Brandi Martindale: A New Non-Partisan Politic for America

guest post

By Brandi Martindale

Across America, voters are rejecting the political party system. For many, it’s a decision that stems from feelings of disconnect, as the parties spiral into warring factions. Fewer can relate to the political blame-game playing out in the mass media. While leaders point fingers, America grows impatient, and asks, “When is something going to get done?”

The independent movement is a sign that “When?” is “Now!” And rather than wait for the system to serve them, Americans are rejecting it completely, and demanding a new kind of non-partisan politic.

The deadlock between partisan factions - the failure of our national leaders to respond to our voice - may be precisely what America needs to rally us to action. While Washington drags its feet on issues  that are clear-cut to ninety percent of Americans independents mobilize. With the success of the  National Conference of Independents hosted by CUIP last February, the demand for non-partisan solutions is growing faster than ever.

Igniting conversations that remain focused on solutions, the independent movement isgrowing in all directions. The robust non-partisan scientific community offers us strongdata on the cost of cutting social welfare - that one dollar spent on head start programs earns twelve in future economic gains, highlighting where partisan policy falters. The words “Democrat” and “Republican” carry little value when solutions requires facts, and opinions require evidence.

The independent movement grows as constituents call and write to their Congresspeople, unhappy with officials’ behavior in office. Congresspeople are being reminded they are public servants first, and partisan loyalists second. After gun control legislation failed to pass, Harry Reid mentioned bringing it back for another vote, after a seething backlash from the public. The issues we face are neither Democrat, nor Republican - they are American. This unity is understood by the independent movement, and represents the nature of change so many want to see.

After compiling the registration data of nineteen states with closed primary elections, I have put a hard number to the independent movement. That number is thirteen million, fifteen-thousand, two hundred thirty-one. In these nineteen states with closed primaries, twenty-two percent of the voting population have no say in primary election outcomes - the first round of selection- because they do not wish to participate in the political party system. As an American, and as an agent of democracy, I find this fact appalling.

The spirit of the independent movement is strong and simple - disregard allegiance to partisan cronies, and pledge allegiance to our flag, our nation, and our people - all people. This sentiment resonates deeply with every American, regardless of which box they checked at voter registration - which more and more often is ‘other’, ‘unaffiliated’, No Preference”, or simply “I do not wish to join a political party”.

Brandi Martindale is an activist with the NYC Independence Party, and is currently working as a research intern for Columbia University, at independentvoting.org. Brandi is completing her MA in Organizational Social-Psychology this summer, and brings an understanding of organizational structure and group behavior to the conversation of non-partisan politics.

California Prop 14 is a Good Thing Because Political Parties Are Un-American

by William J. Kelleher, PhD

from OpEd News

California's Proposition 14  provides a new way for the people of California to pursue the American Dream of Liberty through self-government.    Prior to the enactment of Prop 14, only officially recognized "qualified" parties could conveniently run candidates in the primary election.   "Unqualified" outsiders had prohibitive barriers, such as costly fees and high numbers of signatures on petitions to be placed on the ballot.   Candidates in the qualified parties didn't have to suffer these restrictions.  

More than three million Californians were effectively barred from voting in the primary election simply because they declined to register to vote as a member of any of the half dozen qualified parties.   They could have lied about identifying with one of the qualified parties at the time of registering to vote, so that they could cast a primary vote; but because of their personal integrity they were unjustly deprived of the opportunity to vote in the primary election.   They could only vote in the general election for the "left overs."

Thus, an oligarchy of a half dozen qualified parties reigned in the state primary election process.   But there was an oligarchy of two parties within that oligarchy.   So-called "third parties," like Peace and Freedom, Greens, Libertarians, etc had the status of being "qualified," however, in practice they held very little power.   With over 125 elective offices in the CA government, third parties rarely held more than a few lesser positions.   Dems and Repubs held the vast majority of CA offices.   Allowing third parties the status of being qualified has never been more than a device for fooling them into thinking that the two-party system was open and democratic.   Even within the CA two-party system, one party dominates the legislative branch -" the Dems.  

This one-party legislature is the nightmare come true for our Founding Generation. Because they had just fought a revolution against a king, they put their faith in the legislature, rather than the executive, to represent the people.   They shared Madison's understanding that in "republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." (Fed 51)   Hence, the first Article of the Constitution defines the legislative branch. 

Full article at OpEd News  

Kresky: Rights of Voters v. Rights of Parties

Leading independent attorney Harry Kresky penned a great HuffPo piece up today called Let's Have an Honest Debate About the Role of Parties:

"Proposition 14 abolished party primaries and replaced them with a system known as "top two." All candidates will appear on a single ballot in a primary election in which all registered voters can participate and candidates can list party preference. The two highest vote getters face off in the November general election. A similar reform is now under consideration by a New York City Charter Revision Commission which has the authority to put it before the City's voters in the November 2010 or 2011 election.

The pro-party argumentation - laid out in syndicated columns this week authored by George Will and David Broder, along with Errol Louis' column in the New York Daily News - goes as follows. The political parties, they say, are central to our democracy as vehicles for voter education and mobilization, and the selection of candidates who represent their members' preferences. Their right to do so is protected by the First Amendment, as is the right of citizens to form parties to advance their common interests. Without parties, we are told, billionaires and unchecked special interest groups will come to dominate our political system.

At the core of this position is a legal and logical sleight of hand that conflates the right of the people to form parties (and other associations like labor unions) to advance common interests with the control of the electoral system by the parties. The two are not the same...." [read more]

Errol Lewis called Prop 14 "dangerous" and "un-American."  If you think THAT'S dangerous, read Kresky's piece and forward it to everyone you know.

California Proposition 14: Rights of People vs. Rights of Parties - The Second American Revolution

IndependentVoting.org attorney Harry Kresky's piece today on HuffPo Words Matter: Voters to Get Fair Wording of California Open Primary Initiative is a gem. Read it, and re-read it, and then read it to your friends!

The assertion of such a right by the parties raises a fundamental question about the nature of our democracy. Does it rest on the rights of voters or on the rights of parties? On one level the answer is simple. The Constitution makes no mention of political parties. The Bill of Rights speaks of the "rights of the people," not of the parties. After all, it is the people who organize the parties, so how could the rights of the parties they organize trump theirs?

We face a challenge every day in this country -- move forward, or stay here? And "stay here" increasingly means going backwards.


In the very early days of our American revolution,  soon after the independent forces won, George Washington warned us about the "baneful effects of party".  In that spirit, let's continue the struggle.
-NH

Progressives and Independents

I: Kicking the Left with Impunity

There was an interesting discussion at the Open Left blog today in the wake of Barack Obama picking conservative evangelical pastor Rick Warren to say the convocation at his Presidential inauguration:

[T]here are clear benefits for Democrats who are able to generate public, left-wing outrage against their actions…This is a widely held view, and is openly shared by Democrats as high ranking as Rahm Emanuel. As long as the generation of public, left-wing outrage toward their actions is understood to be politically beneficial to Democrats, then many Democrats will continue to undertake actions that have the direct or indirect goal of generating public, left-wing outrage at their actions. This is pretty straightforward. As long as the cost of annoying progressives is not only zero, but actually a net positive, then Democrats will continue to annoy progressives ad infinitum.

For a solution, the article argues:

Progressives must make the political cost of such actions unacceptable to the Democrats who are willing to undertake such actions for political benefit. At the congressional level, I accept kos's premise that the only means of holding Democrats accountable for angering progressives are primary challenges (sitting on your hands or supporting third-party candidates just doesn't work). Or, to be a bit more accurate, the only way for outsiders like us to engage in progressive accountability for Democrats in Congress is to spend actual resources attacking a member of Congress in his or her district.

The commenter “leftvet” observes:

The only accountability that works for politicians are political consequences. The left is currently unable to exact political consequences on any politician, so we are, of course, ignored or vilified. Chris has summed it up very well. Progressives have no real choice but to continue to support mainstream Democrats, no matter how many times they f**k us over, because there is no other electoral option available to us. The Dems know it, and continue to exploit that situation.

This conversation is fascinating to me on so many levels. As someone who self-identifies as a Progressive, it is truly maddening to witness case after case after case of Democrats kicking Progressive values and politics to the curb once they get elected even after they ran on the promise and symbolism of Progressive idealism. It is as if once elected, the best way to gain political credibility is to take gratuitous potshots at liberals and left-wingers who supported them in elections.

The discussion at Open Left, although it hits upon many of the right points, completely misses a very big point -- not everyone agrees the best strategy to enact a Progressive agenda is to elect Democrats into office. Many people who are potential supporters of any Progressive movement are NOT Democrats, have absolutely no intention of being Democrats, and do not have any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party given the party’s record on many issues Progressives care deeply about.

No one seems to be seriously talking about appealing to and bringing Independents into the fold -- and this comes at a time when satisfaction with government is at an all-time low and the number of people who are self-identifying politically as anything other than Democrats and Republicans is at an all-time high. I don’t claim to be an all-knowing political guru but I am tired of Progressives getting their asses kicked by Democrats in the process of playing by the rules of the game of American electoral politics.

Is the only viable goal for Progressive activism to elect Democrats into office (even if they are better Democrats)?

II: The Fight for Open Primaries

Here’s an idea: how about Leftist Progressive activists join Independents in efforts for radical structural reform? One effort they can join very easily right now is the effort by Independents for Open Primaries. A petition is circulating right now to ask President Barack Obama to:

• Initiate and support federal legislation to create open primaries for election to federal office in all 50 states that guarantees full access for independent voters;

• Establish a Presidential Task Force on Political and Electoral Reform that includes representatives of the broad movement of independent voters to consider sweeping nonpartisan reform of the electoral process and its administration;

• Use the bully pulpit to speak out on the importance of open primaries and the inclusion of independents in all aspects of the electoral and political process.

They are trying to reach 1,000 signatures by Inauguration. This is one way Progressives can get themselves introduced to the burgeoning movement among Independents who, increasingly, are becoming aware of their political potential. It is one way Progressives can form a bridge with Independents to join in an effort they care about (and which stands to benefit voters and political parties who seek a viable alternative to the Democrats).

Conversations on the Future of the Obama Movement

A lot of people are really excited right now about Barack Obama's clinching the Dem nomination. Indeed we, the American people, can be very proud that we have created this moment.

“I think Barack Obama’s achievements are historic,” Lenora Fulani told BlackAmericaWeb.com, “not simply because he is about to become a major party nominee, but because he tapped into that deep desire that people have to create something new in American politics. The black community has been -- and will continue to be -- a major force in that creative process.” (Dr. Fulani herself ran an historic campaign for the presidency in 1988 as an independent and was the first African American and first woman to be on the ballot in all 50 states in US history.)


David Winer in Blow up the Beltway, talking about whether Obama will turn into an insider once he's in office, says "I don't want to be an insider, I don't want the insiders to rule, I don't want there to be insiders at all. I want to distribute opportunity and acknowledge intelligence and goodness where ever it appears..." Dave credits the Obama Phenomenon -- his victory as an insurgent within the Dem party over the formidable Clinton machine -- to the internet. Dave, after all, pioneered the development of weblogs, syndication (RSS), podcasting, outlining, and web content management software, according to his blog Scripting News.

Doc Searles agrees with that analysis in "Meet the new boss, nothing like the old boss" at Harvard Law: "But we’re done with that. I think even the talk radio addicts who hate all Democrats by reflex know the old gig is up. The reason has nothing to do with partisan politics and everything to do with Democracy 2.0. That’s the one where the threshold of participation narrows toward zero. We’re not there yet, but we’re headed that way. Obama is leading the way, but it’s not just about him, or his candidacy, or his policies...."

And "Obama's Organization, and the Future of American Politics" by Micah L. Sifry on techPresident, makes a similar point: "There are three campaigns that I've spent a lot of my life in journalism writing about: Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988; Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996; and Howard Dean in 2004. In each case, a charismatic candidate with a powerful message drew a ton of new activist energy into the process. And in each case, the movement and the man faced a moment of truth: is this about you, or the larger movement? If Obama wins in November, the question will loom larger for one critical reason: because his supporters have the capacity to self-organize on a scale never seen before in our lifetimes...."

Sifry goes on to say about the evolution of the Howard Dean campaign, "The Dean campaign list was used to spawn DemocracyforAmerica, and Howard gave the reigns to his brother Jim once he became DNC chair. DfA has kept going, with active chapters around the country, and a respectable amount of organizing and fundraising on behalf of Dean-like candidates for various levels of political office. It's not a game changer, but it is definitely something a bit more like an ongoing, people-powered organization than either the Jackson or Perot successor groups. It's not a game changer, but it is definitely something a bit more like an ongoing, people-powered organization than either the Jackson or Perot successor groups."

No, it's not a game changer. To change the game, you'd have to change the rules. You'd have to include independent voters.

Democracy and political parties are almost polar opposites. George Washington warned us in his farewell speech. Over the next few months and years, we're going to see whether the Democratic Party is more democratic or more party. Independents will be watching, and organizing.