-
Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Desperate Times Demand Revolutionary Measures
By Peter Phillips
“Don't waste any more time or energy on the presidential election than it takes to get to your polling station and pull a lever for a third-party candidate-—just enough to register your obstruction and defiance—and then get back out onto the street. That is where the question of real power is being decided.”
~ Chris Hedges, May 2012
Runway capitalism is moving unrelentingly towards sociopolitical-environmental collapse—cheered on by a two-headed single party machine known as US Congress. Activists, who see the coming disasters as catastrophic, are seeking revolutionary change through non-cooperation, and occupy disruptions. Yet, many are the still delusional hopefuls desperately fumbling with traditional responses; including "Kum ba yah" marches, and the futile support for progressive left-leaning candidates seeking positions of influence inside the Washington beltway.
Do we understand that habeas corpus is no longer a legal protection in the US or that the US president can torture and kill American citizens, let along anyone in the world? How can we ignore the inconvenient truths of warrentless wire taps and electronic monitoring for everyone? Why do we tolerate that US-NATO forces killing people in over one hundred countries in the world using special service operatives, private assassins and drones—a million civilians deaths in Iraq alone? How can we be so blind as not to see our corporate media is a propaganda fog machine for the one percent? These questions, reflecting the reality of America today, are so far from the values of our traditions that accepting any aspect of authority from Washington DC is a sacrilege to our honor. We are in desperate times.
In Congress, wealth begets membership, and wealth is the reward for correct action. The members in the House and Senate have a collective net worth of $2.04 billion, up from $1.65 billion, in 2008. While at the same time, Americans' household net worth has continued to declined and the number of people living in poverty has risen for the fifth year in a row.
The American Congress is in reality an artificial organization serving as cheerleader to the transnational corporate class of the world. Congress offers its members little more than a transitional path into the good life of corporate affluence as long as the members remain loyal to party discipline. Our legitimate electoral process has been completely usurped by the Supreme Court ruling that a corporation’s free speech rights allow unlimited campaign spending, and congressional lobbying knows no bounds. Any candidate willing to serve in the Democrat or Republican parties in the US congress today, even as a gadfly of resistance, is stepping beyond the pale of constitutional government.
Even if a Progressive Democrat of America—Moves On into the congressional circle, the magnitude of compromise demanded makes effective action impossible other than occasional symbolic votes of resistance. Those stepping out of party lines will invariably result in orchestrated opposition during the next selection cycle—Just ask Cynthia McKinney.
Reform is not an option. The only action possible is a complete and total return to the social justice values of our US Constitution and the Bill of rights. We cannot allow extrajudicial killings, privacy invasions into our homes, and police state interceptions in the commons. We cannot allow global capitalism to continue to kill and impoverish billions of people and destroy the planet
Protecting and even rewriting our Constitution and our Bill of Rights will require revolutionary acts. We must retool our elections and eliminate/ignore the dark clouds of corporate media. A mass movement at this level requires grass roots action by a core of at least ten percent of our population. Getting one out of ten people actively involved is not at all impossible; this is where our traditional values meet human rights. We are a people of hope that only need to overcome our fears and find the voice of our values by using radical democracy for human betterment for all.
The right to vote is a long held value. We are often asked, “Why waste your vote on an independent third party candidate, they will never has a chance to win.” Can voting for a candidate who reflects your own political values and beliefs be a wasted vote? It seems that voting for your true beliefs is a self-actualizing act, and compromising one’s values to pick the lesser of two evils is self-alienating. Therefore, we urge all to continue to vote, but find candidates outside of the two party oligopoly. Maybe someday, self-actualized voting will be fashionable.
Peter Phillips is a professor of political sociology and social movements at Sonoma State University. He is the president of Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored, and co-host with Mickey Huff of the weekly Project Censored Show on KPFA
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
There is much here I agree with in terms of analysis, not so much regarding what to do about it.
Third parties under current law are condemned to never amounting to much because electoral rules give who ever gets the most votes the seat. Unless a third party is in a position to get a plurality, or come close, it is a mistake to vote for them whenever there is a close election between the main pareties and the difference is not negligible. Supreme Court appointments alone are enough for me to vote for Obama even though I think very very little of him beyond his being a corporate stooge.
There is only one time when the dominant two parties were replaced by two new ones: just before the Civil War. Not a happy precedent. There is no time when one of the dominant parties was replaced by another. The Progressives with Teddy Roosevelt came closest, and they failed. It almost certainly will not happen as we have no leader with TR's visibility and credibility (he had already been President).
So ironically, under current conditions it is reasonable to cast a protest vote when it cannot affect the outcome of an election or when there is no real difference between the parties. To be sure, both are corporatist and both are aggressive (although some Democrats are not). But only ideologues regard these issues as the only issue of importance. When the bad guys dominate one issue and there are other issues that matter, vote them. Bad as Obama is his Supreme Court appointees are not like Roberts and the other thugs on the Republican side.
The way to make third parties real contenders is to change electoral law, and in California and other states that is possible by doing an end run around the legislature via an initiative. If iot does not pass the first time, and organization will have been built up to increase its chances the second time. NOBODY likes the two main parties and to have them attack majority vote seems a tough sell. Some California cities already have majority vote with instant run off.
Majority vote elections mean we will never help the party we like least by voting for a third p[arty, and we will make it possible for third parties to win. Further, in uncertain elections the main party candidate will need third party votes as insurance should he or she make it into the run off - and so they will have to address the issues third parties raise. We can only gain in that situation as we can only lose in the current system where all we can do is make primary challenges to corporatist hacks in the Democratic Party or, theoretically, the Republican one.
-
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for President of the USA, was interviewed on the Women's Spaces Show by its host Elaine B. Holtz and is available for viewing at https://www.womensspaces.com/Archive...WS111209a.html
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
As I noted in another thread, I've voted for third parties in the past. So I'm agreeable to the general view expressed here regarding third parties. However, I think it is worth considering that empowering third parties won't necessarily boost a progressive agenda. A reform like the one Gus suggests, which I think is a good one, will also empower non-progressive third parties, like the American Independent Party, etc. Again, I support the general idea of 3rd parties and the idea of empowering them in general. But if the idea here is that having 3rd parties play a greater role by having a more significant impact, that in itself will not guarantee an increase in the influence of progressive views on the electoral process.
Best wishes,
Jim
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Thank you Peter for this excellent article. I especially like the Republican + Democrat = Sheep graphic, and your stating that reform isn't the answer, we need revolutionary acts, and your refererence to the extremely corrupt state of our elections.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peter Phillips:
"...during the next selection cycle..."
To that end I invite folks to do a citizens audit of the election by watching the counting on Tue June 5th as per the instructions here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?86472-Audit-the-Upcoming-Elections-June-5th-2012-Training-on-How-to-Volunteer&p=152973#post152973
They're not going to hand us Democracy on an aluminum platter if we ask nicely. We've got to take it and make it happen.
Quote:
"Instead of watching election results on TV, consider spending 90 minutes watching the counting." -Bev Harris
Liz
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peter Phillips:
Desperate Times Demand Revolutionary Measures
By Peter Phillips
“Don't waste any more time or energy on the presidential election than it takes to get to your polling station and pull a lever for a third-party candidate-—just enough to register your obstruction and defiance—and then get back out onto the street. That is where the question of real power is being decided.”
~ Chris Hedges, May 2012
I've been receiving the posts through email for a while but due to the political climate we find ourselves in decided to look further. Im guess I'm just going to come right out and say what I feel from the heart.
If you are thinking about re-electing obama please re-think it.. Looking only at what has come out in the last week he has shown himself to be... let me say it mildly... not the man I want leading our country. He has established a level of Marshall Law that puts all potentially in jeopardy with no rights left to us... Are we being led into WWW3? Has it already started? and how the rest of the world feels about that? Examine what is being said and how fearful people are. Did you see the high oddly arched contrails last night... did you meet your neighbors at the store and did this one have the huge cooler and did that one have 3 crates of bottled water? did the store look different? end row placement of huge cartons of matches and propane lighters with other manner of what could be taken as survival gear. . were you asked nonchalantly about why you were buying a particular item? the list of concerns goes on and on and only gets worse.
I had already been doing research on a different candidate who has a record of doing what he says and saying what he does. Someone who might have answers that don't lead us into more danger and hopelessness.. certainly a different path than the one we have started on already. I have hope
To my shock and horror and fury that was when alerts popped up that we were now under martial law and we are, as far as we can be without an actual emergency or act of terrorism can place us. are you aware of what happened to the occupy protesters last night in multiple places across the states? Last night there were videos all over you tube in frightening and horrible detail. This morning I couldn't find them and I have to wondered what happened to the off duty marines who were there and had pledged to protect the protesters..
In so many corners of our country trust is leaking away if not gone and unsettling rumors are coming from multiple sources. Terrible things that I wont tell you here because the person who told me I needed to do my own research was right... you wont believe it unless you find it for yourself. I went to bed last night in terror not knowing what kind of world I would be waking up to or even if I would be waking up and that is a feeling I can only describe as abject despair. well.. since I did wake up and there is nothing to be done but fight forward I am reaching out to you and asking that you heed what I say
There is a candidate i am asking you to consider. perhaps not the one you would think off right off but one who might offer a way out and maybe get us through the next years with some level of safety. I am asking you to consider Dr Ron Paul for president. Please don't reject him because you vote democrat. Look at his record and how he is viewed by the people. He has decided to run as a "blue" republican and there are people who are changing their registration for the elections as I type.. I just printed my form out. sad to say its too late for June 5 but I have sworn that if I cant vote for him then I will spread the word of Wake Up 2012 to all I can and that includes you folks here. I hope and pray that you will not write this off without looking into it. I have a feeling our lives could depend on it and if you look online (while we still can because things are being removed and the slanderers are out in mass trying to even faze him) you will see how and who has come out in support of him. Our military soldiers say they are tired of being drawn into meaningless conflict for greed and corruption support him mightily to the point that the off dutys marched in force in support of Ron Paul.
Please please take this seriously as anything you ever have.. I have a grandson and I can't bear to not do all I can to recover some future and safety for him. Im not going to re-read this because I don't want to edit my heart.
thank you for reading. I hope, if not beg, that we can set aside political affiliation for this time and come together as "BLUE"
Garnette Hampton
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Unfortunately, our votes don't really count here in CA, as has been noted. However, I agree that it is worth supporting Obama, as the alternative is really only Romney, based upon the influence upon the Supreme Court nominations. Bring on Romeny, with another Roberts, Alito, Scalia, etc., for life, and it won't matter what you want, we will live in an Oligarchy.
Ron Paul is a nut, and he is no champion of civil rights or liberties:
“"Even though Paul's opposition to the War on Drugs and various practices involving the U.S. military (like indefinite detention, etc.) is clearly rooted in libertarianism, his preference for state protection of rights would imperil liberty. So, while Paul opposes the federal government's War on Drugs, Paul is silent with respect to similar wars being waged in the states. This silence is striking in light of the fact that states prosecute most crimes in this nation. As president, however, Paul would not question impediments to civil liberty in the states. This omission, though consistent with his extreme views of neo-federalism, make it impossible for him to wear the libertarian label. Ron Paul is not a champion of liberty. Josh Hicks and the Washington Post are just flat wrong on this issue." -- Darren Hutchinson, 29 Dec., 2011”
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
I agreed with what you wrote until you started promoting racist, sexist, misogynist Ron Paul who, in my opinion is worse than Obama!
I am looking at the Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party for a more worthy candidate to vote for.
I can no longer vote for the lesser evil.
My first choice would be a well-organized voter revolt like they had in Spain in their last federal election in November. 11 million people, nearly a third of the total population of Spain, went to the polls and tore up their ballots in protest! They refused to choose between two sides of the same coin, like we have here.
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by EmeraldMatra:
I agreed with what you wrote until you started promoting racist, sexist, misogynist Ron Paul who, in my opinion is worse than Obama!
I am looking at the Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party for a more worthy candidate to vote for.
I can no longer vote for the lesser evil.
My first choice would be a well-organized voter revolt like they had in Spain in their last federal election in November. 11 million people, nearly a third of the total population of Spain, went to the polls and tore up their ballots in protest! They refused to choose between two sides of the same coin, like we have here.
I do understand what you are saying and I think if you looked at some of his debates on the subjects online or at you tube you might see that he is more flexible than you are thinking.. african americans are not shy about supporting him either and freely say that they do not find him to be racist and will vote for him. maybe they are no more impressed with his record than I am or maybe they expected more from him than they were given but I'm pretty sure they are not wanting what he is threatening to bring down on all of us now.
All personal issues aside my main concern with this election is the risk of being hurled into a full blown war not to mention if you follow obamas spiral of actions it doesnt look good for our civil liberties of any kind and that has already started.
See some of his speeches and debates with the other ones running and see what you think. He is so much more knowledgable than anyone he debates it would be laughable if it werent so scary. If nothing else watch to see how others twist in the wind trying to formulate an answer to a question they dont understand and how easily he understands and answers their questions. and that goes double for news people asking snarky questions.
I'm so worried over our futures and it kills me that my grandsons future depends so much on the decisions made now. not later.. not in 10 years but now. I grew up here and my family has lived on the same property for over 50 years... I loved growing up here and would want that for any child not a life governed by war and fear of its own governments actions against the citizens. all I can do is put out the word.. its 1:18 and I'm too anxious to sleep and too crosseyed to type
thank you for reading
Garnet
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
>>>My first choice would be a well-organized voter revolt like they had in Spain in their last federal election in November. 11 million people, nearly a third of the total population of Spain, went to the polls and tore up their ballots in protest!They refused to choose between two sides of the same coin, like we have here.
I'm quite sure the Republicans would help you organize it, given the vote-suppression tactics they're undertaking. Seems it'd be a lot cheaper to get you to suppress your own vote.
As regards Spain, i don't see the Left or the liberals terribly happy about the results of that vote. And I'm wondering if you see Kagan and Sotomayor as indistinguishable from Scalia and Alito?
Cheers—
Conrad
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Regarding Ron Paul (who as far as I can tell, will not be on the ballot in November):
https://miniver.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul.html
https://www.littleredumbrella.com/20...ing-sucks.html
As for any vote not for The Obamanator is a vote for Romnification....
Not true in safe states such as California. Votes for third party candidates in states where either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party nominee has a lock on the electoral college votes of that state, do nothing to prevent that.
Statistically speaking, if some unprecedented shift to a third party candidate occurred that would be a different story. Since that is highly unlikely given the conventional thinking that is firmly in place for the vast majority of voters. conventional thinking that the duopoly counts on by the way. Third party votes, are a way to send a message and register ones protest about the current system. Which for me, is important.
Because without that choice, I doubt I would vote at all. I may not like the setup, but I dislike being told I have no choice but to collaborate in it, even more.
That's something the conventional pragmatic liberal consensus doesn't understand. That someone can consider the threat of a Republican (which in California, in this election cycle, is no threat at all) far less odious than endorsing the status quo. And no, this is not an argument that the two wings of the duopoly are indistinguishable, we're not children, we understand the differences.
The problem is, given what comes out of both parties, the difference is not enough to make a real difference in the things that threaten to crush us all, things that are well on their way to doing so. Climate, resource depletion, erosion and erasure of civil liberties, military spending, etc.
Yeah, the Supreme Court is important. Yeah, the president is not a king and cannot act unilaterally. Yeah, the crazies in the house live in cloud cookoo land (along with Ron Paul and all other conservative libertarians) and have no idea what fiscal responsibility is.
How did we get here? At this impasse? Well, it's complicated, but winner take all elections with a two party system in which both parties are bought and paid for by corporate finance capital, has a lot to do with it.
So, keep pushing pragmatic, incremental liberalism. It's done so much for us lately, what other choice do we have?
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Third party votes, are a way to send a message and register ones protest about the current system. Which for me, is important.
For me too. But beyond that, even in our winner-takes all system substantial third party votes can push main party candidates to modify their policies.
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GARNETTE:
I do understand what you are saying and I think if you looked at some of his debates on the subjects online or at you tube you might see that he is more flexible than you are thinking..
sure, he's not totally a cartoon character. I'm sure he's kind to babies and all that too. But you can't pick and choose parts of his record - he's the sum of all of it. The best parts of his programs and ideas may be worth a try - that's not enough to make me ignore the rest of it. He's also pretty poor at explaining why his critics are wrong, which he has a burden to do when he's proposing such untested ideas. The other option, showing how other times or places have thrived by following an agenda similar to his, isn't really available to him.
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
I've been disappointed that Ron Paul didn't step up his campaign when Santorum dropped out. Seems like he just ceded it to Romney.
What's the thinking in the Ron Paul world about running as a third party?
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
I am no fan of Paul's so I am not who you asked, but many people observed that Paul never really attacked Romney. The explanation was that he is trying to make nice to the powers that be so his son, the execrable Rand Paul, can have a brighter political future as a soulless courtier to the 1%.
Proving the vacuity of his daddy's 'libertarian' ideology.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I've been disappointed that Ron Paul didn't step up his campaign when Santorum dropped out. Seems like he just ceded it to Romney.
What's the thinking in the Ron Paul world about running as a third party?
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I've been disappointed that Ron Paul didn't step up his campaign when Santorum dropped out. Seems like he just ceded it to Romney.
What's the thinking in the Ron Paul world about running as a third party?
ok there is a wandering rumor that he could still go third part he really does seem to say what he means and mean what he says and I like that about him. and i was told that the quiet might have something to do with death threats in which case who could blame him..
there is lot of evil loose in the world these days.. would it be evil of me to wish evilness upon them?
i was going to say something about something else but probably better to wait
wishing hope upon us all
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:
I am no fan of Paul's so I am not who you asked, but many people observed that Paul never really attacked Romney. The explanation was that he is trying to make nice to the powers that be so his son, the execrable Rand Paul, can have a brighter political future as a soulless courtier to the 1%.
Proving the vacuity of his daddy's 'libertarian' ideology.
well ive not looked in particular whether he has attacked romney. but i will now. i feel fairly certain you are incorrect tho.. I was just looking at the video loaded onto you tube and everyone looks pretty happy so maybe you will rethink your position before the election?. IF we have an election because there is a rumor that obama will cancel the election so that the resulting protests will be all he needs to bring in the troops and have them start the slaughter... and i am hurt and angry and terrified to say that ... im praying to be wrong
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:
I am no fan of Paul's so I am not who you asked, but many people observed that Paul never really attacked Romney. The explanation was that he is trying to make nice to the powers that be so his son, the execrable Rand Paul, can have a brighter political future as a soulless courtier to the 1%.
Proving the vacuity of his daddy's 'libertarian' ideology.
right off the bat i found this and this doesn't look like they are great buddies but ill keep lookingRon Paul Intellectually Pummels Mitt Romney Into Submission
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
right off the bat i found this and this doesn't look like they are great buddies but ill keep looking
Ron Paul Intellectually Pummels Mitt Romney Into Submission
and here is another one quickly Ron Paul Calls Mitt Romney Stupid
please consider going to you tube and watch some of the debates
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
oh and this made me kinda laugh
Bill Maher: "You have to admit there are some people who want to kill Americans." Mos Def: "Yeah, some of them are called the police."
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
We as Americans have a right to the fruits of our labor and if that is what you want then go and listen to his speeches and debates, he is here to help us out of this hole that we have been pushed into,.,, Vote for Ron Paul in wake the" *uck up America 2012" before you throw your vote away. I'm not kidding in the least.. Please take the time to listen to him and how people are supporting him even if they might not entirely agree with him on all issues.. I guess i'm begging you..
Thank you for reading, L
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Garnette-
My comments were made from following the debates some time ago. For an unimpeacheably conservative source to back me up, see https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...trick-brennan#
But yes, later he apparently did criticize Romney more aggressively although cynics would say this was true when it didn't matter much. Certainly I had stopped paying attention to the debates by then.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GARNETTE:
right off the bat i found this and this doesn't look like they are great buddies but ill keep lookingRon Paul Intellectually Pummels Mitt Romney Into Submission
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
My observations on Ron Paul, for what they are worth:
It seems that RP has been remarkably silent about his strategy. I have read interpretations widly at variance with each other. All of these are based on speculations (he 'could be . . .', he 'might be considering . . .', 'it appers that he may . . .' That kind of thing. Nothing from RP himself, or even from close advisors.
Speculating myself, couldn't it be that RP may be feeling his age? I suspect that would be a factor in his reticence to run as a third party candidate. Although by all appearances RP is in good health, nevertheless he is in his 70's and a 3rd party run would be grueling, especially with so many states having electoral laws stacked against him or any 3rd party.
There is another aspect here. I've noticed that Paulistas have been working very hard to win over state conventions, and appear to have won some free standing delegates to their candidate. Perhaps (again, I don't know) RP is taking a long view. There is precedent for this in recent Republican Party history. The far right didn't come to dominate the Republican Party overnight; they had a long term strategy which worked from the ground up. That is to say they ran a lot of local candidates, participated in local political meetings, etc. And it paid off with their dominance today. My sense is that the Paulistas are replicating this kind of strategy, with their own unique turn on organzation.
Unlike some others on this thread, I have a very high regard for RP. I think he has been a positive presence on the political scene. I don't mean that I always agree with him; for the most part I don't. On the other hand, his foreign policy views are better than almost any Democrat, with a few rare exceptions. My admiration for RP has more to do with his willingness and actual ability to negotiate with non-libertarians to craft worthwhile bills. RP's alliance with Kucinich over the issue of auditing the Federal Reserve is a case, one among many. There are many other examples. Yes, RP's views are sometimes extreme; yet he refrained from demonizing those he disagreed with and that sets him apart from most of the Republicans in Congress today. I think it is instructive that the Republican Party often ran handpicked candidates against Paul in primaries in his district.
So whatever Paul is doing, I suspect it is well considered and I bet we haven't heard the last from him or the Paulistas in general.
Jim
-
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
So whatever Paul is doing, I suspect it is well considered and I bet we haven't heard the last from him or the Paulistas in general.
You're damn right about that. Paul is running a 2 part campaign. One for his presidency, the other for the rEVOLution to overthrow the ruling elite; in general, like we're seeing all over the world, and for specific races. I get emails every other day from him asking me to support other liberty minded candidates in all sorts of races in many states. Now that he will no longer be a Congressman, he is being a strong Grandfather to those who will work for the same principles.
At this point, if one is part of the revolution, I think it's important, no crucial, to leave political left right affiliation behind, and focus on the power of third party candidates (or any Democrat or Republican) not beholden to corruption, but instead dedicated to being a true public servant. That distinction is less reactionary and is the key to our being potent. They've set up this left right dichotomy to divide and conquer us. Look how much time, energy, and relationships you waste feeding your side of it. You get swung around and controlled as if by a great Aikido master.
Instead, if we focussed on only a handful of the most important issues that all of us can agree on and worked together to achieve them, we could really make satisfying headway. Dancing across party lines and refusing to polarize on partisan swing issues are revolutionary acts. There is immense latent power in the unity of the people. This is the most important message I have been posting on Wacco.
Here are 7 bi-partisan issues I believe we can all agree on:
1) End all wars of aggression, bring our troops home, stop the empire building (Note the huge effect this will have on the US debt and our economic prosperity).
2) Take the power to coin money from the private central banks. Step one: Audit the Fed.
3) Take away corporate personhood and the right of corporations to make political contributions.
4) Outlaw all electronic voting and allow paper ballots only. I don't care if it takes longer to count the votes. Convenience and speed are no trade for democracy. This will allow us to use elections to root out the corrupt.
5) End NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act, executive order made on New Year's Eve 2011; indefinite detention for Americans on American soil for any reason the puppet dictator chooses without trial. Bring back Habeas Corpus and the rule of law.
6) End NDPA, National Defense Preparedness Act, executive order made on March 16th, 2012; allows in times of war OR peace the confiscation of any and all of your property, all farms, martial law, and the military draft (slavery).
7) End the bogus Patriot Act and all it's variations of justifying spying on our own citizens, TSA, etc.
Check out this man's powerful presentation on the importance of grassroots left and right joining forces on a few key issues we can agree on, and the consequences if we do not. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...Agree-With#top
If we set aside every other political issue right now and made a people's movement based around this, we would become extremely powerful, organized, and effective at achieving major positive change.
If you agree, how can we mobilize around this?
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Good points, Jim.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
My observations on Ron Paul, for what they are worth:
It seems that RP has been remarkably silent about his strategy. I have read interpretations widly at variance with each other. All of these are based on speculations (he 'could be . . .', he 'might be considering . . .', 'it appers that he may . . .' That kind of thing. Nothing from RP himself, or even from close advisors.
Speculating myself, couldn't it be that RP may be feeling his age? I suspect that would be a factor in his reticence to run as a third party candidate. Although by all appearances RP is in good health, nevertheless he is in his 70's and a 3rd party run would be grueling, especially with so many states having electoral laws stacked against him or any 3rd party.
There is another aspect here. I've noticed that Paulistas have been working very hard to win over state conventions, and appear to have won some free standing delegates to their candidate. Perhaps (again, I don't know) RP is taking a long view. There is precedent for this in recent Republican Party history. The far right didn't come to dominate the Republican Party overnight; they had a long term strategy which worked from the ground up. That is to say they ran a lot of local candidates, participated in local political meetings, etc. And it paid off with their dominance today. My sense is that the Paulistas are replicating this kind of strategy, with their own unique turn on organzation.
Unlike some others on this thread, I have a very high regard for RP. I think he has been a positive presence on the political scene. I don't mean that I always agree with him; for the most part I don't. On the other hand, his foreign policy views are better than almost any Democrat, with a few rare exceptions. My admiration for RP has more to do with his willingness and actual ability to negotiate with non-libertarians to craft worthwhile bills. RP's alliance with Kucinich over the issue of auditing the Federal Reserve is a case, one among many. There are many other examples. Yes, RP's views are sometimes extreme; yet he refrained from demonizing those he disagreed with and that sets him apart from most of the Republicans in Congress today. I think it is instructive that the Republican Party often ran handpicked candidates against Paul in primaries in his district.
So whatever Paul is doing, I suspect it is well considered and I bet we haven't heard the last from him or the Paulistas in general.
Jim
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
I largely agree but emphasize again (and again) until the electoral rules are changed third parties will not be a viable solution to many of these issues. An initiative for majority elections would empower all third parties and would come at a time when hardly anyone is happy with the major parties. Possibly even the League of Women Voters and other groups would sign on.
If you REALLY wanted to empower them even more, at the state level we could have an initiative to elect all members of one house in Sacramento (or both) at large, or in large multi-member districts with proportional representation.
The first would be a step on the way to the second and much easier to accomplish. Once third parties amounted to something they could lobby for the second and familiarize people with it.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
You're damn right about that. Paul is running a 2 part campaign. One for his presidency, the other for the rEVOLution to overthrow the ruling elite. In general, like we're seeing all over the world, and for specific races. I get emails every other day from him asking me to support other liberty minded candidates for their races in all sorts of races in many states.
At this point, if one is part of the revolution, I think it's important, no crucial, to leave political left right affiliation behind, and focus on the power of third party candidates not beholden to the corruption. That distinction is less reactionary and is the key to our being potent. ...
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:
I largely agree but emphasize again (and again) until the electoral rules are changed third parties will not be a viable solution to many of these issues. An initiative for majority elections would empower all third parties and would come at a time when hardly anyone is happy with the major parties. Possibly even the League of Women Voters and other groups would sign on.
If you REALLY wanted to empower them even more, at the state level we could have an initiative to elect all members of one house in Sacramento (or both) at large, or in large multi-member districts with proportional representation.
The first would be a step on the way to the second and much easier to accomplish. Once third parties amounted to something they could lobby for the second and familiarize people with it.
Sounds good.
I lost you on "we could have an initiative to elect all members of one house in Sacramento (or both) at large, or in large multi-member districts with proportional representation." Will you please clarify? And I'd like it if you would specify what the first step and second are in your last paragraph.
Is this a grass roots approach or a top down approach? Both could be valid. What is most effective?
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
You have really hit the nail on the head with this. This was my strategy for US Senate; unfortunately my efforts have been tragically interrupted, and my attention diverted toward getting justice regarding issues surrounding my daughter's death. I need $400 file in probate court to get her remains, property and birds I bought us for therapy.
When this is completed, I will get back to working for justice for our country; your top issues are on my target list as well.
If any Waccos out there can assist; it would go a long way in helping me work through the grief process; so I can get back to uniting 2/3rds of our states; so we can: remove federal laws which are hurting us all, adding laws which will heal us; and removing Supreme Court Justices who rule unconstitutionally.
:waccosun: Patriotically in peace,
Colleen Fernald
Sebastopol, CA
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
You're damn right about that. Paul is running a 2 part campaign. One for his presidency, the other for the rEVOLution to overthrow the ruling elite;...
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Oh you don't know how the thrill of someone seeing and understanding our situation has gone from the tips of my toes to the ends of my hair... If you have one on to explore the future we are threatened with unless we can find some way to stop it... It could be very bad.
I would love for anyone who has more political experience than i do tell me clearly what it is i or we or everyone can do that will help with this politically.
I lost both my parents and my beloved dog within months of each other last year so i understand the grieving process very well... I have also lost all three of my brothers and my younger sister and a couple of very good friends.. Maybe that is part of why this feels so important to me
please let me know if you want to talk more about moving on this or what is to be done and i am there, oh thank you so much for taking the time to look at this with open eyes... You can see by his debates that he is a man of great intellect and he appears to me to be strong. I will be back with any new info
thank you more than you know
garnet
-
Vote for a 'third party', or vote for Ron Paul?...
I might as well shoot myself in the head...
Both these 'options' are absolutely insane right now as far as I'm concerned. We have a uber, money-backed runnaway train right now running down the tracks, already derailing and smashing up towns, and cities. It is going full force, and I'm watching disgruntled, worried folks wanting to peel off the army that COULD be built up to stop it...That army is far from perfect, but it's got some really good people in it, ready to take on some damn hard battles, and they need a lot of support to get elected to at least join forces to stop that runaway train.
That runaway train got some big momentum in 2010 because the wackos in their army did NOT peel off onto a 'third party'. And the disgruntled folks, yawned and let it happen.
Our two party system works, it always works for somebody. You have to get in there and work your ass off...That's what women had to do, and that's what the negro community had to do.
As we know, over the course of our history, our two political parties have changed drastically over the decades. That is a testament as to how much people can change things within the two party system. It's rotten, messy, tough shit, and it sucks. But, you either join forces and fight the battle, or you'll just keep losing, and getting screwed.
-
Re: Article: Vote for a Third Party?
Well... I can only hope you will reconsider shooting yourself in the head?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lynn:
Vote for a 'third party', or vote for Ron Paul?...
I might as well shoot myself in the head...
Both these 'options' are absolutely insane right now as far as I'm concerned. We have a uber, money-backed runnaway train right now running down the tracks, already derailing and smashing up towns, and cities. It is going full force, and I'm watching disgruntled, worried folks wanting to peel off the army that COULD be built up to stop it...That army is far from perfect, but it's got some really good people in it, ready to take on some damn hard battles, and they need a lot of support to get elected to at least join forces to stop that runaway train.
That runaway train got some big momentum in 2010 because the wackos in their army did NOT peel off onto a 'third party'. And the disgruntled folks, yawned and let it happen.
Our two party system works, it always works for somebody. You have to get in there and work your ass off...That's what women had to do, and that's what the negro community had to do.
As we know, over the course of our history, our two political parties have changed drastically over the decades. That is a testament as to how much people can change things within the two party system. It's rotten, messy, tough shit, and it sucks. But, you either join forces and fight the battle, or you'll just keep losing, and getting screwed.
