The New York Independence Party has been ballot-qualified since 1994. When Ross Perot started the Reform Party in September 1995, the Independence Party of New York became the New York state affiliate of the Reform Party. The New York Independence Party disaffiliated from the national Reform Party in 2000, and has since then just been a party in New York state. It ran John Hagelin for president in New York in 2000, and Ralph Nader for president in New York in 2004.
Now, leaders of the New York Independence Party want to create a nationwide Independence Party. A meeting was held on September 23 in White Plains, New York. Frank MacKay was elected national chair. MacKay has been on a trip around the eastern half of the United States, trying to organize the party. The Minnesota Independence Party, which has also been ballot-qualified since 1994 and which was also once a state affiliate of the national Reform Party, will hold a state convention on December 1. It will decide at that convention whether to join the national Independence Party. Dean Barkley, a founder of the Minnesota Independence Party, has already agreed to advise the national Independence Party.
Leaders of the national Independence Party are aware that there is a great deal of similarity between Unity08 and the Independence Party. Both groups would be helpful to Mayor Michael Bloomberg if he were to decide to run for president outside the major parties in 2008.
Maybe now is the time to adoupt Teddy Roosevelt, the Bull Moose, the Three bladed wind mill peace sign…
This might be hopeful, if the New York leadership can totally banish the Fulani/New Alliance Party faction.
Fortunately, the New York leadership has been effectively constrained in their efforts to banish anyone who still enjoys significant grass roots support. Democracy wins and I love it. Thank goodness to the foresight of IP members who fought for the decentralized party model years ago. The NY courts are not going along with McKay’s arguments to “banish” Fulani. I believe at last count he was 0 for 3 in the courts, a strike out. Fulani et al gets the votes within their chapter, they stay in the Party regardless of Chairman McKay’s opinion. That’s the way it should be. To all of you who are party building around the country, take heed of Fulani’s example. Write your bi-laws in such way to keep local control of your chapters. It helps ensure that no shill for the Republicrats can take over at the state level and destroy all your hard work at the local level. Then work like hell to build coalitions with chapters across the state. Chairman McKay would be more effective building a national Party if he’d bury the hatchet with the duly elected leadership of the local IP chapters in State of New York.
Yes, I guess I think this is viable if the Newmanites aren’t in control. They have tried two previous times to form national parties. New Alliance, and I believe the early 90s “Patriot” party was theirs as well?
Actually, the Independence Party existed before Ross Perot organized his reform party and they only provided him with a spot on the ballot in New York. They never were really affiliated with the Reform Party. As for Fulani, she has been nothing more than a plant for the New York City Republicans and has been trying to use the Independence Party as nothing more than a second ballot line for them. This is nothing more than a takeover attempt like the Republicans have accomplished with the State Conservative Party. McKay has acted wisely in his efforts to get the Party away from her. The main problem with the Independence Party is that they have no ideological theme to the Party. For State level and local elections, they hardly ever run their own candidates but rather cross endorse a Democrat or Republican. Their philosophy is to endorse the best person, whether Democrat or Republican, but anyone who lives in New York State and follows its politics knows that their philosophy hasn’t worked. It’s only providing the Republicans and Democrats with another line to have their names listed. It will be interesting to see how the Party would work on the national level since I believe there are only three states that have fusion. They would actually have to run their own candidates.
For president, fusion is legal in about half the states. Many anti-fusion laws are worded so that presidential candidates aren’t affected by them, because these anti-fusion laws apply to people filing in a direct primary (not a presidential primary).
Here is a suggested platform to adopt. The National Election Reform Platform will make it possible for Indies to compete from here on – if we can get an elected official to adopt, advocate and implement.
Ten key points:
· Uniform Ballot Access
· Loosen Third Party Ballot Restrictions
· Universal Voter Registration
· Election Day Holiday
· Equal Media Access/Debate Inclusion
· Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
· Secure Voting Machines
· Public Campaign Financing
· Direct Popular Vote Election of the President
· DC Congressional Representation
A few more points –
Equal nominating petitions for all candidates for the same office in the same area
Proportional Representation for legislative body elections
Approval Voting for executive and judicial offices
1 year terms for legislators and executive officers
Unfortunately, the so-called “Independence” party has been anything but “independent” lately (at least not since Tom Golisano quit it).
Frank McKay has perverted it into a “parasite party” buy placing bets on whichever Demoblican or Repucrat has the best chance to win (usually the INCUMBENT!).
It rarely runs “3rd-party” candidates any more, and usually sells the extra line for a bit of patronage. In Frank’s home county, Suffolk, the so-called IP lined up with the D & R (as well as C and WF) and placed the SAME incumbent on all five state-recognized ballot lines. Fortunately, three other candidates filed petitions (even tho the Green was knocked off ballot, and the Libertarian challenged), and voters will see a couple of other names beneath the FIVE-LINE, no-choice monopoly of the incumbent Sounty Executive.
.
I am not sure independents need a political party, state or national. The reason I am an independent is because I don’t wish to enroll in a political party. The idea of a political party for independents doesn’t make sense to me. What if we start with basic reforms first: allowing independents to run for office, nominate independent candidates and vote in every stage of elections with same qualifications and requirements as political party enrollees?
Steve Ziemba wrote:
” … As for Fulani, she has been nothing more than a plant for the New York City Republicans and has been trying to use the Independence Party as nothing more than a second ballot line for them. This is nothing more than a takeover attempt like the Republicans have accomplished with the State Conservative Party. … ”
Phil Sawyer responds:
In actual reality, there is no evidence to support what Mr. Ziemba wrote. Just the oppostite is true: The Lenora Fulani faction has been truly independent where the Frank McKay faction has been in the Senator Hilary Clinton camp.
Steve Ziemba and Gene Berkman provide more “case in point” evidence (as Rod Serling of “The Twilight Zone” used to say) for what my good friend, Don Lake, has written about “circular firing squads” in the peace, independence, and reform movement. Speaking of Don Lake, it is really time for you, Don, to move on to something else instead of the “Teddy Roosevelt, the Bull Moose, the Three bladed wind mill peace sign…”; when people do not purchase a product then it needs to be replaced.
Here are some more thoughts that I have on this particular topic.
First of all, Unity08 and the new national Independence Party still need to solve the California problem. Please allow me to paste something that I wrote on these pages last month:
Phil Sawyer Says:
September 29th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Unity08 has a very long row to hoe in any aspect of California ballot access.
In 1975, I was a full-time, volunteer activist with the Committee for a Constitutional Presidency/McCarthy ‘76 (and a registered voter with the Peace and Freedom Party). We failed to qulify Senator Eugene McCarthy for the 1976 California ballot via the candidate signature gathering method. (Of course, it really hurt us that the California Secretary of State, March Fong Eu, gave us our petitions after the official time for petitioning began and then would not extend our signature gathering time.)
In 1983, I was a registered voter with Rep. John Angerson’s National Unity Party. We failed to qualify the Party for the 1984 California ballot by utilizing the party signature gatering method.
In 1995, I was a registered voter with the Honorable Ross Perot’s Reform Party. We failed to qualify the Party for the 1996 California ballot via the party voter registration method. Fortunately, however, we were subsequently able to qualify the Party via the party signature gathering method.
My adivce to all Unity08 members: organize, organize, organize!
Secondly, if Mayor Michael Bloomberg changes his mind and decides to run for president in 2008 after all, he will certainly need the Independence Party and/or Unity08. As I have written many times before on these pages, the Mayor just does not have a sufficient enough political base to run as an independent (of any political party or neo-party) for president and be victorious.
Richard Winger let me know about an error that I made in the pasted (and posted) article above. Simply put, I got it backwards on the 1995 Reform Party effort in California. The Party qualified by utilizing the voter registration method – not the signature gathering method. At the ripe old age of sixty, my memory really plays tricks on me sometimes!
Regarding the spelling errors, I am almost certain that I did not make all of them; I always proofread my articles several times (and, of course, I do miss one from time to time – but not that many). I do not know how that happened. It sure would help things if there was a spelling check device on these pages!
Here is another thought on this subject; one that might help to solve the California problem for the Independence Party (and possibly Unity08 also):
The Independence Party (and possibly Unity08) should help the Reform Party get back on the ballot in California. After all, the Honorable Ross Perot and his people, in 1995, were at first going to name the new party in California (and other states, etc.) the Independence Party. Shortly after that announcement, it was made known that plans were changed and the new party would be called the Reform Party. This was due to the fact that utilizing the name, Independence Party, would conflict with the mames of other parties in certain states (i.e., California, where we have the American Independent Party).
Instead of starting from scratch, it seems logical to me that the Reform Party of California, the new, national Independence Party, and Unity08 should all help each other!
I would like to withdraw and replace my previous comment, which was sent hastily, without careful editing, and managed to confuse two separate thoughts. I have made the corrections below.
I stand by my general characterization of and disappointment with what the NY “Independence Party” has become, over the years, but I erred in two particulars:
1. It was wrong of me to single out the current party leader. I should have said “Independence Party” rather than specifying Frank MacKay as the sole cause of this policy (i.e. changing from the original idea of providing voters with a THIRD choice, into a party that nearly-always backs one of the TWO establishment-party choices.) Frank MacKay is not to blame for that change in purpose, and I apologize to Frank for my confusion in mentioning him by name – instead of merely citing the party itself, with regard to a change in party direction that was made many years ago. (I also apologized for misspelling Frank’s last name!)
2. More importantly, I should have used the word “influence” (rather than “patronage”) to describe whatever rewards flow back to the IP from these cross-endorsements. I was hasty in using the word “patronage” and withdraw it. (I’ve heard stories and rumors of patronage, but have no direct knowledge of it.) Also, the word “sells” was clearly used in a very general sense (i.e. exchange of value, not cash), but the word “trade” would have been less confusing.
My revised comment [[with corrections indicated within double-brackets]] is as follows:
Unfortunately, the so-called “Independence†party has been anything but “independent†lately (at least not since Tom Golisano quit it).
[[The Independence Party]] has perverted [[ITSELF]] into a “parasite party†b[]y placing bets on whichever Demoblican or Repucrat has the best chance to win (usually the INCUMBENT!).
It rarely runs “3rd-party†candidates any more, and usually [[trades]] the extra line for a bit of [[influence]]. In Frank[[ MacKay]]’s home county, Suffolk, the so-called IP lined up with the D & R (as well as C and WF) and placed the SAME incumbent on all five state-recognized ballot lines. Fortunately, three other candidates filed petitions (even tho the Green was knocked off ballot, and the Libertarian challenged), and voters will see a couple of other names beneath the FIVE-LINE, no-choice monopoly of the incumbent County Executive.
I always wondered why there wasn’t a nationally organized Independence Party or Independent Party. It would seem to be a good idea to have such a party to sort of act as an umbrella party for all the many, many registered Independents in the country.
Please allow me to restate a message that I wrote on a previous page of this website:
Phil Sawyer Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Here is another thought on this subject; one that might help to solve the California problem for the Independence Party (and possibly Unity08 also):
The Independence Party (and possibly Unity08) should help the Reform Party get back on the ballot in California. After all, the Honorable Ross Perot and his people, in 1995, were at first going to name the new party in California (and other states, etc.) the Independence Party. Shortly after that announcement, it was made known that plans were changed and the new party would be called the Reform Party. This was due to the fact that utilizing the name, Independence Party, would conflict with the mames of other parties in certain states (i.e., California, where we have the American Independent Party).
Instead of starting from scratch, it seems logical to me that the Reform Party of California, the new, national Independence Party, and Unity08 should all help each other!