The Centrist Project is effectively taking on the attributes of a new political party, by recruiting candidates for 2018 to run under a centrist platform. However, it believes that its candidates will do better if they are on the ballot as independent candidates.
It has already arranged to run legislative candidates in Colorado in 2018, and now it has announced that it is seeking a candidate to run for U.S. Senate from Wyoming in 2018. The Republican incumbent, who is running for re-election, is Senator John Barrasso.
NO such thing as *centrist* —
more or less control freak STATISM for the last 5,000 plus years of recorded political history.
This might be the first thing I’ve agreed with written by Demo Rep. The Centrist Project is truly delusional. Richard – why do you give them any credence whatsoever – the Centrist Project is simply a PR stunt. Readers – FWIW, I am a Wyoming resident who ran for governor as an independent in 2014. I got about 6% of the vote, more than all third parties combined.
My impression is that the people behind the Centrist Project have access to moderately large funding. One of the leaders of the Centrist Project is Nick Troiano, who was an independent candidate for US House in Pennsylvania in 2014. Even though he was barely old enough to meet the constitutional qualifications, and had never before run for public office, he got 12%. That is partly because he has connections to the same wealthy people who paid for Americans Elect petitioning in 2011 and 2012.
They could draft Dave Freudenthal, the former Democratic Governor of Wyoming. OnTheIssues labels him as a Centrist.
The problem with “centrist” is you can have two people with exactly opposite views on issues but as long as some of each of their views are liberal and some conservative they are grouped together as “centrists” since it doesn’t matter which views are which.
Don Wills should be the “go to” guy in this instance. He lives in Wyoming; is intimately familiar with the politics of Wyoming; has been involved with “third” parties in Wyoming and has been an independent candidate as well. I also agree that “centrist” has about as much meaning as “independent”. None!
Ballot Access News has no way but to be biased.
The only fair way to treat voters and candidates is under equality of pure proportional representation.
Ballot Access News publisher picks legal, political and rhetorical fights base on opinions but then they ignore the truly mathematical fairness of pure proportional representation.
Pure proportional representation is the only true fair voting system that can be used as a foundation for agreement.
But BAN seeks only fights for their content and BAN cannot stand for truly fair mathematical and unifying effort as I have observed since 1993 when I first announced the correct math for our team as Winger’s house meeting, when I had accessed the ballot for governor of California as an outsider Green.
In 2012 I won the only Libertarian Party primary for US President on a state ballot of Missouri with 52.7% but the LP’s establishment denied me free speech at their national convention because the insider pluralists in the LP are not interested in fair treatment and Winger was on the front line opposing my campaign.
In 1995 before Ralph Nader was a candidate for POTUS, Nader agreed to allow us on our team.
It takes effort to unite under pure proportional representation but instead Nader filed legal actions against the USA Green Party which was sustained in the First USA Parliament.
Nader, Winger and most pluralists see politics as a fight but proportionalists see politics as an opportunity to work together as a team.
Pluralists try to claim unity but they only fail because of the self-destructive nature of their own unjust actions.
But year after year our team continues to grow incrementally because we only seek unity and collaboration under a fair and correct voting system.
Nobody has it as good as the United Coalition.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html
It’s hard to be proportional when there’s one seat.
Maybe they can recruit Richard Grayson, I don’t think he has run as a Centrist before.
Pure proportional representation prohibits single seats.
The Centrist Project is designed to fail from the get-go because they promote division; their goal is obviously to split and divide three-ways, so they plan to do that and win with 33.33% plus two votes while dividing left and right with 33.33% minus one vote each.
This is a typical strategy by pluralists.
Want to see unity and inclusion? Pure proportional representation unites the 100%, we welcome dividers but they cannot welcome us because they cannot work together unless they have the correct tools.
If they run Freudenthal 1-on-1 against Barrasso, they have a chance to win. This a former Democratic Governor who won re-election with 70%.
Plus, the US Senate is entirely single seat elections because they are statewide. Proportional representation would work only in the House and in states with more than one Rep.
Kevin, you are incorrect, pure proportional representation is the perfect voting system for all elections with no exceptions. If you think like that then you will only be unhappy with your work because our group organized all 34 candidates for US Senate in California in 2016 and it worked fine.
We do not limit our team to one person, but we name all our candidates, and they all get equal time. No other way is acceptable.
Here is a link to a video which has some material from our CA US Senate debate in 2016:
https://youtu.be/zQVv3yJKSMU
If you think and strategize as a single-winner power-grabber, then you will likely re-create single-winner power-grabber results. There is another way.
K.R. — Abolish the super-minority rule USA Senate — a vestige of the DARK AGE.
2017 CA = WY — only in delusional minds.
History note – the 1789-1861 Senate math about free vs. slave States got about 750,000 D-E-A-D on both sides in 1861-1865 (2011 estimate).
P.R. in ALL legislative body elections — both majority rule and minority representation.