Break the Duopoly: Electoral Fusion

It is likely not coincidental that the decline of fusion voting can be tied to the rise of the one-party state. In the latest of a series of posts on necessary political reform at Attack of the Machine Elves, Maikeru provides a detailed article in favor of electoral fusion:

Fusion balloting, which is also referred to as cross-endorsement or open ballot voting, refers to the practice of allowing multiple political parties to nominate the same candidate for the same office. This cross-endorsement can open up several possibilities for minor parties operating within the constraints of a political system like ours here in America, in which two parties are dominant: these minor parties might, for example, choose to cross-endorse candidates nominated by one of the two major parties, or to cross-nominate each other's candidates, or to run their own candidates without any cross-endorsements, depending on what their political and strategic priorities are. At present, fusion balloting doesn't affect most voters because it's only allowed in eight states: Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont.

Maikeru concludes that electoral fusion will aid progressive political activism:

If we are to achieve the goal of a truly open and representative political system, we must work to inflict a one-two punch on the Republican/Democratic duopoly by seeking liberalized ballot access laws that make the ballot more accessible to minor parties, and laws allowing multiple-line fusion balloting in order to help minor parties achieve political relevance. Cross-endorsement will encourage the formation and growth of third parties by encouraging their support among people who might otherwise be inclined to either cast a pragmatic vote for one of the two major parties, or just not cast a vote. It will help to energize voters who are currently disengaged from the American political process. And for those of us who are progressives, it will give us an important tool to shift the Democratic Party and the American political dialogue in our direction, and finally achieve some of the change that, up till now, our elected Democrats have been paying mere lip service to.

However, though the emphasis here is on the advantage the proposed reform would provide to progressives seeking to shift the emphasis of Democratic Party policy positions, it should be noted that electoral fusion may equally serve the aims of activists across the ideological spectrum. For instance, last year in upstate New York, conservatives and tea party activists did not have to settle for the false choice between a Republican and a Democrat in the special election for NY's 23rd congressional seat, since the Conservative Party was assured a place on the ballot; in NYC, on the other hand, the Independence Party's ballot line has consistently provided (now) Independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg with his margin of victory. Political reforms that weaken the power of the Democratic-Republican duopoly on elected office strengthen representative government by empowering the people over and against the professional political class.

UK: King of All Witches to Run for Parliament

The UK's Telegraph reports that Magus Lynius Shadee, self-proclaimed "King of All Witches," is planning an independent campaign to become Cambridge's next Member of Parliament:

A witch has vowed to stand in the general election in a bid to be Cambridge's next MP. Magus Lynius Shadee, who calls himself the King of All Witches, hopes to cast a spell on voters and steer them away from the traditional parties . . . Mr Shadee plans to open an occult centre and claims to have conjured up a demon in Cambridge's Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs in Hills Road, as the News reported [see this story for details -d.]. Now he has contacted the city's returning officer and plans to stand in the election, expected to be called by Gordon Brown in May. He said: "This is an opportunity to change people's lives for the better. I also hope to have candidates in six or seven other high-profile seats."

Shadee's platform emphasizes the separation of church and state, education and children's safety, among other things:

"I want to tackle the problems in education, health and crime and turn Britain into a truly secular society by banning faith schools and the teaching of religious education . . . I also want MPs' salaries to be like everyone else's. If they don't come to work, they don't get paid."

Before casting the spell to steer voters away from the traditional parties, Shadee may well have to reverse the spell that drives them toward the major parties. It is unclear how effective Shadee's incantations have proven to be in the past. His Twitter feed, however, implies that he has had some success driving up the price of shares for the Royal Bank of Scotland:

• rbs is under value at present, and the true value todate is £1.35p. 3:50 AM Oct 17th, 2009

• Preparing a manifestation ritual. 12:39 PM Oct 18th, 2009

• Royal Bank of Scotland, will have higher than expected 3rd quarter profits, which will drive the share price above 60p. per share. 6:26 AM Oct 21st, 2009

• RBS are in a profit this quarter, where on the turn, thank me (God). 6:28 AM Oct 21st, 2009 [Emphasis added.]

It would be easy to dismiss Shadee as a charlatan, but is he really all that different from the bankers themselves? With the distinction, of course, that the demons they conjure are appointees from the Fed and the Treasury.

Against Infiltration: Fool me once, shame on you. I won't get fooled again.

Whether they are conservative or liberal, those who forward an infiltrationist strategy of "taking back" the Republican or Democratic Party commonly fall prey to any number of the contradictions engendered by this strategy. Chief among these is the fact that they recognize the problem represented by the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the duopoly system of government, but consciously refuse to address it. At When Falls the Colliseum, Tyler Andrews admits that the GOP is as much a part of the problem in Washington D.C. as the Democrats are:

A new and fired up brand of conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and tea partiers want something new . . . They want a legitimate third way. They want a banner to rally behind that sheds off the constraints of today’s GOP — a party left in philosophical tatters after eight years of “compassionate” government growth, adventurous militarism, moral hypocrisy, and skyrocketing deficits — all endorsed by Bush (and now gleefully exploded into the stratosphere by Obama). It’s hard to argue with this sentiment. Whether Donkey or Elephant, today’s brain trust in Washington has pushed for too much intrusion, too many bailouts, too much nannyism, statism, protectionism, corporatism…too much “ism.”

The solution Andrews offers, however, is not principled and practical opposition to Democratic-Republican two-party statism and the duopolized political order that maintains the thoroughly corrupted ruling power structure, but rather "taking back" the GOP:

instead of learning its lessons, the party establishment talks about further “moderation” and “big tents,” while the true believers end up more and more alienated from the party itself. We can change this. We can take back the original republican message and bring it to the country as a whole.

The focus on messaging and branding ("the GOP brand may be tarnished . . . but") underscores an unwillingness to confront the depth of the problem represented by the monopolization and centralization of political power in the hands of the Democratic-Republican Party and their corporate sponsors. A similar contradiction can be found in a commentary by Jeffrey Kuhner in The Washington Times. Kuhner writes:

is the Republican Party the most effective vehicle to spearhead the conservative counterrevolution? Many on the right believe that electing Republicans will stem the growth of statism. They are wrong . . . conservatives would be wise to follow the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Actions speak louder than words. And it should take more than a mea culpa from Mr. Steele to buy conservatives' allegiance. Instead, the "tea party" movement should demand that the Republican Party outline a detailed platform for the 2010 elections.

Ironically, Kuhner states outright that the Republican Party is "part of the problem," that it stands for nothing more than the triumph of "big government," that conservatives have been fooled by clever Republican Party messaging before, but then he immediately suggests that grassroots conservatives fall for it again! Though he is today reviled by many on the right, conservatives and libertarians would be wise to heed the words of George W. Bush: "You fool me once, shame on you . . . I won't get fooled again."

Past Due: Time for a Third Party Uprising

In an editorial for SC Now, out of South Carolina, Lisa Chalain-Rock argues that it is "time for a third party uprising." Some excerpts:

We may feel Republicans and Democrats are oceans apart, but the line between them is actually quite thin. Both parties bend to corporate will long before any public outcry because the corporations fund their campaigns . . .

Money drives Washington, and it’s driving this country off a cliff of no return. Both parties agree campaign finance reform needs to be done, according to their campaign speeches, but it never happens. The public approves of it. The big money doesn’t . . .

Something we agree upon should be easier to implement than thornier issues like health care, but Congress doesn’t tackle it. “Throwing the bums out” only works if the replacement doesn’t play for the same team . . .

When our calls and letters are dismissed or denied so continuously, our only true option for change is a third party to challenge the two-party duopoly over our current system. Third party and independent candidates speak out where others often don’t. As citizens, we are responsible in part for the way our country has drifted. Most people don’t vote, don’t call, don’t write and don’t pay attention to politics . . . Neither party is doing what we want. We need to fund and support candidates who will or find fresh faces to compete or run for office ourselves.

Independent? You May Not Be as Alienated as You Think

I've wondered here before whether we would see a drop in independent identification as newly declared independents experienced the consequences of independence and realized that they cannot vote in the major party primary of their choice because they are not affiliated with any party, as is the case in a number of states. But there is also the opposite problem, namely, independents who think they cannot vote in a major party's primary because they are unaffiliated, but who live in states with semi-open primaries, meaning they can. Apparently, this is the case in Arizona. In an opinion piece in the Arizona Republic, Linda Valdez clarifies the law for her readers while also providing a few statistics showing that, over the last six months, while the ranks of Democrats and Republicans have been on the decline, those of independents are on the rise in the Grand Canyon State. She writes:

Independents make up nearly a third of all registered voters in Arizona. Too bad they don't know their own strength. After I suggested in print recently that independents could have a moderating effect on the Legislature by voting in the primary, I got calls telling me independents are barred from primaries.

No, they aren't. "Independents can vote in the primaries," says Secretary of State Ken Bennett. "They should be informed of that," says Steve Lynn, Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission chairman. A registered independent, Lynn says the lack of understanding among independents about their voting rights is a significant problem . . .

Since July, both the Republican and Democratic parties lost voters, according to October figures from Bennett's office. Those who register as no party preference - independents - rose by 17,992. Independents make up 915,981 of the state's 3.1 million registered voters. Republicans are at 1.13 million; Democrats number 1.04 million . . . If voters sit out the primary by choice, that's fine. But if independents stay away because they think they are prohibited, that's disenfranchisement of a growing number of voters.

Ten Theses Toward a Critique of the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State and the Duopoly System of Government

The Democratic-Republican two-party system is undemocratic, anti-republican, and tends toward one-party rule.

1) No party system whatsoever is mandated by the Constitution of the United States.

2) To maintain that political representation in the United States cannot function otherwise than by means of the reigning two-party system is to imply that the Constitution of the United States does not in fact constitute a functional representative government.

3) It is commonly asserted that, in the two-party system, the Democratic and Republican Parties each act as a check and balance against the other. Such statements are not only false, they are dangerous fabrications, confusing an extra-constitutional political convention with the constitutional construction of the United States of America.

4) Plurality voting may tend to produce a two-party system of political contests in a given polity, but the Democratic-Republican two-party system of political representation has degenerated into a one-party state in polities across the United States.

5) The monopolization and centralization of political power by the Democratic and Republican Parties represents a threat to constitutional republican government. The Democratic and Republican Parties are nothing more than the political organs of narrow factional interests.

6) The politics of the Democratic-Republican two-party state are primarily reactionary in character. Support for the one is predicated, first and foremost, on rejection of the other.

7) The reproduction of the two-party state is justified by means of nothing more than a set of ideological mystifications: lesser-evilism, historical determinism, the virtue of political impatience, etc.

8) Presented with the false choice between a Republican and a Democrat in the majority of elections – when they are provided with a choice at all –, the majority of voters reject both, opting not to vote rather than vote Republican or Democrat. The Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government is a crisis of democracy.

9) The US electorate is composed of a highly diverse body of individuals and groups comprising a multi-polar social order. The bi-polar order of the two-party state is structurally incapable of adequately representing this multiplicity of interests.

10) Political independence is the condition of political freedom. Insofar the the people of the United States remain dependent upon the Democratic and Republican Parties for their political representation, the people of the United States are not free; rather, we are subject to a "frightful despotism."

The Democratic-Republican two-party system is undemocratic, anti-republican, and tends toward one-party rule.

A Progressive Case for Ballot Access Reform

Confronted with the plain truth of the fact that the Democratic Party stands for nothing more than the reproduction of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, some progressive activists have begun to question the delusion under which so many of them labored for so many years, namely, that the Democratic Party stands for something other than the reproduction of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. At Attack of the Machine Elves, Maikeru (who also posts as Big Tex at FDL), has begun a series of posts under the title "Political Reform: Change we can REALLY believe in." Maikeru writes:

Many of us on the left had great expectations of this new President and his fellow Democrats, expectations that would be dashed to pieces against the jagged reality of a political system that was oriented towards protecting the interests of concentrated wealth. In retrospect, of course, we should have known better than to get our hopes up: the man in whom we had invested them was a product of the very same political realities that ultimately conspired to destroy the promise so many of us saw in him, as were the elected Democrats whose help he would need in fulfilling that promise.

The author then goes on to compile a long list of necessary political reforms, encompassing everything from the voting system and ballot access issues to terms limits, political literacy and the party nominating process. Today, Maikeru argues that "ballot access reform is the first step in fixing America's broken political system," and provides a short history of ballot access restriction, writing:

if we are to steer this country away from disaster we must first clear the path for economic and social reform by achieving fundamental systemic changes to break the two-party duopoly and replace it with an open multiparty democracy. One of the first, and certainly one of the most important, elements in that systemic reform must be the liberalization of ballot access laws at the federal and state level . . .

The pernicious effect of ballot access laws as barriers to political participation certainly isn’t limited to minor party or independent candidates, nor is it limited to general elections: Democratic and Republican candidates running in primaries for their parties’ nominations are often faced with onerous requirements that include gathering and validating a high number of signatures from registered voters, paying excessive filing fees, and navigating byzantine and overly technical petition requirements. But the barriers faced by members of the Big Two are nothing compared to those faced by minor party and independent candidates, due to the fact that ballot access laws are generally structured to favor established political parties. In some states, minor party and independent petitioners are handcuffed by laws that prohibit people who have either voted in a party’s primary or registered as party member from signing ballot petitions. Democrats and Republicans have done such an effective job gaming the system against minor parties that no third party since 1920 has been able to place candidates on the ballot in half or more of congressional races in any given election cycle.

The ballot access barrier isn't the only tool that the Republican/Democratic duopoly has used to maintain its hold on political power, but it has been one of the most important and effective tools in their arsenal. And their control over the workings of the American political system has had an observable degrading effect on democracy in this country: what was once a relatively robust political system with viable minor parties has devolved into a dysfunctional mess plagued by low voter turnout, low turnover, and gridlock.

TN: Tea Party Republican Declares Independence

Donn Janes, a candidate for congress in Tennessee, has announced that he is withdrawing from the Republican primary to file as a "Tea Party" independent. The Nashville Post politics blog quotes from Janes' announcement:

This past Saturday, Donn Janes, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Tennessee’s 8th District spoke in Paris, TN, to an estimated 300 Tea Party activists from the West Tennessee area.

“As of today, I am no longer going to run for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican,” Janes announced. “We need to change the way we elect our representatives. We continue to rely on the two-party system to provide us with different choices; but thanks to this corrupt system, there is little difference between the two of them. Both parties voted to increase the size of our government; both parties voted to trade your freedoms for security; and both parties are responsible for our monstrous debt, our failing economy and the exporting of our jobs overseas. I will be running as an independent Tea Party Candidate, a candidate who doesn’t answer to or work for party leadership, but a candidate who will work for the people of West Tennessee.”

In the face of the duopolist charge that independent candidacies "split the vote," Janes turns the tables:

During the extended question and answer portion following his speech, Mr. Janes was asked if he thought his running as an independent would split the vote.

“I intend to. I will be asking for votes from both Democrats and Republicans, many who are fed up with their party’s refusal to adhere to their respective party platforms. Over the course of my traveling within the 8th District, I believe there are enough conservative Democrats and right-minded Republicans who will enable me to win.”

Wiggling Out of the Duopolist Straitjacket: the Politics of Independents

In New Hampshire's Sentinel Source, Steve Gilbert reflects on "the politics of independents." Though Gilbert unreasonably limits his definition of independents to so-called 'moderates,' it is refreshing to see professional media commentary articulated from an explicitly independent perspective:

It’s tough to be an independent. It’s the party non grata in politics, frowned upon because it doesn’t lend itself to conformity. We’re outsiders, encamped on the fringe of a partisan world, where you’re supposed to live and vote on either the left or right. More than ever, in our increasingly hostile civil war of politics, independents are brushed aside like a Charlie-in-the-Box in the land of misfit toys.

Independents are often lumped in with a third party, the catchall deposit for political groups that don’t follow Democrat or Republican dogma. The Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Reform, Constitution, and johnny-come-lately Boston Tea Party are examples of third parties . . .

But they are hopelessly overwhelmed, and often mocked, in our two-party system, and probably always will be. Dare you declare yourself an independent on talk radio — be it liberal Alan Colmes or conservative Rush Limbaugh — you’ll be hooted off the air with much prejudice. . . .

I am neither a Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Green, or any other label attached to politics. In primaries, I vote in the race that interests me the most. I wonder if we are a silent majority, unable to unlock the shackles that bind us to the political armies of the Republicans and Democrats. Technically, we’re moderates and we’re highly desired come election time.

Unfortunately, Gilbert does not see that the key to "unlock the shackles" which bind us to the Democratic-Republican duopolist order is ready at hand: cease supporting Democrats and Republicans, vote Independent.

Third Party and Independent Candidates for Office 2010

I just updated Poli-Tea's list of third party and independent candidates for office in 2010. The list focuses on declared third party or independent candidates for governor, US Senate and House with active websites, and now links to almost 250 aspirants in 42 states! Noteworthy this time around were the high number of Green Party candidates in Illinois and the large slate of Libertarian Party candidates in Texas.

Because of the focus on candidates with active websites, the list is not entirely comprehensive. It was compiled with the help of the 50 State Pages at Politics1 and the Green Papers' extensive election pages. If you are interested in finding out about all the candidates in your state or district, those two sites are a good place to start.

Cross-posted at Third Party and Independent Daily.

Mutual Misrecognition and the Independent Surge

Mutual mis-recognition is a defining characteristic of today's overarching duopolist ideological formation. Consider these findings from a recent Rasmussen survey of Democratic and Republican voters. Among Republicans:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of GOP voters say the average Republican congressman is more liberal than they are, while 23% say their views are about the same. Just 20% believe the average GOP representative in Congress is more conservative than the average Republican voter . . . The survey also shows that Democrats don’t understand how the GOP base sees things. A solid plurality of Democrats (42%) believes that the average Republican in Congress is more conservative than the average GOP voter.

Among Democrats, on the other hand:

The plurality (47%) of Democratic voters . . . feel the party’s average member of Congress shares the same ideological perspective that they do. The rest are evenly divided: just 26% consider the average Democratic member of Congress more liberal than they are, while 25% say the average Democratic congressman is more conservative . . . most Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party think Democrats in Congress have lost touch with the party’s voters nationwide. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 61% of unaffiliated voters think the average Democratic member of Congress is more liberal than the average Democratic voter.

Of course, taking the views of Republicans and Democrats into consideration only accounts for three-fifths of the story. Nancy Hanks relays a comparative graphic of independent identification as surveyed by Pew Research:

How the Infiltrators become the Infiltrated

A story in the Chicago Reader relates how the Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization was effectively hijacked by Democratic Party operatives, but it also demonstrates the power of even small scale independent political organizing:

On December 29, a group of north-side members of the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization gathered to endorse attorney Dan Farley as their candidate in the upcoming Democratic primary for 11th District state representative. This was a coup for Farley, a first-time office seeker. North-side candidates covet the group's stamp of approval, which gives them an aura of machine-fighting progressivism popular with voters.

The joke of it all is that there was hardly a real independent in the room that night. In fact, leading the charge for independence was none other than 47th Ward alderman Eugene Schulter, one of Mayor Daley's most loyal north-side City Council allies . . . Schulter didn't have to establish a record of independence to engineer Farley's backing from the IVI-IPO. He just got members of his Democratic ward organization to take it over . . .

Across the city many of the rank-and-file IVI-IPO members are willing to speak up against Daley and his initiatives. It was the IVI-IPO, for instance, that filed suit against the city and state over the parking meter deal, claiming it was illegal. The group has also called for a moratorium on new TIF districts. But they have to figure out a better way to protect their organization from invasion by party regulars . . .

There are about 700 IVI-IPO members citywide, according to Elder—hardly a force that can contend with powerful ward organizations that have more members, more money, and more clout. As a result, the group's endorsement typically doesn't make any difference in races featuring an entrenched incumbent. But in a tight race the IVI-IPO endorsement can tilt the scales, especially on the north side, where politicians, even the regulars, are obligated to at least pretend they have an independent streak. [Emphasis added.]

This is a perfect example of how an organization aimed at reforming the Democratic and Republican Parties from the outside can be transformed into a tool of the duopolist order. The infiltrators become the infiltrated.

The Co-Dependency Caucus: to Be a Republican or a Democrat is to be a Tool of the Democratic-Republican Party's Corporatist Agenda

As a counterpoint to the previous post on Utah's independent candidates for Congress in 2010, it should perhaps be mentioned that not all independents in Utah are all that independent. At the Examiner, Kathleen Baker profiles the Independence Caucus, which describes itself as "a Citizen's movement to take our government back from the "Big Money" Special Interest groups." At the Examiner, Baker writes:

A group of ordinary citizens from Utah shocked the political world last year [i.e. 2007] by defeating a six-term incumbent and replacing him with a fiscally conservative candidate who was outspent six to one by his challenger. Now they are taking their model nationally with chapters in 45 states, including Colorado. Fed up with politics as usual, these citizens founded the Independence Caucus to replace politicians financed by special interests with fiscally responsible candidates who support Constitutional principles.

That congressman was Jason Chaffetz, who defeated incumbent Chris Cannon for the Republican nomination. That is no inconsiderable achievement. Unfortunately, however, the Independence Caucus' intention to "take our government back from the big money special interest groups" is immediately undermined by its explicit support for two of the largest "big money special interest groups" in the United States, namely, the Republican and Democratic Parties. Baker writes:

This organization does not view itself as a third party movement. It considers itself a caucus, working within the two-party system to return control of each political party to the voters. Since third party candidates historically receive less than 2% of the vote, the Independence Caucus views it as a waste of money to endorse these candidates. They believe the way to reverse political corruption is to work within the existing two-party system.

I happened to come across an explanation of this policy at Jane Q. Republican, who relayed a message from "Frank Anderson of Independence Caucus," from which one can only conclude, if it is authentic, that the group is nothing more than a front for partisan Republicans. Its defense of duopolist political strategy makes for cringe-inducing reading:

Anyone who disagrees with our policy on not endorsing 3rd party candidates, please consider this: Remember, not a single founding father wanted political parties, yet we saw 4 of the founders – John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison – lead the development of 2 parties into existence before Washington even completed his first term.

Please Note: Those 4 founding fathers all wanted NO parties, but they immediately developed TWO parties…but not 3 or more parties. Think about that: Why would that be? They wanted NO parties…they could have set up as many parties as they wanted to…but they ended up with just two. Just like today…hmmm… Why would that be? It’s because of “ Duvergers Law.” Bottom line: Whenever “50% of the vote plus 1 more” wins EVERYTHING, people will eventually coalesce around 2 parties even when they DON’T want to do so…it’s “Duvergers Law” and it’s almost as unchangeable as gravity. [ . . . ]

we proved in 2008 that we CAN act as a caucus within the 2 existing parties, and we CAN root out the compromised incumbents from WITHIN the party…and we CAN take back control of the party from the RINO’s. We will do it in 2010 all over the country because of all of our members just like you [ . . . ]

To … anyone … who is unhappy with our policy: Are you saying that if YOU decided to run in a Republican primary, and we got behind you and we helped ELECT you and sent you to Washington…are you telling me you would somehow turn into someone who would be un-constitutional and fiscally irresponsible just because you won as a Republican or a Democrat? Of course not. [Emphasis added.]

It is difficult to know where to begin in response to such a text, or whether any response is even justified. But I have already come this far. So, in answer to the final question above, I would reply only that one is known by the company one keeps. As for Duverger's Law, it is nothing like the law of gravity, of course. To equate the two is to endorse a most vulgar form of political determinism. As I've noted before, Duverger's "Law" is no more a law than the Federal Reserve is federal. With respect to the founding fathers, in this context one might reference those early factions which confound the simplistic binary thought beloved by duopolists, such as the Tertium Quids, or consult Washington's oft-quoted Farewell Address, in which he likened duopolist-style government to nothing less than political tyranny:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

Assuming that the above message does indeed reflect the group's position toward independent, third party activism, we can safely conclude that, given its deterministic outlook, its historical revisionist tendencies and its embrace of duopolist despotism – not to mention the contradiction immediately entailed by its support for the Democratic and Republican Parties: the Independence Caucus might be more reasonably termed the codependency caucus.

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."

Progressive and Conservative Declarations of Independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties

Responding to an article at Op-Ed News by Howie Hawkins asking if it is "third party time for progressives and independents," Alan Maki states at Thoughts from Podunk:

What is needed is some kind of "Declaration of Independence" from the Democratic and Republican Parties.

In fact, independently minded progressives and conservatives have already issued their declarations of independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties. At Docudharma, Rusty1776 issued a progressive declaration of independence from the Democratic Party last summer:

When in the course of Democratic betrayals it becomes necessary for Progressives to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the Democratic Party, and to establish ourselves as a New Party in the political system, our respect for the Constitution and the rule of law compels us to declare the causes which impel us to this separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the Democratic Party is complicit in war crimes, that it is complicit in illegal NSA spying, that it is complicit in massive Wall Street fraud, that it no longer believes that all men are created equal, that it serves only the corporate masters of America, that it has granted them unalienable Rights, that among these are the right to plunder the Treasury, the right to control the media, the right to subvert the banking system, to corrupt the electoral system, to ravage our economy and reap the illicit profits of shock doctrine capitalism.

To enable the voices of citizens to be heard in the corridors of power, political parties have been instituted among Men, deriving their power from the support of their members. Whenever any political party becomes destructive of these ends, its supporters have the right to withdraw their support, and to establish a new party. As Progressives, we have no choice left but to establish a new party, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in accordance with our responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the progressive values upon which it was founded.

Among conservatives, the Florida Tea Party has issued a declaration of independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for citizens to dissolve the political bands which have heretofore connected them with the two, major, existing political parties and to assume among the powers of the earth, a new political party, with the separate and equal station which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles it, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, political parties are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of their members, That whenever any political party becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of those members to separate themselves from it, and to institute a new party, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that affiliations with existing political parties long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by separating from such political parties to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations by both major, political parties, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce the American public under the absolute Despotism of the Federal government in Washington, D.C., it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off their allegiances to such parties, and to form a new political party for their and their children’s future security.

If you are not independent, you are co-dependent.

Update: As Ross points out in the comments, "Hawkins is a New York Green Party stalwart." Indeed, he is a co-founder of the party and ran for District Councilor in Syracuse in 2009, garnering 41% of the vote. From his website:

Thank you to all the volunteers and contributors to my campaign. You are Greens, Socialists, independents, some die-hard progressive Republicans, and a growing “Democratic Underground” in the district supporting the Green policy agenda.

41 percent is a higher vote than a Green candidate has ever received in Syracuse. We've never done the kind of doorstep and phone canvassing, voter ID, and GOTV that we did this time. Our street presence on Election Day surpassed every other campaign in the city.

Alan Maki is also a long-time socialist activist.