Third Party Ballot Access and California's Top Two Primary System

At CAIVN, Bob Morris of Polizeros takes a look at the latest third party registration numbers in California.  He writes:

Let's look at the numbers and see what they tell us. All data is the most recent from the California Secretary of State. Percentage of registered voters in California as of Oct 18, 2010. (Third parties also have number of registered voters.)

• Democrat 44.08%
• Republican 31.02%
• Decline to State 20.25%
• American Independent 2.39% (413,032)
• Green 0.66% (113,835)
• Libertarian 0.53% (91,111)
• Peace and Freedom 0.33% (57,776)
• Other 0.74%

To qualify as a third party, either an affidavit of registration must be completed by 1% of the votes cast in the most recent governor's race or a petition signed by 10%. Currently, 1% is equal to 103, 024. 

To maintain ballot status, a party must keep registration at all times equal to one-fifteenth of one percent of total registration, and either: 1) Maintain a registration level equal to at least one percent of the entire vote of the state at the most recent gubernatorial election or 2) poll at least 2% in any of the most recent elections for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, or United States Senator. 

Based on these criteria, all four third parties retained ballot status in the 2010 election. . . . all four third parties retained ballot status in the 2010 election . . .

With the introduction of the "top two" primary system in California, it will likely be much more difficult for third parties to retain ballot access in the state.  If no third party candidates are among the top-two vote-getters in the primary races for the eight offices listed above, they will be excluded from the general election, and if you are excluded from the general election, you cannot maintain ballot access by polling 2% in those races.  Only the American Independent Party and the Green Party have high enough registration numbers to maintain their ballot access by the first criterion, though the Libertarian Party is quite close to the cut-off – if I'm reading the numbers correctly, that is.  Bob continues:

with the exception of Peace and Freedom in L.A. County, and contrary to what might be expected, the highest registrations for third parties are in northern, rural, agricultural counties. These counties tend to be conservative, and have very low registration for Peace and Freedom, the only socialist party with ballot status.  The three counties where the Green Party is highest could perhaps also be safely described as marijuana-friendly.

It would be interesting to see where decline-to-state voters are clustered in California, since that is where the most movement among the electorate is.  Over the last ten years, decline-to-state voters have gone from being 13% of the electorate to 20% of the state's electorate, while all explicit affiliations have either noticeably sunk or remained flat.

From the Bottom Up: the Case for State-Level Third Party Activism

At Op-Ed News, Jim Arnold makes the case for local- and state-level third party activism:

A third party in the U.S. has never been so desperately needed, and the obstacles to making it viable have never been so enormous. But there are fifty-plus potential long-term remedies, alternatives to a national third party: autonomous, populist parties established on the state and/or local level. . . . .

There are several advantages to a state-by-state and local approach. It would be fresh and newsworthy, a buzz-worthy development. A state party can bring state issues and the representation of state interests in Washington into better focus by bringing them closer to home. It can appeal to people who have a strong identification with their state or locality, closer-felt than with that monolithic entity, the federal government. It would avoid the general aversion to the feds "inside the beltway" in Washington. Many people tend to enjoy or need to feel exclusive, or opposed to as well as for something - my state as opposed to other states; my state could do it better than other states. And imagine a candidate's name on a ballot next to an affiliation with "The [state] Party"; for the embarrassingly large bloc of voters who make their marks on a whim, the party name would have an inherent advantage . . . 

The 2010 election was devastating for many state governments, far more drastic than the Congressional results. The state level is likely to be the crucial battleground between people's interests and corporatist interests in coming years.

State and local parties could address many issues more effectively than national campaigns, even if initially by relatively piecemeal efforts. We've seen examples of this with various statewide safety and environmental standards that exceed those at the national level.

Read the whole thing.

Alabama Congressman Calls for Formation of Independent Party

Artur Davis is an outgoing Democratic Congressman from Alabama, representing the state's 7th congressional district, who opted not to seek reelection this year.  In a commentary for the Montgomery Advertiser, Davis argues that the two-party system effectively results in a one-party state, wherein the ruling power seeks nothing other than the consolidation and expansion of its grip on power.  Davis thus calls for the formation of a state-level Independent Party to "recruit and sustain candidates in targeted statewide and legislative races," because only such a movement has real "potential to advance Alabama in ways that are impossible under the constraints of partisan politics."  Excerpts:

For the hundreds of thousands of Alabamians who believe our state is capable of fundamentally changing the way we govern ourselves and the way we educate our children, and who desire a politics that is not anchored to special interest groups, there is a powerful case for an independent movement in time for the 2014 elections.This movement, which would recruit and sustain candidates in targeted statewide and legislative races, has the potential to advance Alabama in ways that are impossible under the constraints of partisan politics. . . .

Its principles would include an overhaul of a tax system that privileges out of state and absentee interests at the expense of low-income wage earners; the redrafting of a constitution that centralizes too much authority in the hands of the Legislature rather than local communities; the adoption of incentives that will empower entrepreneurship and high tech development; and reinvesting in our universities rather than demonizing them as elitist rivals to our K-12 system . . .

There are all kinds of reasons independent or third party movements have crashed and burned at the national level, most notably an Electoral College that effectively marginalizes candidates outside the two party system and the vast expense of a 50-state campaign apparatus. But in the narrower confines of a state of 4.5 million people, where a plurality of the vote can win, the course is infinitely more plausible and affordable.

How to Defeat Harry Reid Before Election Day Even Dawns, or, the Third Party Tea Party and the Democratic-Republican Conspiracy of Dunces Cont'd

Late last year, I noted the emergence of a conspiracy theory among Republican supporters of the two-party state alleging that independent and third party conservative activists are actually part of a Democratic plot to "destroy the GOP". Following the recent announcement that a newly formed third party Tea Party group in Nevada would be running a candidate for US Senate to challenge Harry Reid, duopolist Republicans needed only to fill in the blanks of their Mad Libs template to apply the theory in practice. CNN has now picked up on the story. Via Memeorandum:

So how is it possible to be an illegitimate Tea Party member? Ask Republicans in Nevada. Some are accusing Jon Scott Ashjian, a new Tea Party candidate running for U.S. Senate, of being a fake. The allegation? He was put in the race by agents of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to siphon votes from the GOP.

Perhaps the most revealing variation on this particular theory asserts an "Armenian connection":

"No doubt about it", says Danny Tarkanian, one of the many Republican senate candidates hoping to challenge Reid in November. "Nobody in the Tea Party knows who he is. He didn't know any of the principles of the Tea Party," Tarkanian tells CNN. He even accuses "Harry Reid's staff, campaign, whatever" of picking Ashjian because he's Armenian, as is Tarkanian. He explains, "They know the Armenians are very close they'll vote for each other."

Theories of an "Armenian conspiracy" are nothing new. But its articulation in this context demonstrates just how hysterical and desperate Republican advocates of the two-party state have become in the face of serious independent and third party opposition to the duopoly charade. On the basis of the spoiler argument, Republican strategists assert that the existence of a credible third party Tea Party candidate in the race will "split" the conservative vote. There is even some basis for their concern. As the CNN report notes:

A recent poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal indicates [Republicans] Lowden and Tarkanian each beating Reid in one-on-one hypothetical general election matchups. But add a Tea Party candidate on the ballot and that siphons off enough conservative votes to give Reid a narrow victory. According to the survey Reid would grab 36 percent of the vote, the Republican candidate 32 percent and the Tea Party candidate 18 percent in a possible three way showdown.

Of course, if these Republicans are so concerned about "splitting the conservative vote" they could simply withdraw from the race and endorse a superior third party or independent alternative. They have a wide array of choices at their disposal. There are no less than nine declared independent and third party candidates for the seat currently held by Reid. Ironically, however, the conspiracy theory regarding Ashjian's Tea Party candidacy has clearly raised his profile at both the state and national level, eclipsing all other third party and independent contenders, if not also those running under the banner of the GOP. For his part, given the numbers above, Harry Reid has welcomed third party and independent candidates into the fray. From Fox News:

Facing dismal poll numbers in his home state, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid has devised a re-election strategy: welcome third party candidates who can split the opposition in the uphill battle to hold on to his U.S. Senate seat . . . "They have a right to file," Reid reportedly said of prospective third-party candidates. "You have to understand that this election is going to mean more than Democrats and Republicans . . . We have the third-party candidates. We have the American Independent Party. We have the Tea Party now," he said, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Clearly, Reid shares his would-be Republican opponents' strategic assessment of the race. But is there not another possibility here? Could this not backfire on the Reid campaign? Given Reid's dismal approval ratings, is it not possible that he could soon find himself polling third, behind both the Republican and Tea Party candidates? With a strong organizing push and a bit of luck, conservatives, independents and third party activists in the state of Nevada could very well succeed in pushing the Senate majority leader out of serious contention for the seat he currently holds. In other words, Harry Reid can be defeated long before election day even dawns. But reactionary duopolist ideologues in the Republican Party seem incapable of grasping this simple fact. And the same can obviously be said of Reid himself. Thus, the third party strategist is assured the element of surprise.

Battered Voter Syndrome: the Politics of Codependency Among New York Voters Under the Conditions of the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State

In New York, as in so many states across the country, the catastrophic failure represented by Democratic-Republican Party politics and government is directly related to the fact that the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government constitute a cesspool of lawless graft, moral decrepitude and brutal violence. This state of affairs is not without consequences for the people of New York. USA Today reports on findings from a recent survey of public opinion in the Empire State:

A majority of New Yorkers are so ashamed by the latest scandals at the state Capitol they are embarrassed to call themselves New Yorkers, a Siena College poll today found. Seventy percent of voters agreed that New York has never been more dysfunctional, and by a 54% to 41% margin, voters also say that what's going on in Albany makes them "embarrassed" to call themselves New Yorkers.

The most recent embarrassment involves Governor David Patterson's implication in a scandal alleging witness tampering on the part of the state police in a domestic abuse case revolving around administration staffer David Johnson. Patterson, of course, came to office in 2008 after Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace when it was revealed that he was a long-time client for a high end prostitution ring, thus capping off a long simmering controversy in which he had abused his powers as governor in ordering surveillance by state police of political rival Republican State Senator Joseph Bruno. Bruno, for his part, was indicted in 2009 on eight counts of corruption for criminal actions dating back to 1993. Also in the legislature, Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat State Senator Hiram Monserrate was indicted and convicted for assaulting his girlfriend in October 2009. In February 2010, Bernard Kerik, aka "America's Top Cop," the former NYC Police Commissioner under Republican Rudolph Guiliani, was sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to eight counts of a sixteen-count indictment for conspiracy, mail fraud and wire fraud. The New York City Police Department has just been served with papers in a federal class-action lawsuit alleging systematic harassment, mistreatment and likely abuse of children in the city's public schools. I have yet to mention the likes of Democrat Charlie Rangel or Republican Peter King.

One is therefore justified in wondering why any New Yorker would continue to vote for any Democrat or Republican. Given the details of the above, it is tempting to hazard a psychological explanation. Perhaps the New York electorate suffers from what we might call "battered voter syndrome," based on analogy with battered person's syndrome. Wikipedia defines the latter as afflicting:

any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort shortly after an incident of abuse.

Could we not state without serious exaggeration that anyone who continues to vote Democratic or Republican in New York State suffers from a form of battered voter syndrome? Under the conditions of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government, we may confidently diagnose battered voter syndrome in any person who, because of constant and severe moral and physical violence – the abuses characteristic of Democratic-Republican Party government – becomes apathetic and unable to take any independent action that would allow them to escape Democratic-Republican Party government. The condition explains why these voters do not seek assistance from others who might aid them in leaving the Democratic/Republican Party or joining the popular opposition to the Democratic-Republican political class. These voters often see themselves as helpless victims, and blame themselves or others for the failures of Democratic-Republican Party government. Such voters frequently refuse to hold Democratic-Republican politicians accountable for their crimes and misdeeds, electing incumbents at high rates. Correspondingly, they refuse to consider third party and independent alternatives to the Democratic or Republican Parties, and often become aggressive and abusive toward those who offer assistance in the form of political alternatives (independents, Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionists etc.). Tragically, these voters will even seek out Republicans and Democrats for comfort following instances of abuse by Republican and Democratic politicians; they might even paradoxically demand that Republicans and Democrats themselves offer solutions to the problem that is Democratic-Republican Party government. Battered voter syndrome is a serious psycho-ideological condition afflicting millions of Americans. If you or anyone you know shows signs of battered voter syndrome, seek help from independent and third party advocates offering real alternatives to the reproduction of the failed Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.

NV: the Third Party Tea Party and the Democratic-Republican Conspiracy of Dunces

When Democrats and Republicans each denounce third party and independent candidates for office as tools in a conspiracy concocted to further the interests of the other, one should remain cognizant of the fact that Democratic-Republican politics aims, above all else, at furthering the conspiracy of dunces that is the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. Following reports that a group calling itself the Tea Party had registered as an official political party in Nevada and would run a candidate for US Senate to challenge Democrat Harry Reid, the conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party immediately began to argue, on the basis of the spoiler argument, that the Tea Party was nothing more than a Democratic front group dedicated to reelecting Harry Reid. While no one should doubt the treacherous mendacity of any person or group associated with the Democratic or Republican Parties, at this point there is little evidence beyond the speculative conspiracy theories themselves that the Nevada Tea Party is a part of a Democratic effort to "split" the conservative vote. Indeed, one might reasonably wonder whether the libelous denunciation of the Nevada Tea Party as a Democratic Party front is not rather part of a Republican-orchestrated conspiracy to discredit the third party group in the eyes of independent and conservative voters as we head into this year's election season. More comprehensive media reports on the Nevada Tea Party and its candidate for Senate, Jon Scott Ashjian, are now beginning to find their way into print. The Las Vegas Review-Journal, for instance, has now published a profile of the candidate. Kristi Jourdan reports:

Ashjian says he's learning the ropes through this grass-roots movement, where he is his own communications director who answers the phone, relies heavily on family and friends for help and schedules his own TV and radio appearances, which are starting to pick up. Don't call him a politician, though. "I'm a frustrated patriot," Ashjian said. "I'm not a politician. I'm not savvy with radio and TV. But I believe I can make a change, and that's what I'm here for. I'm here to give people a third voice." . . . "We're not Republican or Democrat," Ashjian said. "We won't fold into one party or the other. We're a tax-paying party that can make a difference and a party of normal people who want change. Bigger government and higher taxes is not working. Right now we're at a real crossroads to make change, and the bottom line is there's never been so much disdain for politicians." . . .

"We understand what Harry Reid represents, and I'm the opposite," Ashjian said. "I've never met him, I've never talked to him, and I don't even know him." Ashjian admits he has not actively participated in Tea Party movement events, such as the 9/12 Taxpayer March in Washington, D.C. But he said he feels a growing frustration among his fellow Americans about the way elected officials on both sides of the aisle are representing voters, which is why he formed the Tea Party of Nevada in January. "I'm here to say there is a choice," Ashjian said. "If you want to stick to the status quo, pick the Republicans or Democrats, but don't complain. Nobody can do a better job than I can. "I fully expect to win. I expect all Nevadans to get behind me and vote. I want to be clear in every word that I expect to win this race."

RI: Independent Leads Governor's Race by Wide Margin

A new Rasmussen poll puts independent Lincoln Chafee ahead of all contenders in the race for governor of Rhode Island and by wide margins :

Ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee is the leader for now in Rhode Island’s race for governor . . . Chafee earns the support of 37% of likely voters in Rhode Island to 27% for Democrat Frank Caprio, the state's current treasurer, and likely Republican nominee John Robitaille’s 19%. Seventeen percent (17%) are undecided. When State Attorney General Patrick Lynch is the Democrat in the race, he earns 24% of the vote to Chafee’s 38% and Robitaille’s 22%. Given this match-up, 16% are undecided.

Anyone who argues that third party and independent candidates for office simply "can't win" because "it's a two-party system" is nothing but a shill for the Democratic-Republican Party, the duopoly system of government and the reproduction of the political status-quo.

MN Independence Party Reaches Out to Tea Party Activists

One of the founders of the Minnesota Reform Party, Dean Barkley, has reached out to tea party activists with an open letter at Minnesota Tea Party Patriots entitled: "Don't start your own party! Take over mine!" Barkley writes:

Hello, my name is Dean Barkley. I have spent the last twenty years trying to change the ways things are done by our corrupt two party system. I began by forming the Reform Party in Minnesota. Later, we changed the name to the Independence Party, ran candidates, and eventually elected Jesse Ventura as the most widely known governor in America. Like you, the traditional political parties hated us. I just ran for the US Senate, and received 15% of the vote – with no money! The point it: change can happen!

People nationwide understand how bankrupt the two party system is (and has bankrupted America, too!). To be effective, this movement must transform into being a real political force and fast. To do so, it must create the legal, financial, and staffing infrastructure that a real political party has. The Republican Party is trying to lure some of you into its folds with pretty promises. But don’t be fooled. They just want your time, money, and votes. And they will continue business as usual – and run things their way!

I consider myself a political revolutionary, and therefore, I am one of you! I created the Independence Party in MN, and I have a plan. If enough tea partiers join the Independence Party, it becomes you! Think of it. YOU run the Independence Party, not the other way around! With all of the legal and political infrastructure elements it has. This will save lots of time and trouble. The scattered tea party people become The Tea Party – in name as well as fact. A real party – that can change things. You can do this in two weeks. Register online at MNIP.org. If three hundred do, and become delegates, they will own the Independence Party. They can change its name to Tea Party – and inherit all the party structure you need! Register to be a delegate. You can do it online. But hurry, the online caucus closes on 2/28/2010.

Let’s get back to the future and back to the United States Constitution, limited government, and the fiscal common sense of living within our means.

In a commentary for Minnesota Public Radio, the current chair of the party, Jack Uldrich, reiterates and refines Barkley's message:

Unlike the other political parties, the Independence Party truly espouses a "Big Tent" philosophy, and we welcome broad-based citizen involvement. That said, the Independence Party also understands it is no longer sufficient to only be against government; it is imperative that political parties also engage in the serious and difficult task of outlining constructive solutions. The Independence Party's rich tradition of putting forward serious and credible candidates every election cycle speaks to this proud history.

To this end, I'm confident that many individual members of the Tea Party movement are also serious about addressing real entitlement reform, controlling government spending, and putting forward meaningful electoral reform. On this basis alone, I encourage those associated with the movement to visit our website and review our party platform.

We don't expect everyone to agree with every platform plank. In fact, we only ask our members and candidates to be in agreement with 75 percent of our core planks and 60 percent of supporting planks. If any citizen, including members of the Tea Party movement -- or any other movement for that matter -- can live within these guidelines, and if they are also willing to engage in honest, constructive and respectful political debate on those issues on which they are in disagreement, then, by all means, the Independence Party welcomes them.

The two party system is failing Minnesota. It has already catastrophically failed at the federal level -- as witnessed by the $14 trillion (and growing) national debt. The Independence Party and the Tea Party movement are two different reflections of this reality. As party chair, I welcome any citizen who is serious about helping get this country back on a sound fiscal track.

The Ugly Face of the Democratic-Republican Political Class, or, Why Would Any Self-Respecting Independent Vote Democrat or Republican?

At The Hankster, Nancy Hanks has been following developments in the efforts of independents in Kentucky to open the Democratic and Republican primary elections to independent voters. The grassroots group Independent Kentucky is currently pushing for passage of a bill that would do just that. At the California Independent Voter Network, Ryan Jaroncyk writes:

Fed up with the two-party system, independents scored a huge victory for more open primaries in the Kentucky state senate. Despite strong opposition from Democrats, the Kentucky Senate voted to allow registered independents the opportunity to participate in the primary elections. The vote moves to the Kentucky House where Democrats comprise a majority, putting passage in jeopardy.

Independent Kentucky, a grassroots nonpartisan organization, is leading the growing effort to allow the tens of thousands of registered independents a voice in the primary elections. If the bill somehow passes the Kentucky House, independent voters could participate for the first time, though they would have to request a partisan ballot in a semi-open primary model. Partisan opposition is adamant that the current two-party system is the purest form of American democracy and should not be altered to placate those individuals who refuse to participate in the dominant, electoral model. [Emphasis added.]

That "partisan opposition" to the efforts of independent activists is, of course, the Democratic-Republican political class and ruling establishment. In Kentucky, the ugly face of that opposition is provided by former Governor and sitting Democratic State Senator, Julian Carroll. In a recent CNN report on the efforts of Kentucky's independents, Carroll revealed the dictatorial and totalitarian sense of entitlement that drives the Democratic-Republican elite in their opposition to the empowerment of the people of the United States. What follows is a transcription, from the video embedded below, of Carroll's interaction with independent activist Michael Lewis and of his interview with a reporter from CNN:

Carroll: What you're saying is "I don't like the way America runs its political system," well if you don't like it, move to another country.
Lewis: That's not true Senator. Don't you want to talk about something real instead of these false truths that you're spreading.
––––––––––––
Carroll: If they want a party, fine, we'll create a party, and then they can have their own party, that believes in their own principles.
CNN Reporter: Independents don't want to have their own party.
Carroll: I could care less what they want. I'm telling you how we operate a democracy in America, we operate a democracy in America with the two-party system.
––––––––––––––––––––––
Carroll: You're trying to destroy the two-party system in America and I'm not gonna be a part of it. End of discussion.
Lewis: There is no party here sir. [Emphasis added.]

For partisans of the ruling Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government, empowering the people of the United States amounts to nothing less than an attack on the foundations of American democracy. Why any self-respecting independent would want to participate in Democratic and Republican Party primaries and thereby aid the Democratic-Republican ruling establishment in their ongoing class war against the people of the United States remains unclear: if you support Republicans or Democrats rather than actual independent candidates for office, in what sense are you an independent? What remains all too clear is that the destruction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government is the very condition of political freedom and independence in the United States today.

Connecticut Independents Organize Against Democratic-Republican Ruling Coalition

Last summer, in a post on grassroots independent and third party activism in Connecticut, I wrote:

It should come as no surprise that one of the two Independents in the US senate represents the state of Connecticut. The majority of voters in the state are not affiliated with any political party whatsoever. And their numbers are growing. In 1989, Independents accounted for 33% of registered voters in the state. In 2004, 44% of registered voters in the state were not affiliated with any party . . . Late last year, the Stamford Plus reported that there were twenty-four active parties in Connecticut. This year has witnessed the foundation of at least two more. The Milford, Connecticut Independent Party was launched in April, and now residents in the town of Chester have launched the Common Ground Party.

The New Haven Register reports that the Milford Independent Party is currently in the process of formalizing its organizational structure to put themselves in a position to defeat the ruling Democratic-Republican establishment coalition:

The Milford Independent Party is planning to create a more formal organizational structure, which leaders hope will put them on an equal playing field with Republicans and Democrats. At a meeting Monday, the party will form a town committee, adopt bylaws, elect officers and attempt to recruit a full slate of candidates for state and local elections . . .

Stephen Borer, an organizer who ran for the Board of Aldermen from the 1st District in November, said it’s time to offer another alternative. “People are tired of the two-party system not working for them,” he said . . . Borer added that the party will seek to nominate a full slate of candidates for state and local elections. The Milford group will become affiliated with the state Independent Party.

Utah Group Declares Independence, Begins Independent Petition Drive

In Utah, a group called The People's Right has begun an organizing campaign geared specifically toward the election of independent candidates for office. The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the launch of the effort on President's Day:

One grassroots group took advantage of Presidents Day as the opportune time to launch its own brand of revolution. "In honor of the first president, George Washington, it is the right and duty of the people to declare independence from partisan politics," said Dale Ure of The Peoples Right. Citing a section of state law that allows an organization of voters to qualify independent candidates outside the established party system, The Peoples Right announced the Utah Independent Project, with its chief aim to run a no-strings-attached candidate for governor and other high-profile offices. "We are not looking for the traditional politician," said Alton resident Sharla Christie, a regional coordinator for The Peoples Right. With that in mind, the group said that self-nominations will be rejected at its regional and statewide meetings to be held Feb. 27 at the Territorial State House in Fillmore. "We will have 70 to 100 meetings in the next two weeks," Christie said. "We don't run this -- the people do. We just give them the tools." The group's new Web site, www.utahlive.us is key to building momentum to meet the March 19 filing deadline for state and federal races, Christie said.

On the site's "About" page we read:

The Peoples Right is a group of Utah voters whose purpose is to promote, find and support independent candidates for public office who will take an oath not to accept bribes “corporate donations” or become corrupted with personal use of campaign funds.

As I wrote early last month in a profile of Utah's independent candidates for congress, it is anybody's game there.

AR Senate: With Lincoln Down in the Polls Things are Looking Up for Independent and Third Party Candidates

Given that duopolized polls show Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln trailing her likely Republican opponents by significant margins, and given the relatively weak GOP apparatus in the state, not to mention its high percentage of independent voters, we may well see a competitive multi-party contest develop in the Natural State over the course of this year's election season. In the state's 2008 Senate election, the Republican Party did not even field a candidate against incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor, and Green Party candidate Rebekah Kennedy received 20% of the vote in the two-way contest. This year's Senate race will feature two independents, Trevor Drown and Ed Frizzell, as well as Green Party candidate John Gray. The Drown campaign has now launched its petition drive, writing in part:

Despite incredible pressure from the Arkansas Republican Party, who only make up 3% of the voters in Arkansas I still remain committed to replace Senator Blanche Lincoln as an Independent candidate . . . In Arkansas we have the right to put someone on the ballot using the petition process. This has never happened before for a US Senate Seat. It takes 10,000 signatures from Arkansas registered voters and we have 90 days to do this . . . On February 2, 2010, hundreds of Arkansans will hit the street with a petition in their hand seeking signatures all over the state of Arkansas. Their purpose, secure 10, 20 or in some cases more than 100 signatures from registered voters who are seeking to make history. Their goal, for the first time put an Independent Candidate for US Senate on the ballot for the general election in November 2010. Arkansas's largest group of registered voters choose to be independents. They make up 92 percent of all registered voters. For too long the two party political system has let them down. They are looking for a new breed of elected leader, one which will put them first above political party and special interest groups.

Cross-posted at Third Party and Independent Daily.

Independents Outnumber Registered Democrats and Republicans in at Least Eleven States

In numerous media commentaries on the significance of the independent vote in the Massachusetts special election, analysts repeatedly stressed that the rolls of independent voters in the Bay State outnumber those of Democrats and Republicans combined. A handful of these commentators also drew attention to the fact that Massachusetts is one of eleven states in which there are more registered independents than Democrats or Republicans. For instance, John Avlon wrote at CNN:

Independents are the largest and fastest growing segment of the electorate. There are now 11 states like Massachusetts, where independents outnumber Democrats or Republicans outright.

Unsurprisingly, I was hard pressed to find a mainstream media analysis that actually informed readers which states those were. Fortunately, however, at Ballot Access News Richard Winger has a comprehensive table of states with partisan registration, showing how many voters there are in each state party and how many independents there are in each state. The most recent table, linked above, is from December 1st, 2008 and is based on registration totals as of October 2008. There are 30 states on the list. I found nine in which registered independents outnumbered both Democrats and Republicans individually or in which they outnumbered Democrats and Republicans taken together: Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Utah. Assuming that the media factoid is not false, this leaves two unaccounted for. Anyone happen to know which ones they are? Willing to take a guess?

Building the Opposition: There is No Second Party in a One-Party State

I have remarked before that Democrats and Republicans never sound so much the same as when they drone on about how different they are. Similarly, the difference between the Democrat and the Republican vanishes when they seek to dissuade others from engaging in third party and independent opposition to the reigning political status quo and duopoly system of government. Consider the way in which Democratic and Republican ideologues exploit the constitution in their efforts to justify the ongoing tyranny of the two-party state. Democratic Party ideologue Booman of the Booman Tribune:

We have a two-party system that is driven by the first past the post winner-take-all federal elections that were created by our Constitution . . . The Democratic Party is the only organization standing in this country that can be trusted to serve the interests of business or labor or the big guy or the little guy.

On the other side of the duopoly divide, we have, for instance, Republican Party ideologue Donald Douglas at American Power:

my concern is that the tea party movement will essentially become a populist third party movement . . . given the historical record of third parties in our structural two-party system . . . Our movement needs to work within the structural constraints of the single-member, winner-take-all system.

The argument that the Democratic-Republican two-party state is the inevitable result of plurality voting would be convincing were it not for the fact that the the so-called two-party system has degenerated into a one-party state at local, state and federal level polities across the United States. Ironically, then, by their own logic, we should expect to see a rise in third party and independent political forces at the local, state and federal levels clear across the country. I've made this point before in arguing for the necessity of intellectual independence from duopoly ideology, but there are some new developments on this front among Massachusetts Greens. The liberal Commonwealth is obviously considered a Democratic stronghold. The state legislature is dominated by Democrats, who outnumber Republicans 144 to 15 in the House and 35 to 5 in the Senate. Yet, this breakdown is highly unrepresentative of Massachusetts voters, over 50% of whom are unaffiliated with either of the major parties. As in so many other states across the nation, the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government has here degenerated into a one-party state that is clearly incapable of adequately representing its voting population. At the Green Mass Group, Green Dem makes that case that the Green Party is the rightful opposition party in the Bay State. Via Ross Levin at IPR:

If the Green Party became a dominant party here in Massachusetts it would not only force the Democratic Party more to the left but maybe even the Republicans . . . We have so many races in Massachusetts where the incumbent or Democratic candidate running unopposed. We have 200 seats in the House and Senate combined and 21 of them are held by Republicans.

In 2008 there were 9 contested elections for State Senate out of 40 and only one of them had a Green-Rainbow candidate. In 2008 there were 40 contested elections for State House out of 160 and we had ZERO Green-Rainbow candidates . . .

It takes 150 signatures to get on the ballot for State Representative and 300 for State Senator. We collect 20,000+ every time a member of the Green Party runs for Governor and LT. Governor I think we can collect at least that many for the down ballot races. If we did that for just the House races we would get at least 133 candidates on the ballot. Or we could get 40 Senate candidates and 50+ House races.

The party needs to rethink its strategy because we will never win the Governorship or a Federal Senate/House seat without elected officials in lower positions. I'm not saying don't run but I am saying do two things at once get signatures for both at the same time or just focus on the lower races. One thing is clear the Green Party can easily become the opposition party here in Massachusetts.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but third party and independent activists may stand the best chance of success in defeating the major parties where they appear strongest!

Anybody's Game: Utah's Independent Candidates for Congress 2010

Though it is considered a Republican Party stronghold, the state of Utah is noteworthy for its high percentage of registered independents, who constitute a majority of registered voters. As Richard Winger reported at Ballot Access News last year:

The Utah state elections office has released a registration tally. The results: Republican 589,326; Democratic 132,011; Libertarian 3,181; Constitution 2,203; independent and other, 772,997. The percentages are: Republican 39.30%; Democratic 8.80%; Libertarian .21%; Constitution .15%; independent and other 51.54%.

This year's electoral contest in Utah's 2nd Congressional District will put its independents to the test. The district is currently represented by Democrat Jim Matheson, who defeated his Republican challenger by a wide margin in 2008. Besides Republican Casey Anderson, Matheson will likely face two independent challengers this November: Ryan Kelly and Dave Glissmeyer. (In order to appear on the ballot in Utah this November, as far as I am aware, independent candidates must pay a filing fee and submit a petition signed by 300 people by mid-March.) In his campaign statement, Glissmeyer underscores the corrupting influence of corporate lobbyists over the Democratic and Republican Parties:

Everywhere we turn, our political system is plagued by fiscal madness, partisan bickering, and inadequate leadership . . . the road back to political sanity has to start somewhere, so here’s what I’m offering. First, I will pledge not to take a single dollar from any corporate interest and to accept money only from individuals, with no strings attached. Standing clear of the corporate power brokers, I think I will be free to listen more closely and act more forthrightly on behalf of my constituents and America’s national interest. Second, I will pander to no group or individual, no matter how powerful. Third, I will commit to publishing a diary, blog or history of my doings on no less than a weekly basis. This will allow you to keep tabs on me and what I am trying to accomplish. It will also allow me to point out the obstacles and arguments standing in our way.

Kelly, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of voter participation and the problem represented by consistently low voter turnout. From his mission statement:

We the people have a duty to our country to defend our liberty and our right to choose what is best for ourselves. This is why I seek to be elected to our Federal government. I feel that few in our government now are willing to defend our rights as they should. They have stopped listening to us, and rather than use our power to vote to remove these people from office, almost half of us stay at home and let them do things for us. America needs a Congress that remembers they are chosen by the people to represent them to the rest of the nation. America needs people who remember that when government fails in its duty to represent the will of the people, we must use the power of the vote to replace those elected with people who will do as we ask them.

Kelly is right to stress the importance of voter participation and the need to increase voter turn-out in the Beehive State. Earlier this week, I contacted Randy Miller, president of the Utah League of Independent Voters, who pointed out that Utah ranks 42nd out of 50 in Fair Vote's voter turnout rankings (averaging 52% participation), and that it comes in 49th in terms of voter registration. As the Desert News reported last summer:

The Census Bureau estimated that 56.8 percent of U.S. citizens living in Utah were registered to vote . . . only Hawaii, where 46.8 percent were registered, had lower numbers.

Heading into the 2010 campaign season, Miller is optimistic about independent candidacies of Kelly and Glissmeyer, stating via email: "In Utah, Republicans seem to be the only game in town, but in reality, it's anybody's game."

Don't Call the Arsonists to Put Out the Fire: Democratic-Republican Government as On-going Criminal Enterprise in New York State

Due to a minor technical glitch, The Whig was down for a brief period over the holidays, but it's now back up and running. In a recent post, Septimus relays a NYT editorial calling on the people of New York to vote out all of their state legislators this year. Here are a few excerpts from what The Times calls "the worst of the worst" of the NYS legislature:

New York has been on the brink of economic collapse, but the Legislature blithely ignored the problem for months. When the deficit reached a truly alarming $3.2 billion, the lawmakers grudgingly agreed to last-minute fixes while carefully protecting their political buddies and donors . . .

Senate Republicans had abused their 40-year majority and secretly used state money to pursue party business. Among the discoveries: a secret plant, with 75 employees, to print Republicans’ mail to constituents; a Republican-only television studio; secret Republican Party research staff . . .

The Republicans’ longtime Senate leader, Joseph Bruno, stepped down in 2008 before he was indicted on eight counts of exploiting his office for personal gain. Earlier this month, Mr. Bruno was convicted on two felony counts involving “theft of honest services." . . .

let’s not forget the Republican coup in June, abetted by two of the least-qualified Democrats: Senators Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens. Never mind that Mr. Espada was — and is — being investigated for allegedly living outside his district and failing to report campaign contributions. And Mr. Monserrate already had been indicted for assaulting his girlfriend.

This is not the first time the NYT has made calls for blanket anti-incumbency. But, as Septimus argues, simply voting out incumbents does not go nearly far enough. From The Whig:

While replacing everyone might help in the short term, it doesn't get to the core of the problem. If you vote out all of the current crop of corrupt Democrats and Republicans, you will only be replacing them with other Democrats and Republicans, and the political machines that we call the two major parties will keep humming along under different names.

We need more profound and deeper change. It is becoming apparent that we need to rethink how we conduct the serious business of politics. Just replacing Democrats with Republicans, or vice versa, is not enough. If you replace an office holder with another who embodies the same political culture, you will get only a change of rhetoric, but not a change of any substance.

That is the main reason I am not more enthusiastic about efforts to simply vote out incumbents. One of the main efforts is at goooh.com. GOOOH stands for "Get Out Of Our House" and is an effort to replace incumbents. This effort does not go nearly far enough.

If we were to replace every Democrat with a Republican, and every Republican with a Democrat, the control of the House would change, and that would be about it. Not only did the corrupt political culture not change when the Democrats took over from the Republicans, but the downward trend of our politics only accelerated. Didn't the "Contract With America" Republicans of 1994 degenerate quickly into the corruption of Tom Delay?

Replacing one with the other is not the answer. We need more political competition. Only this will produce the fairness, common sense, and moderation we need so badly.

Primary Farce: Low Voter Turnout in MA Senate Primary a Crisis of Government, an Opportunity for the Opposition

Reports on the US Senate primary elections to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts uniformly emphasize the lack of voter participation. TPMDC writes:

Turnout in today's Democratic primary for the Massachusetts special election for Senate -- tantamount to election for Ted Kennedy's seat, in this deep-blue state -- is turning out to be astonishingly low . . . as of 3 p.m. ET, only 35,000 people had voted in Boston, less than 10% of the city's registered voters.

At WikiNews, we read:

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin said that he expected turn out to be "very light" with 500,000 to 900,000 voters out of Massachusetts 4.1 million registered voters participating. He added that the turnout would be much closer to "to the 5 than to the 9." Galvin further noted that turnout would mostly consist of Democrat and Republican voters and not independents noting that, "My instinct is that the independents are not participating."

In other words, as many as 7 or 8 out of every 10 voters in Massachusetts could not be bothered to cast a ballot for any of the candidates being floated by the Democratic or Republican Parties. At what point do we admit that officials – and even entire governments – elected with such thin support from the public are simply illegitimate? Some of us already have. Bad Karma writes:

i'm having a good chuckle reading all the party faithful gnashing their teeth over their "get out and vote" plea today. the turnout is dismal, and i, for one, couldn't be more encouraged. after all, this is NOT an election--it's a party primary--a private function for the people who are screwing our nation, and screwing it very, very badly. worst of all, it's a soiree that's being paid for by *all* of us, to complete the travesty . . . the only thing these "two" parties, who are really only two sides of one, are for, is anything to advance their own agendas and ideologies of graft and corruption and denial of personal liberties. so it's no wonder to me that nobody but nobody wants to vote for adherents of either crime syndicate.

However, in the special election to be held on January 19, 2010, Massachusetts voters will not be stuck with the false choice between a Republican and a Democrat. Earlier this week, independent libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy (no relation to Ted) completed the signature requirements necessary to get his name on the ballot. If the primary vote is any indication of participation in the election to come, Kennedy need only garner the active support of 1 or 2 in 10 voters to come out on top in the contest.

Illinois: Third Party and Independent Candidates for Governor 2010

At the Columbia Chronicle, a student newspaper of Columbia College Chicago, Patrick Smith reports on the spectrum of third party and independent candidates for governor in Illinois in 2010, including independent Michael White and Libertarian Lex Green:

According to White, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force and the Illinois National Guard for more than 20 years, voters are eager for a candidate who is not affiliated with the two major parties, Republicans and Democrats.

Libertarian candidate for governor of Illinois, Lex Green, said he has seen the same interest from voters. “I’m seeing a growing number of people who have become energized,” Green said. “It seems to be a very positive experience for me.”

White said he believes the “majority of Illinois voters consider themselves Independent.” He also said the voters he spoke to opened up to him when they found out he was not affiliated with either major party . . .

In addition to Green and White, there are two other third-party candidates. Randy Stufflebeam is the candidate for the Constitution Party, and Rich Whitney is running as the Green Party Candidate. The Green Party will be on the ballot as an official third party in 2010, because the party received 11 percent of the vote in 2006 . . . The last time Illinois had an official third party on the ballot was 1986.

Wanted: Anyone But These People II

Ballot Access News reports on the results from a poll in Michigan which found that an absolute majority of voters would consider voting for an independent gubernatorial candidate in 2010:

54% of Michigan voters consider it “likely” or “very likely” that they would consider supporting an independent gubernatorial candidate in 2010. Only 12% said it is “unlikely” that they would consider that idea . . . Also, when voters are asked which major party they intend to support in 2010 legislative races, 25% say Democratic, and 24% say Republican, with the remainder saying they don’t know or “someone else”.

Unfortunately, in Michigan there are no declared independent or third party candidates for governor next year, at least as far as I am aware, and there is but one such candidate for Congress. Scott Aughney is running for office in Michigan's 7th CD as an "independent conservative."

Wanted: Anyone but these people.

The Wisconsin State Journal bemoans the lack of competition in the state's Republican and Democratic gubernatorial primaries and even goes so far as to call for third party challengers for the governor's seat:

It's as if the Democratic and Republican primaries for governor have already wrapped up 10 months before voters get their say.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is the lone Democrat of note seeking his party's nomination next September. Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker is the leading candidate for the Republican nomination . . . the bigwigs in the Democratic and Republican parties seem bent on crowning their respective kings long before most voters even focus on the race . . .

Both Barrett and Walker are strong candidates with extensive experience, support and contrasting ideas. But voters deserve more choice, ideas and debate. That's what statewide primaries are supposed to provide. Instead, neither major party may have a competitive primary for the second gubernatorial election in a row . . .

Voters should encourage more candidates to jump or stay in the race. Let the candidates know you have an open mind and won't be swayed by slick TV ads. Former Libertarian candidate for governor Ed Thompson also showed in 2002 that third-party voices can enrich the debate even if the political system is stacked against them.

Thompson is the mayor of Tomah, Wisconsin. In 2002, he garnered 11% of the vote in his bid for governor on the Libertarian ticket.