Issues no one else will address like: "global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, India and China as strategic competitors/allies, nuclear proliferation, education", etc

June 7, 2006 12:26 AM

Unity 08 An attempt to recruit one democrat and one republican to run as a third party ticket in '08. all online, and hoping to be a big hit with the young people. Other people think it might be a dumb idea.
posted by delmoi (70 comments total)

In 2008, we’ll select and elect a Unity Ticket to the White House— one Democrat, one Republican, in whatever order, or independents committed to a Unity team.

One part shit and one part shit equals two parts shit.
posted by three blind mice at 12:31 AM on June 7, 2006

Any political party that replaces a coherent platform with a vague faith-based ("believe") promise to focus on a few matters that are already owned by corporations (energy, war machine, etc.) will earn my ridicule, and I imagine others' as well.

We need a serious third-party option, not this feel-good sophomoric distraction that I'll bet is another GOP astroturf operation to suck votes away from the Democrats.
posted by Mr. Six at 12:44 AM on June 7, 2006

I immediately thought of Commander in Chief. Given that the show was so horrifically bad that I turned it off five minutes in, unable even to enjoy bagging the crap out of it, I don't expect much of this follow on.
posted by jacalata at 12:45 AM on June 7, 2006

Well, they've got a long way to go, but I like the principle. Obviously, they're not going to have much of a platform until they nominate some actual candidates. Anyway, I wish them luck, but I'll believe it when I see it.
posted by Loudmax at 1:07 AM on June 7, 2006

Neat post delmoi.

Yes, the party system, and hence the two-party system, keeps you down--alas, there probably aren't many people out there who think as you do 100% of the time. Personally, I'm against Bush, against Iraq, against out-of-control spending (i.e. deficit spending), and pro-rights (i.e. privacy rights) and pro-environment. But they had Goldwater, then Reagan, then Gingrich (which is where I should probably end this comment) and then the 21st century served up to them a silver freakin' platter, and they've screwed the damn pooch every step of the way since 2001. Yes, 9/11 was a horrible, terrible event, but other presidents wouldn't have squandered everything for the sake of some well-shaved Saudis with oil connections playing martyr.

So why is it that 3rd parties tend to fail in American politics, at least over the long run? Because individuals are quirky, non-rational mofos, and we all want to protect our own backyards and families and friends and predilictions.

So no, fuck the Republicans. They had the ball, they miffed it all up. Pre-emptively, fuck the Dems too--if they allow Hillary to "re-claim the mantle" then fuck it. I'll vote for her, but they've lost the point. It ain't third party, it's smart party. Barring that, it's party that doesn't actively work against my own selfish interest(s).

Feingold. Bayh. Richardson. Your can easily slap these McCain-Santorum-Brownback-Frist-Allen fuckers back into the Old Testament, but my party's worst enemy is now itself. Which is funny, considering what an easy series of pick-ups this could be.

Vote your conscience in November. That's a start, at least.
posted by bardic at 1:14 AM on June 7, 2006

No, it's not the inability of 3rd party candidates to get elected that maintains the 2-party system, nor is it quirkiness of individuals, etc.. It's winner-take-all elections. Whenever there are winner-take-all elections, a two-party system inevitably emerges. This has been shown both theoretically and by long experience (too preoccupied to find links right now). The only way to break the 2-party system is proportional representation.

And Unity 08 is meaningless because it's appealing to the middle - just like the two parties are doing. The only question is whether it's naively dumb, or whether it is a cynical trick to create an illusion of a new alternative.
posted by jam_pony at 1:20 AM on June 7, 2006

So why is it that 3rd parties tend to fail in American politics, at least over the long run?

Because you have to have at least two parties to create the appearance of election choice and it would cost corporate America too much money to pay for three.
posted by three blind mice at 1:27 AM on June 7, 2006

bardic: Pre-emptively, fuck the Dems too--if they allow Hillary to "re-claim the mantle" then fuck it. I'll vote for her

I won't. After Bush, there is no way I will vote for another Republican candidate in any election ever (if you're willing to be in the same party as the guy, I don't want anything to do with you), but I still have standards. If the Democrats run Hillary Clinton, I'm abstaining out of disgust. Or possibly voting for a third party candidate.

My state has no hope of going anywhere but Republican, so it doesn't matter who I vote for anyway. If it did I'd probably choke back the bile just to get the Republicans out at any cost.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:27 AM on June 7, 2006

Why such hatred of Hillary? I don't think I like her much, but revile?

Besides proportional representation to break the two party lock, we could go to an instant run off system, or other preferential voting system. This would have the advantage of not requiring a change in our system of government, just our voting procedures. The disadvantages are that it wouldn't guarantee diversity, and also that elections would be too complicated for the average (florida) voter.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:52 AM on June 7, 2006

Is it me or does talk of three parties sound funny when we don't even have two?
posted by allen.spaulding at 1:53 AM on June 7, 2006

So why is it that 3rd parties tend to fail in American politics, at least over the long run?

First past the post voting?

Seriously, the problem of the "one party state masquerading as a two party state" will not be solved by taking one member of each 'party' and forming a third brand party.

It may be solved by preferential voting.
posted by pompomtom at 1:57 AM on June 7, 2006

BrotherCaine: Why such hatred of Hillary? I don't think I like her much, but revile?

Because she wants to tear down civil liberties as much as any Republican; the only differences are that she'll go after the second amendment instead of the fourth, and when she leads the attack on the first amendment it'll be in the name of 'obscenity' instead of 'security' or 'patriotism'. She's not a friend of freedom just because she's not a Republican; she just represents the nanny state instead of the corporate war machine.

The only good things about her is that she's not a Republican and I do like the idea of universal health care. Other then that, she stands for nearly all that's wrong with the Democratic party and very little of what's right about it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:09 AM on June 7, 2006

I'll bet is another GOP astroturf operation to suck votes away from the Democrats.

I'm not sure this time. In 2008, I expect there to be a lot more disenchanted Republicans than Democrats. I imagine there being plenty of Republicans that want to vote for change but find themselves incapable of supporting a Democrat.
posted by gsteff at 2:16 AM on June 7, 2006

Well, incapable of supporting the Democrats
posted by gsteff at 2:19 AM on June 7, 2006

Teaming up one Republican and one Democrat isn't going to work. What we need is an insane, two-pronged assault from the farthest of the far left and the farthest of the far right.

Nader/Buchanan '08, anyone?
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:36 AM on June 7, 2006

Nader/Buchanan '08, anyone?

I am so there.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 4:19 AM on June 7, 2006

Faint of Butt: I'm totally voting for Jello Biafra. I can't think of a good running mate for him though right now.

Anyone else have a good suggestion for Jello's running mate?
posted by BeerFilter at 4:23 AM on June 7, 2006

After Bush, there is no way I will vote for another Republican candidate in any election ever ...

Yea, me too. I've voted for moderate Republicans in the past; I've lived in NJ and PA and both states have a history of electing such folks but never again. If you want to align yourself with the thugs that call themselves Republican Party now, you're not getting my vote, I don't care what your personal views are.

And give me a break with the third party stuff. If they have any effect in the US, they just act as spoilers.
posted by octothorpe at 4:26 AM on June 7, 2006

"Issues no one else will address like: "global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, India and China as strategic competitors/allies, nuclear proliferation, education", etc"

Yeah, those issues are never addressed by the government; just because the current administration isn't successful at reaching a resolution doesn't mean they're not being addressed. There's still congress to deal with, too, which can (maybe?) be even more inept.

As others have said, putting candidates together from the two parties is not going to change the way things are done. Until people realize 3rd party candidates actually are a viable solution, things are not going to change for those who actually want change.
posted by redsnare at 4:52 AM on June 7, 2006

Anyone else have a good suggestion for Jello's running mate?

Chris Rock.
posted by Jimbob at 5:00 AM on June 7, 2006

And for the record, I fail to understand how an intermediate option between Democrat and Republican could manage to inspire anyone. What a stupid fucking idea.
posted by Jimbob at 5:01 AM on June 7, 2006

And every expeience I've ever had with a political body using the term "unity" in its name, has been a group of wishy-washy idiots desperate to get elected by means of cheap popularism.
posted by Jimbob at 5:03 AM on June 7, 2006

So for all the cynical "one party" folks, who do you vote for, if its all going to the same ideology?

There are differences between the two parties, but there is not much of a vast gulf seperating the two. Why? Because most of America is pretty much on the same page when it comes to ideology. We don't have an active mainstream Communist party, nor an active Fascist (well, not yet) party, either.

As for corporate influence, sickening as it is, as much as it affects the two parties, it does not cancel out all the differences between them.
posted by Atreides at 5:04 AM on June 7, 2006

p.s. Unity party idea is a stinker.
posted by Atreides at 5:05 AM on June 7, 2006

Biafra / Chomsky '08
posted by psmealey at 5:10 AM on June 7, 2006

What do you get when you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel-full of sewage? Sewage.

What do you get when you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrrel-full of wine? Sewage.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:12 AM on June 7, 2006

Why don't we just elect Stewart and Colbert?

At least they'd be funny.
posted by Talanvor at 5:15 AM on June 7, 2006

All politics is polarizing. A politics of unity is a politics in which nothing is at stake, all has been decided.
posted by Dogmilk at 5:15 AM on June 7, 2006

Anyone else have a good suggestion for Jello's running mate?

Bill Cosby.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:23 AM on June 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

First past the post (winner takes all) voting doesn't *always* produce two parties, but it does tend to produce two main parties. If you look at the UK (where I'm from) FPTP has produced the Tories and Labour, but hasn't killed the Liberal Democrats, the small-but-growing third party. Lib Dem tactics tend to involve local triangulation (nicer Tories in Labour areas and nicer Labour in Tory areas), which makes their party's national platform fairly incoherent, but they do have a decent number of MPs, and are not the laughing stock they were a few years back.

Also, the experience of Canada's Reform Party and the SDP in Britain suggests that new parties can get some traction in FPTP, even if later progress is harder.

The best solution for a third party in the US would seem to be to start a party with a strong regional presence in an area that is a bit alternative or otherwise different (like the west of Canada, or Scotland). Focus on local power first, then turn it into a more national party through a process of differentiation. The natural space at the moment would seem to be what I as a European would call the centre-right, but which in America is probably the nexus of Clintonism and Rockefeller Republicanism.

Anyone for the California Progressive Party?
posted by athenian at 5:31 AM on June 7, 2006

Jello's running mate?

I think I once saw that as a crossword puzzle clue.
posted by staggernation at 5:53 AM on June 7, 2006

i think there will be a time when a centrist 3rd party might have a chance, but that time isn't now ... the american people aren't convinced we are in crisis mode and that conviction is going to be necessary for this to happen

fishing for candidates is one thing ... fishing for positions on the issues is another ... the sense of urgency doesn't seem to be there yet ... in other words, the sense that a certain list of things must be done and that neither party is willing to do them

eventually, something like this will happen, i think ... either a unity party or one of the major parties becoming a unity party ... but it's too early ... and unless things get really bad, 2008 will be too early

also, i'm not sure that a wishy washy compromise between the two parties is the best way to go ... a unity movement will have to advocate big changes, not just the usual triangulation
posted by pyramid termite at 6:00 AM on June 7, 2006

pyramid termite: the american people aren't convinced we are in crisis mode and that conviction is going to be necessary for [the creation of a third party] to happen

I'm not sure that's true for the creation of a centrist third party, though I think it is for a more radical one. The UK's SDP was formed by a political breakaway initially, and then drew support from an 'anyone but the main parties' constituency. Of course, it didn't keep that support, and that was its problem.
posted by athenian at 6:11 AM on June 7, 2006

You want Unity, real unity? Ok, I'm for a Unity ticket but both candidate must renouce their political parties - and corporate sponsorship. I guarantee you that the no-name party will become the largest party in the US overnight. I also guarantee you that will never happen. Whores never give up easy money. I think a vast majority of the United States is absolutely disgusted with both parties and would welcome a third party with open arms.
posted by any major dude at 6:13 AM on June 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Anyone else have a good suggestion for Jello's running mate?

Um... Ted Nugent?

It would certainly be the rock 'n' roll equivalent of Nader/Buchanan '08.
posted by jonp72 at 6:20 AM on June 7, 2006

Harrison Ford / Ted Nugent '08!
posted by Balisong at 6:26 AM on June 7, 2006

I like the Stewart/Colbert idea.
posted by doublehelix at 6:39 AM on June 7, 2006

... You can’t dictate what’s important to people. ...
The reason that these issues are the issues that are argued and voted over today is because these are the issues that are contentious. Everyone loves platitudes about education, and health care, and the “disappearance of the American Dream.” We’re all serious about terrorism and that shit. That’s all meaningless drivel. Every idiot politician mouths that boilerplate. What the country is apparently divided on are these “non-crucial” issues, such as abortion and the dignity of homosexuals. The relative importance on some objective scale is inconsequential....
“the system” is working just fine. It’s still irrededeemably corrupt and must be torn down, of course. But the failure lies, however, in the government’s inability to enact the reforms needed to, for example, improve the health care system and provide energy independance, despite the consensus agreement that we need to do such things. This completely misguided third party “unity” run, however, is no way to solve that problem. The obstacles remain.

But what really bothers me is that, even if the idea were more palatable in today’s political market, it’s an essentially conceptually dishonest idea. What’s the point in an ephemeral papering over of real fissures? I think the point needs to be hammered home, that as long as there exists such things as scarce resources, competition, in some form or another, will manifest itself. And as long as there are power imbalances, someone is going to be imposing their will on someone else. That’s as it always has been, and is likely to always be. It’s fundamental. And that’s politics. You just can’t wish that away.
posted by amberglow at 6:54 AM on June 7, 2006

Pure and simple: I want an anti-corporate party. A party that is not merely deaf to the wants of large corporations, but is outright intent on fucking them over with a spiked dildo.

Pro-choice, sweeping curtailing of intellectual property rights, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-marijuana decrim, free-speech absolutists - these are all nice things that I'd love to have. But more than anything I want a party that is deadset on criminalizing all corporate lobbying of any kind with insanely high jail terms for all convicted executives and congressmen. A party that is unafraid to say "fuck you" to the oil industry, the military-industrial compex, big pharma, ConAgra, the content cartel, the telcos. One that is prepared to purge, completely, wholly corrupt organizations like the FCC.

I will never, ever see this, but it is the only thing that I think could revitalize America at this point.
posted by Ryvar at 7:05 AM on June 7, 2006 [2 favorites]

From TPM Cafe regarding the third-party idea:

"Politics as Egoism: Every few months, someone or other publishes approximately this... dreaming airily of a third party in American politics. The complaint always more-or-less amounts to wondering "why can't there be a party that has exactly all my views on precisely that set of issues that are most important to me?" Before writing something like that, any writer would do well to consider the actual scale of the United States or America. Hundreds of millions of people live here. The odds that any particular person is going to see his precise idiosyncratic set of priorities endorsed by a political party is pretty tiny and expanding the number of parties from two to three or even five wouldn't actually change that."
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 7:45 AM on June 7, 2006

Goodness gracious, if they "Rock the Vote" like they did last time, those mean old foggy's had better watch out!
posted by slatternus at 7:49 AM on June 7, 2006

Looking at their "Founders Council", there isn't a whole lot of political experience in this movement. Of course that could work to their benefit, but campaigns are dog-eat-dog and the republicrats know all the buttons to push.

I recall the Ross Perot's 3rd party candidacy in '92. In the end he only managed to capture 19% of the vote. Pretty dismal, considering his high-profile campaign.

It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this.
posted by SteveInMaine at 8:06 AM on June 7, 2006

... You can’t dictate what’s important to people. ...

but reality can, does and will dictate it ... it also dictates that people who vote based on irrelevant issues end up with an irrelevant government

then the author points out that the system is working just fine but nothing of importance is being accomplished

The complaint always more-or-less amounts to wondering "why can't there be a party that has exactly all my views on precisely that set of issues that are most important to me?"

wrong ... a majority want a health care system that works ... a majority want the iraq problem solved and for the troops to come home ... a majority want a balanced budget ... a majority want a political system that is responsive to them, not lobbyists

neither party is willing to commit to these four things in a believable way ... politics as egoism, indeed ... a bunch of washington hacks believing they know better than the people do

there is a unifying, well defined set of issues out there that can get the people behind it ... if the democrats don't see this, then someone else will have to
posted by pyramid termite at 8:07 AM on June 7, 2006

by the way, has it occured to anyone that a government beholden to corporate interests doesn't want a unified political movement?

divide and conquer ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:13 AM on June 7, 2006

I'm voting for Ryvar's party. The Spiked Dildo In Corporate America's Ass party? Can't go wrong with that.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 8:31 AM on June 7, 2006

What people are missing is that the key to getting young people to vote is to offer a free t-shirt and offer a credit rating up to $5000.
posted by Atreides at 8:46 AM on June 7, 2006

Perot would have gotten considerably more than 19% and possibly would have won had he not had a complete breakdown in the middle of his campaign and revealed himself to be a world-class loony.

But I've been thinking about third parties quite a bit lately and I'm wondering why relatively high-profile efforts like Unity even bother with the presidency. The much easier way to affect national change would be to target Congress.

Obviously, they probably wouldn't have a majority in Congress any time soon but, with as evenly divided as Congress is, a mere ten percent of the seats would probably be enough to create great change as their votes could be the deciding factor on any issue.

I'd imagine their platform would be conservative on some issues: immigration, defense, fiscal restraint, and liberal on others: pro-choice, environmental protections, national health care, etc. And so by being the deciding vote on many, many issues, they could ally with the Democrats on some things and with the Republicans on others, thus forcing compromises and moderation on lots of issues, and even leading to a mix of Democrats and Republicans in the leadership and chairman positions.

And since they're going to have a hard time getting a prominent Dem and Republican to be running mates (I can't imagine the process of deciding which party is stuck with the VP slot), targetting Congress would be much better in that regard too. Half the candidates can be moderate Democrats and half can be moderate Republicans and everyone is more or less happy.
posted by pandaharma at 8:48 AM on June 7, 2006

Other people think it might be a dumb idea.

Yglesias has a point
posted by matteo at 10:25 AM on June 7, 2006

Count me in on that anti-corp platform, Ryvar. Now...if we could just find funding from somewhere...
posted by bstreep at 10:33 AM on June 7, 2006

Feingold. Bayh. Richardson. Your can easily slap these McCain-Santorum-Brownback-Frist-Allen fuckers back into the Old Testament

What's your problem with Feingold?

If you look at the UK (where I'm from) FPTP has produced the Tories and Labour, but hasn't killed the Liberal Democrats, the small-but-growing third party. Lib Dem tactics tend to involve local triangulation

Aren't the liberal democrats the same as the Whig party from way back when?
posted by delmoi at 10:39 AM on June 7, 2006

I like the Stewart/Colbert concept, but it so clearly should be Colbert/Stewart, not the other way around.
posted by blucevalo at 11:11 AM on June 7, 2006

wrong ... a majority want a health care system that works ... a majority want the iraq problem solved and for the troops to come home ... a majority want a balanced budget ... a majority want a political system that is responsive to them, not lobbyists

This reads like the campaign literature for every ambitious Democrat out there (except for the troops coming home part, and it's debatable whether a majority of Americans actually want this). And just look at how good the Democrats are at inspiring people with their rhetoric !
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 11:15 AM on June 7, 2006

I'd vote for Ryvar's party too.
posted by effwerd at 11:44 AM on June 7, 2006

delmoi: Aren't the liberal democrats the same as the Whig party from way back when?

In part. The Whigs - the Liberal Party - suffered a huge electoral collapse with the rise of the Labour Party (told in George Dangerfield's famous history, The Strange Death of Liberal England). They bumbled along in their strongholds (the south west of England and the north of Scotland) for decades, before eventually teaming up with, then merging with the new SDP to form the Liberal Democrats. There is still a die-in-the-ditch Liberal party out there somewhere, but they are very much in "John Madcap-Shorttrouser (Liberal Party), seven votes" territory.
posted by athenian at 11:59 AM on June 7, 2006

no seriously, Ryvar, could you form your party already? Is it even possible? Putting aside stuff like the Unity08 idea (heart in right place, execution of said ideas very problematic), where should those interested in a viable 3rd party alternative vote? Is Green viable in the States? Or is a third party impossible right now, and have to wait a generation or two for the idea to gain popularity? Forgive my naive thoughts here - I'm new to the States, obviously, and the bitter cynicism hasn't worked its way completely into my soul yet...
posted by rmm at 12:21 PM on June 7, 2006

Forgive my naive thoughts here - I'm new to the States, obviously, and the bitter cynicism hasn't worked its way completely into my soul yet...

Give it time...
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 12:39 PM on June 7, 2006

i've become fairly convinced that a third party that could stand a chance would be one made up of minorities. Specifically blacks and hispanics. especially if they chose leaders and policies which defied the common norm of ignoring issues which help to further disenfranchise the minority communities.

The War on Drugs comes to mind, as does universal health care.

The first party to come out hard on these issues might really see a chance at claiming some of those millions of votes that usually never get cast because people can't see the difference between one old white guy and another old white guy (actual phrase i heard at work.)

Hell, i'm a lower middle class white guy, and i'd vote for a party like this in a minute. i also don't think i'm alone.
posted by quin at 12:52 PM on June 7, 2006

On preview, Ryvar nails it.
posted by quin at 12:54 PM on June 7, 2006

Or is a third party impossible right now

Any 3rd party would have 'planks' to its 'platform'. What will happen is the mainline Repubcrat and Demopublican parties will happily adopt the popular planks from the other parties and call them their own.

The progressive and lobor parties had that done to them.

Personally, the anti-corporate-screw-them-with-spiked dildos is a party I'd like to see. Wonder what kind of campaign contribution it takes to be present at the screwing? Or to be able to strap on the dildo?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:54 PM on June 7, 2006

Third party? Is this another instance of "those with no knowledge of history are doomed to repeat it"? Bull Moose anyone?
posted by Cranberry at 2:43 PM on June 7, 2006

How 'bout we just kill one Democrat and one Republican until ... they're all gone? That's a form of unity.

Unity in Hell.
posted by kenlayne at 2:57 PM on June 7, 2006

Ryvar's party on a Biafra / Kim Gordon ticket (as long as I can get tickets to the inauguration).
posted by Sparx at 3:01 PM on June 7, 2006

SDICAA '08. I like it!
posted by DesbaratsDays at 4:20 PM on June 7, 2006

This might actually have a chance of working if the GOP and the DNC decide to ram a couple of well-connected insiders down our throats again.

I think a "no confidence" vote should be in play, and if that vote gets a majority, we start all over again.

But, silly me, that's assuming there was an ounce of honesty in America's election process.
posted by rougy at 4:31 PM on June 7, 2006

This, however, from the American Prospect link, is utter bullshit:

The sad truth of the matter is that American politics is, on some level, a bit dull. If you strongly object to the current direction of the country, you have to support giving the other party a chance to run things. There’s no other way around it, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the problem.

Surrender, Dorothy....
posted by rougy at 4:32 PM on June 7, 2006

SDICAA '08. I like it!
posted by DesbaratsDays at 5:20 PM on June 7, 2006

hey! I didn't do that!
posted by DesbaratsDays at 5:29 PM on June 7, 2006

Third Parties fail in AMerican Politics because of our innate inability to think of the political spectrum as anything but linear. Far left-left-centrist-right-far right. It appeals to the black-and-white, us vs. them mentality which is so popular simply because it's so simple. WHen this is added to "first past the post" elections it just guarantees that no third partie can flourish. A far right party will siphon votes from the right and elect Clinton, a far left party will do the same to the left and "elect" Bush, and a centrist party will favor whichever way the pendulum is swinging. Right now it's swinging, not so much towards the democrats, as away from the republicans. As most republicans think it a crime against God to vote for a Democrat (aka Satan's shameless minions) enough would probably vote for Unity that Hillary or whoever else would take the election.

As for Hillary, I'm still up in the air. She's smart, and as my senator she's done a good job, but she voted for the war and went on a crusade against Rockstar over GTA, when she might as well have battled windmills. She's doing whatever she can to appeal to the moderate right, deluded to the fact that thay've had a hate machine running against her since mid-92. I find myself in the odd position of having faith in her being dishonest, that if she were elected she'd abandon her ridiculous pretenses and focus on health-care an education like she used to. Needless to say, I'm not entirely comfortable in that position.

As a side note, it saddens me to refer to anyone on the right as moderate, because as far as I can tell they're all bigoted religious fascists, but that's what the linear political spectrum will do to you. I'm sure there were Nazis who thought that Jews should be kept in ghettos, to be sure, but were unsure about exterminating them. They would've been the moderates of their day.

The solution is to break the linear spectrum mold, and that can't be done in a national campaign. General election issues are too broadly drawn. Any third party worth it's salt will attack the Legislative branch from third-party positions relevent to their nationally neglected regional issues. Then, once their prescence is large enough to make a difference in congress, it will only be natural for them to campaign for the executive branch. Also, by then, the platform will have enough planks - come about organically rather than by shrewd political maneuverings - that the party will actually have to be seen as separate from the Republicans and Democrats, rather than a cynical mixture of their respective discontents.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:47 PM on June 7, 2006

Arrr.
posted by homunculus at 6:01 PM on June 7, 2006

So for all the cynical "one party" folks, who do you vote for, if its all going to the same ideology?

Left to right, in order of preference.
posted by pompomtom at 10:58 PM on June 7, 2006