New Jersey Whig: Independent Advocacy against Voter Co-Dependency

Gene Baldassari was a Modern Whig Party candidate for the New Jersey State Assembly in the 2009 elections. Baldassari "polled 1.22% of the vote, according to unofficial returns," as we read at Ballot Access News. In his analysis of the election's results, the Whig emphasizes the power of incumbency and the necessity of changing the mentality, if not the very political consciousness, of the American electorate:

In the recent NJ Assembly election, every incumbent was re-elected. There were about 95 challengers, each with different degrees of political experience, different tactics, and different levels of political expertise. There was not one winner among those who challenged an incumbent.

During the 2009 NJ election season, citizens complained about overpriced schools, the highest property taxes in the nation, and a bad business climate for jobs. But they re-elected the legislature that caused these problems. [Emphasis added.]

Then there were the citizens who spoke about the need to break the addiction on high taxation and irresponsible spending caused by the monopoly parties. But, out of fifteen independent Assembly candidates, all, except one candidate, received about one percent of the vote. There was one candidate who received three percent of the vote. That was hardly a resounding cry to break the stronghold . . .

The voting majority behaves as if it is unpatriotic or sinful to vote for anyone who is not a member of a monopoly party. These monopoly parties are collectively guaranteed almost all of the votes, to the exclusion of candidates who are not running with these party labels.

Consequently, the voting majority has given the monopoly parties the ability to alter voter perception in order to sway votes between these monopoly parties. They promote voting for the better of two evils so that everyone believes that evil is their only option. Because they can limit their campaigning to shifting votes rather than earning them, very few of them would win if they had to compete for votes the same way as non-members of the monopoly (third parties) . . .

This voter mindset must be broken before we can kill the political beast that destroyed our country. That is why voter education is more important than ever. [Emphasis added.]

3 comments:

Samuel Wilson said...

Just at this moment I had a wacky thought: what if term limits applied to parties? That is, if a state enacts a term-limit law, the elected official's party would be ineligible for the next election. Wouldn't that force people to create new parties all the time, and wouldn't that constant shifting of the partisan landscape erode the perception that there are only ever two choices, or the perception that, if you have certain political beliefs, you only have one choice? This is certainly a utopian notion, but what isn't in our discussions?

Ross Levin said...

Unrelated, but you should do a post about the new Vermont Working Families Party and what you think of fusion - it has been used to destroy established third parties (eg, the Populist Party), but could it be used to launch a third party? Food for thought.

d.eris said...

hah. That's definitely a "wacky" idea Sam. In a way, though, isn't that really how the two party system already works in a lot of cases? The governing party becomes discredited, and so voters turn to the other option? One of the things that's been confusing MSM commentators recently is that discontent with the Democrats has not led to excitement about Republicans. This confusion reveals the expectation that power is just supposed to shift back and forth between the two parties.

Ross, yes, I just posted on the Vermont WFP, but held off on a wider discussion of fusion. I've played with the idea of an extended post on fusion before, but need to do a bit more reading on the history first. Thanks for the kick.

 
http://www.wikio.com