How Democrats and Republicans conspire to keep Libertarians off the ballot

[Truth-Bringer]

The Corrupt Status Quo versus American Values

Third Parties Fight for American Democracy

People are disgusted with the pro-war, pollution-loving, corrupt Republicans and Democrats. So why don't third parties succeed more? The answer, observes Joel S. Hirschhorn, is that third parties are artificially held back by special laws and habits created by the two corrupt parties, for the purpose of reducing our choices in elections.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

A great democracy offers citizens sharp political choices. That’s what gives political freedom meaning. With two-party control of America’s political system, political options and discourse are stifled. We badly need more visible third-parties that can fully participate and reach the public with information about their platforms and candidates. In a nation that so worships competition it is hypocritical that there is so little political competition.

In truth, the Democratic-Republican partnership opposes competition. They have convinced Americans that votes for third party candidates are “wasted.” Yet the biggest wasted vote is for a Democrat or Republican that is almost certain to win or lose, and takes your vote for granted. This year, even in the face of enormous public dissatisfaction with the two major parties, and a widespread belief that both are hopelessly corrupted by big money from corporate and other special interests, too many voters sheepishly picked from column D or R, even for sure winners or losers.

Rest of article at:

http://www.progress.org/2006/hirsch06.htm



"Too many libertarians (whether or not they're in the Libertarian Party) fail to recognize the enormous obstacles that any third-party campaign faces -- and they ignore the tremendous opportunities the Libertarian presidential campaign offers.

* Obstacles


America has a 2-party system, but not because of popular demand.

The Democrats and Republicans have legislated third parties into irrelevance -- using five principal methods: donation limits, reporting laws, campaign subsidies, the Debate Commission, and ballot-access laws.

To give you just two examples of the impact of these hurdles:

In 2000, the presidential campaign raised $2.6 million, but $250,000 of that had to be diverted into ballot-access drives in just two states: Pennsylvania and Arizona. That's money that could have gone into advertising, but instead was of no value in campaign outreach.

In my home state of Tennessee, Republicans and Democrats are listed on the ballot with their party labels. But candidates of any other parties must be listed as "Independent." Thus anyone who enters the polling booth determined to vote against the two major parties must know already which third-party candidate to vote for. If he doesn't, he'll be afraid to choose among the "Independents," not knowing which of them might be a Nazi or a Communist.

These are just two examples of the legislative barriers placed in the way of third parties. To list all the various hurdles would fill a good-sized book."

Rest of article at:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/printer_226.shtml

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Rest of article at:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/printer_226.shtml

New link:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/LibertarianVoteTotal.htm

 

[Chip]

There is no conspiracy to keep Libertarians off the ballot.

The libertarian lack of a social conscious coupled with their worship of money and the Money System that would eliminate needed cooperative government functions conspires all by itself to keep liberatarians unpalatable as Presidential (and other) candidates.

The "conspiracy" ... is self-inflicted.

 

[Bunz]

The problem Chip isnt just for libertarians, but for any third party or no party candidate. Often times due to legislation brought forth by either of the two major parties has put signifigant hurdles in front of other parties. Petition drives being one of them. Often times one must collect enough petition signatures as one as to launch a recall election.
I have said before many times, that the one thing the democrats and republicans can agree on is to squash any upstart with a chance. The 2006 election for Alaska governor is a perfect example. Where you had a very interesting race, You had a former governor and very well known democrat(Knowles) an upstart GOP candidate (Palin) who defeated the incumbent in the GOP primary, and a former state GOP legislator who was fed up with the two party system in Juneau and ran as an independant(Halcro). By most accounts Halcro was the smartest guy in the room during the debates. But the focus of the party ads from both sides became not about themselves but about squashing Halcro. Palin did win, in somewhat of an upset. But regardless, I watched this process take place on a statewide level over several weeks and months with my own two eyes.

 

[top gun]

The problem Chip isnt just for libertarians, but for any third party or no party candidate. Often times due to legislation brought forth by either of the two major parties has put signifigant hurdles in front of other parties. Petition drives being one of them. Often times one must collect enough petition signatures as one as to launch a recall election.
I have said before many times, that the one thing the democrats and republicans can agree on is to squash any upstart with a chance. The 2006 election for Alaska governor is a perfect example. Where you had a very interesting race, You had a former governor and very well known democrat(Knowles) an upstart GOP candidate (Palin) who defeated the incumbent in the GOP primary, and a former state GOP legislator who was fed up with the two party system in Juneau and ran as an independant(Halcro). By most accounts Halcro was the smartest guy in the room during the debates. But the focus of the party ads from both sides became not about themselves but about squashing Halcro. Palin did win, in somewhat of an upset. But regardless, I watched this process take place on a statewide level over several weeks and months with my own two eyes.

You bring up some valid points my friend.

I think that the two majority parties of course don't want any extra competition and let's fact it the rules of the game nor the big money is set up in favor of additional Parties.

I have very mixed feelings myself on third Parties. The thing I absolutely hate the most is a third Party that really only hurts the major Party that they are actually closer to in ideology i.e. Nader and the Green Party to the Democrats. I know the intent is to gain a larger influence in the major Party in subsequent elections but I just don't like the "spoiler" role.

On the other hand if a true third party with some genuinely different "read that better" strategy could be formed that actually could pull at least a full third of voters... that might not be a bad thing.

I'm interested in what you think? What everybody thinks for that matter. A real strong third party... Good or Bad for America?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Ideally, we'd have no political parties.

 

[Bunz]

Ideally, we'd have no political parties.

USMC hits it square in the X-ring here. We should be voting for individuals and not parties as so often happens. That is fine in a parlimentary system, but we dont have that. I think everyone will agree there is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than two ways to clean a fish. The only people that win with the two party system are those who seek office through it. The constituents certainly dont. Because there becomes two sides to the issue when in fact, many of the important issues have many sides and view points. So what one ends up with in the two party system is a clear winner and loser, or right and wrong if you will. Congress for instance, is such a large body, with such a diverse membership, with an even greater amount of sides being represented to have it fall in between the two party lines. Instead of coming to compromise and concensus, the majority party often gets to ramrod thier legislation through, and the party members who maybe dont agree with the bill, will often times get a visit from the party Whip to make sure they are supporting the bill. This is because the Party holds more power than the individual member of congress. The party holding more power is wrong on so many levels, but it is the fact of the matter in today's political atmosphere.

 

[Chip]

The problem Chip isnt just for libertarians, but for any third party or no party candidate. Often times due to legislation brought forth by either of the two major parties has put signifigant hurdles in front of other parties. Petition drives being one of them. Often times one must collect enough petition signatures as one as to launch a recall election.
I have said before many times, that the one thing the democrats and republicans can agree on is to squash any upstart with a chance. The 2006 election for Alaska governor is a perfect example. Where you had a very interesting race, You had a former governor and very well known democrat(Knowles) an upstart GOP candidate (Palin) who defeated the incumbent in the GOP primary, and a former state GOP legislator who was fed up with the two party system in Juneau and ran as an independant(Halcro). By most accounts Halcro was the smartest guy in the room during the debates. But the focus of the party ads from both sides became not about themselves but about squashing Halcro. Palin did win, in somewhat of an upset. But regardless, I watched this process take place on a statewide level over several weeks and months with my own two eyes.

Granted that the present Democrat-Republican dualism is a tough paradigmic nut to crack, but narrowly focused reactionistic "parties" are simply soft rubber nut-crackers.

When someone creates a truly better mousetrap of a political party, the vast majority will beat a path to its door.

 

[Chip]

Ideally, we'd have no political parties.

Egocentric isolationism is hardly ideal.

Political parties exist because like-minded people are still people, and thus cooperative in their natural desire to belong.

At least healthy people are.

Unhealthy people are sometimes prone to hermitage.

And, without a uniting philosophy to base accountability, charismatic leaders can quickly become despotically dictatorial, and evilly so.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Egocentric isolationism is hardly ideal.

Political parties exist because like-minded people are still people, and thus cooperative in their natural desire to belong.

At least healthy people are.

Unhealthy people are sometimes prone to hermitage.

And, without a uniting philosophy to base accountability, charismatic leaders can quickly become despotically dictatorial, and evilly so.

Who said anything about isolationism? Have you ever read Washington's Farewell Address?

 

[top gun]

Isn't it true though that without the "Party" system you'd have literally thousands of candidates running for every position and in the end it would still come down to who could raise the money to get his word out and set himself apart?

I think you need some establishment of the large core groups to get the job done. It would probably end up being nothing but gridlock & chaos without it.

We need to remember that tis isn't a real full fledged democracy we have set up here. It's a republic which means the same thing as a "representative democracy". Every individual doesn't vote on every issue. In a country this size it would be impossible. And we have other undemocratic things built into our system like the Electoral College as well.

Some Party establishment is needed in this political environment I'm sure.

 

[Chip]

Who said anything about isolationism? Have you ever read Washington's Farewell Address?

Washington isn't God.

And his request that we avoid forming political parties runs counter to understandable human behavior in the body politic.

Washington obviously wanted to be king more than he let on. ...

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Washington isn't God.

Of course not, but he was incredibly visionary and had unbelievable foresight. Do you remember the other two main things that he argued Americans needed to avoid in order for his infant republic to prosper.

I'll help you out: sectionalism/factionalism and "foreign entanglements". I think we take his warnings pretty damn seriously.

Washington obviously wanted to be king more than he let on. ...

Which is why it took both Hamilton and Jefferson (arch rivals for those history illiterate folks) to get him to run in 1792 for a second term.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

There is no conspiracy to keep Libertarians off the ballot.

You can call it whatever you like, but there is definitely an effort to keep all third parties off the ballot and out of power.

The libertarian lack of a social conscious coupled with their worship of money and the Money System that would eliminate needed cooperative government functions conspires all by itself to keep liberatarians unpalatable as Presidential (and other) candidates.

LOL. Actually it's arrogant liars like you who have given libertarians a bad name. As for the American people making a true decision on the matter based on political knowledge, you better guess again:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1023

 

[vyo476]

Some Party establishment is needed in this political environment I'm sure.

I don't agree. I think that with an effective organizational structure we could do without political parties. The process would be longer, yes, but it could be done.