IndependentThird Party

Op-ED:

The Libertarian

Party’s Role

in 2011 and

Beyond

Special Report:The Coming Independent Majority in America

A Declaration of Independence from Party

The

Declaration of

Independence

and the Two-Party

System

Issue I. Vol. I The Premier News Source for Independent Politics, Business and Culture $1.00

Next issue:*Looking Ahead to 2012

*Third Party and Independent

Strategy

*Classifieds

*Events Listing

By Damon Eris

The American public’s deep dis-

content with the Democratic and

Republican parties is nowhere

more apparent than in the swelling

ranks of self-described Independents

across the country. There are more In-

dependents in the United States than

there are Democrats or Republicans.

According to the Pew Research Center,

37% of Americans identify themselves

as Independents, compared with only

34% who affiliate with the Democratic

party and 29% who identify as Repub-

licans.

In more than ten states, Independ-

ents outnumber Republicans and De-

mocrats combined. In a handful of

others, there are more Independents

than there are members of one or the

other major parties. In New York, for

instance, there are more voters who de-

cline any party affiliation or are regis-

tered with a third party than there are

registered Republicans.

Despite their numbers, Independents

remain woefully underrepresented in

local, state and federal government.

There is but one Independent governor

in the entire country, Rhode Island’s

Lincoln Chafee. There are only two In-

dependents in the US Senate and no In-

dependent or third party members in the

US House. In New York, there is only

one Independent in the State House,

Fred Thiele of the Independence Party,

and a small Independent Democratic

caucus in the State Senate, which has

just four members.

cont.p.3

By Ross Levin

When Greens get into power,

meaningful and construc-

tive reform takes place. In

Arkansas in 2008, a combination of

gerrymandering and Democratic cor-

ruption and ineptitude resulted in the

election of a Green State Representa-

tive, the only one in the nation at the

time. Even though he switched to the

Democratic Party before the end of his

term – and was subsequently defeated

in a primary – Representative Richard

Carroll achieved an immense amount

during his time as a Green, especially

given his status as the ultimate minor-

ity party representative.

Carroll introduced a bill that was

eventually signed into law by the gov-

ernor of Arkansas, giving minor parties

more time to collect signatures re-

quired for ballot access. He also intro-

duced a bill that would have made

staying on the ballot easier for minor

parties, but the Democratic Party

“worked to kill the proposals behind

his back,” according to a GreenParty-

Watch.org interview with the party’s

Arkansas press secretary.

Carroll garnered a considerable

amount of attention for the Green Party

and for some ideas that are kept out of

the political dialogue by Arkansas’

strikingly similar major parties. For in-

stance, although Carroll is himself

Catholic, he worked to amend the state

constitution so that openly atheist indi-

viduals would be allowed to serve in

office, for which he gained consider-

able recognition. Carroll was also able

to lend his support to a good deal of

successful bills, from a cigarette tax to

the expansion of wetland conservation

efforts. Just as impressive as this being

the work of a single Green state legis-

lator, all of these accomplishments

took place in the part of his term while

he was still a Green. It provides a

glimpse of just how much a new party

with fresh ideas and a bit of energy can

By Warren Redlich

When in the course of human

events it becomes necessary

for people to dissolve the

partisan political bands which have

connected them with one another and

to assume among the powers of the

earth, the separate and equal station to

which the Laws of Nature and of Na-

ture's God entitle them, a decent re-

spect for the opinions of one’s fellow

citizens requires that they should de-

clare the causes which impel them to

the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evi-

dent, that all people are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable Rights, that

among these are Life, Liberty and the

pursuit of Happiness. That to secure

these rights, Governments are insti-

tuted among Men, deriving their just

powers from the consent of the gov-

erned. That whenever any Form of

Government becomes destructive of

these ends, it is the Right of the People

to alter or to abolish it, and to institute

new Government, laying its foundation

on such principles and organizing its

powers in such form, as to them shall

seem most likely to effect their Safety

and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will

dictate that Governments long estab-

lished should not be changed for light

and transient causes; and accordingly

all experience hath shown that all peo-

ple are more disposed to suffer, while

evils are sufferable, than to right them-

selves by abolishing the forms to

which they are accustomed. But when

a long train of abuses and usurpations,

For Greens,Small Victories

Yield BigResults

The Impossible Riseof the

Vermont Progressive Party

A Two Party System:The Views of theFounders

By Peter Donovan

It may come as a surprise some, but

there is in fact a highly successful

third party in the United States.

However, it only exists in the small

state of Vermont. It is the Vermont Pro-

gressive Party. Its origins can be traced

back to the rise of US Senator Bernie

Sanders, an Independent and the only

selfproclaimed Socialist in the Senate.

In 1981, Sanders was elected

mayor of Burlington, beating six term

conservative Democrat Gordon Paque-

tte. Even more shocking, in 1987, he

defeated a candidate endorsed by both

major parties. They really wanted to

get rid of him! Sanders brought the

best and the brightest into City Hall

and implemented many reforms that

were simply modern good government.

He empowered a wide range of citizens

to have a direct voice in city govern-

ment, from students, to the poor, to the

elderly.

It was during Sanders’ term as

mayor that Terry Bouricius, a member

of the Burlington City Council affili-

ated with the Citizens Party, formed the

Progressive Coalition, an informal al-

ternative party which eventually mor-

phed into the Vermont Progressive

Party. Vermont Progressives started

running for the Burlington City Coun-

cil and getting elected from the poor,

student, and middle class areas of

Burlington.

By Darcy Richardson

It would not be an exaggeration to

say that the Constitution was de-

vised, in large part, to mitigate the

effect of political factions. Deeply in-

fluenced by Thomas Hobbes, David

Hume, and Jean Jacques Rousseau —

three European philosophers who re-

garded political parties as a threat to

stable government — the founders of

the new republic were acutely sensitive

to the dangers presented by these enti-

ties both to the general interest, as well

as to individual rights. By and large,

the framers of the Constitution viewed

political parties as a source of weak-

ness and division.

“Nothing could be more ill-

judged,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in

the Federalist Papers, “than that intol-

erant spirit which has at all times char-

acterized political parties. The

pestilential breath of faction,” he ar-

gued, “may poison the fountains of jus-

tice” and “it will rarely happen that the

advancement of the public service will

be the primary object either of party

victories or of party negotiations.”

Recognizing that “the latent causes

of factions are…sown in the nature of

man” and that “the spirit of party in dif-

ferent degrees must be expected to in-

fect all political bodies,” the

proponents of the new Union saw the

remedy in the form of an extended re-

public of continent-wide proportions, a

national government of divided powers

and a federal system in which the states

would supplement and check the au-

thority of the central government.

The strongly libertarian Ron Paul

is running again for the Repub-

lican presidential nomination.

He is also building a significant “Lib-

erty” faction within the GOP. What

should libertarians do in the next few

years? How do we balance our support

for the Libertarian party on the one

hand and the Ron Paul movement on

the other?

For the last 10 years or so I’ve been

straddling the line between the Liber-

tarian and Republican parties. While

my views have been libertarian for

many years, there is a lot of internal

strife in the Libertarian party and

sometimes it seems more practical to

work within the GOP.

While maintaining my friendships

with key Libertarian party leaders, I ran

for Congress as a Republican in 2004

and 2006. At one point I briefly served

as the NY LP’s state political director.

In 2007 I was elected as a Republican

to my hometown town board in

Guilderland, NY. I did not attempt to

run on the LP line in any of these races

because of New York’s absurdly diffi-

cult signature requirements.

In 2010 I was the Libertarian party

candidate for Governor. I attempted to

get into the GOP race as well. NY al-

lows “fusion” voting where candidates

can run on multiple lines and add the

votes from different lines together. I

had hoped to get the Tea Party move-

ment to support me as an outsider can-

didate for the GOP, but was undercut

by a wealthy candidate. Despite his

many failings (recent contributions to

Hillary Clinton, for example), the Tea

Party leadership fell for his money and

his political consultants, and I was un-

able to get into a GOP primary.

cont.p.4

cont.p 9.cont.p. 10cont.p 6.

cont. p .9Reason Foundation Poll

T h i r d P a r t y I n d e p e n d e n t

Third Party

Independent News

Harlem, NY

10031

Publisher

Third Thing Media

Media Strategy

21st Century Media

Editor-in-Chief

Damon Eris

Contributing

Authors

Peter Donovan

Scott Ehredt

Ross Levin

Randy Miller

Warren Redlich

Darcy Richardson

Kimberly Wilder

Zabby

Cartoons: Randy Miller

For information email

info@thirdpartyindependent.

com

Op-Ed

An Open Letter to the Democrats and Republicans

by Ross Levin

This is addressed to all progres-

sive Democrats and libertarian

Republicans, to all those who

believe that voting is the highest civic

duty, to those who wallow in despair

after voting for “the lesser evil” changes

nothing, to independents who “lean to-

ward” a major party, and to all support-

ers of Democrats and Republicans who

cannot be neatly categorized. It is time

to break free from the two major parties.

While certainly colored and guided

by my passions, my opinions are based

in fact, history, and reason. For those

who vote for and even work to elect the

lesser of two evils even though they dis-

agree with the candidates themselves,

those who use the words “spoiler” and

“vote-splitter” and so

on, our disagreement is

one of tactics and atti-

tudes, and it does not

make me crazy to hold

a different political be-

lief.

In fact, if you sub-

scribe to an ideology

which limits you to the

two major parties, you

are probably more po-

litically naïve than

those who dare to ven-

ture outside of them.

To constrain yourself

to a single major polit-

ical party, or to a single

set of politicians, is to

preemptively forfeit

your own political

power before the fight

has even begun. A

movement – whether it

seeks to establish uni-

versal health care,

eliminate taxes, protect

the wilderness, end ac-

cess to abortion, or

something altogether

different – cannot con-

strain itself to a single

political party, or even

the single tactic of in-

fluencing elections, or

it will be doomed to

failure. To focus

solely on elections, es-

pecially to focus solely

on the two parties

which seek to hold

onto their significant

power in America, is the job of politi-

cians, not citizens.

Regardless of his own ideological

leanings, Howard Zinn was prescient on

this matter, and what he wrote in a 2007

column in The Progressive entitled “Are

We Politicians or Citizens?” applies to

Americans of all political stripes:

“When a social movement adopts

the compromises of legislators, it has

forgotten its role, which is to push and

challenge the politicians, not to fall in

meekly behind them. . . . That mantra—

“the best we can get”—is a recipe for

corruption… We are not politicians, but

citizens. We have no office to hold on

to, only our consciences, which insist on

telling the truth. That, history suggests,

is the most realistic thing a citizen can

do.”

While this difference is based more

in attitudes and tactics than sanity, stu-

pidity, or other elements of ad hominem

attacks, one side must be right and one

side must be wrong. The side which

preemptively forfeits its own political

might by conforming to the standards

and approved tactics of exactly those in

power whom they profess to fight

against, that is the side of the supporters

of the duopoly. People with less con-

ventional opinions are either blatantly

pushed out of the parties or forced to

comply with the party line, eliminating

new ideas that push politics forward.

The courage to be radical, honest, or dif-

ferent in any significant way is system-

atically weeded out, among activists,

thinkers, and from there, ordinary citi-

zens. This suppression of creative and

out-of-the-ordinary ideas among those

who are politically engaged (or obses-

sive) results in these ideas having less

people to spread them among more or-

dinary people, even if the audience is

still there.

If you are reading

this newspaper, it can

be assumed that you

are at least somewhat

politically aware and

active. So to all of you

who hold political

opinions yet constrain

yourselves to the major

parties and to the fence-

sitters and to those of

you who do not yet see

it as your responsibility

as a citizen to oppose

the two major parties,

now is the time to act.

The two parties are

tools used by those in

power to eliminate dis-

sent and opposition and

cement their own

power. As long as the

two major parties con-

trol this nation, none of

our many crises will

ever be solved. It is

time to ask the ques-

tion, will you rise up to

the challenge? Will

you, as a citizen, take

what is perhaps the

least dramatic step you

can – given the context

of the social move-

ments which changed

our history – toward

positive change, by

abandoning the duop-

oly? Or will you aid

the powers-that-be in

the looting of America?

Independent Majority

One of the more perplexing para-

doxes of our politics under the condi-

tions of the Democrat-Republican

two-party state, is the chasm between

the large number of people who de-

scribe themselves as Independents and

the small number of people who vote

for candidates other than those repre-

senting the Republican and Democratic

parties. There are numerous potential

explanations of this contradiction. It

might be supposed that many voters are

simply not as independently minded as

they think they are; or that they practice

a form of defensive politics by voting

for the lesser of two evils, or against the

greater of two evils. Yet a majority of

Americans consistently say a third po-

litical force is needed in the United

States.

A Reason

F o u n d a t i o n

survey from

this past spring

found that 80%

of those polled

said they

would consider

voting for a

third-party or

Independent

candidate for

president in

2012. In a

Gallup poll

from May,

52% of respon-

dents agreed

that the Democratic and Republican

parties do such a poor job of represent-

ing the American people that a third

major party is necessary. In a survey

commissioned by The Hill late last year,

54% of likely voters said that a viable

third party would be good for American

politics, and that they desire an alterna-

tive to the Democrats and Republicans.

These numbers confirmed the results of

a previous CBS News/New York Times

poll which also found that 54% of

Americans say the country needs a third

party.

Ironically, if the majority of Ameri-

cans who desire a third party or Inde-

pendent alternative to the Democrats

and Republicans supported such alter-

natives in the voting booth, they would

easily trounce their Republican and

Democratic rivals. Recognizing this

simple fact, the professional partisans

of the Democratic and Republican par-

ties rely on a series of well known argu-

ments to convince the more

independently minded among us that

we must continue to support the Demo-

cratic and Republican parties against

our better judgment.

They say we must support the lesser

evil between the major parties, as if the

lesser evil weren’t still an evil. They

say voting for third party or Independ-

ent candidates is throwing one’s vote

away, as if you are not throwing your

vote away when you cast your ballot for

a major party candidate even though

you would rather support an Independ-

ent. They say it will take too much time

to build an Independent and third party

movement, that we should work to re-

form the major parties, as if it would not

take decades to reign in the corruption

that is endemic to Republican-Democ-

rat party politics. They say third party

and Independent movements have often

failed in the past, and that we must re-

sign ourselves to the misrule of Democ-

rats and Republicans whether we like it

or not, as if history and political strug-

gle were nothing more than determinis-

tic games.

In their argu-

ments for maintain-

ing and reproducing

the current party sys-

tem, Democrats and

Republicans reveal

that the politics of the

reigning two-party

state is primarily

characterized by re-

signed cynicism, po-

litical impatience and

historical fatalism.

Political freedom

and independence

today begins with

freedom and inde-

pendence from the

Republican and Democratic parties. In

his Farewell Address, George Washing-

ton warned precisely against the form

of bipolar factionalism that defines our

politics under the reigning two-party

state:

“The alternate domination of one

faction over another, sharpened by the

spirit of revenge, natural to party dis-

sension, which in different ages and

countries has perpetrated the most hor-

rid enormities, is itself a frightful des-

potism. But this leads at length to a

more formal and permanent despotism.

The disorders and miseries which result

gradually incline the minds of men to

seek security and repose in the absolute

power of an individual; and sooner or

later the chief of some prevailing fac-

tion, more able or more fortunate than

his competitors, turns this disposition to

the purposes of his own elevation, on

the ruins of public liberty,” wrote our

nation’s first president in a letter ad-

dressed to the people of the United

States as he neared the end of his sec-

ond term in office.

It is time to declare our political in-

dependence from the frightful despot-

ism of two-party government.

Damon Eris can be contacted at da-

moneris@gmail.com

To Advertise in

Third Party

Independent

Call 212-470-7860

or email

spinmediaworld@gmail.com• Ross Levin lives in Pennsylvania and will be attending Wesleyan University in the fall. He has been involved in variousthird party efforts, including current volunteer work with the Green party of Philadelphia. He can be reached at rossm-levin@gmail.com

cont. from p.1

“The two major par-ties are tools used bythose in power to elim-inate dissent and oppo-sition and cement theirown hold on power...”

Page 3

T h i r d P a r t y I n d e p e n d e n t

PAGE 4

continued from p.1

change, if given the opportunity.

But power is not acquired and utilized

solely through the election process. In

Philadelphia, where I am a frequent vol-

unteer for a recently revived Green

Party, our candidate for Sheriff, Cheri

Honkala, was part of a coalition of poor

people, homeless people, activists, and

elected officials who stopped a City

Council bill attempting to ease the cri-

teria for police to arrest the homeless.

The bill’s primary supporter on City

Council was, according to Philadelphia

Weekly, “worried about the protests.”

Another example can be found in

Maine, a state with a relatively well-or-

ganized Green Party. In 2010, small

businessman Fred Horch ran for state

representative in Brunswick, Maine. He

ran one of the strongest Green state leg-

islative campaigns in the nation, losing

by less than 200 votes. He beat a Re-

publican and lost to a Democrat.

Since then Horch has formed the

League of Brunswick Voters. It is, in his

words, an organization meant “to follow

what our elected officials are doing and

to provide a platform where citizens can

propose better public policies.” Greens

have managed to influence their com-

munities without formally taking power,

led by activists like Fred Horch and

Cheri Honkala. In Philadelphia, we’ve

used the power of protest to effect

change, while in Maine a failed electoral

bid is being used to create a stronger and

more democratic community.

Despite a popular misconception,

the Green Party is not the left wing of

the Democratic Party. There are several

key differences even between the most

progressive of Democrats and

Greens, including – but cer-

tainly not limited to – the

Green Party’s firm basis in

ecological values, its refusal

to take corporate donations,

and its commitment to small-

d democratic ideals. One of

the more significant of the di-

vergences is how these groups

use their power. Although

small, with only 136 elected of-

ficials currently and a much

smaller base than either major party,

Greens refuse to be kowtowed like

progressive Democrats and other

supporters of the major parties.

After all, what good does it do

to elect people if they’re afraid

to use their power?• Ross Levin lives in Pennsylva-nia and will be attending Wes-leyan University in the fall. He

has been involved in various thirdparty efforts, including current vol-

unteer work with the Green party ofPhiladelphia. He can be reached at

rossmlevin@gmail.com

Article by Scott Ehredt

There are three scenarios in which

the federal government may ap-

pear effective. Unfortunately

however, each scenario also demon-

strates the failure of our political process

to address critical national issues in a

timely manner. These failures indicate

our political process needs to take an

evolutionary step forward if we are to

compete globally. We can sweep away

the gridlocked government of the Dem-

ocratic and Republican parties and re-

place it with pragmatic government

according to the will of the informed po-

litical center. The National Centrist

Party aims to replace politics as usual

with politics as it should be: representa-

tive, competitive, honest, civil and prag-

matic.

The first scenario where government

may seem effective is in response to a

crisis such as the current situation with

the national debt. Some would heap

praise on legislators for “saving us”

when in reality it is their job to conduct

the financial affairs of our nation in a

way that prevents crisis. It is a failure of

our political process that we are now

faced with a national debt crisis.

In the second scenario, the Federal

government may also seem effective

when one party fully controls the leg-

islative and executive branches because

they are able to pass legislation along

party lines (e.g. Health Care Reform in

2010). Unfortunately this much control

is rarely available and the laws passed

typically do not enjoy support of a ma-

jority of voters, as was confirmed when

the electorate relieved the Democrats of

control of the House in 2010. Passage of

legislation along party line vote is a fail-

ure because such legislation serves less

than half the nation.

The last case involves “compro-

mise” between the major parties where

both get what they want but the Ameri-

can people as a whole are worse off as a

result. Consider Medicare Part D where

the parties provided a great service to

seniors, but neglected to set up matching

revenues to pay for it, leaving taxpayers

on the hook for the resulting debt. Or

consider the recent stimulus bill where

one party got an extension of Bush Tax

Cuts while the other got a temporary re-

duction in payroll taxes. While we all

appreciate lower taxes, there is a direct

negative effect on the budget deficit. It

is a failure of our political process that

the Democratic and Republican parties'

idea of compromise leaves America in a

compromised financial position.

It is not surprising that government

is so ineffective since it is essentially a

self-regulated monopoly. The Republi-

can and Democratic parties operate as a

duopoly and consequently experience

little competition. Can you think of any

company in the private sector that has

existed for 150 years as our major par-

ties have? There are few because com-

petition ensures that business must

continually evolve and innovate in order

to stay in business.

Socially we have evolved a great

deal as well. But politically we still

have 100% of the same major parties

that we had 150 years ago. If these

were private entities, government

would have long ago forced competi-

tion on them for the benefit of the

American people. But because the du-

opoly also writes the rules of the elec-

tion process, they happily create or

maintain structural impediments to com-

petition as a means to ensure their con-

tinued grip on power.

As a result, it’s difficult to name any

major evolutionary step in our political

process since the Civil Rights Move-

ment 50 years ago. Any private com-

pany that failed to evolve or innovate its

process over the past 50 years is long

gone. It is time we expose the Democ-

rats and Republicans to the same fate by

fostering competition from a moderate

third party. Competition can bring about

an evolutionary step forward in our pol-

itics either by electoral victory of a third

party or by forcing the ruling parties to

adopt a new election process that repre-

sents the views of more Americans.

A successful third party will need to

be positioned between the two major

parties, which seem willing to open the

space between them ever wider. Be-

cause you’ve read this far, I can safely

assume you take politics seriously. If

American politics has one common

thread, it is liberty. Yet our current po-

litical process risks our liberty. In the

words of John Adams, “There are two

ways to enslave a nation. One is by the

sword, the other is by debt.”

If we are to ensure our liberty, we

must manage our finances in a mature

way. But the existing political process

has proven consistently that the govern-

ment it produces is only capable of mis-

management. Now that it has become a

crisis, the Republicans and Democrats

are forced to address it, but they likely

will do so only with half measures. The

only way to prevent the next crisis (and

incremental decline of our living stan-

dard) is to replace the political process

by which we produce our Government.

The major parties will not do this unless

they see they have no other choice. We

must provide them with no other choice

by banding together in opposition under

a third party.

Does this sound reasonable, but

you’re not sure if you want to “get in-

volved”? Consider what those who have

gone before you have done to secure

your liberty. We have brave acts of men

and women in previous generations who

won Women’s Suffrage as well as Civil

Rights. And of course we have the hero-

ics of men (and women) that risked and,

in many cases, sacrificed everything in

combat as they faced difficult circum-

stances in the extreme (e.g. Iwo Jima,

Normandy). Have you earned your lib-

erty? Have you secured liberty for the

next generation?

By becoming ever more polarized

and abandoning the center, the Republi-

can and Democratic parties have pre-

sented us with a historic opportunity to

provide pragmatic, honest and civil gov-

ernance according to the will of in-

formed Centrists. We do not need to

storm the beaches of Normandy to se-

cure liberty for the next generation. In

fact, the steps needed are easy and finan-

cially trivial at an individual level. Yet

they are no less crucial; it will not hap-

pen without you. The National Centrist

Party offers this evolutionary step,

which we believe will replace politics as

we know it today with politics as it

should exist: politics that are represen-

tative, competitive, honest, civil, and

pragmatic. Find out more and get

signed up at www.NationalCentrist-

Party.org.

Scott Ehredt is the co-founder of the Na-tional Centrist Party

Two-Party Failure Requires a

Third Party Solution

Let me first present some back-

ground. In January 2009 I at-

tended the biannual conference

of the Committee for a Unified Inde-

pendent Party (CUIP), a.k.a. indepen-

dentvoting.org. At the conference, I did

some polling and follow-up phone calls

as part of a volunteer training workshop.

In the next office, one of the staffers

pulled some interesting news stories to

share with me. The first story was a tran-

script of an interview with Utah’s then

Governor Jon Huntsman in which

Huntsman astutely observed that closed

GOP primaries and gerrymandering

were suppressing voter turnout. The sec-

ond factoid they brought to my attention

was current voter registration statistics

for Utah: 8.8% Democrat, 39.0% Re-

publican, and 51.5% unaffiliated.

I'm keenly interested in statistics and

scientific realities – an interest the par-

ties don't share with equal passion. In

preparation for this column, I called the

Utah Lt. Governor's office to get up to

date voter registration numbers and see

what if any trends could be identified.

They reported 8.7% (D), 37.2% (R) –

oops I almost typed ($) – and 53.5% un-

affiliated voter registrations: a 2% gain

for indies between 2009 and 2011.

In 2007, the local news outlet KSL

(ksl.com) reported that Utah voter iden-

tification was 45% independent, 38%

Republican and 21% Democrat. The ar-

ticle also reported that just 5 years ear-

lier in 2002, independent voter

identification was a mere 19%.

Ross Perot, the Reform Party candi-

date for President in 1992, finished sec-

ond in just two states: Maine and Utah.

The tally in Maine was 39% for Clinton,

30% for Perot and 30% for Bush Sr. In

more conservative Utah, Clinton fin-

ished last with 24.7% to Perot's 27.3%

and Bush's 43.4%.

What can the reasonable observer make

of all this?

First, it is clear that the systems in

place are not working toward the end of

a government by the people, of the peo-

ple, for the people in Utah or the United

States. Party bosses and insiders are

content however and vigorously defend

the status quo just as their antecedents

defended the practice of denying the

vote to non-white, non-male, and non-

property holding citizens. Parties view

their success as nothing more than an ef-

fective counterbalance to the 'other' side

that they view with derision and suspi-

cion.

Second, the bulk of voters today are

more savvy than even the party loyalists.

Playgrounds today for example are out-

fitted with various and sundry children's

toys, but the parties are content to bicker

and argue figuratively about the code of

conduct for the teeter-totter. In the 21st

century, the parties are plying their

phony old smoke and mirror tricks and

focusing on ideological gags that a

growing segment of voters have rightly

pegged as merely ancillary. Independ-

ents are primarily concerned with struc-

tural political reforms that open up the

process to all citizens without regard to

partisan affiliations.

Third, I think it is generally recog-

nized among the electorate that it is time

for some things to change. They may not

all be able to put their finger on what ex-

actly, but there exists a common aware-

ness that some old institutions need to

step aside.

This scenario is playing out right

now here in Utah. Last year our sitting

Senator, Bob Bennett, was ousted at the

Republican Party convention without

facing a primary election. This occurred

despite the fact that polls showed the

majority of Utahans favored Bennett

over any of his opponents. The feat was

accomplished primarily by Tea Party ad-

vocates and delegates. Today's right

wing phenomenon is merely concerned

about the personal economics of taxes.

Colonial Americans successfully re-

formed the disconnect between access

to political power and the governed.

I could fill an encyclopedia about

abuses thrust upon the people by the

Utah Legislature who mistakenly think

the people desire ultra-conservatism and

inaccessible representatives. I think for

now however I will share a brief sum-

mary of some organizing activities I am

trying.

1.Keep in touch and sustain relation-ships with active and outspoken inde-pendents2. Draw political cartoons3. Thank citizen authors and editors foreditorial works supporting non-partisanredistricting and open primaries.4. Create engaging content and developpersonal relationships.

We need open primaries now. In Jan-

uary, 61% of Utahans polled supported

open primaries yet the parties don't and

refer to current primary elections as

'their' primaries though they are funded

with taxpayer dollars. The problem is

that on this point of contention there ex-

ists a condition worse than the days of

Jim Crow laws--currently a veritable

poll tax is excised from the general fund,

but an abridged ballot is only provided

on condition of allegiance to a private

political party. Thankfully this arrange-

ment is crumbling in a few states.

Populist movements have been the

means of securing greater access and in-

fluence in our 'by the people' govern-

ment. Open primaries and independent

redistricting are the kinds of reforms that

Utah and the nation needs now. No other

progress on ideological concerns can be

realistically expected until the voice of

the people can be truly heard and acted

upon.

Randy Miller is the founder of the UtahLeague of Independent Voters

What should America know about the independent

movement in Utah?by Randy Miller

Ban HydrofrackingA Permanent Ban – Not Just A Moratorium

A hydrofracking moratorium has been in place in New York for the past two

years while the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) does

its environmental review. The moratorium issued by Gov. Paterson by executive

order expires July 1, 2011. It was a symbolic gesture at best. When the DEC

review is complete, the state government will then be able say it now knows

how to regulate hydrofracking. Then it will be “Drill, Baby, Drill,” which

inevitably means “Spill, Baby, Spill.”

We know more than enough about the dangers of hydrofracking and natural

gas burning to demand a ban. It's time for New Yorkers to demand a

permanent ban, not another temporary moratorium!

Environmental Destruction

Hydrofracking for gas injects toxicladen

fresh water and sand at extremely high

pressure into rock layers to shatter the stone and release the gas. In over 30

states hydrofracking has generated immense environmental problems, including

contaminated drinking water, toxic waste ponds, drilling fluid leaks, and

flammable tap water.

Sickness and Disease

Residents of drilling areas have become chronically ill from liver, heart, blood

and brain damage as well as leukemia and other cancers due to exposure to

carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and radioactive wastes in the air, water and soil.

Economic Depression

Property values plummet near fracking wells due to potential damage to wells,

streams, land, and roads. Fracking New York will create a short term gas boom

for outside investors followed by a long term economic bust for New Yorkers

that destroys the environmental foundations for a sustainable prosperity. New

York needs full employment security in a sustainable economy based on

renewable energy, organic agriculture, tourism, and clean manufacturing.

Climate Catastrophe

Natural gas is a dirty fossil fuel that releases greenhouse gases that cause global

warming. A Cornell study finds that the global warming impact of natural

gas is equal to or greater than coal due to the carbon dioxide released by

burning gas and the leakage of methane, which is 23 times more potent as a

greenhouse gas over a century. Burning all of the recoverable gas in the

Marcellus Shale will release 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the full US per

capita share of the 250 billion ton world carbon release cap through 2050 that

climate scientists say is needed to prevent runaway global warming.

Ban Hydrofracking Build

Clean Energy!

Dirty natural gas is not a “bridge fuel” to renewable energy. It is a dangerous

diversion of precious time and resources away from building a clean energy

system. We must immediately focus all of our energy policy and investments

on a rapid transition to safe energy based on energy efficiency and clean

renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, wave, ground heat, sustainable

biofuels and a smart grid.

Green Party of New York StateP.O. Box 562, Syracuse NY 13205

www.gpnys.org

T h i r d P a r t y I n d e p e n d e n t

pursuing invariably the same Object

evinces a design to reduce them under a

most frightful Despotism, it is their

right, it is their duty, to throw off such

Government, and to provide new

Guards for their future security. — Such

has been the patient sufferance of the

people of these States; and such is now

the necessity which constrains us to alter

our former Systems of Government. The

history of the present party system is a

history of repeated injuries and usurpa-

tions in the imposition of policy, in the

legislation, execution and judgment of

law under our nation's constitution, all

having in direct object the establishment

of an absolute partisan Tyranny over the

people and these States. To prove this,

let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The ruling parties have refused their

Assent to Laws, the most wholesome

and necessary for the public good.

They have forbidden our Govern-

ments to pass Laws of immediate and

pressing importance, unless suspended

in their operation till their Assent should

be obtained; and when so suspended,

they have utterly neglected to attend to

them.

They have refused to increase the

size of the legislatures – to pass Laws

for the accommodation of large districts

of people, unless those people would re-

linquish the right of Representation in

the Legislature, a right inestimable to

them and formidable to tyrants only.

They have called together legislative

– and executive – bodies in closed

rooms and at places and times unusual,

uncomfortable, and distant from the de-

pository of the Public Records, for the

sole purpose of fatiguing the people into

compliance with their measures, or hid-

ing from the people the work of its rep-

resentatives.

They have both ignored and dis-

solved constitutional and peaceable as-

semblies repeatedly, for opposing with

manly firmness their invasions on the

rights of the people.

cont. page 7

Page 6

A Declaration of Independence from Partycont.from p.1

T h i r d P a r t y I n d e p e n d e n t

Cont.fromp.6

They have refused for a long time,

after such demonstrations and dissolu-

tions, to allow others to be elected, thus

the Legislative Powers, incapable of An-

nihilation, have returned to the People at

large for their exercise; the State remain-

ing in the mean time exposed to all the

dangers of invasion – and other threats

– from without, and convulsions within.

They have endeavoured to prevent

the population of these States; for that

purpose obstructing the Laws for Natu-

ralization of Foreigners; refusing to pass

others to encourage their migrations

hither, and raising the conditions of new

Appropriations of Lands. They have, in

addition, failed to secure the nation's

borders.

They have obstructed the Adminis-

tration of Justice by refusing their As-

sent to the establishment of Judiciary

Powers in the appointment of judges.

They have made elections dependent

on the Will of judges alone for the

tenure of public offices.

They have erected a multitude of

New Offices, and sent hither swarms of

Officers – from newly invented agencies

– to harass our people and eat out their

substance.

They have kept among us, in times

of peace, Standing Armies for unde-

clared and unconstitutional wars. They

insist to retain the power to search and

seize any property without a warrant in

direct violation of the Fourth Amend-

ment.

They have affected to render the

Military independent of and superior to

the Civil Power – in the military-indus-

trial complex.

They have combined with others –

via foreign entanglements – to subject

us to a jurisdiction foreign to our consti-

tution, and unacknowledged by our

laws; giving their Assent to Acts of pre-

tended Legislation:

For keeping large bodies of armed

troops, as well as police and other agents

of the executive power, among the peo-

ple:

For protecting them, by a mock

Trial, from punishment for Murders and

other crimes which they should commit

on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off Trade and commerce

among the several states and other parts

of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without

our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of

the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us overland and be-

yond Seas to be tried for pretended of-

fences:

For abolishing the free System of

Laws in a neighbouring Province, estab-

lishing therein an Arbitrary government,

and enlarging its Boundaries so as to

render it at once an example and fit in-

strument for introducing the same ab-

solute rule into these states.

For violating our federal and state

constitutions, abolishing our most valu-

able Laws while instituting others most

despicable, and altering fundamentally

the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending or threatening to

suspend our own Legislatures, and de-

claring themselves invested with power

to legislate for us in all cases whatso-

ever.

They have abdicated Government

here, by declaring us beyond Constitu-

tional Protections and waging War

against us – as in the war on drugs, the

militarization of police, the expansion of

the executive, the imperial presidency.

They have conspired to allow their

corporate sponsors, backers and political

allies to plunder our seas, ravage our

coasts, burn our towns, and destroy the

lives of our people.

They are at this time raising and

transporting large Armies of domestic

and foreign soldiers to compleat the

works of death, desolation, and tyranny,

already begun with circumstances of

Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in

the most barbarous ages, and totally un-

worthy of a civilized nation.

They have constrained and encour-

aged our fellow Citizens to bear Arms

against their Country – and indeed

against other countries without even a

constitutional declaration of war –, to

become the executioners of their friends

and Brethren, or to fall themselves by

their Hands.

They have excited anger and in-

cited domestic insurrection amongst

us, and have instituted policies to bring

on the inhabitants of foreign nations,

the merciless Savages whose known

rule of warfare is an undistinguished

destruction of all ages, sexes and con-

ditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions

We have Petitioned for Redress in the

most humble terms: Our repeated Pe-

titions have been answered only by re-

peated injury. A person and party,

whose character is thus marked by

every act which may define a Tyrant,

is unfit to rule a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in at-

tentions to these parties and to our

brethren. We have warned from time to

time of attempts by the legislature to

extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction

over us. We have reminded them of the

circumstances of our emigration and

settlement here. We have appealed to

their native justice and magnanimity,

and we have conjured them by the ties

of our common kindred to disavow

these usurpations, which would in-

evitably interrupt our connections and

correspondence. They too have been

deaf to the voice of justice and of con-

sanguinity. We must, therefore, acqui-

esce in the necessity, which denounces

our Separation, and hold them, as we

hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in

War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, solemnly publish and

declare, that we the people and these

united States are, and of Right ought to

be Free and Independent people and

States, that we are Absolved from all Al-

legiance to the Democratic and Repub-

lican parties, and that all political

connection between us and the two-

party state, is and ought to be totally dis-

solved; and that as Free and Independent

people, we have full Power to levy War,

conclude Peace, contract Alliances, es-

tablish Commerce, and to do all other

Acts and Things which Independent

States and people may of right do. —

And for the support of this Declaration,

with a firm reliance on the protection of

Divine Providence, we mutually pledge

to each other our Lives, our Fortunes,

and our sacred Honor.

Page 7

They have called togetherlegislative – and executive– bodies in closed roomsand at places and times un-usual, uncomfortable, anddistant from the depositoryof the Public Records, forthe sole purpose of fatigu-ing the people into compli-ance with their measures,or hiding from the peoplethe work of its representa-tives.

Darcy Richardson

cont. from p.1

Such an arrange-

ment, argued James

Madison, a soft-spoken

and scholarly Virginia

lawmaker, would be

particularly effective

against the most danger-

ous kind of faction — a

majority. “When a ma-

jority is included in a

faction,” he wrote, “the

form of popular govern-

ment…enables it to sac-

rifice to its ruling

passion of interest both

the public good and the

rights of other citizens.”

A large republic, en-

compassing a wide vari-

ety of interests, classes

and parties, would di-

lute the strength of any

majority. The separa-

tion of powers, checks

and balances, and the

states would further

fragment and frustrate

“tyrannical” majorities.

Paradoxically, then,

the Founders — while

deploring political fac-

tionalism and the rise of

party politics — created

a system that they

hoped would promote

the widest possible va-

riety of political groups.

In the best of all imagi-

nable political worlds

there would be no par-

ties — accordingly,

everyone would be an

“independent.” But,

failing that — and such

a failure was deemed

inevitable — the next

best situation would be

a multiplicity of fac-

tions in as unlimited a

number as possible, for

this would be the best

way of avoiding the

tyranny of a self-perpet-

uating, self-interested

and irresponsible ma-

jority.

The Framers, of

course, did not pre-

scribe the appropriate

number of such fac-

tions, sects or parties.

Madison favored “a

great variety of parties”

and a “multiplicity of

interests.” He was

wary of a society where

“the stronger faction

can readily unite and

oppress the weaker,”

which, by implication, means a society

consisting of only two factions. Hamil-

ton also did not seem enthralled by the

prospect of two factions engaged in per-

petual rivalry. “The habit of being

continually marshaled on opposite

sides,” he wrote, “will be too apt to

stifle the voice both of law and of eq-

uity.”

In discussing the role of parties in

approving presidential nominations,

Madison observed that the “choice

which may at any time happen to be

made under such circumstances will

of course be the result either of a vic-

tory gained by one party over the

other, or of a compromise between

the parties. In either case, the intrin-

sic merit of the candidate will be too

often out of sight.” The assumption

of a two-party rivalry was a situation

that he did not look forward to with

much enthusiasm. John Marshall, ar-

guably the ablest man to ever serve

on the U.S. Supreme Court, also be-

moaned the idea of rival parties, be-

lieving that nothing debased the

human mind more than a political

party.

John Adams, anticipating the

adoption of the U.S. Constitution,

presciently observed that the devel-

opment of two strong political parties

or factions would be the worst of all

possibilities. In a letter to Thomas

Jefferson, the principal author of the

Declaration of Independence, Adams

wrote that parties and factions “will

not suffer improvements to be made.

As soon as one man hints at an im-

provement,” he noted, “his rival op-

poses it. No sooner has one party

discovered or invented any ameliora-

tion of the condition of man, or the

order of society than the opposite party

belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents

it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes

it…”

That’s perhaps truer today than

when Adams wrote it.

The intellectual Jefferson, likewise,

held a dim view of political parties. “If

I could not go to heaven but with a po-

litical party,” he wrote in 1789, “I

would not go there at all.” Even as late

as 1816, the poorly educated Andrew

Jackson, who had little in common with

the nation’s founding fathers and the

scholarly Puritan that he succeeded as

president twelve years later, said that it

was “time to exterminate the monster

called party spirit.”

James Monroe, who governed dur-

ing a period of relatively little political

opposition — serving two terms as

President shortly after the Federalist

Party collapsed in 1816 — also ex-

pressed serious reservations about po-

litical parties.

Similarly, George Washington, who

also viewed the idea of political parties

with more than a little disdain, kept his

distance from the organizers of Amer-

ica’s earliest political parties. He be-

lieved that political parties were

inherently evil. He said in 1790 that if

liberty and independence, which had

cost the new nation “so much blood

and treasure to establish,” were to be

preserved, then “we must drive far

away the daemon party spirit and local

reproach.”

Despite Washington’s obvious dis-

approval, the words of caution offered

by Adams and the suspicions of Jeffer-

son, Madison, Hamilton, Marshall and

Monroe, political parties quickly devel-

oped in the new nation.

Although the Constitution made no

provision for political parties, by 1792

two distinct parties — the Federalists

and the Democratic-Republicans —

were vying for control of the young na-

tion’s destiny, and except for a brief pe-

riod following the demise of the fading

Federalist Party, it’s been that way ever

since.

Though independent and third-

party movements have sporadically

threatened two-party control of our na-

tion’s politics, some 220 years later

we’re saddled with two corporate-dom-

inated parties — each battling for po-

litical supremacy as the country teeters

on bankruptcy while slowly slipping

into what might be the worst economic

depression in history — that are ar-

guably much worse than anything our

Founding Fathers warned against.

* * *

Darcy G. Richardson is the author

of six books, including five volumes

of a planned seven-volume history on

independent and third-party politics in

the United States. Long active in in-

dependent and third-party politics, he

was an independent candidate for

lieutenant governor of Florida on a

ticket headed by Iranian-born econo-

mist Farid A. Khavari of Miami in

2010. He can be found online at bat-

tlegroundblog.com

T h i r d P a r t y I n d e p e n d e n t

cont. from p.1

The general election offered some

big lessons. First, advertising can be

very effective. We did a limited amount

of advertising in two key markets, my

home region of Albany plus Syracuse.

Our results were dramatically better in

those two areas than elsewhere in the

state. Radio advertising in particular

seemed to be cost-effective. Second, our

online efforts did not appear to produce

much value. We spent a substantial

amount of time and money on web ads

and Facebook networking. It didn’t

catch fire the way we’d hoped. Third,

teamwork is important. We suffered due

to distractions. For example, the candi-

date who came in second at our conven-

tion sued us twice.

At the same time, working within

the GOP has shown me that there is just

as much dysfunction in the major par-

ties. They have the same problems we

do, with egos, infighting, backroom

dealing, and more. The difference is that

minor parties can’t afford to have such

problems because we don’t have the ad-

vantages of the major parties.

The LP is facing a unique challenge

as the 2012 presidential election looms.

Congressman Ron Paul ran a credible

effort in the 2008 GOP primary and is

taking another shot in 2012. Dr. Paul

was the LP candidate for President in

1988, and has been a Republican con-

gressman for many years.

Many libertarians, like me, see Ron

Paul as a fantastic candidate. For one

thing, we see him as having a real

chance to actually bemescome the GOP

nominee and even to win the presi-

dency. Yes, of course it’s a long shot, but

at this stage of the game everyone is a

long shot.

Also, Ron Paul is about as libertar-

ian as you can get in a candidate. Just

by being a credible candidate in the

GOP primary, he brings more attention

to libertarian ideas.

Even if Dr. Paul doesn’t win, his

presence promotes not just the ideas but

also libertarian-leaning candidates. The

most obvious example of this was the

2010 election of his son, Rand Paul.

Also in 2010, Justin Amash won a con-

gressional seat from Michigan. In just

one election we went from having one

Ron Paul in the House to having two in

the House and one in the Senate. With

435 members in the House and 100 in

the Senate, Rand Paul’s seat is

worth roughly 4 House seats. So

2010 increased the libertarian

weight in Government by

500%.

Looking forward, I

struggle with where to

put my energy, time and

money. I firmly believe

in libertarian princi-

ples. I also bear a

deep distrust of the

Republican party.

Most Republicans

claim to support fis-

cal conservatism and

limited government.

But when Republicans

find themselves in con-

trol of government,

they demonstrate that

this is but a lie. George W.

Bush, Newt Gingrich and

Tom DeLay all caved to spe-

cial interests and massively

expanded the federal govern-

ment.

So on the one hand the GOP’s

failings push me toward focusing on the

LP. On the other, the Ron Paul move-

ment pulls me back with the hope that

we can force the Republican party to

follow libertarian principles. And of

course, the LP’s own problems are dis-

couraging.

I’m moving to Florida shortly and

hope to continue working with both par-

ties. I will devote most of my energy for

now to the Ron Paul movement. I have

already made friends with members of

the LP in Florida and hope to develop

those relationships as well. And I will

try to get involved with the mainstream

GOP in the hope that I will be able to

promote libertarian ideals from within.

I wish

I

could say I

have the answers. I still

don’t know the best course, but no mat-

ter what I will keep trying. That’s the

best advice I have for everyone else.

***

Warren Redlich was the 2010 Liber-

tarian candidate for Governor of New

York. His vote total was triple that of the

2006 LP candidate and double any pre-

vious LP candidate. Warren served as

Ron Paul's election lawyer in New York

State in 2008, and was elected to the

Guilderland NY Town Board as a Re-

publican in 2007.

Warren is an attorney and

internet entrepreneur. His

Albany NY law firm

(link to

redlichlaw.com)

handles per-

sonal injury

and criminal

defense, in-

c l u d i n g

t r a f f i c

t i c k e t s ,

D W I ,

m a r i -

j u a n a

a n d

o t h e r

d r u g s ,

and gun

r i g h t s

c a s e s .

His web

business,

SpinJ Cor-

poration, de-

velops and

manages a di-

rectory of over

11,000 traffic courts

(link to town-

court.com) that helps over

3 million people a year.

The assumption of atwo-party rivalry was asituation that he did notlook forward to withmuch enthusiasm. JohnMarshall, arguably theablest man to everserve on the U.S.Supreme Court, alsobemoaned the idea ofrival parties, believingthat nothing debasedthe human mind morethan a political party.

A Two Party System:The Views of the Founders

The Libertarian Party’s Role

in 2011 and Beyond

Page 9

T h i r d P a r t y I n d e p e n d e n t

By Zabby

An invitation to disgruntled

Democratic Party and Republi-

can Party members from Suf-

folk County, Long Island, NY:

Welcome to you, disgruntled de-

mocrats and disgruntled republicans,

women and men who are willing to join

a coalition to wage primary challenges

in the upcoming 2011 elections! By

running in a primary, you have the po-

tential to get one of the 19 part-time jobs

at the Suffolk County Legislature, pay-

ing $85,000 per year plus ben-

efits.

We will help you run a pri-

mary campaign on Public Ac-

cess Television to defeat the

hand-picked choices of the

Republican and Democratic

Party bosses. The petition pe-

riod for primary candidates in

New York is June 7th to July

14th. The last date to file the

petitions is July 14, 2011 at

the Board of Elections.

Disgruntled third party en-

thusiasts (Conservative Party,

Independence Party and

Working Families Party), tired

of the way party bosses en-

courage cross-endorsements

of the same old democrats and

republicans? Then you too can

run primaries for your line

against the same.

Together, we will fight the

extended history of corrup-

tion, cronyism (pay to play),

corporate welfare, tax evasion,

fraud, local bank bailouts, and

business as usual behind

closed doors.

Once in office, the new

coalition can enforce the law,

to start. Also, we can use

home rule to self-determine

and customize law in our own

local neighborhoods on social,

economic, ecological and po-

litical issues independent of

burdensome General Law — one size

fits all state law. (See CELDF, The

Community Environmental Legal De-

fense Fund, for strategies to use home

rule to protect the environment.)

We will stand up, assume power and

secure local governing authority to fight

the corporatocracy and plutocracy oper-

ating against us. We have a natural right

to good self-governance. There can be

no hope, no change without action.

Those now in office are derelict in their

duties and responsibilities to oversee

and enforce the law. The incumbent

politicos avoid transparency and ac-

countability. The Suffolk

County Legislature holds meetings dur-

ing the day, which circumvents the

Open Meetings Law (Section 100)*

They are afraid to have the public wit-

ness their deliberations and decisions in

the making of public policy.

We, the coalition of good

democrats and republicans,

can run primaries by petition-

ing for ballot access. The

rules for gathering petitions

can be found in NY State

Election Law.

If you would like help,

former Libertarian Party can-

didate Chris Garvey would be

willing to give some assis-

tance or direction. His e-mail

is: ChrisGarveyLP at yahoo

dot com.

In addition, you could

look through the how-to-run

for “Election” page at on-

thewilderside.com (which is

run by a Green Party member

and an independent voter).

Let’s determine what we

want our local community to

look like and be. We can

change the law of the land so

that we, too, are not colonized

as slave-wagers; we can stop

pollution and contamination

of our food, air and water.

Why is it that Suffolk County

residents have to pay to use

our parks and beaches? Our

laws do not serve the average

working person or retired

senior citizen.

Even though Suffolk

County Legislators are con-

sidered part-time employees, and only

meet once a month, they make $85,000

a year, plus benefits. This is why no-

body is doing due-diligence watching

the store. This is why they do not want

us to watch them on T.V. The Suffolk

County Legislature is the only level of

government not on television.

We need to take back our parties and

our government, so that we can create

and enforce good laws for our commu-

nity.

*The Open Meetings Law (Section

100): “It is essential to the maintenance

of a democratic society that the public

business be performed in an open and

public manner and that the citizens of

this state be fully aware of and able to

observe the performance of public offi-

cials and attend and listen to the delib-

erations and decisions that go in to the

making of public policy”. [NY Munici-

pal Home rule law (Chapter 36-A of the

consolidated laws Article 3, Section

23)]

***

Zabby is an active participant in

civic and governmental issues. She is

the founder of PEGLATM, Public, Ed-

ucational, Government, and Leased Ac-

cess Television Movement, which

educates and raises awareness of the

ability of citizens to get free training and

free air time to put their shows on tele-

vision. Zabby is a Public Access Televi-

sion producer with several programs

showing throughout Suffolk County and

Nassau County. Zabby also produces a

weekly show on WUSB Radio, Stony

Brook, NY, called "A Woman's Perspec-

tive on Politics". You can write to Zabby

at: Zabby c/o WUSB 90.1FM / State

University of New York / Stony Brook,

Cont. from p.1

They cleaned up the waterfront that

had been trashed by industry, started

city-wide recycling, and established a

public/private partnership with a land

trust to make low and moderate rental

and home ownership available. The Pro-

gressive Administration started a

women’s small business technical assis-

tance program and an affirmative action

ordinance for the awarding of city con-

tracts. The city-owned public electric

utility created nationally-recognized ef-

ficiency programs, developed a wood-

burning electric facility, and provides

Burlington residents with the lowest

electric rates in the state.

Progressives began to run for the

Vermont state legislature from Burling-

ton districts, which elected one, then

two, then three, then four representa-

tives. Today, the Vermont Progressive

Party has five members in their State

House, and two members in the State

Senate. While the party itself has not yet

garnered traction on a federal level,

these seemingly small gains represent

big steps for a third party in the United

States, as they've gained a strong

foothold in state government.

In 2000, the Vermont Progressive

Party established itself as an official

statewide party, and in their first

statewide race they attained the status of

Major Party, electing their first legisla-

tor outside of Burlington in the south-

ernmost Vermont city of Brattleboro. In

2008, Anthony Pollina, the Progressive

party candidate for governor, received

21.8% of the vote in the statewide race,

beating his Democratic rival who re-

ceived 21.7% of the vote. Many ob-

servers hold that the Democrats, who

originally were not going to run in the

race, simply ran a candidate to act as a

"spoiler" against Pollina.

Clearly, despite what they naysayers

in the Democratic and Republican par-

ties claim, it is not impossible to build a

successful, electable third party in the

United States, absent electoral reforms

that will be more friendly to third parties

and independents. Now how exactly did

this third party build itself up as a seri-

ous organization in the state of Ver-

mont? We'll have to explore that topic

in a future article.

Top Ten Reasons

Why We Need National Third

Parties

by Kimberly Wilder

Top Ten Reasons to encourage,

support and, of course, allow na-

tional parties other than the

Democratic Party and the Republican

Party:

10. If the only two choices are De-

mocrats and Republicans, what happens

when those two parties agree, and find

themselves behind closed doors?

9. If the rule is only two parties,

what if someone wants to go back to the

Whigs and the Tories? Who gets to pick

which two parties? (Why these two par-

ties? Why not two others?).

8. If America can have more than

one religion, why can’t we tolerate more

than one party? And, how can you deny

someone -- either by law or social pres-

sure -- the right to assemble with like

minds in a way he or she believes will

be effective?

7. If the only choice in 2012 is De-

mocrat Barack Obama or a Republican

nominee the party insiders believe will

win, where is the possibility for real

change? It would be a miracle for the

Democratic convention to choose any-

one but the incumbent President. So, the

Democrats have no reason to reconsider

their current policies or platform. And,

instead of choosing liberty or true con-

servatism, the best the current Repub-

lican Party seems to know how to do is

to aim more towards the right-wing (or

to find a more charming celebrity). So,

a third party is the only chance for a

new discourse, a breath of fresh air, or

even a Hail Mary pass at better leader-

ship.

6. Why do we need national third

parties? Because the bipartisan front of

the Democratic and Republican parties

demonstrates that absolute power cor-

rupts absolutely. It takes courage for lit-

tle people to stand up with other little

people against those in power.

5. Third parties create smaller or-

ganizations, where new people, people

of diversity, and people without huge

amounts of wealth or family connec-

tions have a chance to practice leader-

ship and provide input for a national

platform.

4. National third parties work in

other countries. Ballot access expert

Richard Winger notes: “In other coun-

tries, such as Canada and England, they

have completely neutral election laws,

a field of national third parties, and a

very healthy political process and dis-

course. . . Their laws do not discriminate

in favor of any parties, or against any

parties. Ballot access in those two

countries is exactly the same for every

party, big or little, old or new.”

3. If your sister, friend, political

hero, or co-worker wants to run for

President under the banner of her third

party of choice: Would it be your duty

to stop her? Would it be your choice to

stop her? How would you feel about

people who criticized and blamed your

friend who wants to run for office? How

would you feel about unfair laws and

petitioning rules that blocked your hero

from running for office?

2. Even more importantly, you

might want to run for President one day.

What if you want to run for President

based on an issue, idea or party name

other than the Democratic Party or Re-

publican Party? If you were running,

would you think it was fair for people to

discourage you from doing it? To attack

you for trying to run? Or, to block you

legally from trying to run?

1. The most important reason we

need national third parties is explained

in a quote from a seasoned, third party

hero, who said:

“Historically, the great ideas that

have animated social justice and driven

it to some sort of success in our country,

have all come from 3rd parties. And,

aren’t we glad that ballot access barriers

were much lower in the 19th century

than they are today, much less obstruc-

tive? Because, that allowed the Liberty

Party, the Anti-slavery Party, the

Women’s Right to Vote Party, the Labor

Party, the Populist Party, the Farmer

Party to get on the ballot.

“And, aren’t we glad that there were

some voters in the 19th century who

didn’t say, ‘Well, we’re going to vote for

the least-worst on the issue of slavery

between the Whig Party and the Demo-

cratic Party.’? Who, instead voted for

the small party that led the fight elec-

torally, speaking out against slavery?

“Aren’t we glad there were some

voters who didn’t try to figure out who

was the least-worst on the women’s

right to vote between the Democrats and

the Republicans? And, supported the

women’s right to vote through the

Woman Suffrage Party?

“Well, if we like that, then we

should like it in the 21st century, as

well.”

The quote is from Ralph Nader. The

understanding it presents should remind

all of us how important it is to work for

ballot access and the rights of third par-

ties.

This article is based on a debate presenta-tion from 2009, revised for 2011

Dear Reader,

Can you think of any other reasons to sup-

port third parties? When I first wrote this

piece, I tried to incorporate some of the best

ideas from other third party activists, such as

Richard Winger (who was gracious enough

to give me pointers) and Ralph Nader (who

I studied via old videos).

We would like to hear from you. If you

have your own “Top Ten Reasons Why We

Need Third Parties” -- or, even just one

or two reasons I overlooked -- please

submit them for possible publication to

info@thirdpartyindependent.com

***Kimberly Wilder is a poet, and an activist

concerning issues of peace, justice, the en-

vironment, and electoral activism. She is the

co-founder of the blog www.onthewilder-

side.com. She also contributes items at

www.independentpoliticalreport.com. Kim-

berly Wilder came to political awareness

through Libertarian thinking, and spent

many years as a Green Party volunteer. She

lives on Long Island, New York, where she

is currently enrolled as a blank/independent

voter.

We will help you run aprimary campaign onPublic Access Televi-sion to defeat the hand-picked choices of theRepublican and Demo-cratic Party bosses. Thepetition period for pri-mary candidates in NewYork is June 7th to July14th. The last date tofile the petitions is July14, 2011 at the Board ofElections.

The Impossible Rise of the Vermont Progressive Party

Public Access Politics

Third Party Independent is

Looking For Dynamic

Salespeople!

Call 212-470-7860

or email spinmediaworld@gmail.com

Page 10