1. I believe the “Tea Party” candidate is a decoy set up by Reid and company. The Republican candidate I support is Bill Parson. I will not vote for Sue Lowden if she is nominated as she is the standard progressive politician. I’ll probably vote for the Independent American Party candidate.

2. Why won’t the Greens and Libertarians have a candidate running?

3. This is the first I’ve heard about a Tea Party Candidate but the Tea Party is a front. No real ‘tea partiers’ that I’ve talked to have even supported a third party. Real conservative goals can be met by putting conservative candidates up in the Republican party, though I do believe a candidates promises should be in the form of a signed contract with removal from office as a condition of failure to adhere to the contract as well as forfiture of benefits such as life long ‘full pay’ etc.

4. #3: “Real conservative goals can be met by putting conservative candidates up in the Republican party…”

   AMEN!!

   #1: What’s “progressive” about Sue Lowden? I heard her on talk radio, and she’s very articulate… a small business owner.

   The Independent American Party nominee will also hurt the Republican nominee and help that a**hole Harry Reid. I just hope that Nevada conservatives don’t fool around and help get Reid re-elected.

   Someone needs to ask Mr. Ashjian– and the IAP nominee– which of the two Senate caucuses– Democrat or Republican– he’ll join if he’s elected. If he picks one, the next question is, “Why aren’t you running under that party label?”

   If there’s “no difference” between the two major parties, why did anyone give a damn who won the special election for US senator in Massachusetts?

5. Steve,

   I’ve always thought the IAP in Nevada should just form a caucus or something witin that states’ GOP.

6. What I’ve heard from a few Party leaders- when that situation happens, they’ll either caucus with the GOP or caucus with nobody, though if you want to have some influence, then caucusing with the GOP would probably be the better option.

7. From what I’m hearing about these people, they are NOT legit; most of these “Tea Party” members are complete unknowns in the TP movement and they are business associates of Jon Scott Ashjian.

8. And the IAP candidate for Senate is Tim Fasano.

9. #6: A senator who didn’t join either caucus would definitely have very little effectiveness. The seniority system, of course, is very important in the Senate, as that seniority is built with one’s party (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, e. g., are both building seniority with the Democrats).

   But let’s face it– neither of these NV third-party candidates will be elected; they’re mainly potential spoilers for the Republican nominee.

   In 1970, James Buckley, the NY Conservative Party’s nominee for U. S. senator, beat a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. Buckley caucused with the Senate Republicans, and he ran for re-election in ’76 with both the GOP and the Conservative nominations.

   Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon switched from Republican to independent. If memory serves, he was a one-man caucus in the Senate before he switched to the Democrats (the GOP’s Bob Packwood beat him in ’68).

10. If the NV third partiers aspire to be more than spoilers they should concentrate on amending the state constitution. This can be done in NV by initiative and referendum.

    Here are example, is what could be done to undermine the duopoly:

    1. Elect one house of the legislature by PR. Most countries that have democratic elections use a form of PR to elect their legislatures. Such legislatures typically have 5-12 parties represented. In such a system the more serious minor parties actually have a very good chance of getting someone elected. And when you actually have one or more party members voting on budgets and stuff people will take you seriously. Instead of as a source of amusement.

    2. Elect major executive offices, US Senate and US House by two-round majority (i.e. runoff) elections. Eliminates the “spoiler effect”. The first-past-the-post system is fine for horse races but makes absolutely no sense for elections.

    3. Don’t go for IRV.
    http://rangevoting.org/HonestRunoff.html
    (…)
    IRV leads to stifling 2-party domination, whereas delayed runoff encourages the formation of many stable political parties, offering voters more choices. Why does that happen? Regardless of why that is, it is hard to dispute: all the IRV countries listed above are 2-party dominated in their IRV seats, whereas 21-23 of the delayed runoff countries listed above have multiparties. And this is true despite the fact most of these delayed-runoff countries have strong presidents (unlike the IRV countries), a factor that normally would enhance 2-party-domination. Is the goal of that pro-IRV group we alluded to, to destroy USA’s third parties?
    (…)

11. #10: “2. Elect major executive offices, US Senate and US House by two-round majority (i.e. runoff) elections.”

    Would the parties be able to officially nominate candidates– by primary or otherwise– in advance of the “two-round majority election,” so that there would be no more than one candidate per party on the first-round ballot? Also, would there always be a second round– or would there only be a second round (runoff) when no one got 50%-plus in the first round?

    Georgia is now the only state in which parties officially nominate candidates AND 50%-plus is required to win the general election. Since 50%-plus is also required to win a party primary, this is potentially a four-round voting process– party primaries, party runoff primaries, general election, and runoff general election.

12. #11: I should clarify that last paragraph. Mississippi and Vermont require 50%-plus to win general elections for certain offices, but the races are decided by the state legislature rather than by the people returning to the polls for a runoff.

    Here’s what almost always happens in Mississippi when no candidate gets 50%-plus in the general election: The second place finisher concedes and asks the state House of Representatives to elect the first place finisher.

    This provision was written into the 1890 Constitution as a means of preventing blacks from getting elected. Ironically, when its repeal was proposed several years ago, almost all of the black legislators opposed repealing it.

13. Dear Frank Mayberry:

    You said: “The Republican candidate I support is Bill Parson. I will not vote for Sue Lowden if she is nominated.”

    Guess what, Frank? If you vote for Bill Parson, you will be voting for Sue Lowden! Bill Parson has NO , notta, zero chance of getting the nomination. Bill Parson has never run for any office and thus has no experience as a candidate or elected official. Bill Parson has no money to conduct an effective campaign. Bill Parson will only attract votes from conservatives like you who haven’t thought this out and all these votes will do is help Sue Lowden beat Sharron Angle who is the true, proven, conservative in this race and the winner of all county precinct “straw polls” except the tiny one where you live. Sue Lowden loves fools like you because she knows that votes for Bill Parson would otherwise wind-up in the column of her toughest opponent, Sharron Angle. So Frank, if you really want Sue Lowden, you can either vote for Sue directly or vote for Bill Parson. The results will be the same – a vote for Sue Lowden. Wake-up and smell the coffee, Frank!

14. But let’s face it– neither of these NV third-party candidates will be elected; they’re mainly potential spoilers for the Republican nominee.

    = At least the IAP is already electing people on a local level in Nevada.

15. So I guess the writing is on the wall; the Democrats are going to get hammered on Election Day, right? I wouldn’t be too sure about that. There are far too many monkey wrenches that are ready to be thrown into this engine. The most amusing thing to observe during the CPAC orgy last Thursday was their subtle attempt to disassociate themselves from the so-called “Tea Party Movement” without flatly rejecting it. What is going on here?

    Here’s what’s going on: The cooler heads within the Republican National Committee know damned well that the Tea Partiers are a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode. It’s not merely the fact that most of these people are dumber than doggy dung, it is also the ugly reality that so much (although not all) of that movement is based on the nasty philosophy that has embodied the white supremacist movement for decades. You could hear it in the remarks made by the protesters at the September 12, “March on Washington”. You could see it in the signs they carried. Most of these twits refuse to even acknowledge the fact that the president of the United States is an American citizen!

    Like Neville Chamberlain appeasing der fuhrer at the Munich conference in 1938, the RNC is frantically searching for a “peace in our time” moment. They have quite a dilemma before them to be sure. On the one hand they need to keep these jackasses “inside the tent pissing out” – so to speak. On the other hand they have to avoid alienating the moderates. Like the demented uncle living in the attic, they must do everything humanly possible to make sure that any contact with the neighborhood kids is limited if you know what I mean.

    The Tea Party people are already claiming credit for Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts a couple weeks ago. They are determined to steer the course of the GOP in November, come hell or high water. If they are allowed control of the party, their extremism will only turn off a huge segment of the voting population. If they are denied that opportunity, they will splinter off into third and even fourth party uprisings. Have you ever watched an elephant try to walk a tightrope? It’s more fun than a barrel of donkeys.

    http://www.tomdegan.blogpot.com

    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

16. #14: “… the IAP is already electing people on a local level in Nevada.”

    Are those local elections partisan or nonpartisan, or some of each?

17. Pingback: Nevada Poll for U.S. Senate Race Includes Tea Party Nominee | Independent Political Report

18. #11
    Are primaries really that good an idea?
    Maybe it would be better to have candidates selected by
    mass-based membership parties like in Europe. Then the party itself would be responsible for the quality of its candidates-it couldn’t be fobbed off as the responsibility of primary voters. The recent IL Lt Gov. fiasco shows that party big-wigs feel compelled to negate “the will of the people” when the result is too embarrassing.

    In any case, two-round systems are common around the world for general elections-and party nomination procedures can be constructed in any number of different ways.

19. #18: I’ve often thought it might have been a mistake to require parties to nominate by primary, but primaries are here to stay.

    It sounds like you’re saying that, in the two-round system, it’s up to each party as to whether and how it nominates candidates. Which would mean that it’s possible to have more than one candidate per party in the first of the two rounds of voting.

    You didn’t answer as to whether there would always be a second round (or runoff), or only if no candidate got 50%-plus in the first round.

20. Looks like the “party hacks” showed up in this thread (claiming that the Tea Party is “a front”). That conspiracy theory is no different than the claim that “Ralph Nader is secretly a Republican” that various Democratic Party hacks post here now and then during presidential elections.

21. #19

    FWIW, my personal preference would be for a requirement
    that a majority of the registered voters would have to participate in the first round for the second round to be skipped.

22. Are those local elections partisan or nonpartisan, or some of each?

    = Both partisan and nonpartisan.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.