Politics: What does it take to start a 3rd political party in America?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 14-7-2007 @ 06:35 PM by Justin Oldham
PODcast:

What does it take to start a 3rd political party in America? (reply 3)


So, you want to start a political party? Where do you start? How do you start? Listen...and be afraid.






length: 09:57
file: ptspod_2420.mp3
size: 1156k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)

This was recorded before Freedom ERP made his reply, but I think you'll find that it answers many of the questions he put forward. As you can hear from what he's done, it's not hard to be conversational with a mike in one hand and a mouse in the other. Just be yourself, and talk.

Any political organization needs to start small, even the one you create that may eventually go on to dominate the country you live in.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by Justin Oldham]


reply posted on 15-7-2007 @ 06:28 PM by Justin Oldham
PODcast:

What does it take to start a 3rd political party in America? (reply 5)


As you plot and scheme to create your own political party, how should look at information security? What are the issues? Why should you care?






length: 09:59
file: ptspod_2423.mp3
size: 1172k
feed:
status: live (at time of posting)

For some reason, there is a little bit of static in the first five seconds, and I can't seem to trace the problem from my end. A jet liner was flying over at the time I was recording. Maybe that was it.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by Justin Oldham]


reply posted on 15-7-2007 @ 09:53 PM by MidnightDStroyer
To me, Pcasts #1 & 2 are the same thing...Is it just me or are they actually identical?

I've just listened to your Pcast #3 for this topic: Again, I notice the likening to a conspiracy group when you mentioned how the orgainization begins developing like a "spiderweb." Being like a spiderweb it must, by necessity, start in a "hub" or "Centerspot" & branch out with influence in many directions at the same time. Another concept that fits (at least marginally) is like the much-cliched traveling salesman...The key being that the party/conspiracy group/salesman all rely on social "networking" to succeed, plus be capable of cordially speaking to a few or many people at once.

Another thing I relate to is that, should a new political party fail & devolve into a mere "social group," I've found that one of the NESARA scams has done just that...All they've really been able to accomplish is to make all sorts of ridiculous claims & write "reports" on their progress, all of which have no basis in reality: In short, that particular NESARA scam has been making pronouncements equal to what you'd expect out of a full-fledged Government without the benefit of being able to enforce anything they've "accomplished." That scam-group pretends to be replacing the current Federal Government at all levels (which goes far beyond the goals of the real Act). But what the real NESARA does is limited to being an Act to stabalize the economy that hasn't even been introduced into Congress as a Bill yet.

It looks to me that particular scam has devolved into a mere social group, just as you've indictated.
--------------------------------

In your Pcast #4 you mentioned that a new political party, it may best to "hide in plain sight," possible by presenting an image of meekness or incapability so as to not appear as "being a threat" to the Big Sharks: In this aspect, I'd consider caution on selecting a "public image" of being "incapable" because that very same image can easily backfire in the public's perception, which would reduce your new party down to a mere social group. If the image of "incapability" is used, then you'd actually have to be super-capable in the background...But if this can be pulled off just right, at least it should "draw out" potential political enemies (lurking back in the darkness of the grandstand that you mentioned ) who seek to "test your resolve" in the political arena.

It's usually a wise man who can at least identify his most serious opposition as early as possible, so that he can more efficiently prepare for the political "battle" itself. I think President Bush made good use of "incapable," what with all of the language-mangling he does (How many "Bushisms" have you heard of lately? )...But he's managed to do more damage to the Constitution & Foreign Policy than any other Administration in American history this way.

And the way you described TheBorg's humorous method of mentioning the "Dark Side" of politics still works that way in real politics...No matter how much of the "high road" a new political party chooses to go, you'll still run into the "Sith Lords" that other parties will use against you. This is the main reason I suggested use of caution (in the above paragraph).

About that music before your verbal introduction: Nice line of lyrics, very appropriate. But did it have to be a piece of a song entitled, "Sympathy for the Devil"?
-----------------------------------

On to my thoughts on Pcast #5:
Well, about the only thing that you didn't make obvious (at least not reasonably obvious to those who are new to Conspiracy Theory) about the espionage/counter-espionage part of politics is that there's a lot more places than the local Radio-Shack that have those neat little "spytoys" available...But then, in a Pcast, you're working with a limited time frame & the ATS Staff doesn't like Members to actually advertise businesses (The Staff prefers to keep that Right for themselves for the use of website Sponsor-Ads, of course ).


reply posted on 22-7-2007 @ 06:21 PM by Occam
The first problem isn't forming a 3rd party, it's getting candidates elected or even getting on most ballots. The difficulty is that in our system people believe they will waste their vote if they don't vote for the less terrible of the two main parties. The solution to this is to press for the "Instant Run-off" system. Each voter gets to vote for his/her first choice AND his second choice.

For example, the Libertarians are a third party, but they get very few votes even though a fair number of people agree with their positions. Assume fiscal responsibility is uppermost in a voter's list of qualifications for a candidate. S/he decides that the Libertarian candidate would be his/her best choice, but s/he votes Democrat so his/her vote won't be wasted. With Instant Run-off s/he votes Libertarian as 1st choice and Democrat as 2nd choice.

If the Libertarians have the lowest total, all the votes for them are assigned to the second choices. At present, about 3% of the voters actually vote Libertarian. But with Instant Run-off people could voice their real first choice without losing their vote. Let's assume the results showed 30% of voters chose Libertarian, 32% chose Democrat, and 33% chose Republican. All the Libertarian votes would be distributed between the other two parties according to voter 2nd choice.

BUT, and this is important, all the newspapers would report that 30% of the voters wanted Libertarian. Now, the third party has just been given real power, because it has a good chance of winning in the next election.

This is necessary to stop 3rd parties from being frozen out.

The second reform that's necessary is Clean Money. That way, huge contributors can't flood the airways with advertisements for their candidates and unfairly influence the average voter.

Once Instant Run-off and Clean Money are in place, there would be no problem with people forming 3rd parties and giving the voters a REAL choice.

Occam


reply posted on 29-7-2007 @ 01:32 PM by hotpinkurinalmint
It is not just the structure of the US government and political system that hinders the formation of 3rd parties that can seriously challenge the big two, but the binary logic of the typical American.

I love America and America and its people have done many great things. The major flaw that too many Americans have is that they see the world in black and white, they do not seem to grasp the concepts of nuance or moderation. We see this binary logic in everything from the mass produced goods Americans buy, the entertainment American's watch, and the media's coverage of events.

For example, when the popular media covers the stock market, the market is described as being exuberantly bearish or woefully bullish. We never hear the popular media describe the stock market as proceeding at a modest and steady clip. In our blockbuster movies, there are villains and heroes, but no characters who are in between. Many of our mass produced products are either extremely big or extremely small, containing zero calories or extremely fatty. It is rare to find a successfully mass marketed product that is "in between."

Similarly, the political process does not give the American voters nuance. They are forced to choose between left or right. True, sometimes a "centrist" comes along, but these centrists are often aligned with one side or the other. If we are going to have viable third parties, we need to find a way of marketing the ideas of nuance and moderation to the American people.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^