Third Parties

While I was out running an errand at lunch, I caught part of an XM130/POTUS ‘08 interview with someone from the Commission on Presidential Debates…specifically that portion concerning the fairly high threshold set to be invited to the debate (ballot access in states totaling at least 270 electoral votes, and a 15% showing in the polls).

Folks who support (or are at least sympathetic towards) third parties have long sought access to national debates.  After all, the hurdle faced by third parties is public awareness; and the easiest way to garner awareness as a credible candidate is by participating in a debate with the major candidates.

Well, the interviewee made a fairly interesting rebuttal to that point.  He pointed out that the COPD debates occur fairly late in the process.  He said (paraphrasing), “The winnowing process has occurred.  This is not the time for a candidate to launch their campaign.  We want to provide voters a chance to evaluate the most viable candidates.”

You know, that’s not a bad point.

I am still of a mind that minor parties are somewhat unfairly denied public awareness by media focus on the two dominant parties.  True, if there were a not-too-nutty, potentially electable third-party candidate to rise through the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, or any other minor party, he/she would likely eventually gain that attention.  However, it would be an uphill battle, plus “potentially electable” candidates tend to have enough of a sense of realism to align with one of the two major parties, in order to maximize their chances of election.   Heck, even Ron Paul holds GOP credentials despite his criticism of the party.

It’s kind of a chicken-and-egg situation.

One possible solution, I suppose, would be to have, say, a week-long forum on issues a couple of weeks after the major conventions wrap up.  I could imagine the event stretching over five evenings, involving the two major candidates, and (say) the three leading minor candidates.  Each evening would be dedicated to one particular topic, and candidates could provide a response from a venue of their choosing.  Grant 15 minutes each to the two major candidates, 10 each to the 3 minor candidates, and have presentation order be randomized and vary each day.

(Yes, I know, the time difference is unfair…but for such an idea to ever have a chance at succeeding, the donkeys and pachyderms will demand preferential treatment.)

Presumably, that would provide an equalizing “launching point”.  The dominant candidates would have a chance to describe who they are and what their positions might be, before campaigns degenerate too far into silly season; and the leading minor candidates would have a decent venue to get some public awareness, and perhaps enough support to achieve critical fundraising mass and entry into the debates.

It’s obviously too late to implement for the ‘08 elections…but maybe something closer to fairness could be found for 2012?

(I know.  I won’t hold my breath.  But I can dream, can’t I?)

A couple of days ago, post appeared on Third Party Watch which caught my eye:

I’ve been asked many times to work on some sort of fusion activity between Libertarians, Greens and/or Constitution Party members, but have never been presented with any long term solution which looked viable. Obviously, the Ron Paul campaign has a lot of support from both Constitution Party members and Libertarians, as well as some Green support. However, I see this as a one time alignment of the stars, based on one particular candidate (as contrasted to the other leading major party candidates) and the current international and domestic political situation.

Unity08 seems to be trying for a different sort of political union and I’m curious about what might or might not work for them, too.

Frankly, I don’t think any such fusion or union has much of a chance of succeeding for more than one or two election cycles because there are so many divisive issues (abortion, immigration, race issues, foreign policy, taxes and spending) that it can’t work. Am I wrong?

You know, I’ve periodically daydreamed about “major” third parties temporarily pooling their resources to run a slate of candidates on an “end the duopoly” platform. The wide range in political ideologies of those parties would make it difficult to have much more of a platform. However, if you wanted to try to achieve enough critical mass to be able to sell the idea of the Dem/GOP political duopoly needing to be broken… I’d bet a temporary alliance could be forged for one election cycle.

I don’t expect it to happen, but it is an intriguing idea. That’s part of the reason that I’ve been curious about Unity ‘08. Although Unity doesn’t a “third party fusion” group, their concept of drawing candidates from both of the major parties with an eye towards encouraging responsible collaboration, rather than political bickering, has some theoretical appeal.