Skip to main content

An alternative strategy for Third Parties in the General Election

Let's start with the obvious: no matter how much I would prefer otherwise, one of the following three individuals (Clinton, McCain, or Obama) is going to be the next President of the United States.

To me this means that no matter whatever else happens, none of them are going to do anything serious about dismantling America's worldwide military empire or reducing the grip that the military-industrial complex has on our government and our economy. If you don't believe me, go here, here, and here.

That said, what the Ron Paul phenomenon proved earlier this year is that there are a hell of a lot of discontented voters out there willing to challenge the two-party system.

The Libertarian Party. The Constitution Party. The Green Party. The "I'm Ralph Nader and I'm back again" Party.

Of these, only the Libertarians have the ballot access to mount a truly nationwide campaign--which in large measure explains the opportunistic conversions of Bob Barr and Mike Gravel.

And nobody is likely to crack that 15% threshold necessary to get into the MSM Presidential Debates.

But the polls are consistently showing that, across the country, 2-5% of the voters are disaffected enough to consider voting third party this year. In key states, like Michigan perhaps, that percentage is significantly higher: maybe even 6-8%.

Some people of have suggested a third-party-fusion ticket, but that's an unrealistic pipe-dream for a whole lot of reasons.

What I'm thinking about is making a statement by throwing the largest possible monkey wrench into the works, by unifying the third parties to try to influence the outcome in key battleground states. I've written before on just how interesting the polls suggest Florida could be for John McCain with Bob Barr in the running, or Michigan for either Democrat with a strong Nader effort.

Maybe what the Greens, the Libertarians, and the Naderites should do is to split up the map, and concentrate their meager resources each in two or three key states, asking all third party people to pool their votes into a massive protest statement.

Under this scenario, Nader would concentrate in Michigan and maybe Florida. The Libertarians would go after Arizona or New Mexico, while the Greens focused on the Pacific Northwest. I'm honestly not sure about the states, but here's how it would work: sort of like betting the field in the Kentucky Derby.

The three or four largest third-party efforts would pool their resources for media, polling, and similar issues. Ralph Nader would agree to ask his supporters in, say, New Mexico, to support the Libertarian candidate, while the Libertarians returned the favor in Michigan.

The slogan would be: "It only took 5% to launch the first American Revolution. Let's see if 5% can kick off the second one."

The entire strategy would be to achieve a 5% protest vote in as many states as possible, skewing the election results virtually at random between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

What's the unifying theme to tie together Greens and Constitutionalists: Ballot access and free elections.

Imagine the chaos (with absolutely no apologies to Rush Limbaugh) that could result from this strategy just affecting one single battleground state enough to throw the election one way or the other.

Chaos is unfortunately necessary before the American political system will open up and become a real democracy.

I make no apologies whatever for not being able to predict in advance whether this strategy will lead to the election of a Republican or a Democrat. Since I truly believe that both parties are fundamentally harmful to the cause of freedom and the long-term survival of the United States, on a very real level I don't care who wins.

If that's callous, or unpatriotic, sue me.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?