TPID: Interview with Darcy Richardson

In a series of posts this week at Third Party and Independent Daily, I'll be publishing a lengthy interview with Darcy Richardson.  Darcy is a veteran independent political activist, a historian of the third party and independent political tradition in the United States, and an Independent candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Florida, running on the gubernatorial ticket of economist and author Farid Khavari.  He is perhaps most well known for his his multi-volume history of third party and independent politics in the United States, entitled Others, as well as for his numerous articles on historical and contemporary political underdogs, many of which can be found at Uncovered Politics, a political news and opinion website he co-founded by earlier this year.  Less well-known, however, is Darcy's long career of independent political activism.  In the first part of the interview, which I just published today, Darcy talks about his decision to join Khavari's gubernatorial ticket and his previous political experiences as both candidate and activist.  In the process, he provides a short history of the Citizens and Consumer Party from 1979 to 1987.  

A Closer Look at the Independent Plurality: the Coming Independent Majority?

The new Pew Research poll on political Independents and the Midterm vote has been widely circulated in the political blogosphere, yet analysis of the survey has been rather superficial, to say the least, with most commentators focusing on the apparent Republican advantage among Independent voters.  Others have added that the Independent vote will prove decisive in this year's election.  But how could it be otherwise?  Independents outnumber Democrats and Republicans.  Compared to Pew's past surveys, a record number of Americans identify themselves as Independents (37%), who now outnumber Democrats (34%) and Republicans (29%):

The survey also inquired into the previous partisan affiliation(s) of individuals who call themselves Independents.  Most independents say that they did not identify as Democrats or Republicans over the last five years (46%), but a roughly equivalent number are either former Democrats or Republicans (22% and 23%, respectively). Asked why they identify as Independents, the majority state that they do not trust either major party; they believe the Democratic and Republican parties pander to special interests rather than represent the interests of average Americans; and they agree with Republicans on some issues and with Democrats on others.  This squares with the group's ideological composition: self-described moderates outnumber conservatives and liberals among Independents, 43% to 36% and 16%, respectively.  

Finally, demonstrating the pollster's inability to think about Independents independently of the frame provided by the Democratic-Republican duopoly form, the poll breaks down Independents into five different subgroups, based on their ideological and demographic profiles: Shadow Democrats, Shadow Republicans, Doubting Democrats, the Disaffected and the Disengaged.

Shining a Light on the Connection between Money and Politics

MapLight is an excellent research tool for anyone interested in triangulating our legislators' voting habits, the positions of various interest groups on those votes and their campaign contribution histories with those very legislators. A new search tool unveiled by the organization this week details corporate, industry and individual contributions to individual elected officials. From the press release:

MAPLight.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization that illuminates the connection between money and politics, announces the launch of a new public, web-accessible contributions search tool that provides citizens, bloggers and journalists with detailed information about special-interest contributions given to their elected officials. MAPLight.org’s contributions data is provided by the Center for Responsive Politics.

“MAPLight.org’s connections between money and votes have always relied on detailed records of who gives how much to whom,” said Daniel Newman, MAPLight.org’s executive director. “Now, with MAPLight.org’s new contributions search tool, users can see specific details about contributions from any company, industry, or individual—to any member of Congress."

MAPLight.org's contributions search tool reveals in detail each campaign contribution given to members of Congress, broken down by contributor, amount, legislator and date. Journalists, bloggers, researchers and citizens can search for campaign finance data by industry, interest group, company, individual donor and more. The search tool is located at http://maplight.org/us-congress/contributions.

The contributions search tool is linked to MAPLight.org’s unique research that shows which industries support and oppose bills in Congress, aligned with how each legislator votes.

For example, H.R. 4173 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, shows each senator, how they voted on the financial reform bill, and the amount each received from commercial banks and other interests opposing financial reform. Scroll to the bottom to see money given to each senator; Senator Mitch McConnell received the most. MAPLight.org’s new contributions search tool shows the 291 contributions given to Senator McConnell from the commercial banking industry, which totals $366,875 for the 2002-2010 election cycles.

Users can search by company to reveal that 397 contributions totaling $463,607 were given to members of Congress by Citigroup in the 2010 election cycle . . .

Give it a whirl.

US Pirate Party Reboots, Stressing Transparency, Privacy and Ballot Access Reform

The United States Pirate Party has completely revamped its website, which is perhaps the most outward sign of its renewed organizational push to grow its membership and cultivate state chapters across the country. The brand new forum page reveals initial activity in nine different states in addition to groups from Washington, Oregon, and New York –, but the Oklahoma chapter appears to be the furthest along in its efforts. The Pirate Party of Oklahoma has already filed necessary paperwork for recognition as an official political party and begun gathering the requisite number of signatures (over 73,000!) while simultaneously lobbying state lawmakers to reduce this burdensome petitioning requirement. In addition, the Pirates have endorsed at least one candidate for public office, namely, Stephen Collings, who is running for Congress as in independent in Tennessee's 5th Congressional District.

At Wikinews, Peter Coti has just published an interview with the Pirate Party's new administrator, Brittany Phelps. Phelps emphasizes three points of concern for the organization: transparency, privacy and ballot access reform:

Firstly, transparency is required from our government in all but the most dire situations. President Obama seemed, at first, to be promising in this regard, but again and again since he took office, he has proven that hope to be ill-placed. ACTA is hidden from FOIA requests, more light is not shed about torture techniques, and numerous bills, most memorably the recent health care reform, are not brought to light for the promised number of days--how is this transparency?

My second qualm, privacy, is boiled down very simply--as technology grows, so does the ability to invade the privacy of citizens for the sake of a potential safeguard. This route is far from effective in its proposed function. We should take the time to find more effective ways to reduce crime without invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Not doing so is to treat each and every American as a criminal without a trial.

And, thirdly, ballot access. While not necessarily a plank of our platform, it is a challenge that the USPP will have to face early on. There is a long standing idea that the United States has two political parties, and that's it, end of story. I can't help but wonder of these people--do you think that the country was founded between these two parties alone? We are a nation of many people, with many ideas and many opinions. To try and simply this to a black and white dichotomy does a disservice to the nation and its people. There are shades of gray.

The Pirate Party is also active in Canada, and obtained official party status last month, allowing it to field candidates in the next general election. Pirate Party Radio is the official radio show of the US and Canadian Pirate Parties, which is broadcast weekly and features discussion of "privacy, surveillence, anonymity, net neutrality, copyright reform, free culture, free speech, patent reform, open government and Pirate Party news from around the world." Thanks to Glenn Kerbein, who is active in the party, for his input via email.

Liberty Ticker: Democratic-Republican Ballot Access Regime Rigged to Reproduce the Status Quo

The Liberty Ticker is a new blog, begun just last month to keep tabs on "liberty candidates" for office, including "libertarian, constitutional, third party and independent" political hopefuls. One might quibble, however, with the Ticker's underlying presupposition that individual representatives of the Republican and Democratic Parties can legitimately be said to stand for liberty as they literally stand for the tyranny that is Democratic-Republican Party government. Nonetheless, the Ticker seems to recognize this as well, judging from a recent post calling for reform of the ruling Democratic-Republican ballot access regime, entitled: "Legalized Monopoly: Ballot Access Laws in America." Some excerpts:

Incumbent elected officials, in the guise of Republicans and Democrats, have managed to secure a monopoly on our political process. Their access to less stringent ballot restrictions, a friendly bureaucracy, and favorable court decisions has created a situation where independent or minor party candidates have an institutional disadvantage in politics which subverts the concept of democracy in our society . . .

Beyond the mechanics of the bias in our political system toward the two major parties, there is a substantial bias in implementation of election law . . .

There is a substantial bias in favor of the major political parties in the American court system . . .

Our current conception of ballot access law is antithetical to the concept of democracy. True self-rule is not found in the victors curtailing the options of the electorate. Instead, we find only the silencing of minority parties and independent candidates, who are largely excluded through such coercive measures.

Read the whole thing for supporting arguments and individual examples from a number of states.

CO: Third Party and Independent Candidatates Profiled in the Colorado Statesman

In the Colorado Statesman, Anthony Bowe has filed a report on the many third party and independent candidates for office in Colorado in an article entitled, "Third party candidates take root." The piece provides an overview, by name and affiliation, of twenty-four Libertarian Party, Unity Party, Green Party, Constitution Party and Independent candidates for governor, the US Congress and Senate, while supplying the most detail on the efforts of the Libertarian Party and Unity Party. An excerpt:

Third party candidates in Colorado are galvanized by grassroots efforts permeating the country this election season. A large number of so-called alternative candidates have joined a mix of Republicans trying to unseat Democrats by capitalizing on the pulsing tea party movement and a growing number of unaffiliated voters.

The Libertarian Party, for instance, trumpets eleven candidates in Colorado for U.S. senate, congress and governor. The Unity Party of America follows with four candidates, the Green Party has two, and the American Constitution Party has one in the state. Half a dozen independent candidates are also running in 2010.

CIVN Begins Series Profiling California's Third Party Candidates for Governor

At the California Independent Voter Network, Chris Hinyub has begun a series of posts profiling third party candidates for governor in the Golden State. The first is dedicated to Libertarian Party candidate Dale Ogden. Hinyub writes:

If you really want political change, you must vote the change you want to see. This means coming to terms with the impossibility of solving economic and social problems with the same strategies that created them. The Democratic and Republican parties have offered nothing but ineffectual solutions to the issues that plague California . . . It's time to consider a different approach. Gubernatorial candidates from The American Independent party, the Green Party and the Libertarian party are all offering California new strategies for fiscal solvency and much needed administrative reform . . .

Dale Ogden, businessman and Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, feels justice for individuals has been abandoned by our current two-party system. “Politics has become a business, not of protecting life, liberty and property, but one of dispensing largess to favored individuals and groups and imposing prohibitions and restrictions on those who are out of favor,” Ogden says. A defender of individual freedom and personal accountability, Mr. Ogden seeks to end special consideration legislation which makes government the servant of corporations and unions, not the people: “As a pro-liberty candidate, I offer no special privileges for anyone; I offer only to let you keep as much of your hard-earned money as possible, and expect you to be responsible for running your own life.” If elected, Ogden's first priorities would be to stop California's “financial bleeding” and reform its justice system.

Profiles: Political Perspectives, Taxation is a Crime and Revolutionary Independent

Over the past few weeks, I have come across a number of blogs that might be of interest to regular readers here at Poli-Tea and are definitely worth checking out:

• Political Perspectives is maintained by Stephen Lahanas, who is running as an independent candidate for US Senate in Ohio. In the site's mission statement, we read:

Our focus for the magazine is to present a spectrum of Independent, partisan and non-partisan viewpoints on a wide variety of issues from outside of the Beltway. We believe that "business as usual" is no longer a viable strategy for American Governance - it's time for a real change; a change not just in personalities but in political process.

Lahanas has recently begun a series of posts on populist legislative initiatives. He writes:

Reform may start with Lobbying and Campaign Reform, but there is much more to a Populist agenda or platform than that. The New Populism recognizes that the government must work with and for the people, not against them.

• Taxation is a Crime is a relatively new blog, begun last October, which holds that "taxation violates the non-aggression principle." The site calls for numerous political reforms, including voting reform, and makes a strong case for proportional representation based on reasoned critique of plurality voting:

First Past The Post means we must vote for a party we don't like . . . If power transfers to one party, exclusively, the rest of the population is at their whim. With a majority, they rule absolutely. Proportional Representation would mean that even the dominant parties would be required to compromise when in power. And voters would be better able to ensure that the party (philosophy) that they support is heard. Many votes go to the main parties that are cast by persons that do not share complete agreement with the party. Cast reluctantly, with regret in the hope that the recipient, the party, does not act too far outside the expectations of the voter.

• Finally, Revolutionary Independent wants to "take the politics out of politics" and calls for "revolutionary democracy":

Revolutionary Democracy sees the multinational corporations, imperialism and a new form of colonialism as the harbingers of a world crisis. It is time for the people to take control of their lives and their country. The people must demand and get accountability from their representatives, something they have none of today. Time for the people to step up to the plate and learn to play ball; to take the decision making out of the hands of millionaires and put into the hands of the people. A time for participatory democracy, where all lead and all govern.

NC Constitution Party Chairman: Two-Party System is a Sham

In North Carolina's Statesville Record and Landmark, Jim McNally reports on a meeting of the Constitution Party of North Carolina:

The CPNC leaders who spoke at the Golden Corral . . . [pointed out] the folly in supporting either of the two major political parties that have had a stranglehold on the electorate for the past century and a half.

"We're pretty upset at the way the government is going," said Mike Moorefield of Statesville. "And we think it's time to change."

And CPNC State Chairman Al Pisano did say things as they now are will continue unless like-minded people ban together and stop "picking the lesser of two evils" when they mark their ballots in the voting booths.

"This so-called two-party system is a sham," Pisano said, and he went on to point out that the United States' Founding Fathers and the writers of the nation's most esteemed documents would be appalled by what has become of their handiwork.

"We've gotten away from the meanings behind the Declaration of Independence and the true meaning of the Constitution," Pisano said. "And that's how we got into the mess we're in." . . .

Based on the speeches given Tuesday, the written material distributed at the meeting and other information found on the CPNC Web site, the party could be classified as being staunchly conservative . . .

"The only wasted vote," [Pisano] said, "is the one you cast for someone you don't truly believe in."

The Pirate Party, Copyright and Virtual Freedom

The Pirate Party blog links an op-ed from the Financial Times by Christian Engstrom, the deputy chairman of the Swedish Pirate Party, who was elected to the European Parliament earlier this year. Engstrom argues that "copyright laws threaten out online freedom" and provides an overview of the aims and ends of the Pirate Party:

Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current regime has even more damaging effects. In order to uphold copyright laws, governments are beginning to restrict our right to communicate with each other in private . . . technology could be used to create a Big Brother society beyond our nightmares, where governments and corporations monitor every detail of our lives. In the former East Germany, the government needed tens of thousands of employees to keep track of the citizens using typewriters, pencils and index cards. Today a computer can do the same thing a million times faster, at the push of a button. There are many politicians who want to push that button.

The same technology could instead be used to create a society that embraces spontaneity, collaboration and diversity. Where the citizens are no longer passive consumers being fed information and culture through one-way media, but are instead active participants collaborating on a journey into the future . . .

The public increasingly recognises the need for reform. That was why Piratpartiet – the Pirate party – won 7.1 per cent of the popular vote in Sweden in the European Union elections. This gave us a seat in the European parliament for the first time.

Our manifesto is to reform copyright laws and gradually abolish the patent system. We oppose mass surveillance and censorship on the net, as in the rest of society. We want to make the EU more democratic and transparent. This is our entire platform. We intend to devote all our time and energy to protecting the fundamental civil liberties on the net and elsewhere.

The Way of the Whigs

At The Whig, Septimus expands upon "four key Whiggish principles" in distinguishing the Modern Whigs from Democrats and Republicans and the duopolist order of the Democratic-Republican Party:

In Modern Whig positions, we can identify four key Whiggish principles — a Modern Whig Agenda around which our future policies are to be formed. These principles are:

1. favoring the legislature over the executive
2. favoring the interests of small business over concentrated wealth
3. favoring toleration of non-conformists
4. promoting ordered liberty against the arbitrary powers of the State.

In short, the Modern Whig is the champion of the individual and of the underdog.

He concludes:

Too often, people in positions of power in government regard liberties as something to be granted, rather than something the government takes away. America has sometimes been far from perfect in this regard. But other systems in other nations have very often been awful.

Now we can clearly see that the common approach of the Democrats and the Republicans share a philosophy that is the Whig's age-old adversary -- the use of government to benefit a select few at the expense of the people. It aims to ensure and improve the welfare of established stakeholders. It is automatically the friend of big business and regulation, because these make its bargaining processes possible. It uses the power of government to restrict entry of new competition, either in ideas, business, and politics.

In contrast, Modern Whigs, favor an open, responsive legislature, free markets, tolerance and liberty. Modern Whigs are the champion of the individual and of the underdog.

The Third Party and Independent Front: On In An Off Year

The 2009 "off-year" elections certainly raised the profile of third party and independent campaigns in the national media, confusing the strategic and tactical calculus of ideologues on both sides of the duopoly divide. For the moment, let's consider three such campaigns and draw some preliminary conclusions: that of Michael Bloomberg in New York City, Chris Daggett in New Jersey and Doug Hoffman in upstate New York.

Though the race was closer than many had predicted, Bloomberg's victory as an independent in New York City's mayoral election proves that with enough money and name recognition independent candidates for office can easily defeat a duopolist opponent. Of course, it also helps to own a media empire. Cynical asides aside, Nancy Hanks relays the import and significance of the independent vote in Bloomberg's success:

The Independence Party vote for Mike Bloomberg yesterday broke numerous records and re-enforced its ongoing mandate for independent governance and non-partisan reform. Unofficial returns released by the Board of Elections put the IP total on Column "C" at 142,817 votes, nearly 26% of Bloomberg's total and 13% of all votes cast. This means that 1 in 4 Bloomberg voters chose to vote on the Independence Party line. The vote for the mayor on the Independence Party line was an increase of 91% over its total four years ago, when it drew nearly 75,000 votes on its crucial Column "C". [Emphasis added.]

The Independence Party is a force to be reckoned with in New York politics. Their organizational strength will be an asset to future candidates running campaigns independent of the Democratic and Republican Parties.

In New Jersey, Chris Daggett's independent candidacy for governor provides us with the opposite scenario. Daggett began his campaign with virtually no name recognition and was outspent by the Democrat 20 to 1 and by the Republican 10 to 1. At the high point of his campaign he polled 20% support among NJ voters. In the end, he received 5.9% of the vote. Yet, this in itself is a victory of sorts. Daggett was the first candidate for governor of New Jersey, who was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, to receive over 5% of the vote since 1913. Furthermore, his campaign led to calls in the mainstream press for ballot reform, ballot access reform and drew attention to the farce that is duopoly politics. For now, however, New Jersey remains co-dependent rather than independent.

In New York's 23rd, Doug Hoffman's campaign has shown that even a no-name third party candidate can succeed in marginalizing duopolist opponents, and that the activist grassroots support networks of the major parties can be effectively mobilized for third party and independent campaigns. The secret of viability is no secret at all. The difference between a non-viable and a viable third party or independent candidate is the difference between supporting the duopolist charade and supporting independent candidates for elected office. Without doubt, duopolist ideologues will come out of the woodwork to lecture us about how Hoffman's candidacy demonstrates that third party candidates for office cannot win. In fact, and in truth, it demonstrates the exact opposite.

Though these three races garnered a significant amount of attention from the national media and third party activists, there is much more to report at the local level on the third party and independent front from the 2009 "off-year" elections. Ballot Access News proves indispensable yet again. Here are a few headlines:

• Three Constitution Party members elected to Utah city office in non-partisan elections.
• Both Green Party members of Portland, Maine's city council were re-elected.
• The Working Families Party won two seats on Bridgeport CT's school board.
• Green Party Watch sums up results for Green Party candidates across the country.

Regular readers might be wondering how Michael O'Connor fared in his contest for town council in Rotterdam, NY. As of this writing, there are no updates at his blog The Rotterdam Windmill. The "unofficial" results reported at the Schenectady County Board of Elections indicate that Michael came in second behind Nicola DiLeva – who was the Democrat in the race, as I gather from this report on a recent debate in the district. As Michael explained at The Windmill and in his two guest posts here at Poli-Tea, political establishmentarians told him that his independent effort was doomed from the beginning, that it was an impossible task, that he wouldn't even get his name on the ballot. Yet, in the end, he successfully petitioned to establish a new, independent, third party ballot line – the No New Tax Party –, and then defeated his Republican opponent in the primary, effectively changing the dynamics of the race and offering voters a new choice on election day. As Michael wrote in early September:

Our effort proved it’s not an impossible task. It will hopefully help open a door for others to follow through – a door they previously thought couldn’t be opened. Belief drives effort. And effort is the one variable that you can control completely.

The United States Pirate Party

As you might recall, Sweden's Pirate Party made international headlines last June, when it successfully won a seat in the European Parliament. In Germany's federal elections late last month, the nation's fledgling Pirate Party received over three-quarters of a million votes, enough to qualify for future federal campaign funds. At the time of the European parliamentary elections, I termed the Pirate Party, "a single issue group dedicated to reforming copyright and patent law." This, as I have come to learn, is not entirely true. Though the reform of copyright and patent law does figure prominently in the Pirate Party platform, the group is equally noteworthy for the hard line they take on the protection of civil rights and individual freedoms. Thus, it was only a matter of time before political piracy began to gain a foothold in the United States.

As the United States Pirate Party puts it on their website: "Our platforms run the gamut from esoteric property laws to bolstering our basic constitutional rights." Among the issues on the US Pirate Party's platform, we find a rejection of the concept of online piracy, demands for the abolition of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as well as for the reform of copyright, patent and trade mark law, in addition to an emphasis on the right to privacy, a free press, freedom of assembly, and the right to government transparency. The US Pirate Party is even already fielding a candidate for office, Stephen Collings, who is running for the US Congress in Tennessee's 5 district in 2010 on a platform of small, smart and accountable government.

Peter Camejo: 'One of the Ten Most Dangerous Men in California'

At As It Ought to Be, Matt Gonzales remembers activist Peter Camejo, who died at this time last year. A long excerpt:

Most people know Peter Camejo as a three-time Green Party candidate for Governor of California and for his run with Ralph Nader in 2004. Others recall his days with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), when he ran for US President in 1976 (with running mate Willie Mae Reid) against both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Peter was also an author. He wrote about post-American Civil War politics (Racism, Revolution, Reaction 1861-1877, The Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction) and about progressive financial investing (The SRI Advantage: Why Socially Responsible Investing Has Outperformed Financially).

Many of his speeches from his period with the SWP were published by Pathfinder press in pamphlet form including: Who Killed Jim Crow?; Allende’s Chile: Is It Going Socialist?; Liberalism, Ultraleftism, Or Mass Action; How to Make a Revolution in the US; and Cuba and the Central American Revolution.

Peter marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma and participated in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, culminating in his expulsion from the University of California and subsequent run for mayor of Berkeley. It was during this era when then Governor Ronald Reagan declared Peter “one of the 10 most dangerous men in California”.

It is without question that Peter was one of the important members of the American Left of the last half-century. He had combated injustice his entire life and helped plant the seeds for many progressive ideas that are popular now.

None of the things we fight for today: gay marriage, equal rights for women, fair wage laws, immigrant rights, universal health care, would exist had there not been men and women like Peter pushing from one side — agitating and making people uncomfortable. It amazes me how once these ideas are commonplace, we celebrate the politicians who joined the effort at the last moment, when victory was all but assured. There’s little credit given to how we got on the beachhead in the first place.

What does it mean to stand up against something that won’t budge, long before it’s poised to be the majority sentiment? Peter knew the system would crumble someday. Politics as we know it will someday buckle under the pressure of human desires for a more egalitarian and democratic world. And when it happens, the “successful” politicians will not be remembered. They were the ones that took the easy path. Worked for change on the margin. Wanted the winner’s circle at all cost. Even if it meant denying what they knew to be the truth.

Peter believed the two-party system was a failure, pure and simple. He mused how years from now historians will scratch their heads and wonder how was it that people put up with its oppressiveness? Its days are numbered. Just as slavery was, just as the overt subjugation of woman was, just as concentrated capital’s refusal to pay decent wages and give human beings the benefits they deserve cannot be sustained for much longer.

Peter stood up to say that both parties defended corporations such that the differences, we’re told matter, hardly alleviate any true suffering. Peter wanted to live in a democracy. He wanted an economic system that produced for human needs not profits. He often said that the only reason someone hires you when you’re looking for a job is that they decide you can make them more money than what they’re going to pay you. He dared to say this was wrong.

Jake Towne's Open Office

In Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District, independent libertarian candidate Jake Towne is seeking to unseat Republican Charlie Dent in 2010. Running on a platform of accountability and transparency, Towne has developed a concept he terms 'Our Open Office,' which contains a number of interesting proposals aimed at informing and empowering his constituency while opening up the business of government to wider scrutiny. The 'open office' promises to create an online public feedback and debate forum, issue a monthly report on his activities in the House as well as those of constituents on the forum, provide an online bill submission service and offer town hall style discussions on-demand. Summarizing the plan, Towne writes:

• Empower the Citizen

  • Each resident has a real public voice – to comment, vote, debate, and criticize

  • Each constituent will have a way to publicly demand I address their ideas and concerns by submitting bills online

  • Citizens can summon me to a town hall discussion by reaching a threshold level on topics they feel I am not addressing timely enough or to their satisfaction

  • By incorporating the feedback of specialists in different fields and interests, particularly with the bill submission ability, our office will be far more efficient with better ideas than other districts because our work force will be larger and more specialized. Those “working” outside of my office will be working voluntarily on issues that have the most importance to them, empowering the individual citizen.

• Accountability and Transparency

  • All residents can receive a monthly report from my office detailing each house floor vote taken, each bill introduced, and each bill co-sponsored. Feedback from the forum will be summarized. Most importantly, I, the representative, will be forced to outline WHY I voted each way.

  • My office's budget report will be publicized and readily available on the website so citizens can see how their tax dollars are spent.

  • Empowering citizens to public discourse and enabling open, visible criticism of my actions makes me more accountable to the people.

However, Towne also points out that "the incumbent, Congressman Dent, could start implementing this right now, and save me the trouble of doing it myself after I win the November 2010 election."

Political Profiling

For many voters, it is likely the case that they realize there are third party and independent candidates running for office in their district only upon entering the voting booth. Restrictive ballot access laws force third party and independent campaigns to spend large amounts of time and money to ensure merely that they appear on the ballot, hence diverting precious resources from other forms of outreach and organization aimed at raising the level of public awareness of their campaigns and platforms. Virtually guaranteed to get onto the ballot in any given election, Republicans and Democrats, on the other hand, can count on name recognition of their respective party brands if not also of their respective candidates. The third party political profile can go some way toward addressing this disparity. I recently came across to noteworthy exemplars of the genre. At the Examiner, Scott Gibbs provides readers with a rundown and explication of the Green Party's 'Ten Key Values.' Part 1 of the series takes a look at the first five: grassroots democracy, social justice and equal opportunity, ecological wisdom, non-violence and decentralization. Meanwhile, Keith Lehman of the Lighthouse Patriot Journal has begun a detailed point-by-point analysis and critique of the Constitution Party's political platform. Lehman's hope is that the series:

starts the brain mechanism working on matters that concern the traditional two parties and their failure to stand by or create a political platform that corresponds to the Constitution of the United States, the reasoning of the Federalist Papers and the decisions and wisdom of those that founded our nation.