The Difference Between Two-Party Politics and the Politics of Independence

It is a veritable cliche that Democratic-Republican party politics long ago degenerated into a charade in which the major party candidates and their surrogates traffic and trade in nothing more than substance-less soundbites and prefabricated talking points.  And, of course, the drones in the corporate media eat up the bullshit shoveled by these campaigns and spoon-feed it to a more or less unwilling public.  In order to differentiate themselves from their Democratic and Republican opponents, third party and independent candidates are effectively forced to engage in substantive policy discussions and debates.  Ironically, it is probably for this very reason that third party and independent candidates are not taken seriously by the mainstream media and a significant number of voters.  The opposition between the politics of the two-party state and the politics of independence could not be more clear than it is in the race for US Senate in Connecticut.  The Hartford Courant has begun to notice the difference:

Republican Linda McMahon and Democrat Richard Blumenthal are waging an ugly, multimillion-dollar battle for a seat in the U.S. Senate, but lost amid the noise and heat generated by that contest are the political ambitions of three other candidates.

John Mertens and Warren Mosler are each affiliated with minor parties; write-in candidate Brian K. Hill is running on his own. Yet each man has devoted a considerable amount of time to his quest. Mosler and Hill have invested thousands of their own dollars as well.

Instead of snappy sound bites and glitzy ads, Mertens and Mosler have websites packed with position papers. While the sniping between Blumenthal and McMahon has focused on character and personality, Mertens and Mosler favor wonkish assessments of monetary policy or arcane discussions about the politics of cellulose-based ethanol production.

John Mertens recently received endorsements from Connecticut Citizens for Ballot Initiative and Christina Tobin, the Chair and Founder of Free and Equal.  Check in at John Mertens for US Senate.

CT: "Shocked but not Surprised" – On the Sec. of State's Major Party Propaganda Campaign and Recruitment Drive

In a letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant, Pete Healey of the Proportional Representation Party weighs in on "affiliate and participate," the Connecticut Secretary of State's ongoing major party propaganda campaign and recruitment drive. Under the headline "Party Promotion is Wrong," Pete writes:

The campaign being conducted by Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz to encourage independent voters to affiliate with one or the other of the two major parties has become a topic of discussion outside Connecticut as well [courant.com, July 13, "Conn. Voters Urged To Register For Primaries"].

I'm shocked, but not surprised, that a statewide officeholder would shamelessly prop up the two major parties in this way to hype upcoming party primaries.

In New York, my county has a registration pattern similar to Connecticut's: Almost 40 percent of voters are not affiliated with either major party, with the Democrats and Republicans roughly equal at about 30 percent each. No statewide official here has ever, to my knowledge, attempted to do what Bysiewicz has done. To the contrary, in Democratic circles this year especially, an effort has been made to force Democrats to accept that party's endorsed candidates and suppress any primary campaigns.

I'm neither Democrat nor Republican and have little interest in their internal party affairs. And I would expect that statewide elected officials would, at least outwardly, express the same kind of disinterest. Isn't it a mistake for Ms. Bysiewicz to coax people toward one party or another, even when we know (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) that this two-party system is closed to all others?

Pete Healey, New Paltz, N.Y.

"Affiliate and Participate" might be more appropriately titled "Bait and Berate."

CT: Independent Candidate For Congress Files Complaint Against Sec. of State for Misuse of Public Funds for Political Ends

As you might recall, earlier this month Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz began an aggressive propaganda campaign instructing voters to register with the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of the state's August 10th primary elections. Byscewicz launched the effort at a press conference flanked by leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties and political establishment. In response to this partisan political push, Daniel Reale, an independent libertarian candidate for Congress in the state's 2nd CD, has now lodged a formal complaint against Byscewiz with the Office of State Ethics, the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the Federal Election Commission.

The complaint, a copy of which was sent to Poli-Tea, charges Bysiewicz with using state funds and resources to boost enrollment in two specific parties, misusing public funds to influence the outcome of federal and other elections, misusing the official seal of the Secretary of State's office for this purpose, and substantially complicating the ballot access petition efforts of third party and independent candidates for office in the state. Contacted via email, Mr. Reale says his ultimate goal is to "make sure the Secretary of State stops using public money and resources for political ends." (Read the full interview with Mr. Reale at Third Party and Independent Daily.) Asked what prompted him to lodge the complaint, he writes:

I'm opposed to the Secretary of State misusing her seal and public money in order to work on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats. Contrary to popular belief, the Secretary of State's office is not a political action committee. At the very least, the whole exercise is a political contribution to both major parties.

Reale said the Secretary of State's propaganda campaign was unexpected only in its brazenness:

Bysiewicz has been crossing into a legal gray area for years, using her office in ethically questionable ways to say the least. While I found this to be morally objectionable, these were the sort of things you couldn't legally hang your hat on. But I didn't expect something this egregious in terms of ethics, elections, misapplication of public resources and political action committee violations - all in the same package.

Confronted with criticism of her "Affiliate and Participate" campaign, as it's called, Bysiewicz has previously denied charges that she is engaged in a recruitment drive for the Democratic and Republican parties, inducing voters to favor them over minor parties and independents. Jon Kantrowitz at My Left Nutmeg quotes Bysiewicz stating:

Let me be clear: I am not trying to recruit new voters for the Republicans or Democrats or favor them over the minor parties. . . . the sole purpose of the Affiliate and Participate campaign is to educate the nearly 840,000 unaffiliated voters that if they want to vote in the August 10th primary, they must enroll with a major party.

Kantrowitz responds:

Susan is making a distinction between urging people to register for a political party, so that they can vote in that party's primary, and urging them to vote for a political party. In my humble opinion this is a distinction without a difference. I have no problem with informing people that they have the option, it's the urging to which I have an objection.

Bysiewicz claims that her propaganda campaign is purely educational in nature. However, the effort is clearly intended to lead voters into registering Democrat or Republican to shore up the registration rolls of the legacy parties, and provide them with the cover of popular political support (only 36% of the state's voters are registered Democrats, only 20% are registered Republicans). In a word: it is a broad attack against political independence. Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is no friend to the almost 1,000,000 unaffiliated and minor party voters in the Constitution State. Earlier this month, Bysiewicz issued a statement (July 13th) on a US Appeals Court Ruling on the Connecticut Clean Elections Law, saying: "The court rightly rejected the argument by US District Court Judge Stephen Underhill that this was somehow unfair to minor parties."

Among advocates of independent and third party politics, on the other hand, that very same decision was widely seen as a direct attack against independent voters and minor parties. Mike DeRosa is a litigant in the Green Party vs. Garfield lawsuit and a candidate for secretary of the state on the Green Party line. In an op-ed on the ruling for The Day, DeRosa argues that "silencing the minor parties won't fix major party corruption." He writes:

When the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently reversed federal Judge Stefan Underhill's decision, a reversal that will allow minor parties to have to meet a more difficult standard to gain public campaign finance funding, it proved to be a major disappointment for both the Green and Libertarian parties in Connecticut. The real losers in this decision, however, are the state's independent voters and taxpayers.

This decision props up a discriminatory state-sponsored subsidy program that increases the free-speech opportunities of the most popular political parties, while simultaneously reducing the free speech rights of smaller political parties.

In his response to the ruling at Ballot Access News, Richard Winger wrote:

the decision says . . . that the Connecticut law would be constitutional even if there were no means for a candidate to get public funding, unless that candidate were the nominee of a party that had performed well in the previous election. But, a new party could not possibly have performed well in the previous election, nor could an independent candidate have done so if the candidate were running as an independent for that office for the first time. The decision cannot even acknowledge that the law does discriminate in favor of the two old major parties. Every time it uses the word “discrimination” or “discriminate”, the decision puts the word in quotes.

Democratic Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz demonstrates a clear pattern of hostility toward independents, unaffiliated voters and minor parties. How could she not? She does not recognize political independence as a legitimate form of political practice. Her presupposition is effectively that if you are not participating in the Democratic or Republican primary then you are not participating in the political process ("affiliate and participate"). If Connecticut's Secretary of State were actually interested in educating rather than propagandizing voters, she might also inform them that unless they sign the petitions of third party and independent candidates, the only choice they will have on their November ballots will be the illusion of choice between a Democrat and a Republican, if there is even more than one candidate on the ballot. According to her office, 54 out of 187 election contests for the state's general assembly will go uncontested, as will a number of other races. That is just under 29%, almost 1 in 3 (see the press release from June 28 (.pdf)). The high number of uncontested elections in the state has been one of Daniel Reale's major points of criticism of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Asked how he intends to follow up on his complaint against Bysiewicz, Reale says:

Considering that this was also set up as a tort letter, the Secretary of State has 60 days to respond or repair. This will inform me of what actions need to be taken on the civil end. On the prosecution side, there will be a criminal complaint filed. If the state or the feds do it, great. If not, that's where I come in.

Hopefully, he will be joined by others in his campaign to stop the Connecticut Secretary of State from misusing public money and resources for political ends. Read the full interview and exchange with Daniel Reale at Third Party and Independent Daily.

Independent Party of Connecticut Prepares Full Slate of Candidates for Fall Elections

Independents are the largest bloc of registered voters in Connecticut. According to Pollster.com, independents account for 42.5% of registered voters in the state, with only 36.8% registered Democrat and 20% registered Republican. In 2008, there were 24 active political parties in the state. Last year, another party joined that list: the Independent Party of Connecticut. The organization was established in April 2009, I believe, as a local party out of Milford, but has since grown by leaps and bounds. The IPC is preparing to run a full slate of candidates this fall. Earlier this week, the party's candidate for governor, Tom Marsh, held a press conference on the steps of the state capitol building after submitting the organization's ballot access petitions. From the announcement at the IPC Blog:

Independent Party Submits 11,000 Signatures for Statewide Slate, Announces 30 Candidates for Legislative Offices . . . Gubernatorial candidate Tom Marsh and other leaders of the Independent Party will hold a press conference on Tuesday, July 20 at 3pm on the north steps of the State Capitol Building in Hartford, Connecticut to announce the submission of 11,000 signatures to place a statewide slate of candidates on the ballot in the general election in November 2010. 7,500 validated signatures of Connecticut registered voters are required by state law.

And from a follow-up post:

In previous elections Independents qualified for large sums of public money, and in many towns have gotten in excess of 25% of the total vote. Our trust with the community is becoming well known and widely respected. The Independent party has achieved this record by quietly working, and working hard to rise up from nothing in 2006 to an evolutionary paradox that has become loved and hated at the same time by the very political duopoly it threatens to challenge.

When independents serve to sink the Democrat, the Republicans cheer and befriend them and when the Independents serve to sink a Republican the Democrats cheer and befriend them. The reckoning is already here in many towns, and the lesson of power is sometimes in the hands of those you would least expect.

Deciding elections on propaganda, lies and coercion alone no longer works in many towns across the state and the Independent Party is already in a position to tell the two party duopoly that we do not like their candidate or the lies they drop in our mailboxes. In many instances by way of cross endorsements we are now becoming more able to tell corrupt lawmakers that public errors can and will be corrected when we know better.

The state's Democratic-Republican political establishment may be somewhat jarred by these and similar developments. They have begun an aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at luring voters to register with the ailing legacy parties, as I noted earlier this month. In related news, John Mertens, who is seeking the Independent Party of Connecticut's endorsement in his US Senate campaign, has blasted the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute for "misleading voters and misrepresenting the results in their recent survey." From IPR:

In the most recent Q-Poll, voters were asked “If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today, and the candidates were Richard Blumenthal the Democrat and Linda McMahon the Republican, for whom would you vote?”

In fact, there are three candidates gauranteed to be on the ballot in November: one Democrat, one Republican and John Mertens, Independent.

In addition, Quinnipiac presents results from the poll for Blumenthal, McMahon and “some other candidate” although they do not present the third choice as an option in the poll.

“Doug Schwartz and the Q-Poll staff know that if ‘John Mertens’ or even ’some other candidate’ is not included as a choice in the poll, it skews the results,” said Mertens. “Polls should be unbiased and accurate. Unfortunately, this poll is neither. They have a responsibility to accurately reflect who is on the ballot, and to accurately present the possible results of their own question.”

CT: Secretary of State Launches Aggressive Propaganda Campaign Against Political Independence

Connecticut's primary elections are scheduled for August 10, 2010. If recent voter registration trends in the state hold, unaffiliated voters will soon outnumber registered Democrats and Republicans combined. They already constitute the largest bloc of registered voters. According to Pollster.com, as of late last year, independents accounted for 42.5% of registered voters in the state, with only 36.8% registered Democrat and 20% registered Republican. For the Democratic-Republican establishment and ruling political class, this represents a veritable crisis, precisely because it reveals that Democratic-Republican party government represents a crisis of democracy.

Connecticut has closed primaries. Thus, almost half of all registered voters will be ineligible to vote in the major party primaries, whose nominees will therefore be decided by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of registered voters. The Democratic and Republican nominees for numerous offices will be lucky to garner the support of even 10% of registered voters in their respective primary races. In such a situation, the fiction that the Democratic and Republican parties are capable of providing representative government to the people of Connecticut can no longer be maintained, if only because the people clearly no longer subscribe to that particular fiction. Rather than vote with their feet, or even their ballots, they are voting with their registration cards. Advocates of open primaries may find fertile ground in the Constitution State.

Rather than open the primary system, however, Connecticut's political establishment has instead chosen to begin brow beating voters to register with the Democratic and Republican parties. Late last week, Democratic Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz held a press conference (.pdf) with leaders of the state's Democratic and Republican party establishment to demand that voters give up their independent affiliations and enroll in the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of the primaries. From the press release:

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz today urged unaffiliated voters across the state to enroll with the Democrat or Republican Party by August 9th at 12:00 p.m. so they can vote in the statewide primaries Tuesday August 10, 2010. Connecticut's closed party system does not allow unaffiliated voters to cast ballots in the primaries, therefore unaffiliated voters must enroll as either Democrats or Republicans to cast a ballot in the primaries.

“I urge Connecticut’s 840,000 unaffiliated voters – the largest group of our state’s nearly two million active registered voters – to enroll with the Democratic or Republican parties so they can cast ballots and make sure their voices are heard in the primaries,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “The 2010 election cycle is one of the most exciting we have seen in a long time in Connecticut, with many open seats and closely contested primaries on the Democratic and Republican side for Governor, U.S. Senator and many other important offices. Don’t let this chance to help choose leaders of our state and country pass you by. Affiliate by August 9th at 12:00 p.m. so you can and participate in the primaries August 10th!”

At a news conference in Hartford, Secretary Bysiewicz was joined today by Connecticut Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo and Connecticut Republican Party Vice Chair Catherine Marx, Tony Esposito, President of the Registrars of Voters Association, and representatives from the Connecticut Town Clerks Association, the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the African American Affairs Commission, and the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission.

To get the message out to voters, Secretary Bysiewicz has been engaged in a public awareness effort to get unaffiliated voters to enroll as Democrats or Republicans through Public Service Announcements on radio and television, and newspaper Op-Eds, meetings with Editorial Boards, radio and television interviews throughout the state.

In other words, the Connecticut Secretary of State has begun an aggressive and wide-ranging propaganda campaign aimed at cajoling voters, who obviously know better, into supporting the Democratic-Republican establishment and ruling political class. At My Left Nutmeg, Jon Kantrowitz states flatly that "the Secretary of State has no business doing this":

Urging people to join only 2 of the many parties in Connecticut, just because those 2 are the only ones having primaries, is just, in my humble opinion, wrong, wrong wrong for an official elected to uphold the integrity of elections for all parties and participants.

At Corrente, lambert adds:

If you ever had any doubts that the two legacy parties prop each other up, this little episode should remove them, eh? And the good news is that they're worried. Let's hope they panic!

So kick the props out from under one of the parties, and the other one collapses. It doesn't matter which one of 'em goes first.

This cannot happen soon enough. Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from Democratic-Republican party government, from the Democratic-Republican establishment and ruling political class. If you are not independent, you are co-dependent.