Tweet
The American people are now very favorably inclined towards the idea of an independent presidential candidate challenging both Barack Obama and the eventual Republican nominee next year. According to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll an overwhelming 61 percent favor the idea of such a challenge, while only 32 percent hold an unfavorable opinion of a possible independent run.
The result is not surprising. The American public is experiencing near record levels of dissatisfaction with America’s two major political parties. Thousand of Americans have been protesting in the streets for weeks, and Congress’ job approval is at its lowest level ever. So it’s logical that the majority of Americans are at least open to the idea of totally new and different leadership. The American people are clearly upset with Washington and the two parties that have been running the country.
While it is still very unlikely that we will see a non-Democrat/Republican presidential candidate develop the massive fundraising apparatus, the broad base or popular support and the logistical operation necessary to become even a minor force in the upcoming election, it wouldn’t be for the lack of popular desire for more options.
This poll clearly shows the reason we don’t have more than two political parties nationally isn’t because the American people think our current choices are sufficient. The reason we face the choice of only a Democrat or a Republican in almost every election is that the two parties have worked together to rig the election laws to favor either of these parties, or both, but not others. The two parties worked together to reduce choice so they only need to be slightly less worse than each other to win an election.
In Presidential elections in countries like Ireland or France voters have multiple parties and candidates running, because their election laws make it possible to have more viable candidates. France uses a traditional run off system, and Ireland uses instant run off voting for its presidential elections. These systems help reduce the “spoiler effect” issue that plagues third party candidates in the United States Presidential elections.
120 Comments
Well, I feel vindicated for insisting for years that we need a third party, and forgive all who “slung their arrows” at me for it. Priceless.
Grayson/Kucinich 2012! Although Dennis said he wouldn’t run for President again.
I like Grayson as a political activist type but I think a lot of people have a problem with his style. But I feel ya!
I was in Ireland when they had their elections. new bunch put in power and guess what did what old bunch did and then some. seems campaign promises are just a malarky.
Feingold for Prez?
I’m thick today…I don’t follow what you are trying to say. didn’t follow that story as closely as I should have.
So how do we persuade Paul Krugman to run?
It would be so healthy for the country if we had an Independent running. That person might not be able to put a great organization together for every state but at least someone would be out there talking about a different way to handle our problems. And we might get more serious stuff than “in God we trust” debates.
What do you guys think of Buddy Roemer? I know he’s technically a Republican, but they won’t even invite him to the debates. He has a personal ban on corporate donations and is asking people to limit personal donations to $100. He has said he will fight to end money in campaigns. Lawrence Lessig is backing him with the #rootstrikers campaign…
type too quickly. just saying Ireland may have a system that allows for more parties but the end result the new party in power went on to carry out old parties agenda re austerity etc.
I am in your corner. *g*
Grayson is too much of an outspoken advocate IMO. I simply see executives and legislators in two different roles. I don’t view Governors and Senators as necessarily interchangeable.
Jon… did you happen to look for any trendlines in this poll? Is 61% higher or lower than in the past?
I think Russ already endorsed Obama.
I think it doesn’t matter who sits in the OO any more. As soon as he gets there, he’ll be bought off.
OWS is the only hope.
It’s just another rigged aspect of our society, designed to serve and protect the interests of the wealthy elite oligarchy.
I know who I think would make the best candidate. Although she has said she is not interested … and I fully understand why, were she to accept that challenge, beginning today, by 2016, this person who is trusted and gaining more respect and greater recognition … every single day, could very well win the presidency, which, so far as I am concerned, would be one of the best things that could happen to this nation, to the world, to humanity, in general, as well as to life-forms everywhere and to Mother Nature, herself.
I am rather certain that a number of you know of whom I speak.
DW
I’ll second THAT nomination, eCAHN!!!
DW
If an electable challenger arose on the left of Obama, I would walk the soles off my shoes to get him/her elected.
Boxturtle (I wear skater shoes, it’ll take a LONG time to wear through those puppies)
First step: Take the money out of politics – public financing only, a reasonable set amount for each candidate. Until we do that, we’re only dreaming.
d’oh! thanks.
very very good point.
Anybody who is game enough to run as independent would still have to have truckloads of cash to compete with wall street backed party hacks.
so…another way to read this poll is that some people think elections and voting will still make a difference, if only the “right” person came along who was immune to the River of Corruption that is DC?
Would need to find someone that is 110% in agreement with (follow the link)
http://www.sparrowmedia.net/declaration/
click on the expand button in the picture
I no longer Trust any current politician like Feingold, if he was honest he might agree with 50% of the above. Now for some reason I would trust Dennis Kucinich.
A lot of things couldn’t be done before they were done, a lot !
That would be my interpretation, as well as my reaction to any the names so far suggested on this thread.
As I repetitively type, humans are alpha male led & are always looking for a savior. Personally, I think that just gets you out of the frying pan into the fire.
Are you talking about Elizabeth “Fighting terrorism is our highest priority!” Warren? I “resigned” from her Facebook page after that comment.
Agreed, though I’d go further. Make it illegal to give any kind of gift or contribution to any candidate or elected official, under penalty of death for both if the latter accepts it. After generations of corruption, it would take drastic measures to change the system.
Taking the money out of politics is far from perfect. Look at Judd Gregg. Or look at Chris Dodd.
Thankfully, Dodd didn’t move to Wall Street. But I understand that some (many??) of his staff had already accepted Wall Street jobs while they were still writing Dodd / Frank.
Money would mitigate the risk of corruption as pols continued to seek office. But as soon as they decide to jump ship… the bidding begins…
We must vote for the progressive third party of our choice. It would wreck your karma to vote for Obama at this point.
Of course, it’s always strange talking about third parties with progressives, who invariably try to beat down any hopes anyone might have.
No, msmolly, someone very much closer to “home”.
Someone who is not a politician, nor does she wish to become one … however, she is a leader who leads by principled example, wit, capacity and genuine understanding …
(That commment rightly suggests that Warren is simply more of the same …)
DW
I’m confident DW is talking about Jane. She would be FANTASTIC… partly for the reason that — like George Washington — she really has little interest in holding office.
For all these years we have been told, again and again, that to vote for someone not of either party was to throw away one’s vote. However, what in the hell words have either party spoken that were truthful? I am disinclined to believe anything from either party. They are liars. Sad but true. They will say anything. There is only one party, bought and paid for. 2012 is a lost cause with regard to launching a viable 3rd party. So, I have decided to write in a candidate… in every slot I am given a choice. And I choose to vote for #OWS, and the 99%. Both parties pay attention even to write ins. My message will be more than clear I think. Just my plan with regards to the non choice choices facing me in 2012. The system really is broken. The question is, can it be repaired?
Okay, this article, although written by progressive, is reflecting the efforts of a movement for a CENTRIST alternative to Obama and the GOP nominee. There’s a big funded movement by big money to use the internet to nominate a centrist who’d be liberal on social issues and conservative fiscally. Thus this is basically the old school Republicans, the country clubbers, trying to have a voice again. You know the ones who want their daughters to get safe abortions and their Gay nephews to have rights but still want policies that protect their interests as the wealthy elite. I don’t know why they think they don’t have this already in the Democrats. The person they really want is Bloomberg. Tom Friedman is a big force behind all this.
As far as Third Party of Independent candidates on the Left we already have that. It’s called the GREEN Party. There already will be at least one candidate from the left.
The poll is meaningless for an obvious reason if you stop and think about it. I’d expect that 1/3 or that 61% want a Tea Party type Independent. 1/3 want a Centrist like Bloomberg. The last 1/3 want someone on the Left. This reduces the number of supporters to 20% for each and those 20% will shrink to only a few who will not in the end choose their own idea of the “lesser of two evils” from the Democrats and Republicans because they’ll figure their ideal candidate has no chance. So we’ll have at the most a few percent for these indie candidates.
But the bottom line is we don’t need a centrist alternative, we already have that in Obama and Romney will really not be that different.
#1 on the platform ” I will not authorize the killing of anyone ” because like the death penalty we can’t distinguish the guilty from the innocent.
Many people seem to think it’s impossible to fight the corruption of Washington. But I think if Jane ran for Senate and teamed up with Powwow to fight Harry on the floor… she could do America proud.
She wouldn’t even need to touch ideological issues. The system is so corrupt she could simply, challenge Harry on good government issues in a procedural sense… and turn Washington on its head.
I’m not sure if Rand Paul has a parliamentarian on his staff with the stature of Powwow… but if he did… or if Jane joined The Club… I think watching C-Span may suddenly be fun…
I hope you are thinking of Elizabeth Warren and not Hillary Clinton.
Yes that ‘s true, Fine Gael is really not any different ideologically from Fianna Fail. But that’s largely a result of endemic Irish issues and history going back to the war, not the voting system. Their non-firstpastthepost system has allowed there to be a diversity of parties represented in Parliament including Labour and Sinn Fein (both “third” parties there) repping center left/social democrats and 5 outright socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland). While it clearly hasn’t reversed Ireland’s right wing economic structure (yet), the system allows the left a foothold in Parliament to gain publicity and respect.
It cannot be repaired. It cannot be “saved”.
It must be allowed to collapse. Utterly, or we will arrive right back at this same place, in rather short dis-order.
When it has failed, obviously and beyond doubt … then we may rebuild upon principle, beginning with the Rule of Law … which is the ONLY means by which a civil society may arise and be sustained.
What do you think, walkinboots?
DW
I used to buy into that idea that I should support the Democratic Party and work within it to make it what we need. But I’ve woken up (cue “Wake Up” by Rage Against the Machine) and realize the current system is broken. So I will continue to vote and vote for the candidate that my conscience tells me to, if there is one, and not worry about if he or she is electable. For me voting is now about my conscience, not about pragmatics since the system is so broken the only way to change it is from outside. Occupy is only the beginning.
Tim White, @31, has got it, LWoLW.
The political class and those who aspire to it … are not capable of or willing to value truth and justice above money and privilege …
Period.
DW
As ideologically supportive as I am for a third party, in the END, it will come down to just TWO one way or the other, won’t it? I don’t know WHY we get such poor choices these days. Perhaps any really smart, honest, and devoted public servants don’t want the job or can’t get the backing and funding with those qualities. If you aren;t willing to be a shill for the rich and the corporations, you don’t have a chance to get elected.
Unless we have term limits and campaign finance reform, which the SCOTUS has alread sete b ack 100 years, THIS is what we are stuck with for infinity or beyond.
Damn depressing. Only a revolution will change the course of history. I can only hope we have one “in the making.”
DW wrote: “The political class and those who aspire to it … are not capable of or willing to value truth and justice above money and privilege.”
———- WOW. That’s profound. Can I use that???
Well, it would be a start.
Only as long as you realize that the media are a part of the political class, ncg …
The Divine Right of Money … and all that …
;~DW
DW… I think so too. Hence my notification, via my write in, that I am refusing to play. Wish I had a crystal ball to see how things would be unfolding. Damn, where’s the crystal gazing ball when you need one?!
I AM THE 61%. We need a real alternative other than Assclown for Corporate America #1 or Assclown for Corporate America #2.
Sanders/Warren 2012.
Not Keith Olbermann?
Pleased to have your exalted company. ;-)
Like Humpty Dumpty it can’t be “put back together again.” The ancient regime is dead.
I think that statement is generally fair. But while both Geo Washington and Cincinnatus were leaders and were offered dictatorships, neither accepted. So there are such rarities that have existed throughout the history of mankind.
I offer that Jane and my guy, Ron Paul, are similar. I feel that either would strongly prefer to avoid the spotlight altogether. But there are moments in time when good people should not — cannot — sit on the sidelines. And although they have different visions for the world, I think Ms. H and Dr. P both are also highly unusual in that they have a strong understanding of the world and mankind.
One of KO’s bigger mistakes was supporting Obama so forcefully in 2008. He regrets it, I think.
So long as “the people” dare to seize control of their own combined and inter-connected destinies, whatever the hardships and cost, then “things” will unfold to the better, to the good, to the just, to the honest, to reason, toward tolerence, and to understanding.
All that is required is the courage … to be.
OWS has moved “things” … forward, walkinboots, however, more suffering is yet, apparently, required for the majority of human beings in America to find their courage and themselves …
The unfolding has well and truly begun … “The biginning is near …”
DW
I also think that unnamed person would make a wonderful champion. OTOH, she may be too cute to be President. ;-)
Repeat “If good men will not come to the service of their Country, others will” J Adams
More dangerous at the Boggateria than here, methinks.
DW wrote: “The biginning is near …”
———–OK, I gotta call you on that one.I think that was said either by WInstson Churchill or Homer Simpson. I’m not sure which.
I don’t like what THAT implies.:-)
There are plenty of billionaires and multi millionaires in this country, you’d think a couple of them could get together and finance an independent candidate.
You mean Dana Delany????
Let’s poll OWS strong supporters and who they want to run; agree this poll is meaningless other than to say 61% have no faith or hope in current regime.
I think they both said it. To each other lol.
Does Olbermann dare say what Jane Hamsher, David Dayen, or Marcy Wheeler dare to say … and have long been saying?
Does Olbermann say those things before FDL or Emptywheel say them?
I’d be far more inclined to trust Bill Moyers than rely upon Olbermann’s “grasp”, but that is merely my opinion.
I give Olbermann credit for saying what he does, and hope he will dare to say more … the question remains, whom does Olbermann “work” for?
There is media and there is “media”, where do you “place” Olbermann?
With whom does Olbermann ultimately side?
I guess my questions betray my doubts, ncg?
Will Olbermann visit OWS … and quietly listen … for as long as it takes … or will he “interpret” for the rest of us?
Will he not merely “cover the news” … but “uncover” it, as well … to determine those things of actual use to real human beings who wish to save democracy and their own human-scale future?
Does Olbermann even ask himself questions like that?
DW
Nope. Guess again. Hint: She’s blonde.
It was that baseball guy … what’s'isname?
;~DW
Is Grayson speaking truth to the D party yet?
Is Feingold speaking truth to the D party yet?
Noone’s perfect, but I think Olbermann and Cenk are the best we have, or ever will have, on TV.
BTW, you heard about MF Global, I presume. NOW, guess who trades at MF Global, and is completely fucked by this turn of events?
It’s been true since 1797.
Yes, I’ve heard about MF Global …
Don’t tell me … rc …
(Okay, tell me … I’m not gonna like this, am I?)
DW
This is little more than a top-down view. But perhaps the Occupiers coalesce a little more, field someone. . . Problem is, you still have to govern in a corrupt capitalist state, preside over a failing and unsustainable system.
Only, privately, to Israel.
I offer you this, if you’ve not seen it, rc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/occupy-wall-street_b_1071288.html
DW
But you have the bully pulpit. It was very effective for Teddy and Harry and FDR.
Client’s trading account (my ONLY client!!!!!) frozen, pending further development. Just as I’m calling another major downturn, which is my meat, as 99% of my trades are short trades. They might as well have cut my legs off.
Bill Moyers ????
The reason candidates are hand-picked is that the Fed has been in complete control of this country since 1933 and has never, ever given it up.
The banksters pick presidential candidates. Both of em.
Congress members are bought, blackmailed or threatened into submission.
That’s why, in case you’re wondering, despite electing a completely Democratic government in 2008, they couldn’t get shit done. Their bankster overlords wouldn’t allow it.
Thanks, DW, excellent piece, I had not seen it. Moyers is a treasure. Of course, I was already a member of the choir. ;-)
Damn! realitychecker, I think universe is trying to tell you that it’s time to do something else … I’ve always thought that you had a very important story to tell, a compelling narrative that only you can share, one that will move a different and deeper understanding to the fore.
Man, you are in my thoughts, even more heavily and solidly than before … when “they” take your means of survival … then “they” take your life.
Keep calling it like you see it but, please, share it effectively with many more souls …
I had wondered where you traded and simply ask, now, that you keep me and the rest of us informed … you matter a hell of a lot more than John Corzine does, certainly to me and others, here.
For the moment, or a while, I’m shit out of words, rc. Damn.
DW
Roseanne Barr For President – She won’t fuck you over.
Thank you, DW. At times like this, all I can do to console myself is to remember that I have the cherished friendship of quality people like your wonderful self. Is the universe trying to tell me something? Dunno, but I sure have had a million unlikely setbacks come at me from left field in recent years. Too many, really, for any one lifetime. I am a good and insightful trader, and like the work. But, since the markets have become all about the govt and what some asshat politician says next, it’s been way too hard. Incidentally, I called the exact bottom in 2009, and predicted 80% of the incredible rally that took place afterwards, but my trading account got frozen then, too, keeping me from re-establishing my personal security, because, post-Madoff, an over-eager compliance person doing CYA after decades of non-enforcement chose to make an example out of me for meeting my client on the Internet, after I gave a free two week audition and earned paper profits of 30,000% annualized basis (no typo). So, they “protected” him out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, minimum, by refusing to let me trade that bottom for him, notifying me of the freeze only after I entered and they refused to execute what would have been the perfect buy order. I’ve had to wait almost three years for the next major turning point, the predicting of which is the best part of what I do, and it is here now, and I am in shackles again. I may use the free time to write the story of my life, but it will have to be a black comedy lol. Anyway, thanks for your support, dear friend. Priceless.
Won’t change any time soon either. Why?
Obama himself latched onto the progressive label. I’d argue that already tells us the progressive label is meaningless. If you noticed, people really haven’t rallied around the progressive label. The 99% label on the other hand, whole another story.
A “third party” (TP) that is worth our support would have to be built from the ground up. The D-n-R duopoly stands in the way. One of those wings of the 1% party would need to be smashed. The system is rigged to only allow two parties so talking TP without acknowledging the stranglehold the duopoly has, is tiresome at best.
If we can’t have a TP because of the stranglehold of the duopoly, can’t we at least have independent candidates who reject the duopoly in the meantime? The TP would be independent from the duopoly, correct? So, these candidates would be declaring their independence by going TP but if the TP does not exist, what is stopping them from just running as independents in the meantime? Is it because that’s too scary and they wouldn’t have any influence without a TP to stand by?
The Progressive wing of the dem party doesn’t even have the dignity to stand up to failed policy unless they play rotating villain. I’d argue that any hope in a progressive wing is as baseless as believing obama means well and that’s good enough for them.
What is so scary about declaring independence from the duopoly? Bernie Sanders is an independent. Why does he have to stand alone?
This country didn’t need a third party before declaring independence. Rather the oppressor and illegitimate government was identified and defeated. Much of the political organization came much later. Now isn’t the time for half measures or nickel-and-dime hope, one of these two parties needs to die.
Watch out Jon, TBogg will call you all kinds of derogatory terms for even making this suggestion.
As for an “independent” candidate, let’s go right beyond a former or present member of Congress. They are already too corrupted by the system.
Better to let the rigged private third party voting machines throw away our vote. Just wanted to help expose that meme.
Depends upon how one defines the system but I don’t think so.
The 99% is about awakening new possibilities.
Settling for bandaids is what we’ve been doing far too long.
The Senate is a cesspool. Sending anyone with integrity there is punishment.
We don’t need a hero. That’s what 99% is about, the people, not leaders or hope misplaced in a hero however well intentioned and loved.
But how many of that 61% would vote for an independent candidate?
Kim Kardashian won’t be old enough to run until the 2016 election, so I don’t care. :p
For every person working within to make it better, there are multi-layers of idiots and partisans ensuring the efforts don’t go anywhere.
anyone else think the Senate is in worse shape than the Oval Office? just wondering…
TBogg is TBagg with an O for Obama. (Same degree of rationality as the baggers.)
ah, there you are…yeah, couldn’t agree with you more.
I do wish we could weed out some of the ones that are really augered in and do no good.
But if you don’t do it thru the system, how do you make necessary changes? The only other option that comes to mind for me is passive / violent revolution… and I’m guessing that most revolutions are violent. I prefer using the voting booth.
The Senate may be worse in that it has the ability and the responsibility to hold the POTUS accountable. The POTUS holds such authority… just the bully pulpit.
The Democratic and Republican politicians are so out of touch with average Americans that I’m willing to bet a large number of that 61% would vote for an “Independent”. When you have two legacy parties which try to shove “austerity” policies at a time when so many people are sliding out of the middle class, it results in a great deal of anger by the citizens. Both legacy parties, but especially Obama have been complicit in NOT bringing justice in regards to Wall Street activities. Inequality, whether in regards to “justice” or economically is getting worse. The idea of four more years of the same is appalling for many. So, I think yes…an independent could do well with voters.
How is something like Occupy “passive” revolution?
The voting booth? The machines that do the counting are easily corrupted and simply illegitimate. Exit polls stopped predicting US elections though they are still a standard everywhere else for determining fair elections (or so I’ve heard on Hartmann).
The kind of change we are reaching for exceeds any possibilities the ballot box offers.
Kucinich? Really? I still can’t believe he caved on the health care bill simply because, as he openly admitted, he didn’t want to be the only one to vote against it. I just don’t see much backbone in the guy.
obama offered to drop him off midway on the flight without a chute. Dennis found it very persuasive.
Ho-hum, (yawn). US has had numerous third party and independent Presidential candidates though out its history, some of major impact. US political “system,” being a major arm of The Empire, has stymied all of them because it ties them up in knots thru a labyrinth of arcaneness. Much more fundamental change in US governance is mandatory to permit fundamental change. “Devolution and Dissolution” anyone?
Absolutely. But, at least, a third party candidate forces the other two to address issues they would otherwise ignore.
A radical – but is it naive? – thought. If both parties have perfected the exclusion of a third party from the electoral process with their massive cash machines, with their slick narrowing of their political and policy differences and with their reliance on our first-past-the-post electoral system, then the electoral process is a Potemkin institution, a pseudo-spectacle of representative government that can be used as a propaganda tool, namely, that the system “works” even if the results don’t produce change.
So here’s the thought – an organized, highly publicized boycott of the general elections. It will only work if it is organized, if the point of the boycott is communicated over and over and, as a result, if the (non)participants (non)acting in concert are large. A boycott requires no fundraising, no party organization and no hierarchy (à la OWS). It would be a simple, massive act delegitimating a political institution that is nearly a complete and utter sham. Best of all, there is simply no way to control a boycott. A boycott is not the same act as my silently not getting off the couch to vote and telling a few people later that I hadn’t done so any more than a bus boycott is the same as my not getting on a bus.
I’m interested in others’ thoughts about this notion.
Great radical heroes and changers-of-the-system all?
A sizable portion of the electorate carries out just such a boycott every four years.
,
Romney? Say it isn’t so!
If five people showed up to vote despite the boycott, the candidate with three votes would declare a mandate.
Agreed, it’s been working wonders. To be fair, Ex ponto said it needs to be organized.
To Exponto@100 Not voting already serves the duopoly. Election boycotters will only inherit more of the same dirt and filth. Willing disenfranchisement will never be part of the solution, it’s fundamentally against the goals, isn’t it? Bring the hammer down on the duopoly, boycotting elections just seems too much like surrender.
I’d vote for Nader at this point.
I’m thinking that removal of money from politics has become impossible. And, sunshine laws are just one step behind, making third party/independent candidates more or less a pipe dream. But, a “none of the above” on every ballot, while monstrously difficult is still doable. Just sayin’…
Thank goodness! I was worried she was talking about the one who caved on the cookie-baking remark.
If Ross Perot was in his 60′s now and rode into this election as a third party candidate he would bury both Zero and whoever the R’s nominate. Bury, I tell you, bury.
I think, as much as that pains me, that a different president will likely make no difference. BUT, if we send most of the curent legislaturds packing, THAT could really send a message and, ultimately, affect change in our lifetime.
OWS is not purely passive, but I’ve lived in Haiti for the past year. Last December I heard the gunfire every night. Tires burning in the streets.
It wasn’t the Battle of Yorktown or D-Day, but Haiti makes OWS look relatively passive in my mind.
Regardless, I see your point. I just happen to think it’s passive compared to what could come to pass in America if Washington continues to see We the People down the river…
I’d rather people find a 3rd party on their ballot and cast a vote. The parties need to know how many voters are willing to go to the polls and vote AGAINST both.
Watch RT.TV, Alyona on the Alyona Show. Very good.
Maybe, think less “passive revolution” and more passive resistance?
passive resistance: Resistance by nonviolent methods to a government, an occupying power, or specific laws, as refusing to comply, demonstrating in protest, or fasting.
Wrong party won. Compare with Iceland, there the real left won, and the austerity agenda ended.
Great Moyers piece linked to above.
I agree with the idea that independents are the way forward for the foreseeable future. The electorate is fertile ground right now for indies to succeed, putting together a consensus machine will sap the energy and focus of any likely to try that route. The only way a third party has a prayer is if some altruist billionaire wills it into being by spending hundreds of millions.
Jeffrey Sachs
While we in the U.S. should not idealize the E.U. democracies, I would like to point out that, in addition to a multiparty system, the E.U. has private, member-based party organizations. One of the 1,000s of local card carrying party members will be living near enough to you that you can talk to them.
Also, if you are in the upper middle class, you can pay for membership in the national party of your choice. Then you can run for seats, or more reasonably vote on candidates running for seats, on the party executive committee. That is better than being a manager in a U.S.corporation, and donating your time or money to the party of your corporations board of directors choice, to help ensure that you get that next promotion!
Finally someone that understands the legal restrictions of modern U.S. political parties.
There is one positive development that hopefully might make it possible to achieve change with less than a billion dollars. Communication is cheaper today, and cannot be blocked by the gatekeeper media – aka advertiser funded, or aka Corporate, media. Parties can distribute political platforms directly to the voter.
One elected politician cannot pass a law. One elected politician cannot even get a bill out of a committee! Why should a voter have any enthusiasm for candidates that cannot find another single candidate that agrees with them – on a single specific issue?
Do they work? Seems they do!
http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html
No, lying on the couch and gazing in a hopeless stupor at the box does not comprise a boycott, no matter how many people do it. A boycott is organized beforehand by people who know they have no other options and who have the will to unite and get a consistent message out. I infer from the responses I’m reading that we’re not there: everyone seems to believe that there may still be — somewhere, somehow –options with respect to voting.
I myself see only three options: one, playing along (voting Democrat, a revolting idea); two, boycotting (an idea that would have to have broad support and catch fire and be used as a propaganda weapon); and, three, voting for a third party (as greenbell suggests) or writing in a vote. Note that all three options are truly pointless with respect to achieving desirable electoral results. The only value of any of these gestures is symbolic; they’re socially valuable symbolically only if they’re organized on a large scale. This is exactly the significance of the OWS movement. The objective of OWS is to be seen, to register its and our outrage in the public conscience and consciousness, nothing more, as far as I can see up to this point. A wise strategy, in my view, because they have no entree to the system. Wise, too, because they haven’t been co-opted and can’t be co-opted. They’re out there because no one in Washington is listening, but they aren’t “achieving” anything other than making people throughout the country and the world conscious of our shared fates. The OWS movement is expressing its and our powerlessness in the system, which includes the electoral system. I suggested a boycott not because it would return some kind of concrete result – nothing to do with the electoral system is going to do that, if you pause and reflect — but because if the objective to withhold participation is announced in advance and repeated insistently, a boycott draws attention to the fact that voting is pointless, that the voters understand that it’s pointless and that we’re not playing along any more. This is the one and only point of a boycott in this context: to generate publicity, exactly as the OWS movement has done. The same point can be made by a concerted write-in or third party campaign, but again, that tack has little effect without coordination. In my view, the hope that elections as they are conducted now are going to change anything is, in my view, self-deluding. Facing our prospects squarely, I would say that every genuine expression of discontent in the voting booth in 2012 is going to be a futile protest vote. That’s not the point. The point, the objective is to create awareness. That, in the end, is what will bring this system down.