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

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...