(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What is it that makes a third party viable in the United States?

Recently I discussed the Working Families Party (WFP) with a member here and he suggested that they were not a viable party. But they seem to be doing better than most other third parties. They are fairly new--in comparison with the Democrat and Republican machines which have been around forever. They have elected officials in the states they are in--frequently they are officially on the D or R machine--however frequently they need the push from the WFP to actually win.

The way that the WFP works is via fusion voting. Fusion voting is only permitted in certain states--which limits where the WFP can operate. Fusion voting, for any who don't know, is where you can cross endorse a candidate on multiple ballot lines.

When WFP gets 20% of the votes in a district on their ballot line, it makes the D/R machine pay attention. They want/need that 20% of voters to win the election in their district. The WFP leans towards the D's but they are not strictly D-supporters. They do and have supported the R's, if they are on board with the values of the WFP (which, as you might imagine, is looking out for the Working Class)

Now, the WFP isn't a party that really works on national campaigns. They don't have the sway [yet] to work on a prez debate in an efficient manner. They are operating on the local and state level. They *do* make a difference in state senate races, as well as mayoral or city council/county legislator races.

Two questions:

Can you think of a reason why fusion voting *should be* forbidden? That is, in the states without fusion voting can you explain why it should remain the way is is?

What third party has more traction than the WFP? Please cite--the member I was discussing this with before said that the Libertarian Party is more viable than the WFP. This seems untrue to me--but should someone provide me with links showing that I am mistaken, I will revise my opinion. So go ahead, punks, make my day! =)

And just for shits and giggles:

Comments

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I don't find your explanation of fusion voting very clear. In case others are like me, here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/elections/fusion-the-secret-weapon/

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

I still don't really get how this is different from "endorse", but then my state doesn't have registration by parties.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

muchas gracias

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

How is this different from getting the endorsement of the ACLU, SEIU, NRA, AARP or AFL-CIO? From what I can tell, the WFP is just a lobbying group that calls itself a political party.

I don't have a problem with this. I don't really see what is all that new, special or controversial about it. Didn't the Republican party officially endorse the Democratic candidate when David Duke ran for the House?

Does the candidate show up more than once on the ballot? That seems problematic, but otherwise... so what?

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

I was kind of confused about this as well, but I think that the candidate does appear on multiple lines. So it would be:

Bob Hitler, GOP
Adam Lenin, Democrat
Adam Lenin, Working Families.

Seems a little odd to me and I am not sure I really like the idea.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't like that. Not at all. Especially since you can gin up a dozen parties, all with essentially the same platform and just spam the ballot.

Bob Hilter, GOP
Bob Hilter, National Bolcialist Party
Bob Hilter, One Reich Party
Bob Hilter, Snazzy Uniform Party
Adam Lenin, Democrat
Bob Hilter, Anschlus NOW! Party
Bob Hilter, Take Your Daughter to Work and Gas the Jews Party
Bob Hilter, Green Party

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Why don't you like the idea?

If your political group likes person X and wants him/her as Prez, y'all put that person on your ballot. If my political group likes person X....we put em on our ballot.

What's wrong with this?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

They did. In fact G H W Bush, Ronald Reagan and other leading Republicans all personally endorsed the Democrat.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Why is it problematic?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Because it confuses the ballot.

As far as I can see, the WFP is a subset of the Democratic party that stands for certain policies. I have no problem with that any more than I have with the ACLU or the SEIU. But I don't think they should be able to pretend like they are a bone fide party. This gives a special interest group more stature than it deserves. If the WFP is running its own slate... more power to them. But tacking "WFP approved" onto a much more broadly based candidate on the actual ballot, seems utterly beyond the pale for me. You might as well have each ballot covered with stickers proclaiming the endorsements of each candidate.

Also, for the reasons I outlined above. It isn't hard for me to imagine two or three marginal parties throwing their support behind a given candidate. That is fine. But then having that candidate show up 3 times on a ballot? No way. That is the recipe for first class shenanigans.

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest problem with third parties is that for the most part they don't have majority support.

I have to say though that I admire groups like the WFP that are at least going about correctly. Starting at the local level and building from there. Too many third parties aim for the top (president, governor, senator) right off the bat and then bitch about how the media ignoring them is the only reason this country is not run by their Christian Socialist Libertarian Dream Machine.

In most areas you can pretty much talk to every voter if you are willing to put in the effort. I worked for a guy who knocked off a popular incumbent by knocking on every door in the district. No one had a clue who he was until he did that, but it worked. No reason a third party could not do that, except for the fact that no matter how many people you talk to, most third parties do not have ideas that people like.

Personally though I see the best option as working within the existing parties. Its quite easy to go to your local LD meeting and begin lobbying for change or a different candidate. Multiply that across a country and you can change a party from the inside out. Hell it happens all the time.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

In most areas you can pretty much talk to every voter if you are willing to put in the effort. I worked for a guy who knocked off a popular incumbent by knocking on every door in the district. No one had a clue who he was until he did that, but it worked.

Yeah, my cousin did that in Oregon many years ago.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

most third parties do not have ideas that people like

That is eminently true. The reason we don't have a vibrant Transgendered Libertarian Green candidate is because only about 100 people would vote for her in a general election. But no one who really likes a third (or fourth, or fifth) party wants to believe that.

Re: the lolweasel

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

Federal / Presidential funding is accomplished by a check box on the income tax form. Checking "yes" sends $3.00 of your taxes ($6 for couples) to the campaign fund instead of the general fund. Even with the explanation that it doesn't actually increase their taxes to check the box, close to 90% of American taxpayers refuse to do so. The most returns they got was around 28% in 1980. In 2002, it was down around 11%. If Dubya had accepted federal funds, they couldn't have financed the 2000 election.

I'd call that a pretty convincing referendum on the subject. Most Americans refuse to support it.

Re: the lolweasel

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, the post you are looking for is in another castle. Please try again.

No really--whut? relevance, wtf?

Re: the lolweasel

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Oooh--no I see now.

I wasn't trying to discuss public funding of campaigns--just in general. But OK. Fair point; sorry for not getting it before that other comment.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Does New York state allow for this? Just curious.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Fusion voting? I might be wrong, but they may have been the first state to run with it.

Barack Obama was a "Working Families Party" candidate. It's a great example of how the fusion voting system ends up screwing with the ballot process - they got 150k votes for Obama on the line - 150k of which would have voted for him anyway, but it gets them some extra ballot access and gives them a false sense of legitimacy.

I don't especially love how Massachusetts does ballot eligibility for parties, but at least you have to work for it, y'know?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

yes

lol@icon

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The way that the WFP works is via fusion voting. Fusion voting is only permitted in certain states--which limits where the WFP can operate. Fusion voting, for any who don't know, is where you can cross endorse a candidate on multiple ballot lines.

When WFP gets 20% of the votes in a district on their ballot line, it makes the D/R machine pay attention.

Not in fusion situations. All it does is provide an extra endorsement that they'd be getting anyway in a normal situation. No one is sitting there and saying "well, damn, I'm glad I got those WFP votes," because that candidate was going to get those votes anyway.

The WFP leans towards the D's but they are not strictly D-supporters. They do and have supported the R's, if they are on board with the values of the WFP (which, as you might imagine, is looking out for the Working Class)

Correction - it's the perception that they're for the working class while instead pursuing any and all liberal policies available.

Can you think of a reason why fusion voting *should be* forbidden? That is, in the states without fusion voting can you explain why it should remain the way is is?

There's no reason to adopt it, really. The system where parties stand on their own work fine. We're not a parliamentary system.

What third party has more traction than the WFP? Please cite--the member I was discussing this with before said that the Libertarian Party is more viable than the WFP. This seems untrue to me--but should someone provide me with links showing that I am mistaken, I will revise my opinion. So go ahead, punks, make my day! =)

The Libertarian Party has ballot access in most states. The Green Party has ballot access in most states. Both field high-level candidates, including Presidential, in nearly every election. They're unquestionably more viable than the regional WFP that relies on fusion voting to stay on the ballots.

I'd also put the Constitution Party ahead of them, although they're quite marginal as well.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

The more I've learned about this, the less I like it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

No, they would not have gotten the votes anyway. That's the point.

Ballot access is not the same thing as elected officials.
How many Green party candidates are on city councils?

WFP gets voters from both parties--neither wants to lose those votes

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

It's not a protest vote.
You fail to understand what's going on here.