Time to start a new third party

[mandyky]

I suggest populist or progressive reform party as a name.

I will remain a Democrat through Novemebr and vote for the nominee, but liberals and progressives need to start a party not run by the DLC.

[meegbear]

1. Bye ...

don't let your browser hit you on the way out.

[EXE619K]

2. yeah....

It's time to kick the two-party strangle hold on our great nation.

I don't know about November...but, definately for 2008!

[mandyky]

3. #1 mission - get rid of shrub

Then start a strong third party.

[tom2kpro]

12. It is hard to "start" a third party that will be immediately "strong"

The problem is that until a good third party becomes strong, a vote for a third party is a vote thrown away (except for the purposes of building up the third party's standing and legal right to matching funds). The frustrating thing is that no matter whether Kerry wins this or Bush wins this, we still end up with a Bonesman. Kerry and Bush are worlds apart on most issues, but not all, and one wonders whether "all the world is a stage" and these politicians are merely playing assigned roles. Okay, I am sounding crazy now.

[polpilot]

26. Perfect environment for a 'strong' third party. Two parties virtually the

same = time for a new party. I suggest The Repubs & DLC combine to form The Republicrats or The Demopubs with From & Rove as The Kingmakers.

Dean ...The Intelligent Alternative

[Mr_X]

42. awesome

[library_max]

17. We've had more than two parties for more than a hundred years.

It's just that only two can be viable at a time. That's not going to change no matter what kind of third party you create or what you call it or who it nominates. Teddy Roosevelt was a hugely popular former president and he couldn't come close to winning as a third party candidate. Third parties just pull votes away from the mainstream party nearest to their political agenda.

[Pab Sungenis]

23. Question...

Do you remember what the last successful third party was?

It started in 1854. It was called the Republican party. By 1860 it had completely supplanted the Whigs.

A modern Progressive or Populist party, enveloping the Green party and disaffected liberal Democrats might give the big two a run for its money. Don't rule it out.

Of course, it would be better to just work to take back OUR party.

[polpilot]

27. Great point. Also disaffected repubs would join. Time NOW for 3rd party.

Dean...America's New Leader

[library_max]

37. The Republican Party and the Whigs did not overlap.

The Whigs were dead as a doornail before the Republican Party got started. Maybe you're thinking of the Free Soil party, on whose grave the Republican Party was built.

If you're thinking that the Democratic Party is as obsolescent as the Whigs were in the 1850s and that the Greens will replace us, that leads to only two possibilities. One, the Greens as second party will continue to pursue the left, get zero electoral votes, and quickly be replaced by the "left" wing of the Republican Party. Or two, the Greens as second party will learn that they have to court the center just as the Democrats did, and will be reviled by the purist left just as the Democrats are now.

There have never been three viable parties at the same time. Think I'm wrong? Who was the Republican presidential nominee in 1856? And who was the Whig nominee in 1860?

[Pab Sungenis]

63. The answer to your question.

The Republican candidate in 1856 was John C. Fremont.

There was no Whig candidate in 1860. By that time, the Republicans had completely supplanted the Whigs.

[library_max]

64. Frontier Fremont was the Free Soil candidate, not the Republican candidate

There was no Republican Party in 1856.

[woldnewton]

69. "Greens will learn that they have to court the center"...

The thing is, some of them already know that, and often do so in those venues they're actually elected... doesn't stop them from bashing the Dems for doing same. That's why the hypocrisy of the Greens is beginning to bug me...

[sharkbait2]

33. Its broke... We need a multi-party system

We're the only western democracy in the world that clings to the two-party system. All other democracies have various forms of parliamentary systems.

There is no reason multiple parties couldn't be successful at once. There simply needs to be a change in the mindset of the voters who are played against each other by the GOP and DNC. There is no system change that needs to be made. 3rd party candidates simply need to get more votes than they do currently.

[library_max]

38. It can't happen.

The American system is winner-take-all. It forces politics into two parties. America has been two-party for over 200 years, longer than most democracies have existed. It's ridiculous to blame that on the GOP and the DNC, neither of which existed for the first eight decades of two-party America.

[WitchWay]

58. Methinks thou dost protest too much...

The "Two Party" pragmatism...is the sort of propaganda that corporate interests put out in order to maintain the two rigid, stagnant parties. That way, monied interests (and not people) can control the parties. And, make no mistake, what this defeatism amounts to IS a loyalism to Both Corporate Parties.

Political demographics change in time, so if the parties can not change with these demographics, it is only reasonable for the unrepresented to start a new party.

Of course, no one who is in power already desires change, because it threatens their own power. Change is possible, but people must stop thinking in defeatist manners and TRUSTING the corporate media whose interests are in keeping the two party system as their servant (and as our master).

When you say -- "American has been two-party for over 200 year"...that's not true. You would not have said this if you paid attention to the thread, or done research into the matter. IN addition, it is a fallacy to presume that the past is the same as the future. If this were the case, there would be no history.

Also, it is NOT ridiculous to blame this situation on the two parties. You can BLAME the GOP (RNC) and DNC for the two party system, check out this lawsuit:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-02-11-third-party-suit_x.htm

You can watch about this issue on CSPAN as well:
illegal codeplayClip('rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04021904_npc.rm')

[Mr_X]

43. got that right

[surfermaw]

19. Do you want get rid of Bush, then stick togeather

[mandyky]

22. Get rid of shrub and then

get Kucinich, Dean and Clark supporters together for a major populist change!!

[blm]

4. What's the difference? You supported the most centrist candidate in the

race and the one with the most procorporatist record, yet you want to act as if the DLC is to blame for all Democratic ills?

Sorry, but Dean in power was the DLC's model governor for procorporate governance.

His populist rhetoric of the past year does NOT match his corporatist record as governor.

[RogueTrooper]

5. charmless

What about civil unions, health care and wealth redistribution for schools in financialy deprived areas. I think you let your hatred blind you.

[Redneck Socialist]

6. You completely missed Deans message

Of course he is a moderate, his message was never about fighting the corporations.

It is about revitalizing the Democratic Party.

DLC and most of Democratic leadership rolled over and let the Republicans win every battle. Dean stood up and said that was wrong and that there is another way to be a Democrat. If the Democratic party is not going to bother to oppose the other party then perhaps it is time to think about a third party.

[blm]

15. The DLC was all about procorporatism and compromise.

Dean was on the RIGHT of the DLC on those issues throughout his career while Kerry remained on the left of the DLC.

The proof is in their records. Kerry racked up the best environmental and labor ratings of any of the DLC members, while Dean was scorned by most environmentalists for his procorporate positions as governor.

The DLC did not form policies on social issues.

[polpilot]

29. Kerry & DLC derive their power from 'status quo' supporters who fear

change. Dean's Bush-lite charge was accurate and infuriating to these Kerry backers.

Dean...Anti-DLC

[mitchum]

67. Hey, did you know there is now another....

[JohnKleeb]

68. pol Dean had DLC backers such as Jim Moran

who founded the New Democratic League with Tim Roemer a few years back. Interestingly one of Kerry's stauchest supporters, Senator Edward Kennedy is not DLC.

[EXE619K]

10. And this non-supporter is defining the issues and motives of our campaign.

Obviously, you had no idea what the Dean campaign was all about.

[blm]

16. I know his campaign rhetoric never matched his actual record

and how he acted when in power. Should that not matter?

[surfermaw]

20. Dean

Somehow, I thought he would pull to the right once he was in office, however we owe him loads for getting us to fight back.

[polpilot]

28. 'Captivating' post!!!

Dean..Not for The Sheeple

[polpilot]

30. Jesse Jackson 2-18-04: "Dean's halo will be over the demo convention

whomever the nominee is." Dean brought BACK the dignity and respect to a Bush-lite demo party headed by Bush-like demo leaders.

[Andromeda]

50. Read my lips...

Dean is no longer running for president. Now repeat after me: Dean is no longer running for president.

Feel better now?

[aquart]

7. NOT this year.

And especially not in my presence. I don't want impulse control problems.

[mike_c]

8. what about the Green Party?

It embraces progressive stances on most issues that are important to most Democrats.

Note to mods-- this reply is not meant to evangelize on behalf of another political party, but rather to respond to the original poster's sentiments.

[demnan]

9. Personally

I think we would gain far more influence by staying within the Democratic Party. We should work locally within our communities to promote the most progressive candidates.

The liberal are a minority in this country. We have to face this fact and do the best we can the gain and maintain the most influence that we have.

[surfermaw]

21. Personally, you are right on.

Make this party work...The Doctor will help us

[woofless]

11. Third parties ultimately elect Republicans.

Not a good idea IMO.

[Virginian]

13. I would like to see three parties. But not right now.

I think people are so opposite from one another right now that we need a triangle of parties to get rid of this polarization. I don't always agree with the Dems just as I don't always disagree with the Repubs. I just won't admit to any of them that I agree with them.

I would probably stay right where I am but I think the arguments would diminish, and people would quit hating each other so much because of their political preferences.

[rhite5]

45. I agree the polarization is terrible.

I have never seen politics so polarized as it is now. The American people are being played like a fiddle -- Rush Limbaugh and his ilk; the hateful "Us vs Them" framework Bush has used from the beginning when he speaks of terrorism; both parties use it in fundraising.

But it also flows from the structure of our government set up. Majority control of both houses of congress stays fixed for a period of time along with chairmanship of EVERY committee. It can't move or change with the issues. There is little incentive to build coalitions. Electoral college "winner-take-all" is part of it, too.

It's not healthy. There is no room for growth and change and new ideas. Definitely some of the problems ARE systemic.

Then you add to that the fact that it is easy for corporate lobbyists to buy up both sides because both sides are desperate for re-election funding. It is no wonder the parties are becoming so alike and so resistant to change.

Kucinich has written some materials on various electoral reforms (not original with him, but I was pleased to see that he had addressed some of these systemic issues). They can be found under "issues" on his website.

We need to revisit this AFTER we get rid of Bush.

[Taeger]

55. The solution

The solution isn't to start A 3rd party. The last time this happened was "United We Stand". They ran a presidential candidate AND NOTHING ELSE!!!!!

The answer isn't trying to REPLICATE the Republicans and Democrats with different politics. The answer is to form networks of distinct REGIONAL parties. In this way, those parties cannot be corrupted and taken over. If one cell falls into apostasy, you simply drop affiliation with them.

These 3rd parties SHOULD NOT run presidential candidates. They should focus on LOCAL politics and congressional races. These are the areas where they can have THE MOST impact without being corrupted by major campaign money.

In this way, populism can overcome the artificial bifurcation of the two major parties. Local parties would form dynamic national alliances to push SPECIFIC issues.

When a political party goes NATIONAL, they must compromise their agendas in order to grow broad national support. Intially this has a POSITIVE effect. But ultimately, the party will be corrupted from the top down.

So we must eliminate top down politics COMPLETELY. That is only possible if national political organizations are FOCUSED on specific issues and TRANSIENT, meaning they don't intend to last forever.

Finally, the 3rd parties should have a national alliance dedicated to establishing run-off election systems. This will ensure that politics STAY dynamic. Even if two major NATIONAL parties still dominate, the effect of regional parties can FORCE national parties to ben their politics in order to stay relevant.

We cannot realistically expect ANY third party to do ANYTHING to the political landscape. Furthermore, we cannot expect a MODERATE 3rd party to make ANY impact because their message will always be PARTLY represented by both parties.

So here is to regionalism. Start a progressive party that concentrates on the needs of YOUR particular area. Run your candidates as independents in the general election. Get VERY local. Do what the PEOPLE want, not what the money men want. That's the ONLY way to break the two party hegemony.

[Mikhale]

14. Did you miss something?

The Greens are still viable; they just (probably) won't field a substantial national candidate this time around. But, neither of the two "major" parties want to share power. The Dems hate the Greens more than the Reps hate the Reform Party (how the Dems DIDN'T complain about Ross Perot in 1992), but that may be a weakness of the Dem 'Insiders'. The Ds and the Rs are content to fight over a limited base of not-yet-absolutely-disaffected voters; a third party by definition means the expansion of the electorate literally beyond each's capacity, both individually and collectively. Finding a Dem party functionary to negotiate coalition politics (a la Eurpoean parliamentarianism) isn't possible now. If the post-candidacy Dean "movement" wants to start something, may I suggest proportional representation in state legislatures and the electoral college (a la Maine and Nebraska)? But, the grassroots may find 'bi-partisan lawnmomowers' in the 50 state capitols. Winner-take-all and pluralities support a two party 'us/them' mentality, to the convenient benefit of the 'bipartisan' Insiders. Just because it's a good idea to make the country a more democratic republic doesn't mean Democrats or Republicans will like Proportional Representation. But try it and see....

[Old and In the Way]

18. It will be time when a significant majority of Republicans decamp 1st.

Otherwise you are asking for progressivism to take a backseat to the reactionary, neocon agenda.

I actually believe that the advent of the Dean campaign's applied use of the internet proves that we can influence the progressive agenda of Democrats inside and from the ground, up. It is the foremost organizing tool and that will change our Party for the good.

[dusty64]

24. I'm thinking Dean

wants to achieve this without creating a third party. A counter to the DLC is what I think he has in mind to try and take back the Party from the inside, I support it 100% and wish him luck.

[polpilot]

25. We need a real democratic party & we need a lot of input on a new name.

Dean...The Man

[lams712]

31. I TOTALLY AGREE

We need to get rid of Bush in November, but then work after the election to get RID OF THE DLC. Failing that, we need to look at third-party options.

[w4rma]

32. Poor tactics, IMHO.

Even if everyone in the Democratic Party switched over to vote in this new party, that party would still be the Democratic Party since the same people are members of it.

[sharkbait2]

34. You're not thinking outside the box

What if a huge chunk of voters of all ideological colors are so disaffected right now that they end up voting for the Green Party, Reform Party, Libertarian Party...etc.

What if the third parties garnish 30% of the vote or 40% combined? That changes a presidential race substantially.

[WitchWay]

59. Agree - with all of the discontent

...I see what you are proposing is possible. {eople all over the political spectrum are really angry and feel ill-represented.

And really, the main obstacle to this historical change is the corporate media. They don't want to lose their political power, so they assist the entrenched powers while sacrificing true journalism and all of its ideals. They are really the biggest obstacle, not the people themselves. People think the corporate media is helping them to make "safe" candidate choices, when that's the futhest thing from the truth. Because of the front-run campaign, though, I believe alot of people are "on" to how the media operates. They politically assasinate those candidates that stand against the corporations and for the people.

They take down people's candidates through:

SMEAR TACTICS (the canidate is "angry", "fringe", "kooky", "a spoiler", "a spoiler", not quite "mainstream", "unelectable", "egotistical", "a fool")
they IGNORE and disregard candidates (see how Kucinich is not even mentioned in many of the debate coverage articles, or mentioned in a single sentence at the end)
they engage in MEDIA BLACKOUTS (where they "fail" to report on significant events or powerful speeches, or simply ignore a candidate)
they "PUMP UP" the corporate-selected candidate (this candidate gets extra attention, coverage, has "positive" words attached to him, gets all the "POSITIVE" coverage)
they UNDERREPORT (a candidate who is not the "chosen" one is underreported, and then there is a very low estimate of audience attendance at events in order to make the candidate look unpopular)
NO REAL DEBATES (without real debates, the media has its choice of "soundbite" which they can use to manipulate the public, instead of any substantive coverage or expression of opinions)
EXCLUSION AND MARGINALIZATION (like how they TRIED and in effect, did, exclude Kucinich and Sharpton from the debates)
OSTRACISM (supporters of a candidate are ostracized for being "idealistic", "unrealistic", "too pure", "uncompromising", "idiot", "selfish", "deluded", "kooky", etc.)
MISLEADING POLLS, SPIN, SMEAR CAMPAIGNS, the list goes on.

I don't know much about propaganda, but these are just simple observations. I'm sure that other people are much more savvy to the inner workings of manipulating the public.

So, that's just a small sampling of how powerful interests put who THEY (the party leadership and media, both loyal to corporate interests) want into office. It helps them to maintain power.

If more people did think outside of the box, if they had courage and STOPPED TRUSTING THE CORRUPT MEDIA (and thought for themselves instead of voting for a candidate who "polls" high or seems "acceptable" by the Corporate Media Interests)...I think we WOULD have real change.

[library_max]

65. What if donkeys fly? What if angels danced on pinheads? /nt

[molly]

35. Start at the local level - gain some credibility - then

move up.

[LuminousX]

36. The best way to start a 3rd party is not to refer to it as a 3rd party

I'm all for the creation of another political party, though what I'd like to see and what you'd like to see are probably two different things. Talk about it after we have rid this country of Bush and his ilk. Until then, we need to rally our efforts behind the only option that has a chance.

[NJGeek]

39. Don't let the door hit ya ...

.. on your way out.

DOWN WITH BUSH IN 2004. VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

[Mr_X]

41. yeah

[Mr_X]

40. Good

That is some good thinking. You could attract some independents.

[camero]

44. Buh-Bye

[Martin Eden]

46. Instant Runoff Voting

Without I.R.V. the left would ensure Republican majorities by splitting into multiple parties.

[ejwilliamson]

47. Already Have a Strong Third Party

It has been around officially since 1971. It is the Libertarian Party. They are poised to nominate Gary Nolan as the presidential candidate.

[mandyky]

48. Libertarians are GOPs on steroids

They want no regulation or rules.

[Taeger]

56. GOP want no rules .... ?????

Whatever. GOP were NEVER against rules. They just claimed to be since they didn't like rules set by Democrats.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats are shifting towards libertarian/small government rhetoric.

I would dare say that the GOP is the party for ZERO regulation on business behavior and 100% regulation on citizen behavior.

[LiberalFighter]

49. How many times have I heard that in the last 32 years?

It isn't a matter of creating a strong 3rd party.

It is a matter of it starting at the state level so that Congress is not dominated by either party. That way coalitions would have to be formed to pass legislation. Once Congress has 3 or more viable strong parties then it can be accomplish for President. It also requires that a single party not have a stronger presence then the other or at least not have enough to control on their own. Otherwise, forget it.

[Taeger]

57. Go Greens ... BUT

I think it's great that the Greens are focusing on Regionalism. Get VERY local. Run LOCAL candidates in the areas where their ultra-progressive platform will WIN.

IndianaGreen - I like you. But growing the Green party in Indiana (I live here too) is like growing grass in Death Valley. Indiana needs a more "center-progressive" ideology to capture local races (like councilmen, mayors, state reps, county reps, sherrifs, and Congresman). Indiana needs an alliance that looks like the following:

1) Pro Agriculture and Blue Collar workers (anti rich fuckers!!!). This is the prime demographic.
2) Pro Religion, but not Religious domination. Get out your Jefferson Bible and start quoting away ;-)
3) Progressive state taxation (Indiana taxes are VERY regressive). As you know, this is a SERIOUS issue right now with the botched re-assessment job.
4) Pro-family care and services.
5) Education reform including a serious pro student discipline stance. More money for industrial arts training at the secondary level. Money for county bootcamps that can successfully separate problem students (the ones who DISRUPT school, not the one's with poor grades) from the general student population and teach them discipline.
6) Pro-law enforcement. Get money for MORE cops.
7) Anti illegal immigrant. There are TONS of immigrants in Northwest Indiana, but MOST of them are legal. Don't believe that legal migrants don't RESENT illegal migrants since the illegals drive down wages without having stood in line like the legals.
8)Pro Racial Unity. Policies should stress the similarities between folks of different creed. The enemy is poverty and shitty jobs for poor WHITE, BLACK and LATINO populations. Poverty ISN'T a racial issue.



Etc... you get my drift.

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. Election reform is the answer. See the link within.

[mac2]

53. Run off elections

What is bad about instant run off elections?

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. IRV is still prone to the spoiler effect

Because you still have to vote strategically.

If we had IRV this fall, I would vote Green, Socialist, Dem

Odds are, though, that someone would gain a majority of votes before reaching that third round, and the risk is that it could be the Republicans whom I do not wish to win.

Ergo, I may have to switch my vote (even though I would rather not) so that the Dem is in second place, or even first.

This website explains it better than I do, though, so check it out:
http://www.electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.html

[mac2]

52. Yes....

From the ground up. Either that or Independent candidates.

[boobooday]

60. We should take back our own party

Until the system is reformed, and we can have proportional representation.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[DrRock]

61. This year...

..the name of the game is trounce Bush. After Nov 5 of this year, all bets are off. I think that another party is exactly what's needed. The Green Party isn't cutting it, simply because of that name. When people think of the Green Party, they think of hippies and tree huggers, and pinkos and vegans. It's simply not tough enough. We need a party that projects toughness. That's what Americans want.

We need to appeal to the blue collar types, and the Veterans who actually did put their lives on the line for this country, yet still think they need to support this phony administration (the majority of which were participating in keggers and panty-raids, while true heroes were chest deep in the swamps of Vietnam). A new party would have to be open to all the undecided voters, Republicans and Democrats alike. We would welcome anyone who's sick of the corporate crime and unjust wars perpetrated by these pansy-ass little rich boys who grew up never wanting for anything in their lives (Republicans and Democrats alike) who now control EVERYTHING.

We need to form a coalition of people who are willing to get their hands dirty, and remind them of just how UNLIKE the members of the current government they really are. There has got to be some tough liberals out there. We need to band together and show Americans just how tough liberals can be. We could join forces with the rapidly growing numbers of disillusioned Republicans who are sick of Bush's bullshit, and change the face of American democracy.

Of course we'll do it AFTER this election.

[GreenPartyVoter]

62. Welcome. Dr. Rock :)

[mitchum]

66. Maybe you should shill for this on someone else's bandwidth...

just a suggestion (a polite one):)