Organize and Participate in Democracy - Breaking the Third-Party Taboo

This is an effort to unite third-party voters with lesser-of-two-evils voters, or strategic voters, who would like to be able to vote for third parties but feel they would be throwing their vote away. Rather than a state of animosity, an attitude of cooperation should exist between these two groups, because while we may not be able to win a presidential election for a third-party candidate, there are smaller elections where we can organize on a local level to convince strategic voters that their votes can swing an election for a politician who really has their interests in mind.

This video is an invitation to participate in a forum to discuss strategies to unite strategic voters with third-party voters and make real change on a local level, while sending a message to the big players that they need to take us into account. I hope to see you on the forum. Here are the links:

Forum:
http://capitalocracy.proboards.com/

Blog:
http://capitalocracy.wordpress.com/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• politics
• third
• party
• democrat
• republican
• green
• independent
• libertarian
• ralph
• nader
• ron
• paul
• barack
• obama
• john
• mccain
• sarah
• palin
• vote

[imjustagirl776]

Partisan politics will always prevail. Who is to say a third party will be any different than the two parties that exist? I believe what we need to do as a people is stop letting the govt brainwash us into subscribing to certain political mindsets (which of course are tied to religion) and just vote for the most transparent honest person out there. Which let's face it won't EVER happen. But that's what I wish for anyway.

[Capitalocracy]

Well, when I say third-party, I really mean "alternative" or "progressive" politics. Maybe I'm misusing the term, because I'm not focusing on a specific party or trying to create a party.

[imjustagirl776]

Oh... why not? We can totally create a party if we wanted to :o) We could call it something really catchy too like the quazi-anarchy in a not so free world party? I dunno... just throwing it out there. And kidding, too, of course :o)

[Capitalocracy]

Well, if you can come up with something a little catchier (seems parties have to describe themselves in two words, tops) then we can consider it... but without any interest in corporate sponsorship, and me and probably anyone else interested being pretty broke most of the time, I don't think it would get that far

[longfootbuddy]

democracy is the majority forcing their will on the minority...theres nothing noble or good about that, its just tyranny...our country is ruined because of it

[TiradeFaction]

Then move on from there. I actually don't think on a city level, or even a state legislature level, it'd really be that hard.

[TiradeFaction]

I couldn't agree more. I believe most city governments have autonomy over energy usage (such as the ability to "nationalise" or whatever it's called on a city level, the energy companies, like Cleveland still has), the ability to enact higher wages (Like SF has), and other progressive laws. I think honestly, we should all work via online (and other long distance methods, assuming you aren't in the area) in helping various progressive's win city governments, then state legislature seats.

[Capitalocracy]

Exactly, I think a national movement which specifically focuses on winning smaller elections would have two effects. It would send a message on a national level and draw attention to the cause, and the fact is that a progressive movement in local politics could make changes that really affect people on a community level.

Plus it's easier to bargain as a political movement with elected officials, rather than just being an unfunded voting block where they'll just say who the fuck are you?

[TiradeFaction]

I agree, first past the post systems are terrible, I want proportional representation like Northern Ireland.