The Alaskan Independence Party will continue to run Don Wright for Governor. Wright won the party’s primary last month, but there had been speculation that he might withdraw and let the party substitute someone else. See this story.
The Alaskan Independence Party will continue to run Don Wright for Governor. Wright won the party’s primary last month, but there had been speculation that he might withdraw and let the party substitute someone else. See this story.
I can’t believe these people. Are they drinking “cool aid?” And then they wonder why most of their nominees only get at best 5 to 9 % average of the total vote?
The lame excuse of “not wanting to put pressure on Mr. Wright (the original nominee) to withdraw” is about as a limp as a wet dishrag.
Is their memory so bad they forget that in about 1990 the AIP elected former Alaska Governor Walter Hickel in a strong 3 way race.
Now I know sometimes, there are risks in nominating a “major party reject” and I qualify my bafflement with this possibility with Mr. Walker. I remember after getting elected, Governor Hickel had difference with party leaders.
But look at the press they would have gotten with Mr. Walker as the nominee. He might have pulled a repeat of Governor Hickel’s election and given more credibility to the AIP. What the AIP needs more now than an ideal elected governor, is exceptance and an image by the voters the AIP is as good and strong as the other major parties.
Still, I shaking my head in disbelief. With leadership decisions like the one the AIP just made, the Democrats and Republican have little worries.
I largely agree with you, Alabama Independent. But there is a context for this: the purist v. pragmatist split that also is a part of the historical stories of many other third parties. Purists can’t be faulted for worrying about the “rent-a-party” phenomenon. It has been a fact in some parties, for example some in New York, where fusion is available and widely-practiced.
BTW, Hickel, who was an early pusher of statehood (not independence) for Alaska and also something of a progressive on environmental issues, broke with AIP, I think entirely, around the last year of his term as AIP-elected governor of Alaska.
Dr. Gillespie: Yes there is some danger in 3rd parties operating as a “rent-a-party” But as I’ve attempted to share with the AIPers, 3rd parties have to “crawl” before they can “walk.” The AIP is still in the “crawling” stage. Yes, they had their problems with Hickel, but at least the AIP held the governor’s office while he was governor. Mr. Walker might turn out to be the same disappointment, but at least – if elected – still the AIPers will hold the governors’ office again.
Holding a major office for the party gives them stature, respectablility and credibility – something they need badly. This is something these “purists” in the AIP apparently cannot understand. When the AIP finally starts “walking” then and only then can they hope to nominate one of their own and he/she have a good chance to be elected.
You mention New York State 3rd parties which use “fusion” and the provision to nominate a major party reject for the same office. The New York Liberal Party provided Democrat John F. Kennedy the margin of votes in New York State in 1960 and thus the presidency. In 1969, after being rejected by the GOP, the same Liberal Party nominated Mayor John Lindsay and he was relected.
This is the role 3rd parties have to play until they are strong enough to elect candidates outright of their own. Today, 3rd parties need to understand “balance of power,” as the 3rd parties often hold in New York State elections, do make the difference in both state and national politics.
The AIP has lost a major opportunity in 2010 to become a stronger party in Alaska. I have litte sympathy for them if their party begins to “dry up on the vine.” They will have no one to blame but themselves.
Even though I am not a Libertarian, if this party is politically savvy, it will persuade their current gubernatorial nominee to withdraw and instead nominate Mr. Bill Walker for Governor. From what I understand about Mr. Walker’s campaign, it is one centered toward a “populist” movement for the people of Alaska. I understand, Mr. Walker got more votes in the GOP primary than did the Democratic nominee in the Democratic Primary.
Libertarians of Alaska! If the AIP wants to act like they’re “sipping the cool aid” let’em do so, but while they’re acting so “principled,” you folks snatch “victory from the mouth of defeat” and nominate Mr. Walker to be your gubernatorial nominee.
I wonder if the AKIP has adopted our strategy on focusing on starting at the local and county level on electing party members?
In fact I wonder if they have elected anybody else to any office besides Hickel to the Governorship?
Cody: They may have elected one member of the lower house in Alaska several years ago. Richard would be the one who knows for sure.
But you are absolutely correct. 3rd parties have got to start electing candidates on the local level. I understand the temptation to field a candidate for Governor or US Senator. But electing local candidates, allowing them opportunity for getting experience, then provides the party “qualified” candidates later for higher office.
Still, the AIP (or AKIP as you refer to it) should have given their nomination to Bill Walker. If Mr. Wright (the original nominee) was a loyal member of the party, he would have gladly stepped down, and allowed Walker with his obvious finances to be the nominee. This would have been a nationally watched election such as the US Senate race in Florida is being watched.
But, I guess the AIP leadership will be satisfied with the 5 or 8% at best they will get for Mr. Wright.
I too agree with Cody. Even though (except for state legislature) below-statewide elections tend to be officially non-partisan in most jurisdictions, election to and then service in these positions brings valuable experience, some name recognition, and a track record. That’s the healthier “grow your own” approach for third parties to groom candidates for higher office. And it is one on which both purists and pragmatists can agree in principle.