Holiday Weekend Headlines

Some headlines for the holiday weekend:

• Third Party and Independent Daily is now on Twitter! I finally set up TPID's Twitter page the other day, just in time for the "official" campaign season.

• The Texas state legislature and the Democratic-Republican one-party state: "Let's focus on the 150-member House of Representatives . . . In 62 districts the Republicans on the ballot have no Democratic opponents. And the number of Democrats getting a free pass from Republicans is 45. This means that in 107 districts, or in seven out of every 10, the Republican or Democrat on the ballot should be getting ready for the 82nd Legislature."

• The Arizona state legislature and the Democratic-Republican one-party state: "two months before the general election, more than one quarter of the seats in the next Legislature are all but decided. For 22 candidates, the Nov. 2 election is less a contest and more a waiting game. They either have no challengers or face nominal opposition from third-party candidates who don't have the funding or the political-party apparatus to wage a competitive campaign."

• IL: Vote Third Party for Real Change: "Many say that voting for a third-party is throwing your vote away. Who buys in to that statement? The Democratic and Republican parties do. They don't want you to vote for someone else . . . I refuse to accept the lesser of two evils, to accept my vote doesn't matter, and to let the Democrats and Republicans continue to offer us subpar ideas, inaction, incompetence and corruption from their candidates. I'm voting Whitney."

• Illinois' third party candidates face a serious barrier in their lack of name recognition. According to a recent poll by the Chicago Tribune, the wide majority of respondents had never even heard of the Green and Libertarian party candidates for US Senate, LeAlan Jones and Michael Labno.

Happy Labor Day!

Building Support for Third Party and Independent Alternatives to Democratic-Republican Misrule One Commentary at a Time

I've come across a number of commentaries from across the country today emphasizing the need for alternatives to the mindless reproduction of Democratic-Republican party misrule, and making the case for voting third party and independent. From a letter by Ronald Mullins to the Topeka Capital Journal out of Kansas:

The two party system is broken. The two parties we have allowed ourselves are firmly entrenched in power, and as much as they detest each other, they hate third parties even more. They spend more time and energy attacking the other side than trying to go about making real change. Like parents in a bitter custody battle, they end up doing great harm to the object of their fight.

Our national debt is out of control, our infrastructure is crumbling, our inefficient health care system just received the worst possible fix and our education system lags behind that of other industrialized nations. Try voting for real change, not just endless, empty promises. Vote for a third-party candidate.

In a commentary on two independent candidates for local office in Illinois, Dave Mishur argues that third party and independent candidates bring "a new freshness and vitality" to our politics simply by virtue of entering electoral contests, stating they would do the same to government if elected. He writes:

Even here, in my home state of Illinois, the independent and alternative candidate phenomenon is raising eyebrows and gaining headlines. There are currently two "third-party" challengers; one for the Livingston County Board, where Earl Rients has filed as a write-in candidate; and another concerning the race for County Sheriff, where Lead Detective Tony Childress is fighting to be on the ballot as an Independent. . . .

Both Earl and Tony, and all the rest of the challengers to the two-party stranglehold on our nation's politics, are to be commended for their courage; and are worthy of our support.

That they represent real change is reflected in the fear and loathing with which an Independent candidacy is greeted by the two major parties, literally, like a latter-day snake in the Garden of Eden.

To file as an Independent is to be required to jump through impossible hoops in record time, meanwhile crossing all "T's" and dotting all "I's" while also minding your P's" and "Q's." Indeed, I would say it is easier for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven through the eye of a needle than for an Independent to successfully get his name on the ballot . . .

We wish success to both Tony and Earl, for they will bring a freshness and new vitality to county government if elected. Indeed, merely by running for office, they have already done so.

Finally, at Florida's West Orlando News, Lee Clymer asks if we still need a two party system and makes a strong case for third party and independent opposition to the two-party state:

It is time we as voters take the power from the power brokers. It’s time we tell the two parties they are not the only game in town. It’s time we make it known we are not happy little voters and we will no longer be bullied. There ARE other choices and it is up to the voters to make sure they have their shot. We need to take money out of the equation, and put voting power back in the hands of the people. The only way that will ever become a reality though, is when people educate themselves about the candidate. We must take the voting booth back.

It is up to us to examine all the choices and make informed selections. It is up to us to stand up, no longer being lazy, and do our homework. It is time for us to really look deeply at the ads, the lies, and the propaganda, to really make the choice that means something to us. Only then will the political system start to correct itself.

Not a bad showing for the day.

Are African Americans Abandoning the Major Parties in Favor of Superior Third Party and Independent Alternatives? Shouldn't We All?

Earlier this month, I relayed a report stating that African Americans in Illinois were supporting third party or independent candidates in relatively high numbers, with over 20% favoring an alternative to the corporatist shills of the Democratic and Republican parties. Unfortunately, it was impossible to determine just who those individuals were supporting because the polling outfit, Rasmussen, did not inquire as to which third party and independent candidates respondents favored, but rather subsumed everyone aside from the Democrat and Republican under the category "some other candidate." A similar situation may well be developing in Georgia. Jack Wagner writes at the Free Independent Sun:

I noticed something quite disturbing when studying recent polling for elections around the country. Rasmussen Reports will include upwards of 6 or 7 candidates in the Democrat and Republican Primaries, sometimes with candidates that only receive 1% of the vote, yet when it comes to the General Election they will only include the two Democrat-Republican candidates despite there being sometime upwards of 3 or 4 other candidates from Third Party Nominations or Independent Nominations. This case is most present and most dangerous in a particular Governor’s election in Georgia, where the African-American Libertarian Candidate John Monds is left out of General Election polls despite having won 33.4% in a statewide election in 2008, and apparently the most likely winner of the 15- 20% of unaccounted votes in Rasmussen Polls.

Though it likely stakes out familiar territory to Poli-Tea readers, the piece is well worth a read, and goes on to document the pollster's bias against third party candidates in Georgia, South Carolina and Illinois. Nonetheless, there seems to be significant movement afoot within the African American community away from the Democrats and in the direction of rational alternatives to Democrat-Republican party government. A column by Frederick Alexander Meade published at Akiit.com over the weekend argues that African Americans should support third party candidates for office:

In the face of a two party political system, in which neither entity holds any significant measure of deference for a socially ailing African-American body, the construction of a party in which the group may call its own, may serve as the only reasonable approach, by which this population may be afforded any degree of leverage.

The function of a third party, in its greatest capacity, would serve to conceivably eclipse the position of the Democratic Party in its perceived station, as institution of choice, for the socially dispossessed and of those seemingly concerned with the welfare of the masses.

A less speculative and perhaps more pragmatic conception of such a party, would maintain it function – in the short term – to erode a segment of the black Democratic voting base. An evolvement the Democrats can ill afford to experience, as the black vote often serves as the critical force this band relies upon, in securing electoral triumphs over political rivals in highly contested races.

A viable third party would not have to siphon twenty to thirty percent of the black Democratic voting base. Rather a ten to fifteen percent decline in this group’s support of the party would function to compromise its political strength in numerous municipalities as well as on the national level.

In politically disarming the Democratic Party, in regard to its African-American voting arsenal, a direct message would then be sent to this institution. The message delivered to this purported liberal body would boldly declare: black Americans have evolved into an electoral entity determined to observe its agenda honored and subsequently pursued by any political institution claiming to represent the interests of the group . . .

In pursuing this course of action, enough members of the African-American public must overcome the fear of perceived social loss the group may sustain in the short run, as the Republican Party would manifestly assume power within some domains presently controlled by its prime opposition.

In overcoming this fear, the African-American public must remain assured, its collective plight essentially experiences little nuance irrespective of the party that assumes office, as the masses have invariably suffered under the rule of all governing bodies.

This line of argument may be reasonably generalized, and would likely hold for the large majority of the American populace. Who is served by the tyranny of the two-party state, by Democrat-Republican party government as such, aside from the self-serving and self-entitled elites in the ruling criminal political class?

IL: Poll Finds 11% Support for Third Party Candidate, Fails to Ask who that Candidate Is

If I told you that, in a certain gubernatorial race, 11% of voters were planning on voting for someone other than the corporatist shills representing the Democratic and Republican parties, and, if I added that this voting bloc was composed of 23% of African Americans, 19% of moderates, and 14% of Democrats, you'd probably wonder just who that candidate is. If your curiosity got the best of you, you might ask me; you might even do your own research on the matter; indeed, you could go so far as to ask those very people themselves. If you did, you probably don't work for Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen's most recent poll gauging opinion on Illinois' gubernatorial race finds that 11% of voters prefer a third party or independent candidate over Republican Bill Brady and incumbent Democrat Pat Quinn:

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Brady picking up 44% of the vote, while Quinn earns support from 37%. Eleven percent (11%) prefer a different candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.

As is usual for Rasmussen, however, the polling outfit chose not to query those independent thinkers as to which candidate they do indeed support, apparently satisfied that "some other candidate" suffices. At the Examiner, Dennis Brennan reports on the raw numbers:

While 88 percent of Republicans are supporting Brady, only sixty one percent of Democrats are supporting Quinn at this time. More troubling according to the poll is that 23 percent of African American voters say that they will vote for a third party candidate. An amazing 23 percent of African-Americans, 19 percent of moderates, 14 percent of Democrats and women and 10 percent of liberals chose "Some other candidate" in the poll.

Brennan reports that the Quinn campaign is worried about the impact Democrat-turned-independent Scott Lee Cohen could have on their chances of success. Yet, from Rasmussen's numbers, there is no way of telling whether Cohen is indeed garnering any amount of support from the people of Illinois. One might just as well postulate that Green Party candidate Rich Whitney has effectively broken through the 10% barrier. In June, Public Policy Polling (.pdf) found that Whitney was garnering about 9% support in the race. Or Cohen and Whitney could be competing for the votes of one 1 out of 5 African Americans and moderates and 1 out of 10 liberals. Or maybe these folks have come to support Libertarian Lex Green or Constitution Party candidate Michael White, or some combination of all of them. With Rasmussen as our guide we'll never know.

One wonders just how much support "some other candidate" would have to poll for Rasmussen to consider asking its respondents who exactly this other candidate is. 20%? 30%? 50%?

Green Party Launches Campaign for a "Green New Deal"

In a feature article for the Illinois Times, a news weekly out of the state's capital, Patrick Yeagle profiles Rich Whitney, the Green Party candidate for governor in the Prairie State. Some excerpts from the lengthy report:

Richard J. Whitney is a rare breed in Illinois – pro-gun but anti-war, outspoken yet diplomatic, a former socialist turned Illinois Green Party founder. He has detailed and nuanced views on everything from abortion to workers’ rights, and the issue essays on his campaign website impart an air of enlightenment and pragmatism. In many ways, Whitney is the thinking man’s candidate . . .

“We need a government that’s going to serve the interests of the people,” Whitney says. “We the people have been shut out; we’re no longer part of the process under the so-called ‘two-party system.’ The banks and the corporations, through the power of big money and big influence, basically dominate the Democratic and Republican parties, so that’s whose interests they serve. Whoever pays the piper gets to call the tunes.” . . .

“What impressed me about the Green Party is that it takes a more comprehensive approach to social problems than you would find with socialist groups,” Whitney says, adding that the Green Party didn’t seem to have the attitude of, “If you do A, B and C, we’ll live in a utopia.” Instead, he says the Green Party is more apt to evaluate ideas and “learn by doing” than other political parties with which he had been involved.

Green Party activists are thinking big this year. At Green Party Watch, Dave Schwab reports on a newly unveiled campaign for a "Green New Deal":

Today we launch Green Change’s campaign for a Green New Deal – our answer to our nation’s vast economic and ecological problems. The Green New Deal is an ambitious program to create economic prosperity together with ecological sustainability. We are building a coalition of candidates, individuals and organizations to support the Green New Deal – starting today.

Join the Green New Deal Coalition now.

Here are the ten policies you endorse by joining the Green New Deal Coalition:

• Cut military spending at least 70%;

• Create millions of green union jobs through massive public investment in renewable energy, mass transit and conservation;

• Set ambitious, science-based greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax to meet them;

• Establish single-payer “Medicare for all” health care
;

• Provide tuition-free public higher education;

• Change trade agreements to improve labor, environmental, consumer, health and safety standards;

• End counterproductive prohibition policies and legalize marijuana;

• Enact tough limits on credit interest and lending rates, progressive tax reform and strict financial regulation;

• Amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish corporate personhood; and

• Pass sweeping electoral, campaign finance and anti-corruption reform
s.

Among Green Party candidate slates I've been keeping an eye on, the New York contingent is certainly on board with this plan, and has likely been involved in crafting the campaign. Early last month, All New York News reported:

The Green Party of New York State kicked off its 2010 statewide campaign by evoking the legacy of Eleanor Roosevelt by calling for a “Big Green New Deal” that emphasizes human rights, living wage jobs for all, single payer health care, immigration reform, peace, and the right to education.

US Senate candidates Colia Clark and Dr. Cecile Lawrence joined with state comptroller candidate Dr. Julia Willebrand and Lt. Governor candidate Gloria Mattera to officially announce their campaigns in front of the Eleanor Roosevelt Monument in Manhattan. They were accompanied by Green Party gubernatorial nominee Howie Hawkins, who officially launched his campaign in early May.

Illinois' Third Party and Independent Gubernatorial Candidates on Ballot Access and Electoral Reform

As I mentioned last week, I've been planning on writing up a substantive post on the most recent IL gubernatorial debate organized by Free and Equal. The debate was hosted at Chicago State University and moderated by Free and Equal Founder and Chair Christina Tobin, who is also the Libertarian Party candidate for California Secretary of State. All seven gubernatorial candidates were invited to the forum, but the Republican and Democrat declined to attend. On hand were: William “Dock” Walls III (Independent), Michael White (Constitution Party), Rich Whitney (Green Party), Scott Lee Cohen (Independent) and Lex Green (Libertarian Party). The candidates discussed and debated their proposals for dealing with the state's deficit, the necessity of ballot access and electoral reform, education, issues relating to minorities and single parents, their specific differences with one another and the major party candidates, the state's pension system, the possibility of founding a state bank, and gun violence, among other things. They covered a lot of ground.

The Free and Equal blog has already done an extensive round-up of mainstream media coverage of the event, and so, rather than write yet another overview of the debate, I've instead decided to post a transcript of the candidates' discussion of ballot access and electoral reform. The following is more or less a word for word transcription of the discussion, though there are probably a few errors here and there. I've emphasized points I found especially interesting in bold.

Christina Tobin (moderator): 45 independent and alternative party candidates just filed to run for office in IL. 42 of them are facing petition challenges. Many of them will be removed from the ballot even though it means incumbents will be running unopposed. What proposals do you have to improve democracy in IL?

Lex Green (Libertarian Party): Almost all of us here have been affected by these challenges. We need to implement new election law that is simply equal across the board. I have a perspective on this that has been ignored by some people. Our primary system is paid for by the taxpayers essentially to subsidize the Democratic and Republican parties and the Green Party now. Yet, at the same time, I was nominated at a convention that we paid for, the Libertarian Party paid for themselves. We're looking at a model that puts all election law, and laws affecting how Democrats and Republicans conduct their affairs, into state law, that is hardly a general purpose that is beneficial to the people of IL.

I do not have a specific proposal, but I would like to see a system where parties have their own conventions where they pay for their own selection process. Assuming this is politically undoable in the short term, we need to go to a fee based entry into the ballot. I don't have specifics, but, for example, 5000 dollars to get on the ballot, which is much cheaper than most parties and independent candidates have to pay for the process of balloting. That would make it even across the board, and I would also support a fee or signature option, 5000 dollars and 5000 signatures as long as its equal for all candidates.

Michael White (Constitution Party): I think we need to start with the Board of Elections and the statutes. The standards for the established parties and the standards for anyone else new on the scene are entirely different. 25000 signatures in 90 days for the rest of us, 5000 signatures in 90 days for Democrats and Republicans. New people coming into the political system are going to have a very hard time getting 25000 signatures. For new people coming into politics that is going to be very hard to accomplish, but that is what we need, new people coming into politics.

If you look at the primary, and as a voter I am upset, look at the primary, look at all the people who are eligible to vote, [but] the people who picked [Democrat] Quinn and [Republican] Brady only comes to about an 8% vote in [these] primaries, choosing who we're going to vote for. 8% of the people are telling us who to vote for! Like Lex said, they [the parties] might as well pick the people and save the state some money. If we do go on a fee based system, another bonus, the state is in financial problems, we have money coming into the state there. But if we don't change the Board of Elections to actually do the job and stop asking parties and people to go check through these petitions to determine what's good, it's a very ridiculous system. If I would have turned in 1 signature and no one questioned my petition, I wouldn't be having any problems at all, I would be on the ballot. Because even though the statute says you have to do these things, the only person checking it are those in the parties or individual citizens who determine to buy that petition and question it. We have to have the Board of Elections actually do work, count signatures, if that's what they want to do and do the work, and not put it back to the people of IL and the parties to go verify this information.

William "Dock" Walls (Independent): The laws of our Board of Election often serve as incumbency protection principles. They protect the people who are already in power. They make it almost impossible for you to get on the ballot as an independent. In fact, there's never been an independent candidate on the ballot here in IL for governor, as a pure independent. There have been alternative party candidates, but never a true independent. And that saps the possibility that everybody hopes for when they wake up in the morning. You want somebody fresh, you want somebody new, you want somebody who's out here fighting for you and fighting for the issues that are important to you and the communities that you serve and the interests that you represent. That doesn't happen in IL.

In other places like California for example, they require that you pay 2% of what the salary is of the position that you're seeking. So for example, for governor you come in and you pay 3,492 dollars and that puts you on the ballot. And then they also allow you to do a combination of fee and signature requirements. So it serves the purpose. They will tell you that the purpose is to keep "frivilous" candidates off of the ballot. And we understand that that's necessary, because otherwise you'd have a ballot that's as long as a baby's dream, but in fact there are better ways to do it than they do it here in IL, because if you're challenged, you go into an environment that is tilted against you, where you are now burdened with proving that all of these signatures that you submitted are legitimate and real. And that's done at a great expense to the tax payers. This process costs millions and millions and millions of dollars of tax payers' money at a time when we can't afford to spend it. So it's time to seriously educate the public and get people to understand that this principle isn't working for you, its working against you. And it only benefits those people who've been in power for way too long.

Scott Lee Cohen (Independent): I know the disparity better than anybody between the Democrat and Republican signature requirements. They're required to have 5000. As an independent, I was required to have 25,000! I was blessed to be able to turn in 133000, but the point is, as governor I would fight for legislation for the following. Number one is to have an open primary. Right now you go and you have to declare Democrat or Republican. Let's do away with that, let the people have their privacy, and go in and vote for whoever you want. Second, I would lower the threshold of third party and independent candidates so that its equal to the Democrats and the Republicans.

Or as it was said earlier, come up with a fee-based system based on what the salary of the position you're running for is. In other words, if I'm running for governor, and I'm going to get paid 150,000 dollars a year, then I would have to pay 10% or 15% of that as a fee to be put on the ballot. It could be either/or, but that is a phenomenal system. And again, as governor I will fight for equality. I've always been a believer that people deserve choice. You shouldn't be forced into a two-party system voting for Democrat or Republican and I will make it my mission to make this as open and equal and fair as possible.

Rich Whitney (Green): I think it's no secret how you address the problem. IL has one of the most repressive and restrictive ballot access laws in the United States, as everyone here at this table knows form first hand experience. We've heard about the 25,000 signature requirement. It's absurd. We need to reduce the ballot access requirements to something much more reasonable. I would suggest something on the order of maybe 3000 for a statewide race, 500 for a state rep or state senate race, and keep it much more reasonable and much more attainable. One thing we don't suffer from in our political system is too many choices. Certainly not here in IL. We have too few. As a matter of fact, we have the obscene spectacle of many places where incumbents are running unopposed. It's absolutely ridiculous. How is that in any way a democratic republic? How is that giving voters real choices? We need to reverse that.

We also need to reverse the change to the law that occurred just last year, that the Democrats and Republicans ganged up and pushed through, which changed the slating requirement. We called it in the Green Party, we called it the Protect Incumbents Act of 2009. Because what it did is, instead of, after the primary if you wanted to slate a candidate you had your committee get together and they could slate the candidate, and that way you'd have more competitive elections. Well they changed that so that in order to slate a candidate, now you not only have to have your committee meet and slate a candidate you also have to get the same number of signatures that you would have to get to run in the primary anyway, and you have to get it in 45 days instead of 90 days. The Democrats and Republicans ganged up and pushed that through. It was aimed at the Green Party after we won established party status in 2006, but it hurts all of us, it hurts all of the other parties, it hurts all of you as voters. So that's one thing I would do is fight to repeal that pernicious law as well as lower the ballot access requirements.

Was Scott Lee Cohen Drunk at IL Gubernatorial Debate?

On Thursday, the Free and Equal Elections Foundation held a debate for Illinois' gubernatorial candidates at Chicago State University. Five third party and independent candidates for the office participated in the forum, which the Democratic and Republican candidates opted not to attend, likely out of fear that doing so would raise the profile of the event, thus drawing attention to the fact that there are indeed viable alternatives to the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties. As Joe Biesk wrote for the South Town Star in his report on the debate:

Pat Quinn or Bill Brady. Democrat or Republican. Illinois voters looking for another option in this November's governor's race - say a candidate from a political party that hasn't had a governor federally indicted in the past decade - have some choices.

On hand for the event were Green Party candidate Rich Whitney, Libertarian Lex Green, Michael White of the Constitution Party, Independent William Doc Walls and Independent Scott Lee Cohen. At this point, I've only had the chance to watch the first thirty minutes of the debate, which lasted almost two hours, so perhaps another more substantive post on the event will soon follow. But after listening to the candidates' opening statements, I found myself wondering if Scott Lee Cohen was a bit tipsy. Scott Lee Cohen is likely the best known individual in the group. The Democrat-turned-Independent won the Democratic primary for the position of Lt. Governor earlier this year, but withdrew from the race following revelations and allegations of domestic abuse and drug use, among other things. Soon after, Cohen declared that he would seek the office of governor as an independent, and has now filed the requisite paperwork.

In shirt sleeves, with a loose tie and a goofy smile, Cohen's appearance and demeanor was strikingly different from that of his rivals. His speech seemed slurred at times. But perhaps the former is nothing more than a matter of style, and the latter an effect of the medium itself (i.e. video with non-optimal audio at Free and Equal's website). In his two minute opening statement, Cohen addressed his falling out with the Democratic Party, criticized the incumbent Democratic governor Pat Quinn and argued that the state should be run like a business rather than a patronage machine. However, in those 120 seconds, he also managed to make no less than three embarrassing verbal blunders and stumbles:

• Cohen began by thanking the organizers of the debate, namely, Christine Tobin and the Free and Equal Foundation. Cohen: "Good evening, I'd like to start by thanking Christine for forming the organization, Free and Access, I believe that the choice, your choice to vote is very important this November . . ."

• Cohen went on to address his falling out with the Democratic Party, arguing that he is not a professional politician, but rather a political outsider. Cohen: "I wanted to lead the people in an honest and fair way, I didn't want to be beholden to anybody for any reason . . . the Demoprat, the Democratic Party couldn't stand that."

• Cohen then outlined the problems facing the state, and the Democratic governor's unwillingness to confront them. Cohen: "Right now Illinois has an 11.6% unemployment rate and a $14 billion deficit. Yet governor Quinn is handing out raises to his employees, and his staff, like handing children to a candy, candy to a chill- child."

Aside from the eventual self-correction and delivery, the latter would surely have been a worthy blunder even for former President George W. Bush. Could Scott Lee Cohen be presidential material? Though he continued to misspeak in answering the initial questions of the debate, Cohen seemed to come into his stride, and one could begin to understand his popularity among Democrats – or was he just sobering up? You tell me. The full debate can be found here at Free and Equal. Cohen's opening statement begins roughly 11 minutes and 10 seconds in to the video.

The Engaged Citizen vs. the Passive Consumer: Media Malpractice and the Illinois Senate Race

Among the most debilitating effects of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government is the transformation of an ideally engaged citizenry into passive consumers of political infotainment and pliant objects of ideological manipulation. Yesterday, I noted that discontent with the Democratic and Republican candidates for US Senate in Illinois has led to a spike in support for Green Party Senate candidate LeAlan Jones (14% according to a recent poll). Support for the Green Party's gubernatorial candidate, Rich Whitney, is also now approaching double-digits (9%). Ross Levin writes at Independent Political Report:

Interestingly, Whitney was only seen favorably by 5 percent of those polled, much as Senate candidate LeAlan Jones only had 2 percent say they had a favorable opinion of him. For both Greens, 80 percent or more of the respondents didn’t have an opinion one way or the other, showing that the biggest challenge in their campaigns might simply be making the Illinois electorate aware that they exist as an option.

Ross is right on the mark here, but, as with so many things, this is easier said than done. Consider the following lines from a commentary by Chicago area columnist and radio host Ray Hanania. Hanania states that the choice between the Democratic and Republican candidates, Giannoulias and Kirk, constitute a "sad situation" for voters and then writes:

So what do we do as voters? We could vote for one of the Third Party candidates, but I really don’t know too much about them because they can’t seem to raise the funds to pay for the literature to tell me who they are. While they think it is the responsibility of the media to publicize their candidacies, it is their responsibility to win over the hearts and minds of the voters and get their support and campaign contributions. That is not going to happen. So, we’re stuck with Giannoulias and Kirk.

At the dawn of the so-called information age, it is difficult to imagine a more pathetic excuse to remain ignorant of the full range of choices one is afforded in the voting booth. Hanania's position effectively amounts to the following: "I am not going to consider voting for any third party candidates because they haven't sent me any junk mail yet." Hanania could have chosen to do a bit of work and read up on the third party candidates for US Senate in Illinois so as to inform his readers of alternatives to the stooges of the Democratic and Republican party machines. Instead, in the remainder of his column, he opted to regurgitate the sort of boilerplate that passes for "strategic" advice in Democratic and Republican circles.

If, as Hanania claims, it is not the media's responsibility to publicize the candidacies of third party political hopefuls, then it is also not the media's responsibility to publicize the candidacies of any political hopefuls, and so he probably should not have written the column at all. But this is absolute nonsense. Arguably, if a media organization is not simply an explicitly partisan political outlet, and at least pretends to some form of journalistic objectivity, then it has a clear and distinct responsibility to publicize the candidacies of all ballot qualified candidates for a given office. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, an informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy. However, the ideology of the two-party state promulgated by the corporate media would have us believe that journalistic objectivity consists in nothing more than ensuring one queries a Democratic and a Republican source, whatever the issue at hand may be, as if every issue is exhausted once a Democrat and Republican come to an agreement or a disagreement, and as if no other perspective on the matter is possible.

In case folks like Ray Hanania are unaware, "literature" of all sorts can now be found on the internet, and indeed, candidates for public office have entire websites devoted to their campaigns where they explain who they are and what they stand for to anyone who's interested in finding out. There are at least seven third party and independent candidates for US Senate in Illinois:

• Randy Stufflebeam, Constitution Party
• LeAlan Jones, Green Party
• Michael Labno, Libertarian Party
• John Blyth, Independent
• Will Boyd, Independent
• Michael Dorsey, Independent
• Stan Jagla, Independent

In future posts, I'll take a closer look at a number of these candidates. Perhaps one or two would be interested in an interview.

Illinois Greening: the Green Party is Positioned to Make a Significant Impact in Midterm Elections

The US Senate race in Illinois perfectly illustrates the dysfunctionality of Democratic-Republican party politics and government. While Republican Mark Kirk continues to paint Democrat Alexi Giannoulias as a "mob banker" and Giannoulias continues to highlight every instance in which Kirk has "misremembered" the details of his military career, Illinois voters have begun to seek out viable alternatives. In a new survey from Public Policy Polling, the Democrat and Republican together only garner the support of 61% of respondents, with 14% in favor of Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones and 24% undecided. From the PPP blog:

Our newest poll in the state finds the unpopular Mark Kirk and the unpopular Alexi Giannoulias combining for a paltry 61% of the vote with 14% of voters going to Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones and 24% undecided. . . . The beneficiary of the voter disgust with both Giannoulias and Kirk is Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones. Despite being viewed favorably by only 2% of voters in the state he's pulling 14% in the horse race. Posing a particular problem for Giannoulias is that Jones is getting a remarkable 26% of the black vote right now.

These results have already begun to generate positive press for Jones. Charles Thomas writes for a local ABC News affiliate in Illinois:

According to an independent poll released today, the major party candidates in the race, Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, are losing support, perhaps opening the door to some unexpected contenders.

One is LeAlan Jones, the assistant football coach at Simeon High School. He has focused on helping young people as a journalist and television producer, and now as Green Party candidate to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate.

"These issues that I'm talking about are not new," said Jones. "These are issues I've been consistent with over the last 18 years even though I'm only a 31-year-old.". . . "You have two candidates that are talking about each other as opposed to the issues that matter to the people," said Jones. . . .

The fact that LeAlan Jones polled 14 percent would seem to make him eligible to be included in debates. [Emphasis added.]

Given that the Illinois Green Party just officially kicked off its 2010 campaign last Saturday, Jones is off to a promising start. Though it has a number of primary planks, Jones's platform remains somewhat sparse by design. On the issues page of his website, we read:

My platform is your platform. Over the coming months, I plan to hold listening sessions in every county in Illinois and expand this platform so that it represents the collective wisdom, passion and vision of those determined to make America and Illinois as good as they can be.

Perhaps he will take a page out of a fellow Green's playbook. The Green Party's gubernatorial candidate in Illinois, Rich Whitney, has already generated a number of positive stories in local news outlets while traveling the state by train and bicycle to call attention to the importance of "sustainable transportation." By building off of one another's successes and capitalizing on the failings and weaknesses of the major party candidates, the Green Party's candidates have a chance to make some real gains in Illinois this November.