Unity.08 leaders, so far, have shown no interest in working to improve ballot access laws, even though Unity.08 itself will be greatly injured by some of them. Unity.08 desires to sponsor an independent presidential candidate, chosen in the early summer of 2008 by millions of people using the internet.
However, laws that force an independent presidential candidate to complete rigorous petition drives by May or June interfere with Unity.08’s goal. Texas is particularly a problem, because it requires 74,108 signatures by early May, from the ranks of people who are registered but who don’t vote in the March 2008 primaries. Arizona’s independent petition number for 2008 can’t be known yet, but probably it will close to 25,000, due in early June.
These laws, and other laws, are forcing Unity.08 to create a political party, but that has disadvantages also. Once a party is created, it will be impossible for Unity.08 to prevent individuals from running for office as party members, for office other than president, yet Unity.08 says it doesn’t intend to run candidates for any office than president.
One would think, therefore, that Unity.08 would be working to ease the independent presidential petition laws. However, leaders of Unity.08 have expressed disinterest in any such activity. If you are part of Unity.08, please urge the organization to re-think this issue.
We have been involved in a one way conversation with Denver [Colorado] since National Unity Party was reborn months ago. We have suggested that they adopt Teddy Roosevelt and his 1912 Bull Moose running mate California Governor Hiram W. Johnson as ichronography, along with the Theodore Bear plush toy and the Bull Moose.
John B. Anderson and [his vice presidential choice, Wisconsin’s Patrick Lacey] are still alive and well [and working on voting issues, no less]! Former Reform Party guiding light and 2000 presidential wanna be, former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, lives in Denver.
Yes, Unity08 has done in weeks what it took Committee for a Unified Independent President (CUIP) YEARS to do, to sucessfully broad cast citizen unhappiness with the establishment duopoly. But BOTH organizations are grossly unresponsive to OUR telephone calls and what not. And when we do get ahold of a real live human being, they seem to be speaking in code, or even their own secret language!
Both Unity08 and CUIP sure know how to get a hold of us when it comes time to hit up folks for monietary contributions. Yes, some things BOTH groups have done well from the begining.
Thanks to Tejas Reformer Charles Foster, aka:
zap88@sbcglobal.net……..
This is an observation, not an accusation, but starting/funding a “third party unity coalition” could be well worth it as an investment for major-party political hacks who want to side-track third party progress. It’s certainly what I’d do in their shoes. They don’t answer your calls eh? Mayber they’re a little busy answering someone else’s. Karl Rove?
Actually, it was 1996 when Richard Lamm sought the Reform Party’s presidential nomination and was undercut by Ross Perot.
Lamm’s designated running-mate was Ed Zschau, a former California congressman and the 1986 Republican nominee against U. S. Sen. Alan Cranston.
If they don’t take on the ballot access banner, then I couldn’t take them seriously. I believe there are a minimum of three reforms that independents must point out to the American voter if we the voters are ever to have a chance at changing our corrupt political culture. They are ballot access, debate access, and instant run-off elections. If Unity ’08 runs a campaign that does not address the fundamental barriers to political participation, then that leads me to wonder who they represent.
Well said, joeyD. Very well said indeed.
joeyD raises the question of who the Unity08 folks represent, given their disinterest in election reform generally.
I think they represent a long-standing tradition in American politics, which opposes a multi-party system and thinks the only proper role of independents and/or “third” party candidates is to give one or both of two real parties a wakeup call once in a while.
In this view, it doesn’t matter that you can’t win. It only matters whether the real parties and politicians address your issues. Election reform is inconsistent with this point of view.
Well, who runs Unity08 and makes its decisions.
Without belittling the Free State Project effort, they too set a lofty goal of 20K residents for their continuing experiment. While a thousand uber-activists have proven very effective with Liberty fronts up there in NH, it’s hard to picture these magic numbers of millions to coalesce around a vanilla ‘Unity’ idea/theme/coalition etc.
Both the Greens & Libertarians have committed people and resources for years and barely make it on the ballot in all or most states. Unless Unity has a lot of money, it’s hard to go out and get those sigs with volunteers who aren’t hepped up on the Party Tea. I suspect they’ll crash against this reef and declare victory in some nominal manner.
To set the record straight:
In 1980, John Anderson’s running mate was Patrick Lucey, not Patrick Lacey.
The complete name for CUIP is Committee for a Unified Independent Party (not President).
It is more accurate to say (in my humble opinion) that Ross Perot defeated Richard Lamm in 1996 (rather than “undercut him”). My wife and I voted for Ross Perot in the Reform Party’s mail primary system (as did many other Perot People). It was a fair election. Even though Richard Lamm is “a very fine man,” as Mr. Perot stated, it was Ross who won the election.
The main focus of attraction for Unity08, I think, is that it has great appeal to millions and millions of people who are just plain fed up with all the bickering (and hardly any progress) in United States politics.
I heard years ago that a third party or independent candidate was going to win the 08 Pres election. Now, maybe there’s something. Unity 08 is a good idea but I think they should focus on giving third parties a coalition where they can have broad support. Imagine Unity 08 supporting candidates from different parties? One of it’s ideas should be the implementation of proportional representation of any type. I support the mixed system, just like the one used in Michigan years ago. I would totally vote for Unity 08 if the primaries leave me unhappy. Let’s all hope that they can do what the Rainbow Coalition tried to do!