The Two-Party System is Not Constitutional

In an opinion piece for the Huffington Post, Tina Marie Labruzzo argues that "we need a "middle child" in American politics," and calls for a moderate alternative to the bipolar deadlock between the Republican and Democratic parties.  Excerpt:

The fact that the Republicans and Democrats in our Congress can't and won't work together to tackle extreme challenges that threaten the welfare of our country is proof we need a third political party. The third political party can be a middle child of sorts, comprised of a more moderate position. This moderate position can help bring Republican and Democrats together by providing an alternative to the American people, who actually prefer some combination of Republican and Democrat policies.

This sentiment, or something very similar to it, is supported by a large proportion – if not also the majority – of the American public, if years' worth of public surveys and polls saying as much can be trusted.  There is broad support for alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, and there is no lack of demands and calls for "a third party" even in the mainstream media.  What is lacking, however, is any specificity about what that "third party" should be.  Labruzzo concludes:

The American people need a third political party to ensure Republican and Democrats cross party lines to make the tough decisions needed, now and in the future, to tackle the issues that threaten the country.

Interestingly, however, "to ensure that Republicans and Democrats cross party lines" it doesn't really matter what third parties are represented in government.  It would suffice to elect enough third party and independent members to our legislative bodies to prevent the Republican or Democratic parties from possessing a majority of seats in those bodies.  In the Congress, this would require the election of only a few dozen third party or Independent candidates to the House and just a handful to the Senate.  But to this end, abstract calls for an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, without any specificity regarding the who or the what, are of little help.  Of course, it does not help that so many people appear to believe that the two-party system is enshrined in the constitutional construction of the United States.  Labruzzo writes:

The American government was created to provide checks and balances to make sure the system worked effectively and to curb power from residing in any one area of government. The problem that couldn't be avoided is what happens when the system is in perfect balance -- caught between two extreme positions -- hindering legislative action during crucial times when decisive action is needed.

Labruzzo here confuses the constitutional system of checks and balances in the United States with the extra-constitutional two-party state that has been constructed by the decree of Republican and Democratic lawmakers.  The system is not "in perfect balance," rather the constitutional system of the United States has been systematically undermined by the dictatorship of the Republican-Democrat two-party state.  For this reason alone, we are in desperate need of real political alternatives. 

Is the Republican Primary a Breeding Ground for Third Party and Independent Candidates for President?

One contradiction that often goes unnoticed in our politics today, even though it is apparent across a wide variety of polls and surveys, reveals a tension between partisan affiliation and ideological identification.  Though self-identified conservatives consistently outnumber moderates and liberals, Republicans are consistently outnumbered by Independents and Democrats.  Given the fact that so Republican primary voters are essentially big government, far right conservatives, in 2012 we should expect any number of libertarian- and moderate-leaning conservatives to seek the presidency as an Independent or third party candidate.  And the Republican party's presidential primary may be the breeding ground for their candidacies.  From today's column at IVN:

There are no less than four current contenders for the GOP’s presidential nomination who may run for president as a third party or Independent candidate:  Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman and Buddy Roemer.  And, given the success of Americans Elect in its ongoing effort to obtain ballot access in all fifty states, we may see any number of these candidates square off once again to seek the upstart organization’s nomination for president next year.

Buddy Roemer, a former member of the House of Representatives and governor of Louisiana, has already declared his intention to seek the Americans Elect nomination for president in their online primary next year.  “Today I officially announce that I will seek the Americans Elect nomination as a proud Republican but as an even prouder American,” said Roemer in a statement last week.  Roemer’s announcement was likely precipitated by the fact that he has been excluded from the Republican presidential primary debates and has yet to gain traction among GOP primary voters.

“The Republican Party has not allowed me in the debates. Perhaps they don’t like my message about the corrupting influence of money in politics. But, I believe the American people want to hear the message, so I’m going to seek the nomination of Americans Elect which appears eager to welcome diverse and controversial opinions that may upset the status quo,” said Roemer, who will now simultaneously campaign for the GOP nomination as well as that of Americans Elect.

Read the whole thing.

Third Party and Independent News and Views from Around the Web

Some interesting items from around the web in recent days.  I'm still looking for a good replacement for the old Google Reader News Share feeds that can be embedded in third party (no pun intended) sites.  Anyone know of any alternative?

• Instant Runoff Could Make a Third Party More Viable
• End Allegiance to Political Parties
• Dissatisfaction Could Lead to Third Party Candidate for President
• Are Political Parties Destroying Politics?
• Time to Eliminate the Two-Party System
• A Third Party Win in 2012 is Not a Fantasy
• No Democrats, No Republicans
• Buddy Roemer Says He Will Campaign on Independent Ticket

America's Best Kept Secret: The Vermont Progressive Party

The Vermont Progressive Party is one of the most successful third party groups in the county.  It currently has two elected officials the State Senate, five in the State House and three in local office across the state.   What is the secret of their success?  In a new piece for Third Party Independent, Liberal Arts Dude interviews the party's director, Morgan Daybell, to find out.  Excerpt:

I recently corresponded with VPP Party Director Morgan Daybell and he was gracious enough to answer a few of my questions for Third Party Independent. Chief in my mind was finding out if there is a formula for the VPP’s success in Vermont and if it is possible for other political parties and organizations which seek to challenge the Republican-Democrat duopoly to duplicate that success elsewhere.

Q: What would you say are the key factors to the VPP's approach to electoral politics that has established it as a force in Vermont state politics and which sets it apart from other efforts by third parties who have not been as successful?

The major difference between our approach and those of many other third parties is that we have stayed focused on local/state races. In those elections corporate money has a smaller influence, and over many one-on-one conversations with voters, you can begin to overcome the brand-awareness the Democrats and Republicans enjoy. You can't do that at the Federal level without huge amounts of money . . .

Read the whole thing. LAD also inquires about how the VPP counters the spoiler argument, how it recruits and develops candidates, how it decides which races to run a candidate in, what electoral reforms it backs, and whether it's been involved with any local Occupy protests. 

Learn More about the Vermont Progressive Party

• Vermont Progressive Party Website
• Vermont Progressive Party Platform
• Vermont Progressive Party Blog
• Vermont Progressive Party on Wikipedia

The Justice Party: Throw the Bums Out

Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson has announced that he is launching a third party campaign for president under the banner of a new party: the Justice Party.  From the Deseret News:

Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson has formed a new political party and plans to run for president.  To be known as the Justice Party, Anderson sees it as a grassroots movement that over the long term will bring about the shift in American politics that he says citizens crave.

"The people are the ones who always bring about major change in this country, and we need to provide that power to people throughout the country," he said Wednesday on KSL Radio's Doug Wright Show.

"They want to see an alternative party. They recognize that these two militarist, corporatist parties have brought us to this disastrous place to where we are today."
One of Utah's most liberal politicians, Anderson renounced his affiliation with the Democratic Party in August, saying he was fed up with it along with Congress, the Obama administration and Republicans. He reiterated that disgust during the interview.
"We've been voting as a nation against our own interests year after year," he said. "Most Americans — whether they consider themselves on the right, left, center, whatever — understand that their interests have been undermined by these folks in Washington, both in the White House and in Congress, who are acting as if they're on retainer with their largest campaign contributors rather than doing what's in the public's interest."

Anderson, executive director of High Road for Humans Rights, threw out the idea of a new political party in the summer, but said he had no plans to run for office.
Since organizing the Justice Party, he has filled out paperwork for a presidential exploratory committee. The party must also go about the arduous task of getting on election ballots nationwide. Criteria varies state to state but may include past electoral performance or a petition process.

Isn't it about time we had a presidential candidate who has an interest in justice?

Obama Fundraiser: NYPD Illegally Detain Around 100 Protesters in "Frozen Zone" for Three Hours

President Obama was in New York City yesterday to schmooze with the nation's upper upper class at three different fundraisers, including – I heard – a $35,000 per plate dinner earlier in the evening and a $1,000 per plate dinner at the Sheraton Hotel at around 9pm.  Occupy Wall Street protesters marched through midtown Manhattan on their way to demonstrate outside the Sheraton.  Shortly after the protesters arrived at the barricaded "free speech zone" set up by police across the street from the hotel, they were subjected to a new police tactic: freezing.  Simply put, the protesters were barricaded in on all sides by police and essentially held hostage for hours.

Having heard that the president would be in the city, I headed to midtown around 7pm, and happened to come out of the subway just as the Occupy Wall Street protesters were marching toward the hotel, where they arrived around 7:30.  Being wary of any pens or cages set up by agents of the government, I opted not to remain in the "free speech zone" and walked around for a bit.  When I returned to the site at around 8:30, the police had already barricaded the protesters into the frozen zone.  Two hours later, they were finally allowed to leave, following their illegal detention.  I asked one of the protesters who had been trapped in the "frozen zone" what happened.  Here's the video:




Police detained around 100 people in this so-called "frozen zone" for nearly three hours.  From Mother Jones:

Outside a Manhattan fundraiser attended by President Barack Obama last night, the New York City Police Department deployed a new and legally questionable tactic against Occupy Wall Street demonstrators and the press. . . . Protesters in the NYPD's free speech zone were trapped there. Not only could nobody enter after a certain point, but for about an hour and a half, nobody could leave. When I arrived outside the Obama event, a $1000-a-head fundraiser at the Sheraton New York, I found that the police had cordoned off the sidewalk a block in all directions and were not admitting the press.

As The Gothamist reports, members of the press were not allowed anywhere near the frozen area and were kept from reporting on the illegal detention:

Several reporters were kept away from the area by police, and MSNBC's Meg Robertson tells Capital New York, "I identified myself to a number of NYPD as a member of the press and they would not let me close to the penned in area."

Another journalist, Andrew Katz, says, "One officer actually said I could go into the kettle where the protesters were, but [another] officer grabbed my arm, and then [Harkinson], and said we had to leave the area. Three officers, including a female officer who gripped her arm around my hip, escorted us a block down to 52nd Street behind a set of barricades."

The complaints of press restrictions comes after NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly issued a carefully-worded memo instructing police not to interfere with working press.

From the New York Times:

More than 100 Occupy Wall Street protesters marched to a Midtown hotel on Wednesday night to protest a fund-raising event for President Obama.  Escorted by police vehicles as they helped snarl traffic across the Times Square area, beginning at Bryant Park, the group settled in front of barricades on the southwest corner of 53rd Street and Seventh Avenue, in view of the Sheraton hotel at which Mr. Obama was expected to appear by 9 p.m.

Demonstrators held signs that leveled some of the Occupy protest’s most pointed criticism to date of the president. “Obama is a corporate puppet,” one said. “War crimes must be stopped, no matter who does them,” read another, beside head shots of President George W. Bush and President Obama . . .

Many protesters chafed at the sight of barricaded pens near the hotel, but a majority decided to stay, given how close they were to their destination. Shortly before 9 p.m., as the police cut off traffic and began making final preparations for the president’s arrival, officers informed demonstrators that the area had been designated a “frozen zone” until the president’s departure: They were not allowed to leave their enclosure, bound by three lines of barricades and a Chase bank. Some protesters tried to break through, but were swiftly rebuffed by officers, who shoved them back to their initial perches.

Twilight of the Party Idols: How the Real World Became a Fable

Over the weekend, an acquaintance was telling me about a conversation he had with a friend of his, a Czech immigrant, over the Thanksgiving holiday.  My acquaintance told me he's not really a political person, but the two, both in their mid-twenties, somehow ended up talking about politics at length and the discussion eventually turned to what life was like in Czechoslovakia before the fall of the Berlin Wall.  I asked him what stuck out in his mind from the conversation, and he said it was an anecdote about how, when his friend was still in grade school, she told a fairly harmless joke about a government official to some schoolmates.  But when the joke reached the ears of teachers and administrators, they determined that she was the first one to tell it, and she was summarily sent to the principal's office, her parents were called, she was subjected to disciplinary measures and so on.  "Isn't that fucked up?!" asked my acquaintance, rhetorically.  "Yeah," I said, "but what's even more fucked up is that the same thing happened in Kansas last week."

Perhaps you've already heard the story.  A Kansas high school student tweeted that the state's governor, Sam Brownback, "sucked" to her 61 followers on Twitter.  When the governor's staff discovered the remark, they contacted the youth program the girl was involved with, and she was soon called to the principal's office of her school and told to write a letter of apology to the governor.  To her credit, she refused, and eventually the governor was forced to issue an apology to her, saying that his staff had "overreacted."  

This small episode demonstrates depths of the contempt for basic rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution among the ruling political class in the United States.  Such "overreaction" is the primary mode of action for the petty tyrants and professional hysterics in the Republican and Democratic parties and for the legions of deluded citizens who support them throughout the country.  

Recent legislative activity in the Congress aptly demonstrates the severity of the threat posed to constitutional government in the United States by the Democratic and Republican parties.  Bipartisan alliances of Republicans and Democrats stand in stark opposition to the open internet and the freedom of speech online.  Bipartisan alliances of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress believe the US military should be allowed to  indefinitely detain US citizens apprehended on US soil without any form of due process.  This extreme measure is even opposed by the Obama administration, which already claims it has the authority to execute American citizens at will as part of the war on terror.  Further examples could be supplied ad infinitum.  

Of course, without their deluded supporters, the Democrat-Republican political class wouldn't have a leg to stand on.  But who are these people?  And why do they continue to support the dictatorship of the two-party state?  Consider the following lines from a letter to the editor of the Vindy news in Youngstown, Ohio.  Excerpt:

The younger generation who want to succeed in life are fleeing the area in ever larger numbers to see what life is like in the real world where the two party system keeps elected officials from being bought and paid for by the party and unions they must negotiate with.  [Emphasis added.]

Are you done laughing yet?  The world where the two-party system keeps elected officials from being bought and paid for is the imaginary fantasy world constructed and inhabited by Republicans and Democrats alike.  How did the "real world" become a fable?  It is a difficult question.  Perhaps we should consult a philosopher.  Friedrich Nietzsche supplied one possible explanation in his Twilight of the Idols:

HOW THE "TRUE WORLD" FINALLY BECAME A FABLE. The History of an Error

1. The true world — attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.

(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")

2. The true world — unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").

(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes female, it becomes Christian. )

3. The true world — unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it — a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.

(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian.)

4. The true world — unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?

(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)

5. The "true" world — an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating — an idea which has become useless and superfluous — consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!

(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)

6. The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

The Republican Presidential Primary and Its Discontents

As the corporate-sponsored clown and puppet show known as the Republican presidential primary race lumbers forward, perhaps we can take comfort in the fact that we will not be subjected to a comparable spectacle by the Democrats.  Moreover, the exclusionary character of the contest may well produce a number of worthwhile third party and independent candidates for the presidency.  The Daily Caller reports that Gary Johnson may seek the Libertarian Party's nomination for president and Buddy Roemer may go Independent or seek the nomination in the Americans Elect online primary.  On Gary Johnson:

Long excluded from the Republican presidential debates, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is now seriously considering a third party run for president in 2012. . . . 

Faced with either continuing his quixotic run for the Republican nomination, launching a third party effort, or just giving up, Johnson now says he has been receiving overtures from the Libertarian Party, which will be on the ballot in all 50 states next year.

“One thing I would make clear is that, if I did decide [to seek the Libertarian nomination], that’s nothing that’s pre-ordained,” Johnson told TheDC. “That’s something that I would have to go out and work for. And I would do just that, I would go out and work for that.”

On Buddy Roemer:

In an ideal world, Republican presidential candidate and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer would like Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate, but the Connecticut senator is not necessarily on the same page.

“Senator Joe Lieberman’s reputation as a reformer and a man of integrity is unrivaled in American politics. He is unequivocally my first choice for a Vice Presidential running mate,” said Roemer in the statement.

The two men’s differing party affiliations — Roemer is a Republican, Lieberman is an independent and formerly a Democrat, seems to actually be something Roemer sees as a plus. For one thing, he touted their shared history of switching parties — Roemer served as a Democratic congressman, and then switched to the Republican Party midway through his gubernatorial reign . . .

If Roemer did decide to go after the Americans Elect nomination, he could continue to run in the Republican primary, which Roemer would certainly do at least through New Hampshire, where, in Sierra’s words, the campaign is “going all out.”  Roemer has actually moved to New Hampshire for the election, and as soon as his campaign qualifies for matching funds, they will make ad buys in the first-in-the-nation primary state. “I think they kind of compliment each other,” said Sierra of the Americans Elect nomination and the Republican nomination.

Like the Democrats, the Republican Party is fundamentally opposed to constitutional government and the basic rights and liberties it is meant to protect, as evidenced by their full-throated support for the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  Johnson's libertarianism and Roemer's moderatism have no place in either of the major parties. 

CA: Top Two Lawsuit Reveals Glaring Ignorance of the Law in the Mainstream Press

A new lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality of the top two open primary system in California.  From today's column at CAIVN:

On November 21st, the Libertarian Party of California, the Peace and Freedom Party of California, and the Green Party of Alameda County joined a handful of voters and third party candidates for elected office to file a lawsuit alleging that California’s top-two open primary system is unconstitutional.  The suit argues that the top-two primary system disenfranchises minor parties as well as their voters and candidates for elected office by precluding them from participation in California’s general elections. . . .

Implicit in the suit is the presupposition that since the Democratic and Republican parties and their candidates for office are better funded and more widely known than their minor party competitors, the top two system is likely to result in the exclusion of third party candidates from the general election ballot.  The complaint  thus argues that the top-two open primary system is unconstitutional because it precludes third party voters from casting a ballot for their candidates of choice at the general election, prevents third party candidates from communicating their message to general election voters via the ballot, and denies third parties in general the ability to reach general election voters.

“Because Prop. 14 effectively denies voters their fundamental right of choice by precluding small party candidates from the general election ballot, the Act violates the rights of voters under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and should be overturned,” reads the complaint.

It continues: “By limiting access to the general election ballot, Prop. 14 effectively bars small political parties, their candidates and their members from effective political association, precisely at the moment when the highest number of voters are engaged in the electoral process.”

The issue of ballot access at the general election is especially important for third parties in California.  One of the primary means by which third parties obtain the official recognition of the state is by receiving a certain percentage of votes (at least 2%) in California’s gubernatorial elections.  Needless to say, if a party’s candidate is precluded from appearing on the general election ballot because he or she was not among the top two vote-getters in the primary, that party cannot qualify for future ballots via the gubernatorial vote.

The Secretary of State has thirty days to respond to the suit at which point the plaintiffs will ask the court for a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the system in next year’s elections.

See Ballot Access News for a copy of the complaint.  There are now three lawsuits against the top two system pending in California.  The other two take issue with smaller aspects of the law that instituted the new system, specifically, the ban on write-in candidates at the general election, the ban on the counting of write-in votes at the general election, and the prohibition against identifying oneself as an Independent or as a member of a political party not officially recognized by the state on the ballot.

Covering these lawsuits for IVN has been an eye-opening experience.  Having read through significant portions of California's Elections Code, as well as the complaints and court rulings against top two, the ignorance of even the most basic aspects of the new system among journalists and editors at California's mainstream and corporate news outlets is immediately apparent in their coverage of the legal challenges to the system.  Take, for example, a San Francisco Chronicle report on the most recent lawsuit from November 23rd.  The article frames the challenge against the law as if it is part of some grand third party strategy to prevent top-two from being utilized in next year's presidential elections.  Excerpt:

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen was served with the lawsuit Tuesday and has 30 days to respond. The plaintiffs will then ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction in hopes of preventing the new system from being used during next year's presidential contest.  [Emphasis added.]

Given the cult of the executive and the corporate media's mind numbing focus on the tactics and strategy of the presidential race to the exclusion of basically everything else, it is only to be expected that reporters and editors would place the challenge against the law in the context of the presidential contest.  Indeed, from the beginning of the article, the reporter frames her narrative in precisely these terms.  She begins:

Voters representing the Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties sued Tuesday over the state's new open primary system, saying change will deny voters the right to support third-party candidates in general elections.

Under Proposition 14, approved by voters in 2010, all statewide and presidential candidates will run in a single primary that is open to all registered voters regardless of their political party. The top two vote-getters will then move on to the general election.  [Emphasis added.]

The problem though is that Proposition 14 specifically excludes the presidential race from the top two primary system!  This is one of the most basic facts about the law, as is amply documented at both Wikipedia and Ballotpedia, where we read: "Elections for presidential candidates, and for members of political party committees and party central steering committees do not fall under the "top two" system."  Moreover, the reporter's claim that top two applies to "all statewide" candidates is true at face value, but false by omission.  All candidates for all congressional and state elective offices, ex. state legislature and US House – which are not "statewide" –, will be elected under the top two system. 

This is, of course, but one example.  Many more could be supplied.  Such ignorance of the most basic facts about the new system among those tasked with covering it demonstrates, yet again, the degeneracy of the mainstream news media and political press.

24% Would Vote for Third Party Candidate for President

From UPI:

Almost one-quarter of U.S. voters say they might vote for a third-party presidential candidate, with young voters and independents more likely.  More than four in 10 of voters between the ages of 18 and 29, and 36 percent of those who identify themselves as independents told the Zogby Poll they might for an alternative to Republicans and Democrats. Twenty-four percent of all voters said they might vote for a third party.  Men at 31 percent were almost twice as likely as women at 16 percent to say they would consider a third-party candidate.

It is fairly clear why younger people and Independents would be more likely to consider voting for an Independent or third party candidate for president.  But how can we account for the disparity between men and women?  Why are so few women willing to declare their Independence from the Republican and Democratic parties? 

The Presidential Debate Fraud: Nader Calls for "Grand Series" of Debates in 2012

From last week's column at the Independent Voter Network:

Ralph Nader has put out a call for a “grand series” of twenty-one nationwide presidential debates in 2012, arguing that control over topics and format should be wrested from the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates and placed in the hands of local communities all over the country.

“True debates, rather than parallel interviews of the CPD [i.e. Commission on Presidential Debates] model, would offer depth, variety, and unpredictability to counter the scripted nature of the candidates’ political consultants,” writes the long-time consumer advocate and former Independent candidate for president in an article published on his Nader.org website this month.  Nader envisions presidential debates as a means of enlivening the civic impulse of voters and invigorating the democratic process.

“Instead of the present, stifling, programmed three debates by the CPD,” he states, “these twenty one debates would throw aside many of the taboos, bring the people into the process, address regional needs, excite larger voter turnout and compel the candidates to be better, more forthright candidates.”
He also argues that presidential debates should be opened up to candidates outside the two-party system.

“Fresh agendas and personas will be allowed in these debates including third-party candidates who meet reasonable criteria of ballot presence and public support.”

So what’s the problem with the Commission on Presidential Debates?  It may well be that many Americans don’t know a great deal about the organization that controls the presidential debate process.  The very term “Commission on Presidential Debates” has an official air about it.  It might evoke the idea that it is an agency of the state or a governmental authority.  It might also be associated with the so-called “blue ribbon” type commission, such as a special task force convened by executive order or legislative directive.

Yet, the Commission on Presidential Debates is nothing of the sort.  It is a 501(c)(3) corporation founded in 1987 which is entirely controlled by the Republican and Democratic Parties.  Its first two co-chairs were former Democratic Party National Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. and former Republican Party National Chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr.  Kirk has since been replaced by Michael D. McCurry, a Democratic National Committee insider and former press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

Until 1988, the League of Women Voters had been organizing presidential debates since at least 1976.  The well-respected group withdrew its sponsorship of any and all presidential debates when the process was hijacked by the party committees.

“The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter,” League President Nancy M. Neuman said in a press release from October 3, 1988.
“Neuman called “outrageous” the campaigns’ demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues,” the release continued.

At the time, The New York Times reported that, at its founding, the co-chairs of the commission more or less intended it to exclude third party and independent alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties, which is not surprising given that those -chairs were the sitting chairs of the Democratic and Republican National Committees.

“Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit group made up of representatives from each party, was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates,” reported The Times in an article from February 18, 1987.
It continued: “Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates.”

At present, the Commission requires that, to be included in any of the debates, a third party or Independent candidate must poll at least 15% support across a series of national polls.  It is noteworthy that even this seemingly low bar is almost double the approval rating of the entire Congress, according to some polls.  Moreover, it is highly problematic that polling organizations rarely if ever include third party or Independent candidates by name in any of their surveys.  How can a candidate demonstrate any level of support in the polls if he or she is not even included in surveys?
Nader suggests taking up a proposal of the Appleseed Citizens’ Task Force on Fair Debates, which would invite all candidates who have obtained ballot access in enough states to achieve a majority in the electoral college, if they also demonstrate at least 5% support in national polls.

Given the current contempt in which the American people hold the Democratic and Republican parties, it is arguably long past time to take control of the presidential debate process from the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and open the system to “fresh agendas and personas,” as Mr. Nader writes.

An Alliance Between the Tea Party and #Occupy Movements is the Beginning of the End of the Ruling Political Establishment

Arguably, Tea Party and #Occupy activists have much more in common than either side would like to admit.  Whatever the differences between the two may be, the Tea Party's opposition to big government and the Occupy movement's opposition to big business are complimentary grievances.  Big business is among the biggest supports for big government and big government is among the biggest supports for big business.  In a number of posts here at Politea, I have urged Tea Party activists to become involved in the Occupy protest movement, but it is also necessary for Occupy activists to engage their counterparts in the Tea Party movement.  The AP recently reported on a meeting between Occupy and Tea Party activists in Memphis Tennessee:

Occupy Memphis member Mallory Pope had just finished telling a group of about 75 tea party followers Thursday night that politicians should not allow themselves to be influenced by lobbyists and unions when she received an unexpected invitation.

"It sounds to me that y'all ought to be joining us," said Jerry Rains, a 64-year-old computer programmer and tea party member. "You have a lot of the same goals we have, which is to take our country back."

Pope and fellow Occupy Memphis protester Tristan Tran had a lively, sometimes strained and confrontational, but mostly civil discussion with members of the Mid-South Tea Party at a municipal meeting hall outside Memphis . . .

Intrigued by this assembly, Liberal Arts Dude began looking into the matter and has published two articles at Third Party Independent exploring the question of whether the Tea Party and #Occupy can work together.  From Part 1:

On November 18, an article caught my eye in Yahoo News via the Associated Press:  Occupy Memphis, tea party members meet. An actual, real-life meeting between members of the two groups! I was very excited to read about this. So excited, in fact, that I decided to do something which I thought was a bit crazy – I identified the key contacts in the article for both #OccupyMemphis and the Mid South Tea Party. Whenever I was able to obtain an email address to an actual person I sent an email. Otherwise, I relied on the respective websites, Facebook Pages, Twitter accounts and Google searches for information on how I can get in touch with the folks involved to submit a few questions I was dying to ask both groups.

Chief in my mind was getting an idea about my burning question: can Tea Party and #Occupy members actually work together towards common political goals? What happens when real-life #Occupiers and Tea Partiers meet and try to have a civil discussion? . . . . I wrote both the #OccupyMemphis and the Mid South Tea Party members nearly identical questionnaires . . .

LAD then goes on to provide the questions he sent along to both the local Tea Party and #Occupy groups, as well as their responses.  Read the whole thing.  In Part II of the article, LAD sums up his findings and argues that there is good reason to foster outreach between #Occupy and Tea Party groups across the country.  Excerpt:

I don’t claim the respondents to my questionnaire to be a representative sample of all #Occupy and Tea Party membership, nor do I claim that they represent a comprehensive microcosm of the two movements’ memberships. What I am exploring is the question of whether or not the results of the questionnaire and content research of their web presence indicate good enough information to justify more efforts at experimental outreach between the two groups.

Can #Occupy and Tea Party members work with one another towards common political goals? The Memphis meeting showed that there are #Occupy and Tea Party members eager for some sort of outreach between the two groups and when such a meeting did happen, had overwhelmingly positive and respectful things to say about and one another. Moreover, there seems to be a desire and a willingness to continue the conversation beyond the initial meeting and answers in the affirmative when directly asked if they were willing to work together on specific projects.  I would have to say that the results of my unscientific mini-study gave good enough reasons to justify further experimentation along these lines.

Read the rest.  

Free and Fair Elections and Their Discontents

Fundamentally, the Democrat-Republican political class and ruling establishment are opposed to free, fair and competitive elections in the United States.  The reason is simple: free, fair and competitive elections would threaten their monopoly on elected office at all levels of government.  Consider the response to the San Francisco mayoral election, which took place earlier this month.  San Francisco voters adopted ranked choice voting via referendum in 2002.  This year's election was the first in which the ranked choice system "came into play."  From the San Francisco Examiner in June: 

This way of voting for San Francisco’s mayor has yet to be tested in a citywide race — this is the first time what is known as ranked-choice voting will come into play in the race for The City’s top post.

There’s a lot of guesswork being done by candidates in the crowded field and by political insiders on how it will impact the results.  It was voters themselves who decided to use this system of voting when they approved Proposition A in March 2002.  [Emphasis added.]

Ultimately, the election was won by incumbent Democrat Ed Lee, who came out on top in a field of at least fifteen candidates.  Already, however, the city's political establishment have already launched an all out assault against the alternative voting method.  From KQED News last week:

Now critics are zeroing in on the ranked-choice system, hoping to repeal it before another city election rolls around. The proposal is being fronted by city Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Mark Farrell, who calls the system a “failed experiment.” They hope to put the issue to voters next year.  Opponents have a good shot, said Charles Marsteller, former head of Common Cause in San Francisco.

“Regardless of its merits, ranked-choice voting will probably be repealed,” he said in an interview. Ordinary voters struggle with the system because “it’s complicated,” he said. And politicians and political professionals quickly grew to dislike it because its results were so unpredictable.  “It’s hard to estimate outcomes with ranked-choice voting,” Marsteller said. “You don’t know if the polls are right. The political consultants don’t like it.” [Emphasis added.]

Ranked choice voting is not complicated at all.  Rank your top three candidates in order of preference.  How complicated is that?  Of course, those who feel threatened by any such reform have an immediate interest in making it appear to be more complicated than it is in fact.  The more telling argument against the alternative system is the fact that political strategists, consultants and pundits don't like it because it makes the outcome of an election unpredictable!

The complaint that the alternative voting method makes elections unpredictable is highly revealing.  These strategists, consultants and pundits make a mockery of free and fair elections.  The implicit assumption of their argument should be held in the highest contempt by supporters of free elections, namely, that elections should be predictable.  For these individuals, elections are nothing more than a formality, a sham, a choreographed charade meant to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the rule of an entrenched faction.  Perhaps they would have been more comfortable in Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Stalin's Russia, where the outcome of elections were always known well in advance of election day.

Occupy Wall Street Demonstrates on Two Month Anniversary of Protest Movement

It's been a crazy week at Occupy Wall Street in New York City.  Indeed, it seems to have been a crazy week at Occupy protests across the country.  A number of people have written to me asking whether I'm okay, as there hasn't been a new post here for a couple of days.  Thank you, I'm fine, and avoided both injury and arrest in all the chaos, though it's been exhausting commuting back and forth between home, work and all the protests.

Thursday, the two month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protest, was a massive day of action in New York City.  People began gathering at 7am across from Zuccotti Park to march on Wall Street.  NYPD had set up barricades at all intersections immediately surrounding the New York Stock Exchange refusing passage to everyone but those who either lived or worked within the perimeter they had set up.  Innumerable riot police amassed at various locations throughout the financial district.  By around 8am, well over 1000 protesters stepped off for a march toward the Stock Exchange.  They walked west on Cedar, then right onto Nassau and came to the first police barricade at Nassau and Pine St.  At that point, contingents of 100 to 200 people then began splitting off from the group and marched to the other barricades police had set up.  Once there, they took up positions in intersections and sidewalks blocking vehicular and pedestrian traffic in all directions.

I witnessed such protest blockades at five or six of these locations.  There were numerous arrests and confrontations as riot police were ordered to push through the crowds and break their lines.  When the protesters' lines were broken, they regrouped and formed new lines either further down the block or behind the police charging down the streets and sidewalks.  By 10am, the police perimeter had expanded from a one block radius surrounding the NYSE to a four block radius surrounding the NYSE, and dozens of people had been arrested.

In the evening, a massive rally took place in Foley Square.  Protesters began gathering there at about 5pm for a planned march across the pedestrian walkway of the Brooklyn Bridge, which is two blocks south of the square.  Tens of thousands of people, easily, came out to the rally in support of the Occupy Wall Street protest.  There was word circulating among the crowd that police scanners and radios were reporting that over 30,000 people had assembled for the demonstration.  I would not be surprised if it was 50,000.  By the time the last speakers took the stage at the rally, thousands upon thousands had already flooded the streets marching toward the Brooklyn Bridge, and the park was still packed.  On the other side of the bridge, a general assembly was held following the march.  Exhausted from the long day and the lengthy march, I headed home. 

Police Defecate on Constitution, Urinate on Rights and Liberties

As you've probably heard, the Occupy Wall Street encampment in downtown Manhattan was raided by  NYPD riot police wielding truncheons and armed with chemical agents at 1am the other night.  The police raid was apparently part of a coordinated attack against the protest movement in at least eighteen other cities, mediated with the help of the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

Everyone and everything that had been set up in the space over the last two months was cleared out by police and sanitation workers.  By morning the park was completely empty, except for riot police and security officers who occupied the park for much of the day.  Hundreds of tents were destroyed and personal property was seized, but perhaps the greatest loss were those things that benefited the whole community.  There was a kitchen that had been serving three meals a day to hundreds of hungry protesters, homeless and even locals.  There were bicycle powered generators that provided electricity for the media center and anyone in the park who needed to charge a computer or phone.  There was a 5,000 volume lending library, amassed through donations, which was open to anyone who desired to borrow a book.  One woman broke down in tears as she described to me how the books were seized, loaded into dump trucks and carted away. 

When the riot police moved in, they set up a two block perimeter around the park in all directions, and arrested or ejected media and reporters from the area, effectively refusing to allow any objective reporting of the action.  By 8am, the park was completely cleared and remained occupied by riot police and security officers, who had surrounded the park with barricades and refused entrance to everyone but police for much of the day.  It was a surreal scene.  For the previous two months, protesters who occupied the park were surrounded by barricades and hundreds of police.  On Tuesday, police occupied the park, surrounded by barricades and hundreds of protesters. 

The occupation of the park by protesters led, of course, to scrutiny of the culture that had developed inside the encampment.  In New York City, the propaganda war against the protest was led by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post.  There were reports of sexual assault and rape, drug dealing and illegal drug use, racism, defecation and urination in public and so on.  Now that police have occupied the park, it is only fair to put the NYPD under the microscope.  So, what's been going on at the NYPD?  Here are just a few of the incidents that have made headlines in recent months:

• In May, two NYC police officers were convicted of official misconduct for entering a drunken woman's home in the middle of the night while on duty.  Though accused of rape, they were acquitted of that charge because it came down to their word against hers. 

• In August, an off-duty NYC police officer was arrested for raping a woman at gunpoint in upper Manhattan. 

• In October, NYC police murdered a woman outside a shelter for women suffering from mental illness or addictions.  The victim was allegedly holding two knives and refused to drop them when told to do so.

• In October, sixteen NYC police officers were arrested and charged with a long list of misdemeanors and felonies in a massive "ticket fixing" scheme, in which they helped make tickets issued to friends and family disappear.  Demonstrating the systemic character of this corruption, hundreds of off-duty police officers rallied outside the courthouse during the arraignment, holding signs supporting the institutional corruption of police!  "It's part of our culture!" cops could be heard saying in local news coverage at the time.

• In October, a former NYPD detective testified in the trial of eight police officer charged with official corruption.  He stated on the record that NYC police routinely plant drugs on innocent people to meet drug arrest quotas.

• In the same trial, another witness, a prostitute, testified that police officers routinely offered her crack cocaine in exchange for sex. 

• In the last two months, tens of thousands of innocent New Yorkers were stopped and frisked by NYC police, a routine violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The racist character of this practice is clearly apparent in the fact that nearly 90% of those who are stopped and frisked are black or Latino.

• In October, five NYC police officers were arrested for trafficking $1 million worth of illegal guns, cigarettes and slot machines into the city.

So what have NYC police officers been up to in recent months?  Murder, rape, theft, gun smuggling, trading drugs for sex, planting evidence, engaging in official corruption, violating rights and liberties . . . and these are just the most prominent cases that have made the news in the last two months.  They are shitting on the constitution and pissing on rights and liberties.