Some believe that third parties are great contributors to our democratic system, while others believe third party candidates to be “spoilers.” This article from FOX News claims that young voters are more likely to support third party candidates because their ties to major parties are not as strong, but at the same time more than half of the young people who participated in a survey by the associated press said that they would not be likely to support a third party candidate at all. Young people who may have been more likely to vote for a third party candidate or declare themselves as independent in elections that have come to pass, seem to be more actively supporting candidates of major parties in this election. I think this is great, not that third parties are getting less support (I’m not trying to say that), but the fact that finally there are candidates out there who are energizing young people and encouraging them to WANT to participate, to WANT to be better informed, to WANT to vote! This could be setting a great example for future elections and campaign tactics; for so long people have pondered the question of how do we get young voters to participate, well I see this election as a significant step forward.

Check out this article, what do you think?

Among these barriers are straight ballot voting which allows voters to vote either for all the Democrats or Republicans on a given ticket, eliminating the possibility for casting votes for alternative party candidates.

Discouraging isn’t it??? Some democracy.

Heres one solution that may even solve the ‘spoiler’ problem. An alternative voting method called Range Voting, which allows voters to rank candidates and assigns scores to those candidates.

“Range voting permits voters to express their opinions about any number of candidates (not just one). It eliminates the “spoiler,” “wasted vote,” and “candidate cloning” problems. All candidates compete on a level playing field, whether Democrats, Republicans, Independent, or other. It’s simple enough to run on all of today’s voting machines.”

Also if your interested and want to participate in a truly free democracy, fight to get Ralph Nader or other third party candidates on the ballot in your state. Its the only way that change will ever occur.

UNITED KINGDOM

In the UK third parties have had such success in gaining awareness and number that the UK is not nearly a two party system any more. Their House of Commons is dominated by the Conservative and Labour party, BUT the once the Liberals and Social Democrats joined together seeing as they share similar views they formed a sizable and recognizable force. They have enough support to make a difference in electoral results. I also found the Contract Act of 1999, which is a contract that lays down the rules for third parties in the UK. It’s pretty cool to see that it is enforced by the QUEEN under the advice of lords : ) Check it out.

AUSTRALIA uses four different voting systems

1. First-Past-The-Post (also called Simple Majority; single winner)
2. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV, also called preferential voting; single winner) 
3. Multiwinner Proportional Representation based on Hare/Droop reweighted single transferable vote (STV) [Australian Senate]. Originally each state elected 6 senators but in 1949 that was changed to 10 and reweighting was added to the STV to make it become more proportional. Voting was made compulsory for voters to list all preferences.
4. Multiwinner Hare-Clark Proportional Representation STV system

OK so I’m taking this class called “Managing Political Campaigns” with Commissioner Mike Quigley. We’ve had some pretty amazing guest speakers:

Julianna Smoot, Barack Obama’s National Finance Director-probably the best finance director in the history of politics, no exaggeration.

Joe Trippi, the campaign manager for Howard Dean in ’04 and John Edwards in ’08.

This Thursday, Mark Halperin, political analyst for TIME magazine who runs one of the more popular campaign websites: The Page.

But for the purposes of this website, the most significant speaker we’ve had is Mike Kasper. He’s an election lawyer for the Illinois Democratic Party, and a professor in the Loyola-Chicago law school. He’s been described as “[Illinois] house speaker Michael Madigan’s favorite election lawyer.” Why? He’s an expert at knocking people off the ballot using “ticky-tacky technicalities.” He bragged in his lecture to our class that he knocked an incumbent mayor in Indiana (Pennsylvania, maybe?) off the ballot for forgetting to number the pages on his petitions. So basically Madigan, described by Quigley as “the kingpin of kingpins,” sends Kasper around to knock as many people off the ballot as possible who challenge Madigan’s handpicked candidates, and that’s just within the Democratic Party.

Ballot access is a huge issue for third-parties, obviously. At the Nader speech, they said they needed 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Illinois, which would mean they have to collect 50,000 to survive a challenge by Kasper. Nader was knocked off the ballot in Illinois in 2004. Kasper said in his lecture that there are a certain number of signatures required for a Democrat or Republican candidate, (somewhere around 3,000) and then you multiply by ten to get to the number of signatures for an independent candidate, in most states.

So I thought I’d pass along this website called “Ballot Access News.” Most importantly, it has a nifty little table in its March 2008 newsletter, showing just exactly how many signatures are needed for a party to get on the ballot and a running count of how many each of the third parties have collected. You can look at the tables, but they’ll probably be updated as soon as new info comes in.

So currently, the Green Party is on the ballot in 21 states. The Libertarian Party is on in 28 states. The Constitution Party is on in 16 states. The Reform Party is on in 9 states. The Libertarians appear to have enough signatures to get on the ballot in Nebraska and North Carolina, and are close in New Hampshire, Ohio and South Dakota. The Greens are close in Alaska, Arizona and Utah. The Constitution Party is close in Ohio, South Dakota and West Virginia. Some of the values listed are “in court.” All of the parties have values listed in some states called “can’t start.” I’m not sure what that means, other than there might be a certain threshold needed to be met by a certain date, and the parties missed their deadlines.

Alan Keyes

USA Today (via Salon), reveals that, uh…interesting human being Alan Keyes has left the Republican Party, and may switch to the Constitution Party.

Those in Illinois may remember him as they guy who ended up being canon fodder for Barack Obama’s Senate run in ’04.

Others may remember him as the gadfly of the last 3 Republican campaigns for president in 1996, 2000 and 2008.

Still others may remember him as the guy who jumped into a mosh pit for Michael Moore’s old TV show. (Unfortunately can’t find that video)

And yet others may know him as the guy who literally disowned his daughter when he found out she was gay.

So here’s what Keyes has to say about his former fellow Republicans:

Keyes singled out the nation’s present “border issue” as a reason he is leaving the GOP, saying it is a “threat to the sovereignty to the American people.”

“There are clear signs that our leaders no longer have an allegiance to the sovereign people of the United States,” Keyes said.

“I kind of expected that on the Democrat side. …. And the Republicans are presumed to nominate somebody who is anti-Republican. It puts a lie to the label and puts me in a position where I must question my ability any longer to participate in a party that has departed from its own identity.”

And what of the Constitution Party? Well, according to the article: “The Constitution Party says its mission is to limit the federal government to functions spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and “restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.”

And who is the fifth, assuming Obama, McCain, Keyes, and Nader are the 4? It’s former congreessman Bob Barr, who is considering a run on the libertarian ticket.

Bob Barr

Gravel vs. Barr vs. Root. Watch out America.

Ron Paul is running a radio ad in PA, and Politico has it:

Also got an e-mail today. The much rumored Ron Paul march on Washington is a go and set for Saturday July 12, at 9:00 AM. Here’s the website.

Lucky for me, I taped it. Unlucky for you, I’m having extraordinary difficulty uploading it to the internet for a variety of reasons so you’ll have to settle for this:

UPDATE: Parts 1 and 2 are now up

Update #2: So here it is, after 2 days and several excruciating hours of editing it into 10 minute chunks to meet Youtube’s size requirement. The 4th one is choppy as hell and missing about 5 minutes because my battery died no less than 3 times.

Update 3: Some people seem to be having problems with the videos. I clicked on them once, and couldn’t get them, then I clicked on them again and I got them and I’m not having a problem anymore. If you can’t get them, here are some of the comments on technology I was referring to in my post, though they really pervaded the whole speech:

Nader: …They [the Democratic candidates for president] don’t even mention that 18,000 people, the equivalent of six 9/11′s, die in this country because they can’t afford health care? In the land of the free, home of the brave? Update your profile on Facebook some more before we wake up! And take back our country! Our country! Our future!

[Applause]

I see a lot of young people here, from DePaul and other colleges and universities. I wonder about them. I wonder about them. They’re sensitive, they want a better country, but how do they use their time? Your generation listens to music six times more than our generation. Six times. There’s only 24 hours in a day. Text messaging, cell phones. “Where are you?” “Where are you?” a minute later. “Where are you?” five seconds-five nanoseconds later. Gossip, silly talk, trivial talk, while your future’s being torn from you.”

Then after that he just rips on 20 year-olds for like 5 more minutes.

My thoughts on the speech are kind of long, so just click “read more” below the videos to read them.

part 1

part 2

part 3

part 4

I thought it was sort of a typical Ralph Nader type of speech. One thing that jumped out at me that reminded of my previous post: Ralph Nader does not like the kids these days. Some of his comments might be clipped out of the tape above, but he was ripping on facebook, cellphones, and what he called “virtual reality,” which apparent;y means spending too much time on the computer-websites on the internets and such.

This sort of confirmed my thought earlier that times have just sort of passed Nader by. The internet is the new frontier for political activism, whether its meetup, youtube, or even, yes, facebook. Did Nader miss the youtube debates? He kept calling in his speech for people to organize and for direct democracy, without realizing that the internet is probably the most democratizing force in the world today. People are doing exactly what Ralph Nader was calling for right now, over the internet.

Just as one example, Howard Dean, who largely shared many of Nader’s ideals and whose campaign embraced the internet like no other before, created a network of supporters nationwide “the Deaniacs” who used the internet to facilitate real-world change. And their group is still together today, at democracyforamerica.com, still fighting for those ideas which the campaign was based on. And the liberal blogosphere has arguably effected more positive change over the past 5 years than Ralph Nader. Taking back Congress in 2006 would have been much more difficult if the national fundraising network created by blogs like dailykos and mydd was not in place. Just weeks ago, a liberal challenger in Maryland named Donna Edwards defeated a 12-term Democratic incumbent, Rep. Al Wynn, based almost entirely on the support she recieved from people ll over the country who have never even stepped foot in Maryland.

Another interesting thing, somewhat related, was a story he told about going to an Al Gore book signing and standing in line with everyone else. When he got up to see Gore, the former Vice President jumped up and shook his hand and was very friendly. Nader asked him, how does it feel to be out of the White House? And Gore said “I’m free!” Nader intended this as a point about how the never-ending pursuit of money in politics forces you to be silent on issues you care about, for fear of offending donors.

But isn’t there some irony there? Gore was liberated by getting away from politics and he has arguably accomplished more now that he has gotten out than when he was in. Shouldn’t this same lesson apply to Nader? Doesn’t he seem to be trapped by his “campaign” for president? One wonders if he would not be able to have a more positive impact if he gave up his tiresome candidacy and instead, like Gore, tried to affect change from the outside. After all, when he wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, which led to a whole host of positive changes in consumer regulations, he was not running for anything or involved in politics. His campaign looked pretty desperate and pathetic itself with the alleged “singer” Justin Jeffre, of 98 degrees, begging for money.

What if Nader didn’t have to beg for an extra fifty dollars, and could just focus on his reforms, and not politics? Or what if he tried to build a fundraising infrastructure over the internet, a la Dean or Obama?

One final point on fundraising-when Nader says that the other candidates are taking money from “corporations,” that is outright dishonesty. Donations from corporations have been illegal for over 30 years. What it really is is people who work for a certain corporation giving the candidates money. This is because on contributor forms you have to list your employer. I work in a cafeteria and I bought Ralph Nader’s book. That doesn’t mean that “the food industry supports Nader.” That’s ridiculous. He’s on more solid ground when he talks about lobbyists and PACs, but Obama, at least, does not take money from those groups.

Now talk about burying the lead here, but there were some very good parts of Nader’s speech. His best point was about the anti-slavery movement, and something along the lines of, what if people had only chosen the “least bad” candidate back then? That’s an excellent point, because Lincoln’s Republican party started out as a third-party alternative to the Whigs and Democrats. However, ever since then, its undeniably true that third-parties have largely been spoliers. Nader even acknowledged this at the beginning of his speech when he was talking about the antiquated electoral college, and how it makes it necessary for people to be practical and choose between the two parties. I’m not quite sure how Nader can acknowledge this fact and yet still run for president.

This new development has played a significant role in individual’s ability to participate in government. To relate specifically to this blog the rise of the internet and increased citizen participation is beginning to make access and visibility of third party candidate more plausible, thus our system of government is becoming more democratic. The beauty of these new tactics by everyday people to show their support for a particular candidate are they are incredibly amateur, yet honest in a way that is uncommon for politics. Particularly, I have been enjoying the homemade ‘music videos’ promoting particular people. For me they represent exactly what guerilla media is all about!!!

While the following videos aren’t about third party candidates, I think they are relevant to this blog because they represent they tactics (even if strange, and hilarious) available and power of individuals in this election. I think in this instant ‘Any coverage is good coverage!!!!’

The McCain Girls

Obama Girl

A man running for the Senate to take Larry Craig’s seat in Idaho (yes, that Larry Craig), has legally changed his name to Pro-Life. Idaho has long been seen as one of the wackiest right-wing states in the country-the whole black-helicopter conspiracy theory was popularized by the late congresswoman Helen Chenoweth of Idaho, who claimed that federal agents were descending in black helicopters on Idaho to enforce the Endangered Species Act.

Helen Chnoweth

So anyway, Pro-Life is “an organic strawberry farmer who went to court to change his name to “Pro-Life.” Two years ago, he made that his middle name and tried to run for governor as Marvin “Pro-Life” Richardson. State election officials ruled that middle names couldn’t be used to make a political statement on the ballot. “As plain old Marvin Richardson, he won just 1.6% of the vote,” according to Idaho native and big-time Hillary Clinton supporter Bruce Reed.

Reed’s post so well sums up what this guy is about that it’s hardly worth excerpting here, but just a few highlights:

-He plans to run for elective office every two years until he dies, because “if I save one baby’s life, it will be worth it.”

-He also “opposes homosexuality, adultery, and fornication.”

-Pro-Life (the position) groups think he is actually going to harm the “serious” Republican nominee (who is also pro-life, the position), by confusing people into voting both for Pro-Life, the person, thinking he is a position, and the Republican candidate, thereby invalidating their ballot.  Phew!

-The Idaho legislature is now considering passing a bill that would identify Pro-Life (the person) as “a person, formerly known as Marvin Richardson.”

Who’s moving to Idaho with me!?!

Of course, Reed updates his post with the story of one Byron “Low Tax” Looper, a candidate for State Senate from Tennessee, who murdered his opponent because under Tennessee law dead candidates’ names are removed from the ballot. Of course, he was eventually brought up on murder charges and the dead man’s wife won a write-in campaign, but for a while there he was unopposed.

It’s not just third-party candidates who get excluded from debates, according to Gravel:

I got into the debates and got a fair amount of visibility up until General Electric [which owns NBC] along with the Democratic Party leadership, said they would get me out of the debates. And they did. GE said I did not meet their criteria for participating in the debates. I think it’s very interesting that a defense contractor said I had to meet their criteria in order to participate in the MSNBC debates. We’ve really come down in democracy when a defense contractor can decide what the American people hear from a candidate. It was a [Democratic National Committee] sanctioned debate, so we complained to the DNC and found out that Howard Dean had agreed to it and that not a single one of the other Democratic nominees raised a finger in protest, meaning that they were totally tone deaf to the censorship of the military-industrial complex.

So, according to Gravel (and he does not have much evidence), Howard Dean and the Democratic Party purposely set out to exclude Gravel because he did not meet their criteria. I don’t believe the bullshit about the military-industrial complex and GE (after all, why would GE care? They’re a multi-billion dollar corporation and they’re not going to be brought down by an old man from Alaska). BUT, if it’s true that Howard Dean was complicit in his exclusion from the debates, that’s pretty hypocritical on Chairman Dean’s part. He was in the exact same position in 2004 as Mike Gravel is now-left for dead at the back of the pack getting beaten in polls by the margin of error.

Just goes to show you that perhaps we don’t even have a two-party system-we just have a cabal of elitist back room deal-makers who decide what can and cannot be voiced at debates, regardless of the letter next to your name. Even the Republicans let Alan Keyes and Tom Tancredo into their debates, so on this point at least they are more inclusive than the Democrats.

I did enjoy Gravel’s statement on John McCain:

McCain is not a stable person. I think there is something wrong with him. He’s a warmonger, and he believes in pre-emptive war, which means he is willing to go to war with anyone in the world. The nation in terms of leadership is in very serious trouble.

Gravel also has a view on Ralph Nader, discussed previously here:

Ralph Nader recently entered the race as a third-party candidate too. Is he a threat?
Not at all. Ralph Nader is a great guy, but I just don’t think anybody should become president who has not served in the government and doesn’t know how it works. I would use Ralph Nader, though.

That’s actually the most reasonable argument against Ralph Nader that I’ve heard. The guy just flat-out does not have any experience in government. That’s a lot more logical than someone like Nader or Clinton or Obama saying he’s just going to be a spoiler. Making a substantive argument against Nader is a much more effective way to defuse the threat he might pose.

Gravel also has a few different books out: “Citizen Power,” “Voice of a Maverick,” “A Political Odyssey” and “The Kingmakers.”

The comment section is not very tolerant of Mr. Gravel though:

“this guy is a joke. someone please pull him off the stage. sounds like a ego driven publicity stunt to me.”

“Mike, you have not been able to manage your life (divorce and bankruptcy), so how can you expect America to vote for you to manage a $14 trillion economy? Get real please!!!”

“Mike Gravel won’t stop running, because Mike Gravel doesn’t know where he is most of the time; he is still waiting on the first debate.”

Ouch.