"labor intensive", but not the way you meant it (4.00 / 1)

I posted a diary at docudharma (and cross-posted here), called Missing from the Progressive Political Eco-System - An Org'n for Completely Dissafected Democrats

A poster, who seemed to know what he was talking about, posted this comment:

According to some of the more knowledgeable people I've talked to about third parties (and I've interviewed the Green Party's only elected state representative and Cindy Sheehan, and I've talked to hundreds of third partisans, including people like Richard Winger, who's the preeminent ballot access scholar in the nation), pretty much the only way to organize a successful left-wing, large-scale third party is to go through unions.  Unfortunately, 99% of unions are loyal to the major parties.  If you can break that stranglehold, even just one or two unions at a time, then you might have a decent chance at slowly building a large third party (although I don't think there will ever be a third major party in the US).  And it can be done - David Krikorian is a current blue dog candidate for Congress in Ohio, but in 2008 he ran as an independent and got the endorsement of several local unions.

(emphasis mine)

My key point was this: I called for a progressive voting bloc of formerly loyal Democrats that will explicitly show no loyalty to any party, but rather to principles. They will vote for a Democrat, if it suits them, or for candidate from another party, if that suits them. Eventually, Nancy Bordier's invention (see reinventingdemocracy.us), or something like this, will make the formation of voting blocs as easy as using an online dating. (BTW, Nancy doesn't like this analogy. :-) )

I think the time to organize disaffected, progressive Democrats is now. At least get them all in 'one place', cyber-space-wise. Yes, start a website, get a forum going today. One of the things you can talk about is how to plan for more effective, organized, and even automated joint efforts in the near future. And yes, according to the poster I quoted, labor should be an integral part of the mix, and probably the dominant part of the mix. I'd also recommend hiring a good political game theorist. Some people think that starting a third party or supporting the Democrats is a dichotomy. IT IS NOT. There are some real-world constraints, having to do with the fact that you typically have to be registered with a Party before you can vote in a primary. However, a good political game theorist, who will look at things, as you mention, "coldbloodedly", will also help you develop strategies that are much smarter than either resignation ( = voting for Democrats all the time, anyway, or not voting at all); or else going whole hog for a third party - which is not smart unless you know, ahead of time, that you already have the numbers to make that work.

Since that's practically impossible, on a nationwide basis, I expect that your friendly neighborhood game theorist will recommend an incremental approach. I expect that he or she will say something like "in 2010, focus on these 2 Senate seats as serious third party candidates to win, focus on these 3 other Senate seats to make the Democrats lose, and focus on these 4 other Senate seats to make sure that those Democrats - who are reasonably progressive - win. Keep growing the third party, if for no other reason than using it as a credible threat against particularly insular Democrats."

"coldbloodedly" - yes, you put that well. The Democrats and Republicans who helped create the economic mess that we have, and who can't be bothered to at least create an optimal healthcare system (which would be some consolation to those increasingly getting thrown out of their homes) were essentially "coldblooded" as they were not doing their jobs. They don't deserve any loyalty, and voters of all stripes should internalize this attitude. If they don't do their jobs correctly, they should be FIRED.

================
Fascinating article on a political game theorist named Bueno de Mesquita, who often outperforms CIA analysts in predicting political changes in foreign countries, here.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 22:31:44 PM UTC

Times have changed (4.00 / 2)

In the old days (before WWII)  dissident progressives could play the Republicans off against the Democrats, since at that time the parties weren't too far apart (that is to say, many Democrats were conservative and many Republicans were progressive). Progressives took over the North Dakota Republican Party and had a great deal of success that way for several decades. In Minnesota and Wisconsin progressives started state third parties after working within the Republican Party for awhile. Many individual progressives had long, successful careers as Republicans, Democrats, or Independents even though their relationship to the formal party structure was cool or hostile. (Think 10 Bernies Sanderses and Paul Wellstones).

Unfortunately the Republican Party is now impossible to work with, and national third parties are only spoilers. So I'm not really calling for a third party at all, except in single states under unusual conditions.

What I propose is 1.) giving no money (or volunteer time)  at all to the national party or most state parties, 2.) giving no money or time at all to Democratic machine candidates, 3.) running primary challenges to bad Democrats, 4.) rewarding good Democrats and 5.) coordinating efforts with the national party only when given significant concessions.

None of this won't make much difference unless there are significant numbers of dollars and votes involved, which would involve building new grass roots groups organizing the unorganized and stealing dissident Democrats and (maybe) Republicans.

But as I said, a third party between the two major parties would be worthless, unless it sabotaged the Republicans.

---

by: John Emerson @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 22:47:28 PM UTC

I might believe a third party would be completely useless if... (0.00 / 0)

If all political game theorists agreed that was the case. Also, aren't you conflating Congressional Republicans and Republican big-wigs with Republican rank-and-file? About 50% of the latter want a public option, even if very few of the former do. Bill Bradley recently had a NYT article calling for intelligent bi-partisanship, e.g. tort-reform + real healthcare reform. Are you sure that you couldn't grab millions of Republicans voters to vote for a third party candidates who embodied a series of similar,  fair-minded compromises?

An interesting homework assignment is to see from which major party most converted independents come from. I will guess that, during the last 6 years of the Bush administration, most came from the Republican Party, and starting from this year some time, most will be from the Democratic Party. Quite possibly this has been discussed here at OpenLeft, but I don't recall any figures.

Finally, I wish all of these discussions were enlightened by background knowledge of transpartisan efforts that seem promising on the policy side, that are promising on the dialog side, and that currently seem completely lacking on electoral side. Are you familiar with Reuniting America, discussed in Voice of the People: The transpartisan Imperative in American Life? I still haven't read most of the book, but I grok the central premise, and I find it encouraging that the constituent participating organizations at Reuniting America events comprise over 30 million Americans. (I have a diary with references from that book, here).

Having said all that, I still support your proposed effort, even if I find it unnecessarily limiting. Go for it. I mean that in all sincerity. Also, don't re-invent the wheel, unecessarily. You're going to need candidates to run in primaries, which is your 3). From firedoglake, Announcing the Accountability Now 2010 Primary Project

Primary challenges work.  The threat of a primary challenge in 2010 will change behavior in 2008.  The question is -- how can we create a system where we aren't dependent on chance for a Donna Edwards (or Ned Lamont) to emerge?
Earlier this year, our Accountability Now PAC raised money for the purpose of holding our elected officials accountable.  We have been working since then to try and figure out the best way to use that money, and ultimately decided that it could best be used trying to find more candidates like Donna Edwards.

So Accountability Now brought together partners including MoveOn, SEIU, They Work for Us, Color of Change, the Steelworkers, DailyKos and BlogPAC and are funding a project to look at districts across the country and try to figure out where we can find great candidates to challenge incumbents who have become more responsive to corporate America than they have to their constituents.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:00:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another Better Way to Viable Third Parties (4.00 / 1)

Pushing states like California to adopt proportional representation would help solve state political problems, keep the two major parties attuned to voter needs (instead of only ideology), and most important create viable political parties at the state level. Some of these parties, over decades, would run and win governorships and even Congressional seats. Their political support would be solid because it would be local and all parties would be equal in the eyes of voters.

These state parties eventually could or would find regional connections to other state parties and, possibly, evolve into national parties to compete with Democrats and Republicans.

The beauty of this approach, pushing for proportional representation in state houses, is that is do-able, especially in states like California with broken political systems. National third parties are guaranteed to fail, to be spoilers. State level third parties, and fourth and fifth and sixth parties, would address a lot of intractable political problems.  

---

by: TSlavin @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 21:26:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's one of several institutional changes that would help (0.00 / 0)

Reforms weakening the party bureaucracies might be immediately easier to get through than a progressive position on the issues, since all disgruntled elements (right, left, and center) could support them.

Preferential ballots (first and second choice votes) would also help third parties. More open primaries without loyalty oaths would help. Running a mix of independent candidates and fusion candidates is a strategy that's been used (i.e., making deals with one of the other parties to support one another's candidates.). But this only works once a party is already strong.

Rep. Cao in Louisiana represents a strategy that used to be more common: running as an insurgent Republican in an area where the Republicans are very weak. In the old days, Republicans Vito Marcantonio, first ran as a Republican.)

The Wilson Pakula Act is one of the factors working against insurgent campaigns. It prevents third-party members from running in major-party primaries. All primaries should be open.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 21:39:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Obciously Don't Understand California Politics (0.00 / 0)

Your strategy might make sense in some other state, but the history and structural/political factors involved in California's dysfunction make your scenario utterly fantastical.

Sad to say, as a native Californian.

BTW, were you aware that one of the keys to the recent electoral overthrow of decades-long one-party rule in Japan was the elimination of proportional representation and small parties?

It just goes to show that you need to really attune your strategy to historical and structural realities.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 21:49:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not writing about California politics specifically (0.00 / 0)

As far as changes in the electoral system, I'm pretty open-minded and uncommitted. Which specific proposals of the several I named are wrong, and why?

As I understand, California's problems are 1.) severe rural gerrymandering, 2.) initiatives run wild, 3.) a large dose of insane Republicans, and 4.) another large dose of centrist whim voters. But I'm willing to learn.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 21:57:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This Wasn't Directed At You, John (0.00 / 0)

I agree with your broader point.  I was simply arguing that the proposed strategy was not well-grounded in the particulars of California politics.  Nothing more, nothing less.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 13:03:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually I'm a California Native in Exile (0.00 / 0)

However, I don't know enough about California politics to know what is 100% viable. It strikes me, though, knowing a lot of moderate sensible Republicans, that proportional representation might be a way to get their party back from extremists, at the state level at least.

As for Japan, I suspect all political systems eventually fail and require rejuvenation. In the US, it's our two- party system that has failed and requires renewal. Also, I don't think proportional representation works at the national level. I would guess not.

Anyway, you asked for out of the box ideas.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 22:06:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What if the Republicans split? (0.00 / 0)

As I said somewhere, if the Republican crazies run off and the sane Republicans join the Blue Dogs, there could be a three way split. That's the only case when I would support third party politicking -- if the crazies split the Republicans.

I don't believe in palying with fire, though. Palin still has more support than anyone could imagine, and under certain circumstances I could see her at 34%.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 22:10:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's pretty much already happened (0.00 / 0)

---

by: DTOzone @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 22:24:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Real Problem In California (0.00 / 0)

is a combination of the constitution and demographics.  The 2/3rds rule on passing a budget and raising taxes, plus the large older, white electorate compared to the majority-minority universe of non-voters.  The Public Policy Institute of California did a very important poll several years ago, showing the difference it would make if non-voters were part of the electorate.  We need to break the 2/3rds rule--both of them, actually.  And we need to expand the electorate.

If we do those things, then the changes you're talking about could further advance the transformation of California politics.  Without those changes, I'm afraid nothing else will matter.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 13:12:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's stunning to think ... (0.00 / 0)

In Minnesota and Wisconsin progressives started state third parties after working within the Republican Party for awhile.

given the times today .. that Fightin' Bob LaFollette was a Republican .. hell .. LaFollette was to the left of many of today's Democrats .. and LaFollette once got 17% of the vote running for President as a 3rd party candidate .. he won Wisconsin(of course!!) and was 2nd in a bunch of western states

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 23:36:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ideological Congruence & Sorting (4.00 / 1)

Were I able to spend the time on it, I'd love to work on a couple of research papers, maybe even a dissertation (I'm a grad and law student, but my research is going to take me elsewhere), on party systems and the concepts of ideological congruence and the sorting of parties.

Roughly speaking, the thesis would be that - and there is some work out there on this, though not aggregated into any kind of magnum opus of which I am aware - the 1932-1968 party system saw the real movement toward a sorting of the two parties along ideological lines and that the 1968-1980 interregnum of party systems (part 1 of the 1968-2006 party system for which I think a case can be made) really aligned the parties along ideological congruent lines.

Liberals sorted into the Democrats and conservatives sorted into the Republicans, roughly speaking on all manners of levels.  

There is virtually no structural or institutional space for liberals in the GOP, though Democrats have maintained a place for - even encouraged - conservatism.  

One particularly virulent strain of Versailles thinking has decried "polarization" as an outgrowth of this sorting.  I believe that this is actually a good, since party serves as the most coherent heuristic on which voters make decisions, leading to a better-functioning democracy.  Of course, it would really work if the parties were ideological coherent in strong ways.  As noted above, the Democratic party (in government, in the electorate, if not as organization) holds much space for conservatism, confusing the democratic process.  

So there the "halcyon" or "golden" days (I use the quotes because I don't think that value judgments should be ascribed to these eras) of liberal Republicanism are long past.  Parties before the 1932 system took root were ethnic, geographic, and personal; since then they've grown to be more ideological.  The trappings of this previous era have almost no salience to party function and American democracy today.

We need better sorting now.  

---

by: Peter from WI @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 00:54:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wisconsin (4.00 / 1)

It should be noted that Wisconsin presents an interesting case of what happened to solidify the current state of the two parties.  The modern GOP of the La Follette era was a contest between the Progressives and the Stalwarts, the latter being very much like today's conservatives.  When the La Follette Progressives essentially broke away, the Stalwarts took over the GOP completely.  

But when La Follette (Sr.) passed away and the Progressive party eroded, the Progressives moved into the old-style Democratic party and thoroughly took it over.  The Democrats in Wisconsin, led by a host of modern liberals, became a new kind of party, ideologically-driven.  

This group built a parallel Democratic party which eventually superceded the old Democratic party and the modern Democrats in Wisconsin were born, led by people like Jim Doyle, Sr., Gaylord Nelson, and others.  La Follette's progeny even became part of the new Democratic party in Wisconsin; I believe Bronson was a Democratic Attorney General, if memory serves me correctly.  

The point is that the progressive agitation found an institutional home in the Democratic party, as a vehicle susceptible to takeover.  It worked then.  Can it work now?  I don't know.  I tend to think so, and that's why I'm involved in the state party organization here and why I support Democrats in general.  

The modus operandi that made the post-La Follette building of a (more) progressive Democratic party successful was simply organizing and activism.  Organization was built painstakingly.  Candidates were run - not always successfully (Gaylord Nelson ran for Governor three times as an essentially sacrificial lamb before finding success in a Senate race).  Money was raised - for progressive candidates.  Power was built, consolidated, and wielded.  

It took a relatively short time then, but it worked.  In my estimation, there are no institutional nor structural hurdles that cannot be overcome today that did no exist in the post-La Follette era here in Wisconsin.

Lessons to be learned?  Certainly.

---

by: Peter from WI @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:01:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Minnesota's a similar story (0.00 / 0)

The Democrats, previously a third party, absorbed the Farmer Labor Party which basically didn't survive the WWII -- Cold War transition.

The way it happened was not pretty and no one should have been surprised when Humphrey supported LBJ's war. Under his leadership, the Democrats had purged anti-war liberals in 1948.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:14:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see the point of a centrist party (4.00 / 2)

I want a party that's more progressive, not less. This would require recruiting non-voters, independents, and disaffected Republicans, but I see this as happening by changing people's minds, not by splitting the Democratic-Republican difference.

I could see the sane conservative Republicans splitting off from their party and joining the Blue Dogs and DLC to form a new centrist party, but to me that would not be a goal.  The DLC and Blue Dog corporate Democrats are the ones who control the Democratic Party now, and who I want to beat.

For basic structural reasons, national third parties have a poor track record. They're OK to "send a message" as wreckers, and they're good to bring new ideas before the public, but nationally they've never come close to winning, and in that respects things are probably worse now than ever.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:25:47 AM UTC

Worthless? (0.00 / 0)

The Democrats are hardly worthless. In fact, they're worth trillions of dollars to major monied interests like telecommunications, pharma, insurance and, of course, their master of masters, the banking cartel.

The reason Democrats are so worthless is because there is a fundamental flaw in our system - it is legal to bribe politicians. So we have, instead of a representative democracy,. an auction where each representative is sold to the highest bidder.

The solution is simple: outlaw bribery. No more campaign "contributions". How we pay for campaigns is a separate issue. But we need a constitutional amendment to prohibit ever giving a public servant or candidate for office one red cent.

That would be the second American revolution.

---

by: Tocque Deville @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 18:48:25 PM UTC

Not a very usable suggestion (0.00 / 0)

Which party would vote to outlaw bribery?

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 19:59:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Disagree (0.00 / 0)

If you have a 5-10 year time frame, you could build a political coalition around campaign finance reform. Do a Grover Norquist. But use real facts to educate voters about the reasons good legislation is killed because of money. Call out truly corrupt politicians and primary them, everything you can to replace them with less corrupt politicians who sign a pledge to pass specific legislation. It's definitely do-able. And there are honest politicians who would support reform, if only to distinguish themselves and get re-elected.

I've also seen funding ideas that pass constitional muster. The pieces of the puzzle are lying around in plain view.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 21:55:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see real finance reform more as an end than a means (0.00 / 0)

If we could push through real campaign finance reform we could probably do a lot of other stuff. We've already passed fake reform bills and we could pass one of them every year forever without helping much.

In an insurgent campaign, campaign reform could be one of the issues, but the initial campaign would still have to play by the old, corrupt rules.

However, as I said somewhere else, campaign reform might be one of the areas where a left-center-right dissident coalition could happen. (Though at crunch time, almost everyone tries to protect their own sugar daddies and block everyone else's.)

In 1888 and 1892 the Populists ran a national campaign on party newspapers, word of mouth and essentially no money. They were in fusion with the Democrats in 1896, with a bit more money, and they scared the hell out of the Republicans. McKinley and Mark Hanna invented big-money politics that year, and they just barely won.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 22:05:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

Campaign finance reform to work most efficiently, would need to run like Norquists' organization. Something progressives support but not their main event. Even though finance reform solves a number of problems.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 22:12:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Follow the Money (4.00 / 1)

To answer your question about why the Democratic Party is so worthless, you just have to follow the money.

The party and its candidates receive the lion's share of their money for running campaigns from wealthy individuals and corporations who want to buy votes and get legislation passed that enhances their wealth and profits.

That's why both of the two major political parties have not only wrecked our democracy but our economy as well, so that both only enhance the bottom lines of the wealthy but not average Americans.

I agree with the inside-outside strategy but see the overwhelming advantages accruing to Democratic party operatives, especially those who work on behalf of an incumbent president. They have their fingers on the levers and in the pockets of the wealthy corporate and individual campaign contributors that get their candidates elected in party primaries and general election.

As I have stated before, with the emerging progressive majority on the horizon, led by progressive activists belonging to the Millennial generation, creating a new political party to serve as progressives' political home is the only winning strategy I envisage.

All the efforts to run individual progressive candidates inside the Democratic Party apparatus would be better spent to build this new party, since it would enable progressives not only to wrest control of government from the plutocrats now running it but - more importantly -- to also dismantle once and for all the two party duopoly that has destroyed our democracy.

Needless to say, progressive voters running this new party must have consensus-building, agenda-setting web tools like the Interactive Voter Choice System that will make it unlike any previous political party, given that voters, not special interests, will call all the shots.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.
                 

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 20:27:43 PM UTC

The problem with national third parties (4.00 / 2)

Nationally (for Presidential elections) a third party is just a spoiler until it's got at least 34%. The best result any third party has ever gotten was 27% in 1912, but the Progressives were running ex-President Theodore Roosevelt that year after a major split in the Republican Party. (Link).

Basically I propose a flexible state-level strategy of primary challenges, independent candidates, and third parties. There's no real need for national coordination, and a set national party platform might do more harm than good. Ten progressive Senators could make a big difference, partly just because they could use the Senate rules to cause enough trouble that they couldn't be ignored the way a single Senator (Feingold or Wellstone) will be.

One procedural fight will be to open up primaries (one of the main issues of the Progressives a century ago) and make challenges possible. Many states and parties have written election laws so rigorous as to make challenges almost impossible, which with the effective two-party domination makes the two parties permanent  monopoly gatekeepers controlling and suppressing citizen involvement and making themselves (in Democratic-Republican collusion) invulnerable. But insurgents still do win from time to time.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 20:49:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Progressives already control more than 34% of the votes (0.00 / 0)

The two party duopoly only commands the loyalty of 55% of the voters, many of whom are reluctant and would immediately join a progressive third party.

Independents are 39% of the electorate. A goodly portion of them would join a progressive third party if given the opportunity and a genuine voice in settings its policy agenda. And in addition, the Millennials who voted in the 2008 election are already larger than the entire senior vote.

So there is no doubt that a progressive party would have a commanding lead in elections at all levels, provided that it allows voters to set the agenda and build consensus across party lines.

I am totally convinced that if Progressive Democrats of America, MoveOn and Democracy for American joined forces to create a progressive party that voters control, it would swamp the two major parties.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.

 

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 21:19:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is far too optimistic (4.00 / 2)

A lot of disgruntled voters (independents and non-voters) are centrists and even right-wingers. We can't just wave a magic wand and claim them.

I am still optimistic in the long haul after an enormous grassroots public education and recruitment campaign, but I don't see a progressive majority of the electorate just sitting there to drop into our hands.

That's sort of what Nader thought: "If only a Presidential candidate would tell the truth, everyone would vote for him". Even if all Nader-leaning Democrats had voted for him (most didn't, because of the structural constraints of the winner-take-all principle), I doubt that Nader would have gotten more than 20% of the votes.

Nader also virtually refused to campaign, and the Green campaign showed some of the problems involved when a small weak new party starts off at the national level.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 21:26:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Build It and They Will Come (0.00 / 0)

Many of the people to whom you refer are victims of our elite political culture, in which the political parties and their corporate benefactors shape political opinions in a manner that diminishes the analytical capabilities of voters.

The best way to empower these disempowered voters is to give them the power to run their own political party free of the entrenched interests who now run the two major political parties.

Since credible evidence and research has demonstrated the emergence of a progressive majority of U.S. voters poised to bring about a revolutionary re-alignment of U.S. politics around progressive policies, why not create a party around this emerging majority?

I am baffled by those who want to continue to work inside a political party that has dismantled our democracy and sold our government to special interests.

With the Interactive Voter Choice System, it might well be possible for progressives to take over the party, but IMNSHO it would be better to use it to create a new party.  

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 22:48:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't be baffled (4.00 / 1)

National third parties have a terrible uphill struggle, and none has ever succeeded. In order to elect a President you have to get 51% of the vote in 51% of the states (with adjustments for the electoral college, etc.) It's a tremendous effort in manpower and requires fighting about a billion dollars worth of big-party money.

I am in favor of statewide third parties where they can succeed. That's much more doable.

The whole premise of what I've been saying is that the parties are realities we have to deal with, not our friends. They are an institutional part of government, just like the courts. They're big businesses just like any other big business. They partially control the political process, and one way or another we have to deal with them. Sometimes we can do business with them and sometimes we can't, but we can't ignore them.

The Democratic Party is not our friend and we shouldn't ever think that it is. Working through the Democrats is not like falling in love or finding Jesus. It's strictly business.

In some other world, having a party you could really believe in would be nice indeed. That's not this world. I supported futile third parties at least half the time 1965-2000. None of them ever accomplished anything at all.

 

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 23:00:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Past Is Not Prologue (0.00 / 0)

Just because third parties failed in the past does not mean that third parties will always fail.

With the Interactive Voter Choice System, a progressive third party CAN empower voters to get control of government.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 23:09:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are reasons why third parties have failed (4.00 / 2)

The enormous size of the U.S., the costs involved in reaching everyone, the tremendous spending on the other side, people's reluctance to get significantly involved in long shots, the first-past-the-post system where anything less than 34% = 0%, and institutional friction from the election system.

Under certain circumstances I would support a state third party, and if (and only if) we had a large number of successful state third parties would I support a national third party.

The first job is getting the word out, doing outreach, and changing people's mind, no matter how you look at it. There's no reason to commit to a specific third party form right at the beginning.

But NOT allowing your efforts to be guided by the party machine is a must. Whatever we're talking about would have to be independent and self-directed.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 23:20:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A national 3rd party, for Congressional elections, but having a 'minimalist' common agenda (4.00 / 1)

seems like a smarter strategy. By 'minimalist', I mean a common denominator, that would not necessarily reflect any one ideology, exclusively. The reason is that 3rd party donors and supporters can more efficiently allocate resources, on a national level. Perhaps this is what you meant?

As a 'minimalist' example, let's suppose healthcare legislation either doesn't happen, or it's widely acknowledged to be a complete failure. In 2012, for Congressional elections, the budding 3rd party constituents demand that all candidates embrace Bill Bradley's suggestion: significant healthcare reform + tort reform. Secondly, they must all support legislation to audit the Fed. And that's it. (Again, this is an example. A more reasonable policy option core, instituted nation-wide, would probably have at least a few more policy options.)

The state-level voters would determine the balance of policy options that representatives from their respective states must embrace. So, to elaborate this example, but still in a minimalist fashion: the voting bloc members located in the reddest state in the union might declare that it's candidates must embrace creationism in the classroom, while the voting bloc members located in the bluest state must embrace DADT. Gee, what a concept - candidates from different regions of the country taking positions that suit their constituents!  (Yes, obviously the net/net of having diametrically opposed non-core positions would tend to cancel out the influence of each other. So what? It's not called a democracy for nothing.)

While you could theoretically have completely separated voting blocs, on a state-by-state basis, consider the following scenario to see why that's not a good strategy. If we imagine, say, 6 red and 6 blue states where the voting bloc has attracted sufficient numbers to determine who likely wins, but where only 3 red and 3 blue states' candidates will be locks, having a national orientation will encourage supporters in the lock states to divert their resources to candidates in the non-lock states. Which provides victories in all 12 states, making the ex-Republican and ex-Democrats members all the more happy. :-)

Also, you'll have a large 3rd party caucus, ready to go, when the shockingly restructured Congress settles down to business...

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:23:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hate to belabor the point (0.00 / 0)

but with the Interactive Voter Choice System we do not have to take as given the existing political parties and the strait jackets in which they have placed the voters.

Trying to work in and through the existing parties and all the obstacles they have placed in the way of voter choice is far less promising than just kicking over the table and using the Interactive Voter Choice System to empower voters to decide how they want to proceed.

Once they set their policy agendas and build socio-political networks with voters whose agendas are statistically similar to their own, they will decide how they want to proceed.

They can work at local, state and national levels, inside existing parties or outside them, to create coalitions and voting blocs that cross party lines.

Or they can do both at the same time, ie work inside and outside existing parties, and at the appropriate time choose which ever path seems more promising.

This entire discussion on Open Left this week-end appears to be based on the premise that progressive activists have to be in charge of deciding what the strategy should be, and whether or not they want to work inside existing parties or create new ones.

But the Interactive Voter Choice System makes it possible for the entire responsibility to be assumed by voters themselves and gives them the tools to do whatever they think best.

It would help a great deal if already existing entities like Progressive Democrats of America, MoveOn, Democracy for America, etc. decided to join forces to create a third party. But only if, after joining forces, they let progressive voters actually run the party using IVCS to set policy priorities, build consensus and decide who runs on party lines.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:56:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The World According to Garp (0.00 / 0)

I liked the book, the movie not so much.  ;)

Over the last couple of months, I've been thinking what I should support in the future.  

After the Obama double-cross, I'm through with the corporate Democratic party.  I'm leaning towards The Socialist Party.  Trouble is they're a "movement" party, no candidates.  The Greens are a collection of state and local parties even though they're on a lot of state ballots for national elections, so again, nothing there.  

So what then?  New party?  Work within an existing party?  

The New Party of the 90s has an offshoot called Progressive Dane, which is pretty good but only for Madison WI for city and county issues.  Russ Feingold, whom I admire greatly, speaks fondly of Fighting Bob LaFollette's Progressive Party (built with help from William Allen White).

Labor needs a party.  It would make sense that Trumpka would seed a new party to run against Dems that don't support their issues.  

And people like Howard Dean, Dennis, Kucinich, Bernie, Sanders, and Russ Feingold would likely welcome a new home.

Issues like insurance reform have already been fought (Tommy Douglas in Canada), so it makes sense to model movements / parties off them  issue by issue.

Everything needed is already there to use, from Huey Long ( http://www.hueylong.com/ ) to Teddy Roosevelt ( http://teachingamericanhistory... ).

I strongly believe Obama won't get through the primary in 2012.  

---

by: Mad Hemingway @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 00:38:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, but you've missed or rejected my point (4.00 / 1)

One, that it's silly to whine because a party has disappointed you, because that's what parties do, and two, that none of the third parties now amount to anything, at the national level at least. You might as well strip nalked and paint yourself blue.

UNLESS you're planning to throw yourself heart and soul for a few years into building a state third party. That may be doable in some states. But if you are just looking for a party that will treat you nice and say the right things, and there are a number of those, you'll accomplish nothing.

One of the sticking points on a lot of this is that people want to have a party they can trust and go to to ask for the political things they want. But parties don't do what you want, ever, they do what they want. And if you want to get anything good out of a party you (and a lot of others) have to work at it.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:10:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for your reply John (0.00 / 0)

but if you'd stop putting words in my mouth and get off your soapbox, you'd figure out that we're saying the same thing.

---

by: Mad Hemingway @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:24:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see that (4.00 / 1)

I'm saying that we can't trust the Democratic Party, but we have to do business with them because they have the power. A carrot and stick, quid pro quo approach.

As I understand, you're saying that we cant trust the Democratic Party and should find a third party that we can trust. I'm just too pessimistic about (national) third parties.

The common point to all approaches is that we have to get out to the voters on the issues. Hopefully everyone will do that and decide on strategy later. (I favor a flexible strategy which might include state third parties if they can work, but with a national third party only as the final act. Losing national presidential campaign take too much out of people and leave nothing permanent behind.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:41:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't kid yourself (0.00 / 0)

a lot of Millenials are far from progressive.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 22:23:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah but (0.00 / 0)

the vast majority of them appear to be progressive.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 22:49:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that there is a trend moving in our direction. (4.00 / 1)

We still need to do a lot of outreach and public education, though. The rightwing problem is obvious to everyone, but the real killer is the mushy, apolitical center. Without their support the hard right would be isolated and powerless. A rightwinger starts with roughly  30% on their side and 20% against them. All they need is 21% more (42% of the mushy middle). That's where the battle is being fought.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 23:04:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Teixeira at your link is a Blue Dog or DLCer (0.00 / 0)

Not progressive by our standards, or mine at least. He absolutely would never support a third party.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 23:07:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's His Research (0.00 / 0)

I am interested in, not his politics.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 23:10:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

His definition of "progressive" is different than mine. (0.00 / 0)

What he's saying is that these voters are moving in his direction. He doesn't say they're moving in our direction. We're fighting him for this demographic, but we can't really use his numbers to show that we'll beat him.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 23:14:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You'd be amazed at what he was (0.00 / 0)

back in the day.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:50:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Appear to be Progressives (0.00 / 0)

to many people, Barack Obama appeared to be progressive.

Trust me, millenials, not progressive.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 17:50:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Story of Mouseland (4.00 / 1)

It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.

Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are.

Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said:"The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever. And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.

You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.

Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!"

So they put him in jail.

But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.

---

by: Mad Hemingway @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 20:37:22 PM UTC

I don't get it (4.00 / 1)

I don't see that this parable gets us anywhere.

At this point there is no felt unity of The People (mice) against The Interests (cats.) Part of what we need to do is persuade people that there should be. As the financial crisis pinches harder, that should become easier. But even if after public opinion has been roused, we'll still have to deal with the political process.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 20:54:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The value of a story (0.00 / 0)

I disagree.  People like stories, and they're a good way to frame the issues.  

Stories help people identify which side they're on.  

And they're soooo much better than hollow, vague slogans like "Change we can believe in".

---

by: Mad Hemingway @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 00:43:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is so Gen-X (0.00 / 0)

I love it.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 00:01:40 AM UTC

Gen X? (0.00 / 0)

Emerson is even older than I am!

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:48:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well it's remarkably unvarnished by sentimentality (0.00 / 0)

So maybe we'll make him an honorary inductee.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:54:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They Are Worthless (0.00 / 0)

to me because they simply don't represent or stand for much that I believe in.

I have voted Democratic in the  Presidential elections since McGovern (the best of the bunch) with growing disgust.

I am truly sick of hearing that the Democrats are simply spineless - as if deep down they are great progressives who lack the gumption to vote their true view.

I am sick of 'lesser evilism'.

Here is a decent essay on that subject.

I am really sick of the 'elect better democrats' as if that is some kind of new strategy. That has been the dominant strategy on the Democratic left for my whole lifetime and things have just gotten worse.

Eugene Debs said I would rather vote for what I want and lose than vote for what I don't want and win.

At age 56, I think I am going to start putting that into practice.

There are independent candidates - and voting for one is not a wasted vote. I will continue to support any politician who I believe is worthy of it - and I am not a purist.

---

by: tgs1952 @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 00:58:14 AM UTC

McGovern was the last great one (0.00 / 0)

"A Bright Shining Moment" was on LINK TV last week.  I forgot how good George was.  I also forgot how Daley Sr, Humphrey and the Dems sabotaged him.  

---

by: Mad Hemingway @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:29:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

McGovern as "great"? (0.00 / 0)

Seems to be a bit over-the-top...but he is the only DP nominee for prez I ever voted for since I started voting in 1968.

---

by: nasrudin @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:58:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I haven't seen the "elect better Democrats" theme much until recently (4.00 / 1)

Up until 2000 or after, the DLC had a stranglehold and the game was to drive out the liberals. At Kos the "better Democrats" move only seemed to start at Kos after 2004.

As I've said, whichever strategy is taken, and I think that the national third party is the worst but maybe I'm wrong, it will have to be grass roots and labor-intensive. We're not just fighting the parties, but the media too, and a billion dollars worth of loose change.

All my life I've been watching third parties come and go, and supporting some of them, and that strategy has to be held to the same standard as the democratic Party inside-outside strategy.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:20:56 AM UTC

I suggest that you think more deeply about the "billion dollars worth of loose change" (0.00 / 0)

I talked with a salesman about 9 months ago, who sold online meeting solutions, and his business was booming. I told him that I could guess why - the recession was forcing people to look for cheaper ways to conduct sales meetings. And guess what? I was right. No brilliance on my part, any more than it would have been brilliance on my part to predict that instantaneous, practically free communication (email) would supplant phone calls and written letters as the primary way that people communicate for business purposes.

A mature e-democracy, which supplements the usual election process, will not only save boatloads of money, it'll also empower citizens to form voting blocs easily. No two ways about it. It will also empower those voters to engage in instant runoff type elections, where the field of candidates that they are 'pre-electing' might not necessarily be in the same party! As long as they a) form blocs large enough and b) follow through on primary day and election day, then their collective will will prevail.

You may be historically correct, but I fail to see why the constraints dating back to horse and buggy days, or even the heyday of telegraph and telephone, need constrain us going forward. Yes, television $$ will always be great and necessary for reaching a certain segment of the electorate. But if most of the electorate comes to learn that they can get the most accurate, relevant, and specific information about which candidates match their desires for the country, and if doing so costs a tiny fraction of what television advertising does, then you obviously have to change your calculus.

While it'd be nice to have a billion dollars to spend, how many billions does facebook spend to allow you and your friends to 'elect' a favorite song? If things go the way that I expect them to, the billions of $$ employed to legally bribe politicians are going to yield an increasingly poor ROI. In other words, the "billion dollars worth of loose change" won't go away - it will instead, become irrelevant. Obviously that's hard for people to even imagine, but just meditate on the cost of email or facebook, and I think you will more accurately grok the future.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:39:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that the internet is our best tool at the moment (0.00 / 0)

It doesn't exactly erase the effect of TV and campaign spending, though.

As far as "horse and buggy days" goes, a lot of things are worse now than then. There were a tremendous number of independent newspapers back then, for example, and they made an enormous difference.

Creative use of the internet helps us, that's for sure. That doesn't decide between the 3rd party vs. inside-outside the Democratic Party strategy, though.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:47:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I predict that it will decide... (0.00 / 0)

in favor of the goals of both of them. I.e., viable 3rd party candidates, and also more responsive (populist) Democrats.* I also expect it to potentiate the efforts of Democratic-party only activists. So, we may never know the primary reason for a successful implementation of your proposals. However, that's a nice problem to have, don't you agree?  :-)

*And more responsive (populist) Republicans. They're people, too, 'ya know, even if Rush Limbaugh isn't!

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 02:16:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 'Big Tent' (4.00 / 1)

I neglected to mention how I loathe the 'Big Tent' that we are all supposed to be happy in.

Of course the 'Big Tent' is mentioned heavily around the time we are all supposed to suck it up and accept a Democratic party platform that is wildly at odds with anything we believe in.

Face it, there are a lot of people - read Kos regularly- who are basically on board with mainstream Democratic Party politics. They worship FDR and JFK etc., They believe in American (and Israeli) exceptionalism. They accept the basic premises of the GWOT (overseas contingency operations), the Washington Consensus and so forth. They are perfectly comfortable with the general project of American global hegemony. They are the ones who explain that it is actually progressive to bail out the banks etc., and that in doing so, the current guy saved us from disaster.

Those people don't need a party - they have one - its called the Democratic party..

That's fine. I just have no more interest in cohabiting politically with those people.

---

by: tgs1952 @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:40:52 AM UTC

At One Level, You're Really Missing John's Point (0.00 / 0)

Sentimental hatred is as misguided as sentimental love as a guiding principle.  You need to consider to what extent their commitments and allegiances can be useful, regardless of whatever else.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:59:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The two major parties are a fact of life and an instituional power (0.00 / 0)

They've essentially gained possession of part of the democratic process, and they're squeezing the life out of it. They're not invulnerable, but their institutional power means that we have to play somewhat on their turf, whether we like it or not. We similarly have to find a way to deal with the actualities of the media.

This isn't new.  Between 1865 and 1932 the major parties were, if anything, more corrupt and more right-wing  than they are now. (I am getting ready a diary on this topic).  There are things we can do to fight this, but starting a national third party is not the place to start.

The golden age of American politics was never. It's always been a tough fight against the odds.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 13:29:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, they as much on the take as are the R's (0.00 / 0)

It's called corporate cash. Not ideology, not weakness. Corruption! It matters not what party they are, they are all funded by the same special interests. THEY own our democracy, and we must buy it back. Only public funding of campaigns will let us win.

Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
http://SinglePayer.info

Jack Lohman

http://MoneyedPoliticians.net

http://SinglePayer.info

---

by: jlohman @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 14:44:08 PM UTC

The two parties will be vested interests even more so then (0.00 / 0)

Besides the problem of corruption, the parties themselves are a problem. How is it decided who gets the public financing?

I'm not against public financing, it might help some,  but I don't see it as a solution. There's still be a gatekeeper or gatekeepers.

One thing I'll get to later: the parties are corrupt and they serve the vested interests, but the party structure can be a problem in itself.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 16:30:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]