cohesion is the primary issue with third parties. they all have the same problem and that is our fundamtally undemocratic republic. No split tickit voting, prohbitve fedral funding standards and the national debates being controlled by the major parties means no third party can win in the national arena. So why don't they get together a lose colation of reform, green,socialist and liberitarin parties. At first this kind of situation seems impossible due to the polar nature of there platforms,but with second look similarties come to fore.

1. voting reform Americans need it third parties need it to.

2. Reducing spending, namely miltary spending. 499 billion spent on blowing up the world and defending okinawa, england and europe instead of educating the next generation of American engineers

3higher standards of legislative transparency please stop earmarking us into insolvancy!

4. getting rid of income taxes on those who make less that sxity grand a year. Whatch both parties squrim at the suggestion.

5. Ending the fallied drug war, legalize marjuana, tax it, and lets seriously adress the meth epidemic which tearing up the heartland. Stop plan columbia from wasting our money and destroying poor columbian farmers crops and health.

6. renegotiate NAFTA, CAFTA, and get us out of the wto. Right wingers talk about one world goverment, and they start chattering about the U.N. one of the most powerless institutions. lets have a real debate about global goverment and bad trade agreements.

7. I don't know how you solve our immigration problem but I would suggest you do somthing about a mexican goverment that sees our border as release valve on any populist political change.

These are shared issues among the so called "out of the mainstream" parties. The only difference I can see between mcain and hillary is their sex, I am not excited to vote in 08,because i don't think it will actually matter.

Jake wrote:"Mike Brooks-

If there is ever founded an American Christian Democrats party, I will personally find you and punch you in the face.

Like we need more religion in politics.

If you're into that crap, go play with Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson. The rest of us have actual work to do."

First of all, Christian Democracy is a well established public philosophy in Europe and the Americas. Many Christian Democratic parties are in coalitions with Social Democratic parties, for example, Italy, Germany, Uruguay, and Chile.

Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson are the last people who would have anything to do with a Christian Democratic party.

Christian Democratic parties tend toward the center-left.

Christian Democrats the world over support various forms of the social market economy and draw inspiration Catholic social doctrine, the integral humanist philosophy of Jacques Maritain and Dutch Neo-Calvinism.

Christian Democratic parties do not draw inspiration from right-wing apostate nutters like Robertson and Reed.

And if you want to fight, Jake, you've got one. The Christian Democratic Union of the United States of America ("CDUSA") is in its conceptual stage of development at present. See http://www.cdusa.org

As we organize we'll be setting up non-partisan Christian Democratic caucuses in open primary states to run Christian Democratic candidates in Republican and Democratic primaries. In closed primary states, CDUSA has a choice of starting a state Christian Democratic Party or organizing a CD caucus within both the Republican and Democratic parties of the given closed primary state. In fusion states CDUSA will organize state Christian Democratic parties.

If anyone has questions about the Christian Democratic of Union, drop me a line at adavans@aol.com, or contact Chris Erickson at cerickson@gmail.com

On a more personal note, Jake, for your edification you see, you can avoid a lot of trouble in the form of criminal arrest and conviction, civil litigation AND a shameful, ignominious, and a well justified ol' fashioned defensive ass-whuppin' by not punching people in the face and/or threatening to punch people in the face.

From my perspective the big idea here is "create a ticket with centrist appeal, on the net, in one go". It's has all the "populist movement" potential the Dean campaign encouraging people to organize and get enthusiastic because they can make a personal difference... without the disadvatage of being stuck with a specific person who can make one wrong move on TV and be dismissed as unelectable.

To wit, check out the site for Unity Party Supporters:

http://unitysupporters.com/

It's gestational, it's amateur, and it's growing. In the last three days it put up a web forum, a wiki, and mailing list. Who knows what it will have tomorrow?

This won't work if it is just a laundry-list of policies driven by loser politicians. It only can work if it has a Big Idea driven by someone with huge name recognition but not excessive association with Washington.

And the Big Idea has to be something profound, immediate, and with a strong upside. It is unlikely to be climate change (too depressing and too much pain for unknown gain - unless coupled with an argument about oil independence and national security) or illegal immigration (too negative; little upside) - although illegal immigration and border security definitely would be the sort of thing that could drive a Perot-type "gallant loser" level challenge.

But something that is the dreaded "laundry list of expensive policies that show we care" is a guaranteed 1%'er...

I believe that we will get real honest representatives only when we have term limits for all national politicians as the founders and writers of our constitution originally intended! They never envisioned or intended that serving in the congress or senate was to be a lifetime job! I suggest a term of six years for all members of congress and the presidency and with only one reelection allowed -- (yes this has to be accomplished by constitutional amendment).

And don't forget any third-party has to get on the actual ballot.

Ballot access for third-parties is not just filling out a form. Nader was unable to secure a number of states in the 04 Presidential cycle just because he couldn't get enough petition signatures. Access does take a lot of work, and you have to be on the ballot to actually have votes cast for your candidate.

Perhaps the Unity Party (UP, a cheerful acronym) has a plan for ballot access, but it is still too early for that part of the plan to be publicly implemented.

--Robert in Arlington, Va. (Voting Libertarian in '08.)

Govt solutions don't seem to work. Excessive beuracracy alwasys seems to get in the way. How much of our educators time is spent with the paperwork to meet government criteria?

I have nothing against govt health so long as it can be done within the existing tax amounts. I pay too much in taxes already and am NOT willing to pay more.

I really don't care what the govt does with my tax money, just don't expect me to contribute more than I already am.

I appreciate your willingness to seek solutions between the extremes. As a former educator (now a capitalist in the private sector), I agree that it would be fine if education were left to the states. Unfortunately our "education president" enacted No Child Let Behind, which increased paperwork and accountability (by noneducator standards), but left the states to fund it. Our education system has gotten progressively worse. As for medicare for all, why are you against it? Most all industrialized countries in the world have it. Our health care system is in shambles and the main "people" that are benefitting are the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. How would you have our tax money best spent? do you like what you spend on health insurance and are you and yours' getting the quality of health care you or your company pay for? If so, then I respectfully congratulate you.

I see. So, Jesse Ventura as Governor of Minnesota was... what? a puppet of Ross Perot?

It may never have been Ross Perot's intension of allowing the party to grow beyond him, but if he had wanted it to, it could even have replaced the GOP by now.

as a personality to keep the debate honest...

and I would have a moderator that sought to put the heat on those debating by being less than respectful and acting like a citizen might that saw

the greatest democratic nation becoming a haven for plutocrats....

rule by the few for the few...

outsourcing, downsizing, internationalization, _illegal_ immigration

internationals being treated as_if they were friends of the country....

when in fact they are lining a few pockets and siphoning money out of the United States and creating burgeoning poverty for most citizens,

most especially for the old right now,

and with the baby boomers being _old_ they had better effing think of what that means if this government starts to disinfranchise the upper middle class as it runs out of people to tap dry....

do you understand me?

1 simple point:

at a time when there is a drop in what government agencies will do for the disinfranchised, elderly, what not....

your heartless government increased the weight upon the elderly by $30 per person per month for every person on Social Security, that includes SSI, or the disabled, both physically and mentally, fixed income folk...$30/month to pay for his occupation...

to fund this fraud of a "?war,?"

no to tell the truth, to fund the OCCUPATION of a foreign country and to defraud that country with huge OIL RESERVES....of it's oil...and the predictablility of oil markets and world economies.... _control_

they stole money from old people and disabled people to get richer........

it's real simple.

you want another example of heartlessness?

how about sending the National Guard into combat without real combat training, when you "the effing dickless caricature of a man" (geow.bush) avoided combat in wartime because you're in a different class and those that don't want to go into combat, _now_ that you're in charge, they don't that same choice....you need money, they need to die....send 'em.

it's really the same action,
a thoughtless, heartless, selfishness....

but to two distinct groups...

old people and disabled and people that don't want to kill other people in foreign lands...

people not of "his class/tribe,"

"It was only his stifling of dissent within the nascent Reform party that suffocated it in it's cradle."

Please! The Reform "party" was nothing but a Perot front organization he put together in a hurry, because ballot access laws in some states don't allow you to run without being nominated by a "party". So if you want to run as an independent, you have to whip up a fake party to "nominate" you.

REAL parties select candidates. They aren't created de novo BY candidates. The Reform party never had any independence from Perot to lose, it was his creature right from it's conception.

The real reason another 3rd party candidacy hasn't jelled since the 90's, is that the two major parties passed laws to make sure that they'd never face that threat again. It's purely a matter of discriminatory ballot access and campaign finance laws, and institutional barriers like *bipartisan* debate commisions.

I don't think there's any question Nader swung Florida's election and the electoral college to Bush. He really should apologize to progressives. No difference between Bush and Gore, he said over and over. Right, no difference on Iraq, no difference on climate change, no difference on taxes for the rich and the deficit. Not to mention competency. What a twisted end to a long career of public service. He'll go down in history as an uber useful idiot to the radical right.

If it makes you feel better, I am just as hard on teh Bridge to nowhere. All earmarks need to be cancelled.

And if your idea of a Repub is Hitler, then fine, I won't argue with that.

At least we know the extremes. Now we can work on the solution in teh middle somewhere.

Dan W,
You're so right, Ted Kennedy just throws money at a problem...whereas Ted Stevens just builds briges to nowhere and backs other pork projects.

Tell me, which is worse?

It's a rhetorical question. The point is, again, that there are no saints and sinners in this one, and that's why third party efforts have such appeal -- because radical partisans refuse to see their own flaws while loudly announcing the flaws of their opponents.

We can do better.

Dan W,
If you automatically think Ted Kennedy when you hear liberal then you're just plain not thinking.

By that rationale, and given you acceptance of my earlier (and purposefully hyperbollic definition) then it is okay to think Adolph Hitler when I hear the word Republican.

The point is, as others have grasped (and what I believe is the thinking behind a third party effort) is that idiotic labels like Ted Kennedy = liberal and Hitler = Republican are just plain stupid.

If that is what politics and public policy in this country has been reduced to, that is truly pathetic.

Aren't we, as Americans, capable of something a bit better?

Bill: It stems from the fact that I am against extending medicare to every american and think education is a local issue. Kennedy has a habit of wanting to throw money at a problem.

Dan W.
Why do you think of Ted Kennedy as embodying the Left? I hope it's not because of the scandal of Chappaquiddick. I was surprised and shocked that he survived that politically. I have NEVER heard anyone on the left say they want to spend "tons of money" on social programs or that they don't believe in freemarket capitalism. As Blue Stater and Thin Man have pointed out, the left and right often define each other in extremes and judge the opposite side as good vs bad. This appears more to me like kids sparring on a playground than as adults practicing contructive communication to solve important problems.

I've signed up for Unity08, I thought it should have happened in 1999. Has anybody read Lou Dobbs' latest? http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html
Sounds to me like he's looking for the job. By the way, I'm voting for Kinky.

Actually my definition of the right is becoming more and more obscured as the "Religious" right.

But there is a reason I included the link in my previous post. Frankly the Left-Right entry is better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics

I don't consider it knee jerk at all. Bill asked a fair question and I gave him my answer.

And I see nothing wrong with your definition of the right. If that is how you see the right then that is how you see it.

But you are correct, we both are trying to put an awful lot of information into a single one dimensional label. The Nolan chart does a better job of classifying politicos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

When I think Left I think Ted Kennedy.

Thanks Cavalier 829

for the info on Culver in Iowa

How interesting, Dan W.

Your knee-jerk definition of a liberal is pretty sad. I guess it's okay then to define someone on the right as being solely interested in money and themselves? That they believe in big business and don't really care if corporations are polluting the environment or marketing dangerous products.

Frankly, I don't think either definition is fair -- yours or mine -- and it's the perpetuation of these definitions which has destroyed American politics.

Tell you what, I'll cut the cr*p if you will.

How interesting, Dan W.

Your knee-jerk definition of a liberal is pretty sad. I guess it's okay then to define someone on the right as being solely interested in money and themselves? That they believe in big business and don't really care if corporations are polluting the environment or marketing dangerous products.

Frankly, I don't think either definition is fair -- yours or mine -- and it's the perpetuation of these definitions which has destroyed American politics.

Tell you what, I'll cut the cr*p if you will.

Bill,

I used the term Left and Right ALOT. TO me, Left refers to those who want to spend tons of government money on social programs. When sometheng happens, the left assumes there should be a program for that. They typically don't believe in free market capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

I signed up on the Unity08 website yesterday. I do think it's a worthwhile excercise, if only to illustrate why another 3rd party candidacy hasn't gelled since the mid'90's.

If it hadn't been for Ross Perot being a megalomaniac we'd already have a serious 3rd party in our politics. It was only his stifling of dissent within the nascent Reform party that suffocated it in it's cradle.

The voters for this/these parties are still out there, they just need vehicles to run on and vote for.

Wells... Chet Culver is the son of former U.S. Senator John Culver. It's that name recognition that is helping his candidacy for the Dem nomination.

B2O.... IRV is an interesting reform but would work better for use within a party than in a general election.

There have been studies done that show that voting systems which have voters choose BOTH their favored candidate and their compromise candidate at the same time don't galvanize voter interest across the spectrum.

Under our current winner-take-all voting system the only candidates that gain traction are the ones who win 15 to 20 or so percent in the opinion polls. That leaves alot of options out.

IRV doesn't fix the two party problem because most people only go to the polls when they see a viable alternative others have already indicated support for. They go to the polls for someone they think can win. IRV doesn't increase the number of parties seen as viable.

A better reform is to end party primaries and make them all-candidate primaries. Allow parties to organize to nominate candidates on their own. Candidates from all parties plus genuine independents should be governed under the same ballot access rules as the incumbents.

The primary would eliminate all candidates who received less than 5 or 10 percent of the vote. The run-off would have 3 or 4 viable or at least very strongly supported candidacies.

The benefit of the result in not just who wins and by how much but also what 3rd party/parties are left holding the balance of power, and do the "major" parties REALLY represent the voters at large.

Fewer Presidents would win a majority of the vote and the era of 60-40 landslides would be over.

Of course, what is needed to bring this about is not just a new 3rd party but a new 2nd and then 1st party.

IRV has been floated because states have recently been cash-strapped and it has been thought that reducing 2 or 3 election rounds into just one was desireable. But if public spending for anything is important its for representative elections that they it matters most. And, outside of political junkies like you and me, if you enact IRV to the exclusion of other reforms it will be found dissapointing.

Bill,
Calling someone an extreme leftist is, as you suspect, just name-calling. It's a technique designed to scare people that liberals and Democrats are the spawn of Satan, etc. Of course how do these people respond? With name-calling of their own. That's what makes politics so disgusting.

I love the idea of Unity08 and everyone on this blog is demonstrating why it's a good thing. The debate and discussions about who should be on the ballot give purpose to Unity08's website. I just looked at the "speakout page" and they are building online networks and tools to facilitate the online selection of a ticket. As a college student, I'm inspired by this movement. The internet speaks to my generation and I know they're ready to listen.

A little off the subject, but will someone please tell me how an extreme leftist is defined? I keep hearing this term and the only things I have heard it attached to are things like Russ Fiengold's recent censure action and the concern over the vulnerability of voting machines. Both of these issues have found there way into the mainstream because they are legitimate concerns. I consider an example of an extreme left position to be one that porports that the government was involved with 9/11. Very few believe this and it is, in my opinion, extreme. I am very curious what others believe to be extreme because what I suspect is that accusing people of being extreme liberals is just empty name-calling.

Condi for president or VP? You have got to be kidding! After she stood by and let Iraq happen she is not fit for any office that requires any responsibility. Have you Condi supporters learned NOTHING?

Thank you Colin, for demonstrating that blogs aren't worth the paper they're printed on. (Pun intended.)

What a remarkable waste of time it is to sit around and complain all day. Besides, by complaining and not doing anything, you ensure you have something to complain about. Pathetic.

As for Condi, I'll pass. Her mismanagement of Iraq specifically and American foreign policy and security makes her uniquely unqualified to hold federal office.

Hey, Mr Thin Man, did you know there is a national movement to get Condi on the ballot for 2008? The group's website is
www.4condi.com

They have been spending thousands of dollars on TV and radio ads in the past year, and will be at the Texas convention in June 2006. They are working, not just pounding a keyboard and will make a huge impact on the 2008 debate.

Condi as VP would be a great thing too. She is a diplomatic powerhouse, and if she gets IRAN to end its weapons program, it will be another reason to keep her working in DC for a Republican president. Condi as president or VP, sounds good to me.

Thin Man -- The whole point of this blog is to "nit-pick over minutae." If you're looking for a site focused on activism, run a quick google search and I think you'll find what you're looking for.

Nice to see everyone is still nit-picking over the minutae on this thread. How about turning off your computer and doing something to change this country!?!?!?!

Please bookmark:
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com

SEP candidate responds on Iraq war stance of California Democrat Adam Schiff

31 May 2006

We are publishing here a letter from the SEP candidate in California's 29th Congressional District, John Burton, to El Vaquero, the school newspaper at Glendale Community College in suburban Los Angeles. The newspaper published the letter on May 26, under the headline "Schiff Opponent Responds to Article."

On May 8, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, who represents California's 29th District, spoke at Glendale Community College. Besides Glendale, the district includes the suburban Los Angeles communities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, Altadena, Alhambra, San Gabriel and part of Burbank.

Schiff was one of the first House Democrats to declare his support for the Bush administration's October 2002 request for congressional authorization to use force against Iraq. Supporters of John Burton, the Socialist Equality Party's candidate for Schiff's seat, attended the meeting and asked questions challenging Schiff's pro-war stance. (See "Democratic congressman backs continuing military occupation of Iraq at California meeting.")

In its subsequent report on Schiff's speech, entitled "Congressman Explains 'Getting Into Politics,'" El Vaquero wrote that "Although the overall tone of the meeting was positive and upbeat, some of the queries fielded by Schiff questioned his accountability in the Iraq War [he voted to authorize the use of force based on the intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction but has since changed his position]." The article also said, "Schiff is opposed to invading Iran."

* * *

Dear Editor:

In your recent article on a May 8 campus appearance, you reported that Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff "voted to authorize the use of force" against Iraq "based on the intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction," but that he "has since changed his position." You also reported that "Schiff is opposed to invading Iran." Both statements are inaccurate.

Mr. Schiff has not changed his position on the March 2003 invasion and ensuing US military occupation of Iraq. While, as you say, he now attributes his support of Bush's "preemptive war" to "faulty intelligence," at the same time he refuses to call for the withdrawal of US troops and an end to the occupation. Mr. Schiff's position is the same as that of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, of which he is a member, that "Democrats must make it clear to the public that we stand for winning in Iraq, not a rush to the exits."

Indeed, during his talk Mr. Schiff did not criticize the Iraq invasion or condemn its instigators for lying to the American people. His only difference with the Bush administration's present Iraq policies is to call for "strategic redeployment" of US troops from urban areas like Baghdad, where they are being killed at the rate of two to three a day, to highly fortified desert military bases, where they can more safely launch deadly strikes against the Iraqi population with aircraft, missiles and high-tech gadgetry.

The DLC's call for "winning in Iraq," like Mr. Schiff's proposal for "strategic redeployment," means continuing the brutal and illegal military occupation of a once sovereign nation, including visiting upon its people more death, torture and suffering for decades to come. "Winning in Iraq" means propping up a succession of pro-US puppet governments, a policy causing increasingly bloody internecine conflicts between rival ethnic and religious factions competing for economic and political power under the framework of the occupation.

In any event, for Mr. Schiff to claim now that he voted for the invasion of Iraq because of "faulty intelligence" is a dishonest evasion. In 2003, thousands of his constituents joined tens of millions of people around the world in protest, shouting at the tops of their lungs that the Bush administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction were cynical lies intended to stampede the population into an unjust and criminal war. Americans never would have supported the invasion had Mr. Schiff and other US government officials explained its true purpose: to seize control over Iraq's vast oil reserves and to establish strategic positions for the US military in the Middle East to promote the interests of US businesses against those of their European and Asian rivals.

Mr. Schiff's position on Iran is no different. Although he told the GCC audience that he is wary of current Bush administration alarms about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons, he did not indicate that he would oppose a military attack. Moreover, Mr. Schiff took a much different position during a 2004 debate on the House floor: "There is no doubt that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, along with the ongoing standoff with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, constitute the gravest threat to American national security today," Schiff claimed. "How we deal with this threat will shape our global security environment for decades. When coupled with the desire by terrorists to acquire and use these weapons against the US, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran and North Korea is petrifying."

The majority of voters in the 29th Congressional District reject such crass fear-mongering, just as they oppose the launching of aggressive wars in pursuit of control over natural resources located on the other side of the planet. These voters can find no political voice through politicians of either the Democratic or the Republican Party, however. I am petitioning for ballot status as an independent candidate for the 29th Congressional District in the November 2006 election as part of the national campaign of the Socialist Equality Party precisely to build an alternative to this antiquated and inadequate two-party system.

Very truly yours,

John Burton

First of RMill thanks for the numbers I was curious of that myself.
Also the problem is not the parties it is the people who want to be president. The president of the United States is the MOST thankless job in the world. No matter what you do there will be around 40% of your own country that will disagree with you and call you an idiot. Every time you open your mouth someone is recording it to make a calender of your misquotes. Look at what it did to Clinton or GW in the time they were in office.

Both parties could put real candidates out there who are intelligent, care about the country, and are centrist types. Except they don't want to do it. The list is long and distinguished, Colin Powel, Condi Rice, Snow, Specter, Kerrey, Albright, etc. The real "third party" movement these days is in the Draft a candidate movement. It allows the people who are displeased to pick the candidate they want.

Also there is one candidate out there that is going to change the way people think about politicians and really bring about a populist movement and that is Eliot Spitzer. The guy is Andrew Jackson Reborn (without all the massacring of Indians).

Well, I am happy to see interest in the topic. Yesterday there were only 10 comments when I posted. We need REAL candidates and the corrupted Two Parties are not delivering.

REAL means accomplished achievers shown demonstrated limelight achievements IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST unequivocably.

That CERTAINLY is my view of Ralph Nader.

It's not a matter of ego, it is a matter of proper ego, should be maintained, and stable, able to withstand the idiots who love money without principle, and obviously uncaring of public MAJORITY INTEREST AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND REAL GOVERNMENT.

Enough podium.

Quick accuracy reference for those who saw my post yesterday. I saw the Encyclopedic entry at a shelter where I am living due to lack of employment. Checked the exact title, and it is: Academic American Encyclopedia, published by Grolier, copyright 1985. And the caption, next to his photo where he is shown speaking into microphones--"Consumer adcvocate Ralph Nader testifies (May 1979) before a Congressional subcommittee on environment, energy, and natural resources following an accident at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, in Pennsylvania. Since the mid-1960's, Nader has discovered and published information on many consumer hazards, and his efforts have resulted in much reform legislation."

Encyclopedia bibliography for their entry: Buckhorn, Robert F., The People's Lawyer (1972); Gorey, Hays, Nader and the Power of Everyman (1975); McCarry, Charles, Citizen Nader (1972); Ralph Nader, ed. The Consumer and Corporate Accountability (1973).

As to the public interest regarding FIX our elections (hello, Chris, at least his title has an accurate, on target intent, yes...and this blog may net worthwhile results...audience deserved, congrats to that!)--while I was doing ballot access in MA, I realized a lot of things, but will tell this blog audience that the public was wide eyed with terror at the entraped two party situation, and furious at Nader for NOT WINNING (the Presidency--they wanted him as Pres, and said, "I voted for him and he didn't win!) and I was shocked that they were mad - obvious reason was the fury o the two party established situation, which was HORRIFIC in their eyes, and mine, and due to the real assumed correctly that I understood what Nader is and stands for, and that they would LOVE to see him in office, but it hadn't happened, to me, that is not a reason to defect BACKWARDS but INSTEAD to move forward with more vehmence of what belongs in our government as ANY elected official and MOST importantly at the HELM.

I promised the public I would try to get the POLLS TO CHANGE THEIR WORDING to a proper question that gives an accurate choice of who the individual being polled wants (not who they think they are forced to choose, unwillingly...it is anathema)--WHO DO YOU WANT MOST should be a proper question all the way up to the debates.

After the debates, "Who would you vote for if the election is tomorrow?" is a fair question but NOT BEFORE...it is entirely pre-emptive and forces ugly results of status quo and no democracy at all.

I did try, in September I wrote the 10 news sources of polls used by the Commission on Presidential Debates and asked them to change the wording.

They did not. Includes the GALLUP POLL which is likely most famous to the public and the fact that they LIKED the historic twenty years of consistency, is HORRIFIC.

Statisticians and analysts certainly understand that.

And, yes, I asked those polls in writing before the debates. It is invalid polling, although, it is important for the public to know the results are properly believed as the results of the QUESTION ASKED. Ask the right question. WHO DO YOU WANT for president, and

OF COURSE THE MEDIA OWES the presentation of the candidates who have thrown their hat OFFICIALLY into the ring. And the hoops to deserve recognition? NOT MONEY. ACHIEVEMENTS, CREDENTIALS, as well as platforms intended to deliver. The encyclopedia reference doesn't even begin to cover all Nader's achievements.

WHY couldn't he have a proper entry at a limelight media REAL CANDIDATE for PRESIDENT view?

The Cambridge Public said "you're dreaming"
but wanted him, and insisted they couldn't have him, and insisted we Americans do not have THAT merit choice as our situation, and that the status quo could not be challenged. Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

The hoops were properly presented simply by the encyclopedia view, in my view. But, still, even though to me, there is no competition, that doesn't mean the proper competition at a merit view cannot happen. Of course it can happen.

The polls should change their wording to an affirmative democracy appropriate to the situation and time--pre debates, official hat in the ring, post primary season..."Who do you want, and list the names."

While I put it in writing, I partly did that for the consistency of expecting results from at least one poll. To my knowledge, all ten insisted on STATUS QUO. These are the news media offering a status quo poll. Lawsuit or public pressure, they should change the wording to ask WHO DO YOU WANT FOR PRESIDENT, not have the supposed opportunity of stuffing media choices of primped smiling money grubbers who will do whatever they are asked to, without conscience, in our faces. No one that I know believes Bush has a proper reason for what he is doing. He is horrific and should be put out of office, legitimately.

My duty, as I see it, is to get a job, and then pursue the polls, if no one else does, via a lawsuit. But, to me, it should be easy for the public to insist upon it.

Likewise the funding of the public TV and RADIO should be a Congressional duty.

I disagree that Unity08 is in any way an attempt to save the Republicans, or the Democrats for that matter. Rather, I think their desire to redirect the trend towards exremes in politics is the best shot we currently have. Yes, there are moderates who wouldn't bend to the extremes in the Democratic party, but would they be the presidential nominees? What I fear is that without serious action proir to the 08' elections, the same type of scenario will happen as in 04'. We need the core issues in the election to be national debt, healthcare, competitivenes in the global market, and yes maybe even illegal immigration, not gun control and abortion.

As for illegal immigration, it may not be mentioned directly on the site, but that does not mean it will not be part of the platform. From what I read the platform will be written by the people.

As for bipartisan solutions without care for the public opinion, last time I checked the house and the senate were on completely different pages. Not surprisingly, the house (whose represenattives have shorter terms and thus are more at the public's whim) has the more antagonistic bill towards illegal immigrants. Are they giving in once again to tthe more extreme voices in the immigration debate.

Unity08 may be a success in the 08' elections. I for one was excited to hear about it and look forward to seeing how it progresses.

CNN exit polling during the 2004 Presidential Election broke down as follows:

Voted for Candidate (69%)
Voting for Bush
59%
Voting for Kerry
40%

Voted Against Opponent (25%)
Kerry voters Voting Against Bush
70%
Bush voters Voting Against Kerry
30%

Yes, we Democrats should let two old Carter-ites lead us off the cliff and let the Republicans win yet another Presidential election.

The Democrats CAN win in 2008. We need to stay united, and if we look at who are candidates are for ourseleves and on our own, rather than through the media's scratched lens, we might not have to hold our noses so much on the way to victory.

A President Clinton, Gore, Warner, Bayh, Feingold etc.... any would be better than another four years of a President beholden to the same interests as George W. Bush.

The title of this blog seems ironicly appropriate, since in this instance I believe the fix is in.

Notice the one issue their website conspicuoulsly does NOT mention in any way: Illegal immigration! And yet, this is the one issue, like slavery in the 1800's, where both major parties are united in refusing to bow to public opinion. And which thus has the potential to fuel a REAL third party.

I think it's a scam. The major parties are aware of the danger they've created for themselves by pissing off so much of the public this way, and came up with a phony 3rd party effort to bleed off the pressure for one without any real risk of it becoming real. And diverting outside the existing parties any voters who might otherwise influence the primary elections in "undesirable" ways.

I'm giving this a pass.

Come on people. We will never have a third party. It is an institutional IMPOSSIBILITY in the U.S. with the single member district plurality and electoral college. Think about it: we have a district that's 60% liberal and 40% conservative. There's one conservative party and two liberal ones. The conservative wins 40%-30%-30%. So finally, the liberals get smart and unite, winning 60%-40%. VIOLA!! A two-party system! Look at the 1912 election if you want an example of that. If you want to get rid of the two-party system, institute proportional representation and eliminate the electoral college. Otherwise, don't worry about the third parties (they're all called third parties, which is how you can tell they're irrelevant).

I don't think a third party is possible right now for 2008.

But if theory

I think the only person on the national stage that could do a third pary run for 2008 is (New York City Mayor - Bloomberg). Multi-billionaire where the republican or democrat label does not exactly fit. But, he has said on record that he is not interested. He has all the characteristics for it smart, savy, rich, independent, experience in office, well rounded.

I wish Chris had mentioned how a Perot type of candidate would not work in 2008. Because of Enron(and the other companies), the average person is not going to trust a CEO type to run the country. Enron has put a stink on the business/politician type of candidate for awhile.

Anything less than a Democrat in the White House in '08 is unacceptable. These last 5-6 years of one-party rule have been an utter disaster for our country.

Mike Brooks, while I don't condone Jakes violent tendency, I have to agree with him.

Colin, Nope you're not off base. As a solid member of the repub party I voted straight ticket and didn't give it a second thought.

I am proof the repub party is losing its support in the middle.

A third party of 'chosen' candidates will be no more effective or credible than the status quo, moneyed appointment of current Republicans or Democrats, even if an administration is divided between the two. Other things must happen first before we can even find uncorrupted candidates who have had a critical and necessary paradigm shift in consciousness.

First must come exposure of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's continual lies, their war crimes, their negligence, and their treason in outing a CIA agent and a covert operation tracking WMD's. Also, and almost more imperative is the re-opening of investigations into 9/11, Bush's/PNAC's Reichstadt, and their involvement in this attack, meant to fuel their fear campaign that allowed their illegal war and the mass-murder-for-profit of over 250,000 human beings. Impeachment and prosecution of these pathological criminals is imperative so the American People will understand the true nature of and motives for the crimes of those who claim to rule in the name of our God, committing atrocities in our name. The process of impeachment writes their crimes into history. If it is not written, it didn't happen.

Second, must come a paradigm shift in our collective consciousness about what the purpose of our government is. Government is the People's Corporation, where we do the people's business, and where we establish, protect, preserve and/or maintain "the Commons": our educational system, public works, public safety and health care, natural resources, etc. It is the vehicle with which we protect our air, water, land, and labor from exploitation and poisoning by private and corporate greed and abuse. Our courts are that part of our government that mediate disputes and establish compensation for damages...and punishes crimes. Government, the people's corporation, is our only defense, barring revolution, against the abuse of corporations ('persons' by law), their ownership of our government, our military, which they do at present. The cry of "Less government!" is a propaganda strategy to dilute the economic and man power needed to investigate, prosecute and stop their poisoning of our air, food and water, pilfering our natural resources FOR PROFIT, and their exploitation and endangering of human labor. The purpose of government must be reframed in the context of 'the commons.'

Third, must come PUBLIC ELECTIONS FUNDED BY THE PUBLIC, NOT BY PRIVATE INTERESTS. Maine, Arizona and Connecticut have CLEAN MONEY now and it works great! California, hopefully, will be next. Clean Money for elections will make a huge difference in whether we get moneyed representatives of the wealthy and powerful, who will legislate for those interests, as we now have, or be able to invite and avail ourselves of probably thousands of brilliant, ethical, moral and uncorrupted candidates all over the U.S., who will use their intellect, creativity and leadership to restore our constitution, our civil and human rights: our democracy. A fresh start for our country depends on this new ethos and new leaders - and might even save this country and this planet.

Fourth, a complete investigation into the election fraud of 2000 and 2004, where the votes of ethnic minorities and Democrats were marginalized or eliminated through 'purging' of voter roles, and fraudulent and tampered with electronic voting machines. Taxation without representation is not a democracy!

Fifth, the American People must establish a Truth and Reconciliation Project to shine the light on our darkest secrets, and purge our congress completely of those accomplices to Bush and Cheney's crimes, and who are involved in congressional corruption, both Republicans and Democrats. Our democracy, this country and the citizens of the world deserve no less. Our very survival depends on it.

Why are you waiting for 2008? What's wrong with taking over the Congress in 2006 Once in Congress then change campaign finance so that third party candidates have a chance of getting elected?

The people have no confidence in either of the ruling parties. If they were given a viable alternative candidate the people might actually surprise you.

Yes you have to be ready to counter the same old rhetoric about throwing away votes or a vote for 3rd party is a vote for the incumbent. Mid term elections are good time to try out different strategies on the voters. Always reminding the voters of the lies that were told and asking when they are going to tire of being lied to. Why not take the gloves off you have nothing to loose?

By now the Green Party and Mr Nader should realize that as much as we respect him ( Mr. Nader) we ARE NOT going to elect him President. He needs to set his ego aside and wholeheartedly support another candidate.

Additionally, candidates for the House and Senate need to be viable candidates not an after thought to fill the ticket. Someone that might appeal to 1/3 - 1/2 of the Progressive Democrat and Republican voter. But more importantly, a candidate that gives the 60% of the population that hasn't been voting a reason to go to the poles.

It's time for the People to run the country not the rich. The only way it will happen is for campaigns to be federally funded and the Fairness act re-instated. The Democrats and Republican may promise this but it will never happen as long as they are in control.

Good grief...this thread truly shows why blogs are such a waste of time and why I should have listened to my better demons and ignored them. Oh well, the worse demons are far more fun anyway.

Instead of nit-picking over the viability of a third part, instant runoff voting, etc. why don't we get out there and make it happen? Think back to how close Ross Perot got in 1992...much closer than many recall. It can happen again. All it takes is people believing.

Some may call me naive. But here's the thing. I refuse to let anyone else control my destiny. If I don't take some kind of action to change this broken down system called American politics, then the only person I have to blame is myself. Here's my question for all of you: after you've spent all your time duking it out over what works vs. whatdoesn't, etc. and you end up accomplishing nothing, who are YOU going to blame?

Jake, lol :)

>>>I can't imagine a better time for a third party.

Aka, "im a sore loser and my party has hit rock bottom".

Tough noogies. Enjoy your lame duck majority while it lasts.

For a multi-party process to be viable in the long run we need to amend the Constitution to require a run-off between the top two vote-getters if no one receives a majority vote. The run-off could be held 6 weeks after the election. Cities and states in the U.S. do this as well as other countries.

Mike Brooks-

If there is ever founded an American Christian Democrats party, I will personally find you and punch you in the face.

Like we need more religion in politics.

If you're into that crap, go play with Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson. The rest of us have actual work to do.

The last time a 3rd party challenge worked was 1860 when the Abe Lincoln Republicans replaced the Whigs. Does anyone see either the Republicans or the Democrats that weakened?
Too many politicos, unhappy and bored are coming up with unrealistic plans (like replacing the Electoral College) or a secret plan to stage a cop through a third party.
Come on, guys, join the rest of us and vote for the lesser of evils.

Question: (Anybody who knows please answer)

Iowa Governor's Race
Can someone explain to me what is going on Iowa. Why is Chet Culver getting traction and now out polling Republican Nussle. I thought the real frontrunner for the dems was supposed to be Mike Blouin who is endorsed by the Current Iowa governor Vilsack. Why is Culver doing so well? Is he using some issue in Iowa that is catching on with voters. I do not get how the dynamics in this race have shifted. What is the reason ?

Anybody from Iowa ?

Colin-

I think the 2000 election (which you cite) is an excellent example of why the Electoral College overwhelmingly favors the Republicans. An incumbent VP with a good economy and following a popular President loses the election in spite of the fact that he is facing perhaps the most underwhelming Republican candidate in recent history AND he wins the popular vote.

That is why it is highly unlikely that a Republican candidate can lose an election unless there is a center-of-right third party. I do not predict there ever being a weaker Presidential candidate than GWB. I will acknowledge that the terrible national mood towards Republicans is unprecedented and should factor in. Still, it's an uphill battle for any Democrat.

Forget the unity party, just call it the "Moderate" party.

There are several primaries where extreme leftist are challenging moderate Democrat incumbents- ex. Lieberman in Connecticut, Harmon in CA, Should the Move On crowd succeed in winning these primaries there will be a large number of unhappy Democrats
who will not vote for a McGovern-like candidate. Neither will they vote for an extreme right Republican. Likewise there are a significant number of moderate Republicans who are fed up with candidates who pander to religious zealots.
It seems that the 2006 election could provide the possibility of the coming together of moderates in both parties. This would be a firm foundation for the development of a lasting Third Party which would grow in strength as moderates in the two major parties become increasingly
unable to vote for candidates who represent the looney left or meedievil right.

B2O: While IRV is nice and would help more people to choose a third party candidate, I think a better reform would be the termination of the electoral college.

Unity my arse. It's called Republicans cant take the heat. Too bad.

For another thing, it'll never ever happen with our current political system of money, cronyism and the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Otherwise, Id be Green all the way. Till then, the Dems get my vote up ticket.

I can't imagine a better time for a third party. The Democrats appear to be in the hands of left wing lunatics - the single issue abortion, gun control, public employyes, the PC crowd that has cost them elections as far back as Kennedy. The Republican, on the other hand, are in the hands of greedy and corrupt corporations and the investors that are akin to the SS under the Nazi's. Their single issue voters are anti-abortion, no social services, nutcases. Most American's want and support moderate polcies. We instinctively KNOW we need national health insurance, a national retirement program, basic social services for our citizens, good schools for OUR children, and some basic laws protecting "choice" (but with rational boundarie built in), job protections, a sane energy program, basic scientific research funded by the government, and limited trade with the rest of the world. But that is it.

For a time it looked like the Deomcrats had actually woken up. Their stace to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy, a national health program, getting us out of the Middle East, and energy research actually looked like they ebelieved in the common sense of ordinary AMercianb's. But along came their support for illegal immigrants, givcing amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegals, flooding the job market, a move that will cost millions of American's their jobs and decreased wages and benefits for those lucky enough to avoid that bullet, and they LOST MY VOTE. Along with that, we see their silly alliance with public employees who are the only workers in this country who are not loosing jobs and benefits, who actually propose tax increases to maintain their plush lifestyle, and it is more than I can stomach. I assure you, it is more than the majority of Amercian's can stomach. We need a third party. We DESERVE a third party. An Amercian Christian Democrat party sounds better all of the time.

It's unfortunate that nowhere in this article or the 43 comments above is mentioned the one electoral change that is necessary before Americans will be allowed to express their real electoral preferences (rather than voting for "least worst" or voting "against the candidate I dislike the most").

It's called Instant Runoff Voting. You get to rank your preferences, and the tabulating algorithm ensures that the eventual winner is the most favored candidate. No more spoilers like in 2000 and arguably 1992. Google it and check it out. It's catching on at the local level in certain areas. It's simply a superior method of holding elections, period. Some European countries are already using it, natch.

Robert, Depends on why they lost the Primary. There are 2 repub parties at the moment. The religious nuts those who remember separation of church and state.

If the Unity 08 candidate stood up and said he was for limited government and balanced budget, with some sort of track record to back it up, he would gain, what, a third of the of the repubs? Toss in the unenrolled and come up with a strategy to claim the centrist dems.

Big success, especially if the Dems make the mistake of backing Hillary.

Lou Dobbs does sound as if he is building a 3rd party platform.

Colin -- there is not a dime's worth of difference between Mark Warner and George Bush or John McCain or Hillary Clinton or any of the other Republicratic Demipublican Party hacks.

The biggest party in the US is the Non-Voting White People's Party. A candidate that could appeal to them could theoretically win by an Electoral College landslide.

Internet to build a community of activists who will be tasked with choosing a "unity" ticket (made up of one Democrat and one Republican)
So John Kerry offering the Veep spot to McCain to create a fusion doesn't work...because Kerry has real positions and a real party behind him?
So if we take two losers from the primaries we can get them to quit their parties and run a real campaign with someone from the other party against their own parties?
Please tell me what is it that I am missing here?

Robert Chapman
pach12@twcny.rr.com

Dan W gets it. Most of the other posters here don't. "Winning" is not being elected president. "Winning" is changing things your way.

Nobody has mentioned how the Populist Party's agenda became the Democratic Party's agenda a century ago (forgive me my hazy recollection of particulars). The Populists never won the presidency, but they did see their progressive agenda become mainstream, which is what really matters.

Dan W -- Am I off base, or did you even think long and hard about Perot in '92? Just curious. At any rate, I think your problems will be solved once the Dems nominate Mark Warner. I can't imagine you'll ultimately have much trouble voting for him.

Sri, What if the issue being addressed is the total failure of the 2 party system? If either party begins to address the issues and DOES something was the third party unsuccessful?

Third Parties typically tend to be issue-based parties, they bring the issues to the fore-front esp. the ones which both Republican and Democratic parties had no courage to talk about. Third parties at the best can turn the tide and swing or slice the votes away from the Big-Two, but in a "Winner takes all" model of election, they become irrelevant after couple of election cycles.

Hey, you know what? There is a possibly for two women to be running for either president or vice-president in 2008. Now that is more exciting for representative government in my viewpoint that all the complaining about a third party. Women make up 52% of the population, and right now, we have one of the most powerful woman in the world in the State Department, Condi Rice.
Would she run for president? Maybe VP? Who knows, but I think it is exciting to have the debate about her and also Hillary for 2008. I might not like Hillary, and I might not support her political views, but to have a woman as the frontrunner for the Democrats is a historic item. And with Condi being discussed for the 2008 ticket, I am more pleased of course.
Women are governors, members of Congress and the Senate, and now we might have a chance to have a woman helping to run the federal government in the White House. I hope it is Condi, but if the people decide to give the office to Hillary, I will accept it. I might not like it, but I can accept the will of the people being expressed by their vote. That is the beauty of our system and no third party is going to undermine it.

Cheryl, As a loyal Republican you represent the ideal of the parties in power. However, there are a great many people in the center who are very upset with the way the religious right has dominated the party. Similar for the democratic slide to the left.

I was a Repub until the party lost its traditional values of fiscal conservatism and began to become the "Religion" party.

As the Repubs alienate more and more moderates, they increase the "against" voters. While the Democrat for me to vote for hasn't yet appeared, it is only a matter of time. This election I am going to be carefully listening to what the candidates say and how they position themselves. I will not be blindly voting for one party or the other.

And I am not unique. Remeber, about 33% of the country in currently "unenrolled".

Further, If the third party gets credibility by talking issues instead of sound bites, they might sway the "have given up on the system" voters to get out and vote.

A third party candidate can capture the "Against" vote. In 2004, there were 4 basic types of vote 1) FOR Bush 2) FOR Kerry 3) AGAINST Bush and 4) AGAINST Kerry. People who were voting AGAINST were not necessarily voting FOR.

The big trick will be convincing people that they are not throwing their vote away.

RMill, do you have numbers that might suggest how many people voted FOR vs how many voted AGAINST in the last election?

Jackson is correct, the third party thing is going no where. Thin Man wants us to get behind it and make it happen. Why? I am a Republican, and right now I can donate my $50 or $100 or even $500 to promote the candidate I like right now, cross my fingers to hope they win Iowa or New Hampshire, and then accept the vote on Super Tuesday in March 2008 for the winner. That Republican will become my choice, not my first choice but better than any Democrat. I have voted for every Republican president starting with Ford in 1976. I do not always get the winner, but at least I vote. I was pleased to stand by Reagan, Daddy Bush, Bob Dole and now Bush 43. This third party stuff sounds silly, they have no chance of winning the White House in 2008.

I'm surprised no one mentioned McCain/Feingold. They already have the name recognition and track record of working together.

McCain is just maverick enough to do it, especially if the Republican establishment pulls the same tactics as they have in the past and Feingold has nothing to lose.

How about Kerrey/Rudman, Kean/Hamilton or Nunn/Cohen. All of these folks have a history of bi-partisanship.
This would also be a perfect vehicle for Colin Powell if he were interested.

It is an interesting notion, differing from other third party efforts in that it seems to be recruiting a bipartisan ticket from disappointed or dissaffected members of the two-party system.

More likely, it seems to be trying to steer debate and focus onto specific issues and that may be the ultimate goal, to elevate the debate on these key topics. NOt sure they are saying anything new or different yet. What positions are popular with Americans that the two parties aren't willing to pay at least lip service to? It would have to be truly watershed issues: immigration and social security? Looks like an interesting exercise anyways.

This thing will go nowhere. The trouble with third party candidates (among other things) is the typical lack of gravitas or real political experience. The really top-tier candidates don't want to risk ending their careers by severing relations with their mainstream party. So you're left with eccentric billionaires or businessmen or special interests crusaders. These are all guys who don't fit into mainstream politics or else they would be there in one of the 2 major parties. Hence they have no real chance.

The way to go about it would be to put together a small groups of mid to high profile politicians from each party and have them act as leaders. Maybe a couple of older Senators who are in their last term and have no place else to go within their parties. You do that, put together a national fundraising operation to raise $20 or $30 million and throw most of it at one or two specially targeted house races. Enough money that you'll 'definitely' win those few races. Save the rest for direct mail and PR. Then you've got a fait accompli to point at and you'll dominate the press coverage of that particular mid-term election. Use that success to raise money for a serious Presidential campaign. At that point maybe you've built enough of an organization with a pile of money that could attract a serious Presidential candidate who isn't just a skylarking publicity hound.

There are a lot of House races that could be successfully targeted by a moderate third party which are out of reach for the other major party. For example, when a Congressman in a very safe (say, 68%) Republican district has a personal scandal and doesn't have a primary challenge. Those people are never going to vote for a Democrat but they might vote for a well-funded moderate third party candidate. I bet that a moderate party could pick up as many as 20 seats over the course of a few cycles by targeting those types of districts if they really hustled and had a killer fundraising operation. At that point either they have the momentum to build a real grassroots party operation and they bump off one of the other 2 parties or they just tread water for a few years.

As a former member of the Democratic Party who spent many years on the campaign trail getting these rascals and scalawags elected to office, I recently decided to become an Independent. In that vein, I warmly cheer any effort to break the stranglehold that both the Democrats and the GOP have on American politics.

Rather than argue with each other about wheter or not this latest effort will work, let's all get behind it and MAKE IT WORK ourselves.

the principALS of Unity '08

Third party? Hardly. Rather, this seems to me like an honest admission that there is only one party anyway (with "two right wings", to cite Gore Vidal) - the party of the ruling class. So why not run their candidate anyway, without all the annoying fundamentalist balast the Republican party carries? As was observed above, a real third party cannot get off the ground before the more moderate of the reactionary parties (in the 1850's, the Whigs, today the Democrats) has been destroyed.

Will -- I respect your opinion, but I really do have to disagree with you. As the analysis I cited above notes:

" Perot's vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush's victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s ñ Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer."

A 281 to 257 win (their guess Re the margin w/out Perot) in 1992 beats Bush II's margin in 2000 and is virtually identical to his margin in 2004 (271-266 in 2000; 286-252 in 2004). Take away Perot's 8% in 1996, and Clinton would have swamped Dole by an even larger margin. So if you look at the last 4 Presidential elections w/out third party candidates you have two relatively solid Democrat victories and two unbelievably close Republican victories (one of which included a Dem winning the popular vote). Based upon that evidence, how exactly can you say that Democrat's have virtually no chance of winning the presidency absent a third party candidate?

Yes, the Republicans do have an advantage in the Electoral College, which doesn't exactly square with the idea of one person, one vote. In fact, there's no longer any possible rationale for the existence of the Electoral College.

However, what may be far more damaging to Democrats is that Republicans own all the [blackbox] voting machines.

How about these tickets...

1) McCain/Bill Bradley
2) Wes Clark/Colin Powell
3) McCain/Bob Kerrey
4) McCain/Lieberman

Colin-

From your link:

"Furthermore, the Perot vote didn't split equally in every state. Perotís impact in particular states was clear ñ and almost certain to have been to the detriment of George Bush."

"Without Perot, it seems likely that the 1992 race would also have been closer." - Which implies that his candidacy favored Clinton more than Bush.

Perhaps I reduced things too much. It's virtually impossible for a Democrat to beat a Republican in a national election. Bush Senior managed to alienate his base by signing a new tax -- despite his pledge not to do so. This certainly hurt, along with the Perot candidacy, which ultimately led to a Clinton win.

"Clinton won 22 states that Bush had carried in 1988. Among these were some states that Clinton probably won only because of the Perot candidacy."

Even so, Clinton would have won the Electoral college (though it would've been considerably closer). However, there's no way to judge the impact Perot's candidacy had on Bush's campaign, the general viability of the Republican Presidential ticket in '92, etc. What is clear is that Republicans have an advantage in the electoral college. Perhaps it is not as absolute as I claim (I still maintain that it is virtually impossible for a Democrat to win the Presidency without a third-party contender).

feingold/snow....hmmm not a bad idea.

how about:
obama/grahm (senator fla.)

Who said the system is broken? The media? The consultants? There are millions of people who donated money to Bush and Gore and Kerry in the past 6 years.
Howard Dean raised $50 million from people, not getting it from the FEC. Dean blew up his chance to win by attacking Dick Gephardt and spoiling the Iowa caucus. The voters of Iowa went to Kerry because he had keep his cool, and appeared more presidential when compared to the other 8 Democrats.
How is that a broken system? There were 10 Democrats who ran, debated, and got a chance to build support as well as win delegates for the convention.
Gore was the VP in 2000 who was challenged by Bill Bradley. Gore failed to win any Southern state as well as his home state of Tennessee, more of his failure than any hanky panky of ballots in Florida.
In 2000, there were 10 Republican, and they raised money and won delegates.
Millions of people voted in the 2000 primary system.

The only people who think the system is broken are probably those who were not hired to a winning political candidate. Voter anger might be a motive to work to get rid of a candidate, but it is not motive for creating any poliitcal party just 2 years before the next election for president. The Democrats and Republicans will select who will represent them in 2008. The Third party idea will only attract the rejects and non-party people who will never agree on the mission statement of the Unity 08.
All the time and money on this effort could be used to better run for Congress or the Senate, not just starting out to seek the White House. Vermont seem to rebellious, so why not try to win the House or Senate seat for starters there?

Republicans in 1856-60 as an example: The party possessed not only a program and leadership but an available voter base (Western farmers plus Northeastern ex-Whigs). What's the proposed voter base for a third party of centrist good sense?

Paul's redefinition of "success": Taking it further, another "successful" 3d party was the late 19th-century Populists. Before Bryan was nominated by both Populists and Democrats in '96, neither major party was paying attention to the problems of industrial capitalism. Twenty years later, both Democrats and Republicans nominated recognized "progressives" (Wilson and Hughes).

"Recent" memory: Speak for your generation, Chris. Some of us remember George Wallace in '68 with his 46 electoral votes and significant draw outside the South. The fact that Wallace and Perot had much more voter appeal than Anderson or Nader may say something about where the base lies for a 3d party.

To become a viable third party in a federal country like the U.S. the organizers need to start on the state level. Assuming that the Presidency could be won by a Third Party candidate, that person would be hobbled without support in Congress.
It would be more realistic for those who support a third party to begin organizing in key states and run candidates for the House and Senate from those states.
Hopefully it would be a centerist party which would attract the many Democrats who find it impossible to support the ultra left who seem to be taking over the party and the equally large number of Reublicans who are alienated by the religious right who dictate policy in the current Reublican party.
It would be much easier for such a party- holding Congressional and Senate seats in about 15 states to gain a plurality in a Presidential election and elect a President given the way the electoral college works.

Will and Tina:

There is actually empirical data of the 1992 election that indicates Clinton would have won even if Perot hadn't run. The election certainly would have been closer, but the result would have been the same. For example, exit polling showed that:

*Political scientists and practioners have vigorously debated the role of Ross Perot in Clintonís victory. Exit polls showed that Perot voters apparently split their preferences between Clinton and Bush nearly equally, although approximately a third of them likely would not have voted without him on the ballot.*

Here is one cite I found after a quick search if anyone is interested:

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

Strange how Cillizza reports the movement to draft some third party to unite our nation while ignoring the strong draft effort to get Condi Rice on the Republican ticket in 2008.

An earlier comment was correct about the Teddy Roosevelt running as third party and also Ross Perot. But Teddy had already been president, and when he challenged President Taft at the 1912 Republican convention, Teddy had the power of delegates from across the nation pushing for him to get the nomination instead of the sitting president. Teddy's power came from his 7 years as president, doing his job to protect the people from the abuse of big oil. Teddy was the Trust Buster and people really admired him.
It ripped apart the Republican party and that was how Wilson got the White House with only 42% of the vote.
Likewise, Ross Perot spent his own millions to create the national support and buying his TV time to get his message out. It allowed Clinton to win the White House with only 43%.
There is no unity with this third party idea, it will only rip up our system.
Rejecting our political system solves nothing, it just keeps our nation divided. The only UNITY leader I can think of is Colin Powell, but he is a Republican and would never try to sabotage the party.
If the effort to get Condi Rice to run for president is successful, she will attract many Democrats who support her viewpoints of multi-lateral meetings on foreign policy seeking to use diplomacy to settle turmoil.

Ralph Nader ripped apart the Democrats and his liberal supporters helped put Bush in the White House. Anyone can look at the states besides Florida where Nader helped Bush win instead of Gore. The Nader Factor can be called the Revenge against Ross Perot of 1992.

"The group insists it is not a stalking horse for any candidate and that it has not spoken about its plans with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- the perceived frontrunners for their respective party's nominations."

I'm sorry, Chris, but 'perceived' by whom? The Democratic base doesn't want Hillary. The Republican base doesn't want McCain. Why does the media/DC establishment keep shoving them down our throats?

This is why a third party would be great if it were only possible, to free us from this small group of beltway insiders and kingmakers who have no interest in presenting candidates we might actually want, but rather to continue creating/maintaining their own narratives amd scenarios.

We do need a third party since both existing parties are self serving and ignore their constituents. They pass anti-consumer legislation and although 75% of Americans were against the Trade deals, they passed them and do nothing about illegal immigration, which is nothing but corporate welfare...flood the country with low wage workers and export good paying jobs from all industries.

The Reform Party has a platform that incudes these issues along with ideas for legislative reform, corporate malfeasance, alternative fuels, accountability, ethics, etc.

The reason we have failed is a total lack of support by Americans who are turned off by politics. Now that they are waking up, maybe they will join.

As for candidates in 08, no DC insiders will do. Feingold/Snow would be acceptable as they generally vote for Americans not special interests. However, I don't think they would win. What do you think of recruiting General Honore' or former Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin or commentator Lou Dobbs?

Yesterday I looked at an Encyclopedia that had "Academic" as part of its title, and checked the index for Ralph Nader, and sure enough, his name was in the index...checked the listing, yes, entirely alphabetical, vol. 14, under Nader, Ralph, and the featured caption next to his photo was citing the Three Mile Island "danger" situation...I believe they said 1979...in 1992, I learned, Nader began being called a "protest" candidate. If any reader/audience of this comment is not familiar with Ralph Nader and who and what he stands for, please go to your local library and admit the media did not do even the beginning of a proper presentation of Ralph Nader and that you want proper presentation of Ralph Nader and what he is. Who's Who is a good start.

Many who may have bothered to notice this past independent "party" status of Nader's challenge and bid for the proper Real Candidate (not phonies which I consider what is called "politicians" as if they are real, when INDEED they are NOT. Real Candidates are certainly IN ORDER!)...

Nader's Campaign had "Independence from Politics As Usual" as one of the campaign slogans. The expectation that monied powermongers are the proper candidates is the obvious challenge he offered against the status quo (Tweedledum and Tweedledee accusation upheld!.)

Certainly it is that problem PLUS the reality that REAL candidates are IN ORDER and an absolute NEED. America wants REAL Government and PROPER MAJORITY PUBLIC INTEREST shown in the Oval Office as the proper LEADERSHIP at the HELM. (31% is a minority saying they think Bush is ok. What would be very interesting is to ask the MAJORITY who are disatissfied, on a scale of 0-100, how disatisfied are you? and get that average. I give it 100 percent from my view, and likely all the "anybody but Bush" people. Nader voters, guaranteed would give it 100 percent. Polls CAN deliver important information and most people want polls to deliver a reasonable truth. A sampling of 1000, in my view is not valid. Would they offer that on such important national affairs? Yes, TIME magazine did. And, I wrote and complained that as a proper penance, they should do a feature story on Ralph Nader with PROPER FEATURE of his limelight historical achievements that would obviously be very important to the public as fair competitive presentation. (He might win a landslide? This would not, in my view, be a problem.)

Chris, I suggest an on point book, "No Debates" for background reading--the REALITY that is HORRIFIC is that the TWO PARTIES literally literally literally control the debates, which certainly is NOT the entirety of the campaign for President PROPER VIEWING BY THE PUBLIC. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE RESULT OF PROPER HOOPS having been shown as proving high level public popularity, and consistent media popularity REFLECTING CONSCIENCE of the PUBLIC not monied powermongers--proper values, demonstrated.

Nothing else will do in 2008.

Furthermore, note that last week, polls of popularity showed both Bush and Blair as UNPOPULAR at a low popularity level of 29% for Blair and 31% Bush. The USA Today chart with an accompanying article refused to note that level of truth and instead continued the media BIAS as if the popularity level was not significant--at least one would presume they assumed that...but, then, do a poll that IS significant and measures the public truth. I believe people are waiting for the "right stuff" if impeachment is the solution. Cheney as a replacement is not the right stuff, and 99% knows that. To me, that does not mean impeachment is not in order. To me, forcing him to account, is very much in order. People expect Saddam Hussein to account, Bush should.

"Clear vision" was attributed to both men-Blair and Bush, utterly utterly utterly ignoring the polls. I found the accompanying graph of popularity decline since the Iraq War not noted by the media analysis of the political reality of PUBLIC UNHAPPINESS with what the supposed politics we have is delivering.

We want Real Government, not phonies, not monied, unprincipled corrupt "politicians."

If there is to be proper viewing at the Debates, the Control must be NON PARTISAN with the obvious intent of offering GOOD MAJORITY FREEDOM to have the PUBLIC CITIZEN represented.

Congress eliminated the budget for the public TV and radio. That, to me, is a horror.

The Debates were wrested from the non-partisan League of Women Voters, and taken over by the very "conflict of interest challenged" Committee Heads of the Republicans and Democrats.

15% Polls required for entry? I say, with the right question at the beginning of the campaign season, the 15% should happen. But the right question is NOT the question historically used. "If the election were tomorrow, who would you vote for?" It takes money to free the system for the people? Tell Congress the PUBLIC MEDIA has a right to PUBLIC TAX FUNDS! NOW!

If people were GIVEN the PROPER VIEW OF NADER...what would the percentile be? Cambridge, MA thought more was needed than changing the polls, but they agreed at least it would likely net a 5% immediate increase. To me, it would all the PROPER ENTRY...ask the right question at the outset of the campaign season. An Affirmative WHO DO YOU WANT MOST for PRESIDENT. Not who do you think is the only choice offered by the media. YES, that I believe is what is at present.

The media owes a BIG CHANGE in the proper presentation.

Nader went to every state and spoke to the people.

The media tried not to allow proper entry. A people's president, with prestige? This is a problem in the Corporate World, but not in a MAJORITY RULE with REAL candidates offering their leadership with proper achievements PRESENTED to the public by the media.

(I am not employed, but yes, I am a degreed journalist, B.U. 1975, M.S. Journalsim: Science Communication--chose motherhood after having successful 2.5 year track as a state law enforcement publicist in Connecticut, for the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities--enforced laws against discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit transactions. Anti-discrimination.)

This appears to be a pretended claim of TWO PARTY MONOPOLY as if that stereotype is preferred. It is NOT.

Real competitive candidates IS PREFERRED.

We want a "meritocracy." Good guys should not have to finish last. If Nader is "permitted" entry, he should not be the last, thank you very much. As outstanding as he is, I certainly am expecting to see his proper entry, and others to follow!

I volunteered on the Nader for President 2004 Ballot Access in MA. People were adamant that "anybody but Bush" was the reality. Reality was what they claimed, but their reality was NOT REAL candidates, but the FORCED "lesser of two evils" is our ONLY choice, which clearly was untrue. I believed they did not understand how the system seems SO corrupted.

We have a right to know WHY Congress thought they could cut the funding of PUBLIC TV and RADIO and to DEMAND immediate correction and REAL procedures to allow REAL competition of REAL candidates.

I am sure Gore, Edwards, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others who have viewed the serious situation of reflecting PUBLIC interest at a MAJORITY LEVEL should be proper competition and should be doable by the mainstream media, which CERTAINLY should include if not EMPHASIZE the PUBLIC TV and RADIO with guaranteed payment of "adequate" support from taxes.

It is protection of free speeech, not to mention protection of voting rights at a freedom to choose the BEST level!

Summary: (1) Campaign Polls should ask affirmative preference of WHO the individual polled thinks is BEST for President. Who would they MOST like to see in the Oval Office representing them, and this country?

(2) Congress should restore funding to the PUBLIC TV and RADIO. PUBLIC INTEREST is the proper use of PUBLIC TAXES.

(3) The Debates should be hosted by NON PARTISAN people who have the national public interest and meritocracy as the proper competition for candidates to win the debates entry and the debates viewed. The Two Major Parties are Usurping proper and fair democracy and ruining our country's fair elections at a proper competitive level. A "Box" of Two Evils is not a proper choice for Americans to vote on.

(4) Change the public view of a REAL POLITICAL CANDIDATE. Ralph Nader v Bush...who would choose Bush over Nader? How many. BUT FIRST, the proper view and fair and proper suppo