reply to post by mister.old.school
Pardon me if I'm a little slow on the uptake, but aren't most revolutions based on the desire for greater political voice? I fail to see how
disowning mine accomplishes that objective.
There are certain forms of government wherein causing a low voter turnout (or rather low voter participation, as you have at quite commendably noted
that it is not enough to merely stay home) is an effective political manuever, and there are also situations wherein international pressure can be
brought to bear by such means. The situation in America at present seems unlikely to be affected by such a tactic however.
To formulate an effective solution, we must first identify the problem. The problem you have pointed out is that our political system is dominated by
two corrupt, unresponsive parties who are content to merely vie for the title of "lesser evil" in each election, rather than seeking a true mandate
of the people.
So the question becomes how to either change or replace the existing political parties. I do not believe they will fundamentally change in the short
term. We should attempt to replace them, and if they are not destroyed they will over time be forced to reform themselves in order to survive.
What prevents the political parties from being replaced?
1. The requirements for new parties to achieve ballot access are much higher than those on the existing major parties. For a third party to place
candidates on every ballot in America requires almost 10 times as many signitures or registrations as is required for the existing major parties.
2. The existing parties have superior fundraising ability because special interests don't throw their money away backing candidates who will never
actually get into office. They also have huge bases to draw upon.
So the answer is reasonably clear if you ask me. The "No Confidence Movement" must organize a recognized political party, register its own voters,
but put forward no candidates until it has achieved sufficient size. Even then the primary purpose of the party should not be to become a dominant
political force, and should never intend to put forward candidates everywhere they are able to, but only in those instances where such a move allows
them to tip the balance of power and thus bargain for changes in the process.
In the short term, the party's unpledged voters and unpledged dollars become a balance holder between the two major parties that can be used to buy
Better still, as the parties voter registration base grows over time (largely due to members who register, never do anything, but remain registered
under the party simply because they never have to re-register) the party eventually gains ballot access equal to that of the major parties, and has
the right to set its own unique primary rules, just like any party.
Thus a "None of the Above" Party would be able to play both sides against the middle not to achieve policy aims, but to improve the system whereby
such aims are achieved, and also to set an example for the people of what they should expect from the other parties in terms of clear and