third 3rd pol party
==
see split tkt spoiler
merri ok
:{:{---}:
NEW VARIANT, SUPERPAC TO BOOST WEAK DEM CAND?
AN 5 26
Super PACs with ties to Republicans are spending money to promote weaker, left-wing candidates in Democratic primaries, in an apparent effort to help Republicans retain control of the House, The New York Times reports.
“They’re going into Democratic primaries and literally trying to boost the most extreme candidates and oppose the Blue Dog-endorsed candidates that, if they win, are going to beat the Republicans in the general,” U.S. Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA) said in an interview with the Times. The Blue Dogs are more centrist Democrats.
One “new mystery super PAC with ties to Republicans has spent more than $1 million meddling in at least three Democratic congressional primaries to select preferred opponents,” the Times reports. That group is spending money to promote “a left-wing sex therapist in Texas who has been accused of bigotry and antisemitism by leaders in both parties.”
It is also running ads in Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania and Nebraska.
In some of these races the spending is an effort to disrupt Democratic candidates “who are part of the Democratic Party’s ‘red to blue’ program, a special designation for top recruits in key races that could determine control of the House.”
The Times calls these “interventions in the opposing party’s primaries,” and reports that they are “apparently to elevate Democrats viewed as weaker candidates,” suggesting that “the race for control of the House has entered an intensive new phase in which both parties are vying for every imaginable edge.”
“Some Republicans privately believe the party’s best chance to hold power this year is to cast Democrats as extremists,” the Times reports.
Another super PAC formally aligned with Republicans is promoting a progressive Democrat in California.
Maureen Galindo is running for a Democratic seat from Texas. Party leaders are backing Johnny Garcia, who has worked in the local sheriff’s office. Despite having raised less than $10,000, Galindo finished first in the primary, advancing to a May runoff.
“In a text message,” the Times reports, “Ms. Galindo suggested the money for the mailer had come from ‘a billionaire zionist who made the pac to sabotage candidates,’ using the type of language that has previously prompted charges of antisemitism, including from Senator Jacky Rosen, Democrat of Nevada, and Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who called her ‘openly bigoted.'”
Galindo told the Times, “Dems and Republicans uniting against me in the same week with the same message is evidence that theyre [sic] working together for the zionist billionaires that control our government and tax money.”
There are more races that Democratic strategists expect Republicans to meddle in, including in California, Michigan and Colorado.
---
'Whole thing is an epic fraud': RFK Jr. official admits goal is to elect Trump - Alternet.org
ny camp off caught on tape
===
---
Cornel West forms new political party — and plans to be on Florida ballot in November - Alternet.org
---
Critics rip third-party movement as useful idiots for Trump campaign - Alternet.org
11 23
---
no Labels, the purportedly non-partisan organization that supports Republicans and conservative Democrats, is making preparations to promote a third-party presidential ticket in 2024. The group says it is "laying the groundwork for a potential independent unity ticket in 2024" as an "insurance policy" in case both major parties "nominate candidates most Americans don’t want to vote for." It claims that a "centrist" third-party ticket could win an "outright victory in the Electoral College in 2024." The far more likely outcome of No Label's strategy, however, would be to help Trump return to the Oval Office in 2024.
This is not a fly-by-night operation. No Labels said that it has raised $70 million for the effort and will seek to secure a line on the ballot in all 50 states. It has "already gained ballot access in Arizona, Colorado, Alaska and Oregon." Where did No Labels get all this money? The group has not revealed any of its donors. It's an odd position for an organization dedicated to restoring "trust" in institutions. In response to a request for comment, a No Labels spokesperson said the organization does not release its donors because it is not required by law, and "agitators and partisan operatives try to destroy organizations they don’t like by attacking and intimidating their individual supporters."
No Labels says that it will only run a presidential ticket if Republicans and Democrats "nominate candidates who empower or cater to the extremes." Would Biden fit the bill? No Labels will not answer that question either. But No Labels has produced graphics equating Trump and Biden, characterizing both as an unacceptable choice:
|
In any event, the No Labels strategy appears focused on siphoning off votes from the Democratic candidate. According to a projected map circulated by the group, it projects to win about two-thirds of their Electoral College votes from states that supported Biden in 2020.
Of course the far more likely scenario is that No Labels does not win any Electoral College votes at all. Nevertheless, a No Labels ticket could swing critical swing states like Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Michigan to Trump. No Labels is courting voters who are dissatisfied with Trump and Biden. According to an analysis by Third Way, a centrist organization that opposes No Labels’ plan, voters in 2020 that disliked both candidates voted for Biden over Trump by a margin of 15 points. Today, No Labels' own poll shows "Democrats, liberals and urban voters to be more open to a moderate independent candidate than Republicans, conservatives or rural voters." The poll found an "unnamed 'moderate independent' candidate was supported by 20 percent of registered voters, compared with 28 percent for Biden and 33 for Trump."
Even if a No Labels ticket defies the odds and secures Electoral College votes, the idea that it could secure an outright majority is remote. A more plausible outcome is the No Labels ticket secures enough Electoral College votes to deny either party an outright majority. That means that the House of Representatives would elect the next the president, with each state delegation receiving one vote. Republicans currently represent the majority in 26 states, meaning that the House of Representatives would almost certainly vote to install Trump for a second term.
Giving a distinct advantage to Trump in 2024, however, may be the point.
No Labels' history of supporting Trump
In January 2016, No Labels honored Trump for agreeing to its "Problem Solver Promise" at an elaborate event in New Hampshire. At the event, New Hampshire state Rep. Stephen Stepanek (R), who was representing Trump, said he believed that all of the principles promoted by No Labels "fit under the label, Make America Great Again." The event also celebrated four other Republican candidates, and one Democrat, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley.
O'Malley used his address to criticize No Labels for including Trump. "When Donald Trump says all immigrants are rapists and criminals, that's not being a problem solver," O'Malley said. "There are other adjectives for that – one of them being ‘racist’... I would encourage you not to dumb down this label."
Last year, No Labels criticized the January 6 Committee — a group of Democrats and Republicans investigating Trump for inciting a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol — as "a partisan exercise about which the public is skeptical." [twt]
a No Labels video, which was produced before the Committee held public hearings, said the Committee was "unlikely to produce results that will bring the country together." It compared the Committee unfavorably to the highly-partisan Republican special committee that investigated the 2012 Benghazi attack on a U.S. embassy. It said the fact that, according to one poll, only 23% of Republicans supported the Committee's work proved it was ineffective.
No Labels history of opposing Biden
No Labels publicly opposed Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) legislation, the signature legislative proposal of the Biden administration. The package, which originally included efforts to combat climate change, increase the corporate tax rate, expand the Child Tax Credit, and improve healthcare, was copiously cut down from Biden’s original proposal, largely due to opposition from Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ).
Throughout the legislative process, No Labels stood by Manchin and Sinema and applauded their efforts to kill the legislation. In a leaked email from September 2021 celebrating the paring down of BBB, No Labels praised Sinema’s “heroic efforts” for her work on the bill. No Labels also ran ads commending Manchin for “hit[ting] the brakes on BBB” and hosted him at a “billionaire-backed gathering” amidst BBB negotiations.
According to the Intercept, No Labels reportedly “raised hundreds of thousands for a special fund to bolster the efforts of a group of conservative House Democrats opposed to a stepped-up version of the Build Back Better package.” In August 2021, nine members of the House worked to “force” former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to hold a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal before considering the larger BBB bill, scuttling the Biden administration's plan to link the two votes, according to Axios.
What we know about No Labels' donors
No Labels has a policy of not revealing its donors. But in 2018, the Daily Beast obtained "internal documents" that provided key insights into its funding. The documents revealed that "prominent executives from Fortune 500 companies and leading financial-services firms have contributed to No Labels’ 501(c)(4) dark-money group and its affiliated 501(c)(3) charitable arm." This included large donations from top executives running hedge funds and private equity firms, including Bain Capital, Centaurus Advisors, Oaktree Capital Management, Trian Fund Management, and Apollo Global Management.
Notably, this is the same group of people who are disappointed with the Biden administration. As a Senator from Delaware, Biden was perceived by the financial industry as friendly to corporate America. But his administration has aggressively regulated securities and mergers, angering Wall Street dealmakers.
Last week, Semafor reported that "Wall Street backers of U.S. President Joe Biden are holding back on supporting him in the 2024 race, citing rules proposed by his Securities and Exchange Commission that target the financial services industry." These executives are particularly upset with SEC chairman Gary Gensler who "has taken on everything from climate disclosure regulations to market-structure rewrites."
According to Semafor, Biden's approach to financial regulation "has left a sense of 'buyer’s remorse" for some on Wall Street. Financial industry lobbyists are reportedly "beyond frustrated.”
No Labels' efforts could be a way for the Wall Street crowd to vent their frustrations — and keep Biden from winning a second term.
---
1 23 an raw
A New Political Party is the Way Forward
Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman have founded a new party known as the Forward Party, and it has already announced candidates who will be running for office in the midterm elections.
The party is focused on depolarizing America and healing the division, but without proposing policies that are directly in the center, since they also do not move America “forward.” Because it is open to candidates who lean right and left, it is bipartisan, but it also the definition of progressive, because its platform consists of many radical new ideas—like Yang’s plan for universal basic income (UBI). It may sound like an oxymoron, but the Forward Party might just be America’s first “bipartisan progressive party.”
Could a third party be the thing that unites all rational Americans in a war against corruption, political extremism, and Trumpism? It is hard to say, since neither side seems to be too interested in compromise, and divisive issues like abortion and gun control make any kind of reconciliation difficult to imagine. And what new big ideas is the Forward Party offering that make it something radically different from the Democratic party?
I, for one, believe it is a step in the right direction, though I understand if some think the Forward Party is too young to stand a real chance in the next presidential election. However, if there was ever a time that a third party actually stood a chance, it is right now. If the Forward Party’s presidential candidate seems like the best choice for America, a reasonable strategy would be to support that candidate right up until the moment it seems like defeating Trump is no longer possible. At that point, the Forward Party candidate would urge their supporters to vote for the candidate who can ensure Trump never gets back into the oval office. But if the Forward Party’s pick is polling well and has a chance to win, then it would seem like the perfect opportunity to break America’s infamous two-party system. According to the Washington Post, a growing number of experts believe that the way to fix democracy is to move beyond the two-party system.
---
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/how-america-could-break-free-from-the-two-party-doom-loop/
no lnx
How America could break free from the two-party doom loop
Written by David Edward Burke / Washington Monthly January 28, 2020
There is a growing consensus that the American political system is no longer the gold standard it once was. The United States ranks outside the top 20 countries in the Corruption Perception Index. U.S. voter turnout trails most other developed countries. Congressional approval ratings hover around 20 percent, and polling shows that partisan animosity is at an all-time high. It doesn’t take a social scientist to see that our legislatures are increasingly defined by gridlock and gamesmanship.
It’s always tempting to think that the next election will turn things around, and for both Republicans and Democrats to believe that our country would course-correct if only they could elect more of their own. But what if the problem isn’t the people on the other side of the aisle? What if the two-party system itself is creating a vicious cycle, making government less effective and driving us apart?
That’s what Lee Drutman argues in Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop. Drutman, a political scientist and senior fellow at New America, writes that moving to a multiparty democracy can create fair representation, reduce partisan gridlock, lead to more positive incremental change, and increase both voter turnout and voter satisfaction. And through concrete reforms, like implementing ranked-choice voting and expanding the size of the House of Representatives, Drutman lays out the path forward.
It is difficult to imagine that the partisans who occupy the halls of power will voluntarily make room for third, fourth, or even fifth and sixth major parties. But Drutman leaves little doubt that the American political system would benefit from more viable options in the voting booth.
For anyone born after 1990, it would be easy to believe that American politics has always been the toxic blood sport it is today. But the dominance of two extremely polarized parties is a recent phenomenon—and it’s something the framers actively sought to avoid. As Drutman notes, George Washington’s final presidential address warned of “the alternate domination of one faction over another,” and John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties . . . is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” So how did we get to where we are today?
Where Drutman believes the framers erred was in failing to realize that simple plurality elections—used for most state and national contests—would foster the exact two-party system they wanted to avoid. They were justifiably concerned about the danger of “two great parties” and right to think that several smaller factions balancing each other out could be the solution. But they were so leery of political parties in general that they never seriously considered a multiparty system.
Parties are useful, Drutman argues, especially in countries as large as the United States. They help voters understand where candidates stand and make it easier for constituencies to organize. A two-party system can only succeed, however, if it strikes the right balance. If the parties are too similar, they don’t offer voters meaningful choices. If the parties are too different, they rarely cooperate. When parties become so different that they view each other as an existential threat, it justifies all manner of sins to defeat or obstruct the opposition.
One obvious counterargument to Drutman’s thesis is that we’ve had two dominant parties for most of our history without the current level of gridlock and polarization. However, he argues that for decades we effectively had a four-party system inside the two-party system, with “liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans. Each group represented distinct and meaningful voting factions. None had a majority of its own.” From 1965 to 1990 voting patterns did not follow a “predictable one-dimensional left-right structure but reflected complicated trade-offs across competing priorities.” That time period was considered one of peak performance for Congress, characterized by landmark, bipartisan legislation. But then the landscape changed.
In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich, newly elected speaker of the House, led Republicans to adopt a “politics as war” mentality, which drove both parties away from the center. As politics grew more contentious, a series of “wave” elections replaced moderate representatives with more extreme ones. By 2016, conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans had become an endangered species in Congress, and significant bipartisan legislation went extinct along with them.
Now the two major parties largely reflect an urban-versus-rural divide, and the number of “swing” districts has halved since 1998. Our winner-take-all electoral system makes it virtually impossible for third parties to gain traction. Voters who are dissatisfied with their party’s nominee hold their nose and support them anyway, or, worse yet, stay home.
Our ineffective, weakened Congress also makes for a more powerful presidency, Drutman explains. Every election becomes more consequential as control of the executive branch and the legislature grows more important. Party leaders demonize their opponents to fire up their base. “It’s a self-reinforcing doom loop, with no obvious way out in the existing two-party system.” Shifting to a multiparty democracy, he argues, is the obvious solution.
To start, Drutman proposes that we implement ranked-choice voting, or “instant runoffs,” for congressional seats and the presidency. Under that system, voters rank their first, second, and third choices on the ballot, and so on. When tallied, votes given to the lowest-performing candidates are subsequently redistributed to the second choices of that candidate’s voters. The redistribution continues until one candidate reaches the requisite threshold and wins.
Ranked-choice voting breaks the two-party cycle by giving voters the freedom to vote for third parties without the fear of their vote being wasted or of their preferred candidate being a “spoiler” for another candidate they like. It rewards candidates with broad appeal and leads to less divisive campaigns, since candidates benefit from being a voters’ second or third choice. Several large cities, like San Francisco and Minneapolis, have already implemented ranked-choice voting, and Maine voters will use it in their 2020 Democratic primary.
Drutman argues that ranked-choice voting should be combined with multi-winner congressional districts. Multi-winner districts work like this: Imagine merging five congressional districts into one larger district with five representatives. In elections for this new, larger district, the top five finishers (after the ranked-choice votes are tabulated and redistributed) would all go to Congress. This would pave the way for additional political parties and a more ideologically diverse Congress that better reflects voters’ true preferences.
This kind of reform may sound drastic initially, but, as Drutman explains, plenty of other countries use more representative methods of voting. And the United States’s two-party system is an outlier in the modern world. Most of the countries that rank ahead of the U.S. in voter turnout or government effectiveness have between three and six effective political parties. Shifting to a multiparty democracy wouldn’t be a leap of faith—it would be America catching up with what works elsewhere.
Drutman makes the case for other changes, like dramatically increasing the number of representatives in the House and eliminating congressional primaries. Of course, as with all significant reforms, the biggest question is whether any of this can become reality.
To be sure, most of the elements necessary for fundamental change are there. Americans’ level of trust in government is hovering near historic lows, at around 20 percent. A majority of Americans say they want a viable third party. Multi-winner districts and ranked-choice voting are the best ways to give people more choices. The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the rules for congressional elections, so we could pass a law to implement ranked-choice voting or multimember districts.
But there is little evidence that the two major parties would welcome greater diversity. Republicans, in particular, may be resistant to change since their party is so often overrepresented in the halls of power. In 2018, Republicans maintained control over multiple state legislatures despite winning only a minority of votes. In the U.S. Senate, smaller states like Wyoming that tend to lean Republican are overrepresented relative to large blue states like California and New York.
But the difficulty of structural reform should not deter us from the effort. All any of us can do is soberly assess our problems, search for evidence-based solutions, and work toward the plan we think has the best chance of success. Through his thoughtful, engaging work, Drutman has done more than his fair share. If even a small fraction of the Americans who are fed up with our toxic politics work toward a multiparty democracy, we may be able to break the two-party doom loop sooner than we think.
---
ezra says founders worried about states (not parties?) and we had 4 parties in "golden age" post wwii dixiecrats and NE mod gop, but when polar many veto/chokepoints make action impossible; note when we set up gov't (post wwii eg japan) we did not clone our sys
Why Is This Happening? with Chris Hayes
Why We’re Polarized with Ezra Klein...
===
https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/wyoming-republican-heres-how-the-two-party-system-and-partisan-gerrymandering-are-wrecking-democracy/
Critics of United States politics often complain about the two-party system, noting that in many European parliamentary democracies, having five or six major parties in the federal government is the norm. But Wyoming Republican David Dodson, in a May 20 op-ed for theNew York Times, addresses another problem that contributes to a lack of real competition in U.S. politics: party primaries, which Dodson complains, discourage competition.
“Through a series of anticompetitive tactics,” Dodson asserts, “the two political parties have created a hidden monopoly structure that accounts for a Congress with a 77% disapproval rating yet a nearly 90% reelection rate.”
In 2018, Dodson challenged incumbent U.S. Sen. John Barrasso in a GOP Senate primary in Wyoming, but Barrasso won the primary and the general election as well.
Dodson complains, “The political parties understand that in a political world made up mainly of partisan-drawn districts, where 90% of the seats in Congress are not competitive in the general election, controlling the primary process protects incumbents and controls the ultimate outcome.”
The Republican discusses his experience running against Barrasso in 2018, explaining, “When I contacted a law firm known to serve Republicans, that firm told me it couldn’t work for a candidate running against an incumbent because it would put its entire practice at risk. As I tried to build an organization to run a credible primary challenge, this story repeated itself, whether I was recruiting campaign staff or a marketing firm.”
Dodson offers some possible, solutions, however. First, Dodson writes, “nonpartisan committees must take control of the taxpayer-financed primary process and run a single primary ballot, forcing incumbents to compete with members of the opposing party as well as of their own party.”
Second, according to Dodson, “federal term limits would break incumbents’ domination, create more open seats and attract new talent to the political process.”
And Dodson’s third recommendation is “a constitutional amendment against partisan gerrymandering so that voters choose their politicians instead of politicians choosing their voters.”
Dodson wraps up his op-ed by stressing that competition is as important to politics as it is to free-market capitalism.
“The monopolistic forces I witnessed are not inevitable,” Dodson writes. “The solution is to restore congressional accountability to where it belongs: with voters. Just as our economic engine relies on competition to remain healthy, so does our democracy.”
---
===
greg c ref
The Omaha Platform was the party program adopted at the formative convention of the Populist (or People's) Party held in Omaha, Nebraska on July 4, 1892.
Origin
The platform preamble was written by Ignatius L. Donnelly. The Omaha platform was seen as "The Second Declaration of Independence," as it called for reestablishing American liberty.[1] The planks themselves represent the merger of the agrarian concerns of the Farmers' Alliance with the free-currency monetarism of the Greenback Party while explicitly endorsing the goals of the largely urban Knights of Labor.
In the words of Donnelly's preamble, the convention was "assembled on the anniversary of the birthday of the nation, and filled with the spirit of the grand general and chieftain who established our independence, we seek to restore the government of the Republic to the hands of the plain people, with which class it originated."
The Omaha Platform called for a wide range of social reforms, including a reduction in the working day, a "safe, sound, and flexible" national currency, assistance to farmers with the financing of their labours, "fair and liberal pensions to ex-Union soldiers and sailors," the direct election of Senators, single-terms for Presidents and Vice-Presidents, "the legislative system known as the initiative and referendum," "the unperverted Australian of secret ballot system," the nationalization of the railroads, the telegraph, and the telephone systems, a postal savings, "a graduated income tax," and "the free and unlimited coinage of silver."
In referencing the Omaha Platform, Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska suggested the wealth of the "super rich" had to begin flowing "to all the people, from whom it was originally taken."[2]
The Populist, or People's, Party went on to capture 11 seats in the United States House of Representatives, several governors and the state legislatures of Kansas, Nebraska and North Carolina. 1892 Presidential nominee and former Greenbacker James B. Weaver received over a million popular votes, and won four states (Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, and Nevada) and 22 electoral votes.
The Party's legislative majorities were thereafter able to elect several United States Senators. Taken as a whole, the electoral accomplishments of the Populist Party represent the high water mark for a United States third party after the Civil War. In 1896, the Populists abandoned the Omaha Platform and endorsed Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan on the basis of a single-plank free silver platform.
Goals
The first goal of the Omaha Platform was to increase the coinage of silver and gold at a 16:1 ratio. The Omaha Platform suggested a federal loans system so that farmers could get the money they needed. The platform also called for the elimination of private banks. The platform proposed a system of federal storage facilities for the farmers' crops. The objective was to allow the farmers to control the pricing of their products. The Omaha Platform proposed a special taxing system for them so that they would have to pay taxes depending on how much money they made. They also sought for an eight-hour workday and the direct election of senators, as opposed to their being elected by state legislatures. These main goals of the Omaha Platform were all focused on helping rural and working-class Americans. After 1894, Populists emphasized the demand for free coinage of silver rather than other goals, such as state-run railroads.
Dissolution
The platform did not appeal to the more urban areas of the country where wage earners were working industrial jobs.[3] The platform's only clear attempt to appeal to northerners in the east was the clause mentioning pensions to ex-Union soldiers.[4] The Populist Party dissolved before World War II as members were unable to meet in Omaha for the party's semi-centennial celebration, and for the reason that many of the party's values have been accepted by other, more dominant political parties.[5]
See also
===
---
==