interstate commerce clause... ect...

It just wouldn't work.

The only hope would be to keep the coalition concerned with only making it easier for 3rd parties to be elected.

I believe that this movement can work. I have located many, many parties across a broad spectrum that have expressed an interest. It looks like this Coalition is beginning. It remains to be seen exactly how effective we can be, but we are working now. I am working now to incorporate an interactive platform discussion. It's the most innovative thing I've seen yet.

I invite anyone interested in this endeavor to PM me, and I will give you some more information on what is developing. This could truly be revolutionary. I openly invite anyone, from any party to contact me about it. PM me.

Good discussion topic Antony. Just a few thoughts here.

Alot can happen in 4 years. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely for 08? No.

I'm just starting to learn about the major third parties. It seems to me the top 3-4 third have some irreconcilable differences. The Greens are very globalist, anti-defense, pro-abortion - the complete of opposite of the Constitution Party. The Reform party has been so unstable its hard to see them do anything but splinter even further. Perhaps the Greens and Libertarians could find common ground on their free-trade and decentralized govt stances. None of them have enough power/clout on their own, unless....

...they join forces with a group of splinter/breakoff Democrats - as the Whigs and Free Soilers did in 1850's to form the new Republican party. They stood up for a human rights issue (abolishing slavery) and a practical economic one (free land). Likewise today I think you'd need a basic, emotional human rights issue and a very practical economic one to sway voters who might be disenchanted with the current Democrats platform.

There's more debate now within the Dems about altering their abortion stance. Also
a desire by many moderates to distance themselves from the media/entertainer extremists who latched on in the last election. Maybe opportunity there for a fresh perspective that encompasses Democratic ideals but in a new way (as a third party)

But most of all, they'd need a solid candidate. Rock-solid character, trustworthy, likeable, with a firm track record of their positions. When it comes down to it, the election is more about that person's character than the makeup of their party.

So you're backing off the "constitutional based" coalition?

What I don't understand about your suggestion is why you're so insistant about making this a party that deals with no-election issues... could you explain why this is necessary, instead of simply creating a tempory party to change the system so that it's more 3rd party friendly?

At the momentwe only have one platform issue, from there we can build.

The current agenda: "DEFENDING OUR NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, AND GUARANTEED RIGHTS"

All it takes to join the Coalition is to agree on that one plank. The only commitment is that you would be willing to come to the negotiation table when the time comes for the Coalition Summit.

From there, I hope that we can find other platform planks of "agreeance". The way I see it, an open dialogue between those of differing opinion may lead to some productive innovative ways of thinking. Fortunately, we have a virtual platform that provides an effective place to take your ideas and put them to the test in an impersonal, less emotional forum. Much like the debate formu here. So far, it has generated a good deal of positive momentum...it has begun.

That agenda, I must say, is widely open to interpretation. The word "rights" can be hijacked by a specific ideology. Libertarians have one view of rights. Liberals have another view. Conservatives have another still. Such a platform is not the way to go for a third party coalition.

You'll never get the Libertarians to agree with the Socialists on taxes. You'll never get the Socialists to agree with the Constitutionalists on personal rights. You'll never get the Constitutionalists to agree with the Greens on environmental issues.

I suggest that your agenda be changed to "Reforming the electoral system in such a manner that will increase the political freedoms of every American." Above all, all third parties want a multipartisan system.

Ok, let me ask this. How many third parties would agree that the General Welfare "Clause" enpowers the government to provide welfare and a host of other benefits? How many would agree that it does not? How many would agree that it doesn't even exist?



Generally speaking, they left the two biggest tent parties for one of many little tent parties because they felt so strongly about a few issues. As for Moderates, There are Moderate wings in both the Republican and the Democratic parties. I have looked into alot of third parties in the last year or so and I have to say, very few of them would fit the word moderate.



You will find more people fanatically committed to one particular ideology in any third party then anywhere else in America. These people are passionate about politics and want to be involved and effect change. Yet, they are so fanatical about their particular ideology that they choose to work within a party that has absolutely no real chance of winning public office on a national level.

However, don't just take my word for it, take a look at someone elses experiences.



BTW, Thanks Nebraska




Many Parties? or many party members? There is a difference. Care to share which Parties are interested, and what they have done to promote the idea?




Right on the money Frozny. Even the what some see as the most basic of issues are view completely differently by the different sides. I doubt even getting a third party consensus on ballot access and election reform would be an easy task.

Antny, please don't get me wrong. I would love to see this happen, I even signed the petition. However, if you examine the platforms of the various third parties you might find a few issues that they all list, but there is not one, not even how to resolve ballot access, debate access and electorial reform that every party agree's on. Even your proposed platform of Constitutional rights is problematic because so there are so many different beliefs on what is a constitutional right and what is not.

If you limit your search of third parties to those with conservative platforms you will find dozens of parties with very similar platforms and just a few relatively minor differences here and there. However, if you suggest to them that they are so similar to these other parties that they should join forces they all look at you like you have two heads.

For many, many people in third parties, Ideological compromise is NOT an option. And in many parties, the standing joke is that if a member ever got elected that member would immediately be expelled from the party as a sell out.

Right now, the best opportunity for effecting positive change rests with the growing strength of the moderate / centrist movements within both major parties. Recently I have begun to regret my very public and official exit from the Republican party because, with the rise of organizations like It's My Party Too! and the continued growth of Republican Liberty Caucus there seems to be a possibility of a return to reason within the Republican party just as the creation of Democratic Freedom Caucus suggests hope of a return to reason within the Democratic party.

Perhaps the plan of attack that might serve the third parties best is to take the approach of Congressman Ron Paul and others who belong to their third party of choice AND one of the major two parties. They seek to effect change, on both the national stage as well as within their parties, it seems to me that this approach has a better chance of success.

I think you've well established that you think that your multi-issue coalition party is feasible. I disagree, but I would very much like to move onto the next question (which I thought was apparent, as I asked it in the last post). Please answer this... What is so important about the coalition acting as a full party? Why can't it be just centered on proportional voting and getting the bias out of election laws?

Hrmmm...I guess because of the fact that in order to change much of anything, we must elect new representatives. The existing duopoly will not change. In order to get people elected, you must get over the ballot access hump. This is where a functional Coalition would help out all the third parties.

What would it "do" if it were just "centered on proportional voting and getting the bias out of election laws"? How could it accomplish those things withour full Party status, ballot access, and elected representatives?

If the coalition were simply centered on that, it would:
1) Be able to get the third parties to unite without worries of "selling their souls."
2) Challenge the Republicrats, and possibly get into power
3) Reform the electoral system
and
4) Fragment and hold new elections

Another possibility for 2) is that it will become such a threat to the two parties that it will force one of them (most likely the Democrats) to steal their thunder and make PR a plank of their platform. Then it will accomplish its goal indirectly.

It's possible. Problem is communication and infrastructure with such a loose coalition. I would throw out one interesting prospect at this point. The New Frontier Coalition is currently working to do exactly what we're talking about. They are, however focused largely on states rights, the Constitution, and real policy issues. They have a lot of potential, no platform yet, and a constitution that runs on Quaker rules, meaning that all platform issues must have unanimous agreement. That pretty much rules out divisive issues. Take a look at it and let me know what you think. Read their Constitution...

http://www.newfrontiercoalition.org/

I'm sorry Antny, but I'm not buying it! I read your petition and your own words reveal your true agenda. These words along with others you have expressed on this thread and others indicate an ideology far beyond simple "open ballot access" to third parties. You use the phrase "corporate shareholders" as an epithet, as if the act of saving and then investing a part of ones income in a company that voluntarily provides jobs, products, and services , is a bad thing. By implication, you are a leftist, a socialist, who wants government to intervene. You do not believe in one individuals right to deal with another without interference from uninvited others.

The only thing we "third party" members might have in common (and it's not universal by the way) is a desire to have more influence....Wow! Shocking!

"If only people understood things the way that I do."

"Why don't more people agree with me?"

I'm sorry Antny, but to the degree that I understand human nature as I do, I would prefer the current washdown of current Democrats (closet socialists) to those of you who wistfully and yet proudly believe that my sandwhich is your sandwhich.

It is my opinion that presenting my (alternative) libertarian philosophy to the masses is a job that starts in the elementary grades and should continue through high school and college, along with the current 1960's socialist pap that now passes for "education".

Election time seems a little late to all of the sudden leap up and shout- "Hey, us third-party folk really really want you all to listen to us! What the heck is wrong with all you stupid people?"

Having said all that, I am opposed to any taxpayer funding of any advertisements or debates that exclude any candidate. But if the Dems. and the Repubs. pay for their own debates amongst themselves, that's their business. We are free to point out that they are chicken! But if "the people" don't care, that's our problem, not theirs!

I guess you've misunderstood the "corporate shareholders" motif. The beef is that the government has passed more legislation that favors corporations, than people. I have no problem with people investing, and maintaining their own security. I have a massive problem with the favortism and corruption in present day America due to corporate, and/or special interest lobbyism. Under capitalism, the free market becomes more and more centrally controlled without intervention to ensure monopolistic practices do not eliminate the all important competition. Capitalism without regulation may as well be fascism.

The libertarians philosophy lacks a few important pieces for my tastes, and apparently for the vast majority of people, otherwise the Libertarians would have had a bit more success at getting votes other than just the anti-government votes in the last 30 years.

To propose teaching libertarian philosophy in elementary schools is an interesting concept. Would that include freedom to use any drugs the elementary schoolers wished?

OK, this is not a libertarian debate, so I will refocus. It is futile for the third parties to compete with each other. The big picture is more important than the little details. I have used the words that ring strongly for me. I am not alone here, though. There are others working to this end who have diverse approaches. As I said, the Coalition effort must be diverse, and the platform issues will be ones that we can all agree on.

I doubt you could get people to agree on open borders (immigration is a major issue, and it's more focused on closing the borders than opening them), elimination of all drug restrictions (marijuana decrimanilazation, and getting rid of BATC would be good places to start, or total free trade with no government regulation. There are other issues that we feel strongly about, and could probably agree on.

The Constitution itself is a major one. I can accept more education of the Constitution and it's history, the Declaration od Independance, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers need more attention in high school government. I wish every student had to take a semester on just the historical documents, including their state constitutions. If the libertarians are unwilling to work with other "like-minded" parties and people, they will continue their journey as the largest insignifigant party until either, they figure out some changes they need to make in their approach, or another party surpasses them (or a Coalition) which seeems more likely at this point. It would be nice to work with Libertarians, but they need to be a bit more open to other points of view in order to make anything possible there.


Nevertheless, could all "liberty-minded Patriots" figure out how to work together?

I would most certaily love to see a third party candidate become president. It would be a great moment for reformists such as Antny and I. Personally, democrat and republican aside, when the founders created this country there were no "parties" and it is becausde of this that everyone stayed united behind their president. People that have opposing view points decided on the lesser of two evils in the last election and I think that they were wrong. They settled for a president that has brought around horrible and unproductive laws especially in education when they had another option. Although Nader is most certainly not the man for the job, this country needs a third party president. Someone that can bring everyones views to a universal joint effort to better everyone elses life. It would no longer be, democrat vs. republican, no, it would be: I agree and good point; things like that. People have always settled for the dem. or rep. that looked like they could do the least damage because they don't want change. People in this country fear something that may potentially threaten tradition and I think that that is just a crock. What I mean by all this is that divided as we are, Democrat and Republican always bickering, we stand no real chance at improving anything in this country. Can't we all just get along (with a third party president for the first time )?I better shut up before this gestap government arrests me at school for cyber-terrorism.

P.S.: I'll be voting in '08, so I wanna see a third party candidate on my ballot.

The concept of unity runs contrary to the desire for more choices in elections. The goal here is not to eliminate the two parties and establish a one-party state - that actually magnifies the problem beyond imagination. The problem is that the two parties are too similar, and people are in fact "getting along" too much.

Division is the key. When there are more divisive issues, there is more debate, hence, more victory for reason. The greatest virtue of the third parties is that they are divided. They are small enough to retain consistent principles, rather than fence-straddling "moderates" in the blob parties. Proportional representation allows them to gain power without muddling their principles and forming into blob parties.

I think you're missing what I was suggesting. The coalition should run candidates and whatnot in a similar fashion as any other party would. The only difference is that it should simply stick to election related issues (PropRep, funding, bias in the laws... ect...). Divisive issues would be put on hold.

Once this battle was won, the coalition would break up-- no longer being necessary as the 2 party vice would be busted. The 3rd parties could go back to being idealists, while never having had to really water down their beliefs.

Not really. The "infrastructure" would essentially be limited to each representatives campaign. Each party would campaign on their own for the coalition's man. Finding a good representative who people would believe could be difficult, but it would be no less of a problem under your coalition. And your annecdote is of no consequence, because that party is using this strategy for a different niche.

Alexander, I see what you're saying now. That is, in fact, largely what is being attempted. The We The People Coalition at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WeThePeopleCoalition/ is attempting this. Their objective, as stated on the site is:



At present, the group has about 700 members. This is the type of movement that I am talking about! Clearly, the Election related issues are the "ties that bind". Constitutional Interpretation is on the table also. Most folks seem to be in favor of holding to government accountable for adhering to the Constitution as it was written, NOT as justices rewrite it at their discretion. States' Rights is an issue that people talk about with regularity also...

I believe that if this movement can become cohesive, it has potential. I have my fingers crossed hoping for what Overland Sailor has termed the Centrist Revolution.

No, it's not! That's not at all what I'm talking about. The theoretical coalition I'm thinking of wouldn't get involved in "common interests". Just ONE common interest, and that being fair election policies. No "renewing greatness", no "going back to constitutional principles", no "restoring justice". As disgustingly bland as those phrases are (or prehaps because of it), attempting to do them would cause a great deal of friction in an interparty coalition of extremes. When a coalition tries to go beyond election fairness, it'll start being divisive. But as long as it was just working to allow 3rd parties better odds, and ONLY that, it could have a chance.

Centrism and Revolution are, in modern America, completely incompatible. It is the "centrist" Republicrats who are in power, the sustainers of the. It is the "extremist" Libertarians, Socialists, Constitutionalists, Greens, Reformists, etc. who offer a distinct alternative to the status quo. Centrism is status-quo worship.

the formation of some type of political coalation between political 3rd parties is essential to the downfall of the two party monopoly in america. more grass-roots work must be done on the local level, and 3rd parties must begin to get voters to register for their specific party. if even a small local govt is run and inhabitated by a majority of members to a certain 3rd party, then the party will of course be able to grow and not be threatened by the other two major parties in there political strongholds.

I cannot stress enough the need for people to simply register to vote for a certain 3rd party, and eventually with enough grass roots efforts towards non-voters and disgruntled mainstream party voters, 3rd party strongholds can evolve in local government. after this could be achieved, 3rd party political allianced would be absolutely nessissary to encourage the growth of the 3rd parties, and to enable 3rd parties to make progress in state and national elections.

we cannot simply sit on a message board talking about this, we have to do something about it.