Thomas L. Friedman has this column in the October 3 New York Times, making the case that the United States needs a new major political party. Friedman is a renowned author, reporter, and columnist, a recipient of three Pulitizer Prizes, and the author of five bestselling books.
One hopes that Friedman will get interested in the details of legal barriers to the creation of a major new political party. He probably lives in New York state. New York state law is so bad, New York is one of only two states in which it is literally impossible for a group to transform itself into a qualified party during a presidential election year. These sort of details are not widely known, but if someone with Friedman’s stature would publicize such details, that would enhance the chances for improvement.
P.R. and App.V. in ALL regimes — before it is too late.
I’m not very impressed with the depth (or should we say shallowness?) of Mr. Friedman’s thinking. It’s very difficult for three major parties to exist in plurality elections. His theory seems unsmart.
Single winner plurality and IRV districts actually help preserve the stranglehold of two parties, even in nonpartisan elections.
Richard’s mentioning the “legal barriers” really point to his niave misunderstanding of plurality elections in single winner districts.
It’s like he wants out of the frying pan, and into the fire.
* * *
The US Parliament New York Super-state Circuit #2
New York
http://www.usparliament.org/ss2.htm
Louis Binetti [Green], Vincent D’Agostino [Republican], Dave Holland [Democratic], Lawrence Durfey [Independent], Juan T. Morel [Non-Party], Brian Carroll [Pot], Dank Treess [Pot], Gogh [Gogh], King Shabazz [Info. Not Avail.]
Would be far far far easier to move into an existing 3rd party and make it work for them. To create a new party is a huge undertaking with 50 different state parties to create and 50 different ballot access laws.
Were the LP, GP or CP founded with the idea of always being “minor parties?” Please. Any party that starts out with enough money and media attention to be labled a “major party” immediately will be so embedded with representing “the powers that be” that there will be no real purpose for its existence. Who needs another Democrat or Republican Party for the purpose of sustaining the same special interests and perpetuating the same people in office?
Thomas Friedman, ha!
More on Friedman:
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2010/03/relief-tom-friedman-says-things-are-ok.html
See #1.
Here’s an idea:if you want to build viable “third parties” try to get PR and Approval Voting adopted in-to start with-ONE state. If you elect one house of any state legislature via PR (as used in Israel, Netherlands or Denmark or Poland or Germany, etc.) that alone will be enough to virtually guarantee the creation of viable “third parties”. A lot of states have initiative and referendum. That-of course-allows a proposal like the above to bypass the D and R controlled existing legislatures.
# 7 Perhaps Nevada – has a plain 1860s type State Constitution written in plain English.
Only state constitutional amendments [now in about 18 States] will do the job – since the courts are brain dead about gerrymander math.
How about having CA election law reformers make NV a REAL Democracy ???
Good luck — New Age gerrymanders are MORE entrenched than divine right of kings in the 1500s — producing arrogant MONSTERS like Pelosi, Gingrich, etc.
Will ALL the special interest gangs that loot govt treasuries oppose P.R. ??? Duh.
New Yorkers have a unique opportunity beginning with the new legislative session in January(which means we could start now) because the presumed-next-Governor, Andrew Cuomo, is advocating for a Constitutional Convention in New York, ahead of its next scheduled appearance on the ballot in 2017, to “Fix Albany”. This would be an opportunity that only comes once in a generation. Let’s ask New Yorkers to support this so we can have a referendum question on the ballot next November!