Startin on Third Parties

“Small l” libertarian, former Green Party candidate and Idaho gubernatorial hopeful W. Lane Startin wrote an interesting article on the history and future of third parties. It started with a discussion of issues well known to people engaged in third party politics, such as the importance of ballot access reform and inclusion in candidate debates.

He brought up the need for fusion campaigns, and area where I generally agree:

On a fusion ticket, a third party can endorse a major party candidate who they feel is in tune with their views instead of running their own. In the late 19th Century this was common practice in the United States, and directly led to the prominence of such organizations as the Populist Party and the Farmer-Labor Party. These parties usually aligned with Democrats, and as a result Republican legislatures ended the practice in many states. While still legal in a handful of states, only New York practices this today with any regularity. Several New York parties, such as the Liberal Party of New York, the New York State Right to Life Party, the Conservative Party of New York and the Working Families Party have successfully endorsed candidates also running as Republicans or Democrats. From a candidate’s standpoint, being able to add one of these groups behind his or her R or D helps to build organizations, while at the same time giving the third parties a higher profile than they would otherwise have going it alone.

He also mentioned dropping “gimmicks such as Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation. “Enacting proportional representation would represent a fundamental change in our elections, and would therefore require a constitutional amendment,” he wrote. I’d like to clarify that it wouldn’t require a federal constitutional amendment. Maine and Nebraska currently have proportional representation for presidential electors; we are currently working on such a bill in Alabama.

He noted that campaigns shouldn’t educate, but recruit:

It’s all fine and good to talk about key points or political quizzes or things of that nature, but the plain truth is the majority of voters couldn’t care less. Never have. Never will. Instead, third parties should reach out to people in the community who generally agree with their views and already have a positive standing. The problem is many of these people would be quite hesitant to accept a third party candidacy, and for good reason. Third parties must resist the temptation to say “Now that you’re with us, we’ll make you a true believer.” Nothing will turn off a good potential candidate quicker than that. If a third party demonstrates it’s serious not about indoctrination, but winning, a few good mavericks will eventually answer the call.

Finally, he took a non-partisan approach to take most of the minor parties to task:

Embrace a “Big Tent” Philosophy. In my experience, the single most significant thing that holds back third parties in the United States is not ballot or debate access, or candidate experience, or even fund raising. It’s a pervasive notion common in all third parties of uncompromising ideological purity. In other words, an almost fanatical belief that they’re right and the commons are either uneducated or wrong. Consider these statements:

“What we Greens need to do is use our skills to serve average voters, and make sure they are aware of our efforts.” -Gregg Jocoy, Green Party blogger, May 2006

“’Radical’ is not a word we will apologise for. Neither is purist’.” -Libertarian Party Radical Caucus basic principles

“Your vote should be based on principle, not expedience. For generations, Americans have held their noses and voted for the lesser of two evils, hoping that those they elect will vote in a principled manner, even though the electorate does not.” -Constitution Party FAQ

“The liberal left in the ‘first’ world, paralyzed in a reformist mode, cannot provide a vision that gives the poor, of this and other countries, the tools for thier (sic) own liberation. These are the times when those that fight for true social and economic equality not only have to choose sides, but step up as THE option to the status quo.” Raul Cano, CoChair Socialist Party USA, Reflections on The State of the Union Address

While these parties are radically different in ideology, their statements share a common theme: We’re right and everybody else is wrong. If you don’t agree with us, you either need to be educated or you’re the enemy.

While I don’t agree with everything he wrote, I thought his perspective was interesting.