Third Party Independent 1.1 by damon eris

Next issue: *Looking Ahead to 2012 *Third Party and Independent Strategy *Classifieds *Events Listing

Third Party

Independent The Premier News Source for Independent Politics, Business and Culture

Issue I. Vol. I

$1.00

Op-ED:

For Greens, Small Victories Yield Big Results

The Libertarian Party’s Role in 2011 and Beyond

By Ross Levin

hen Greens get into power, meaningful and constructive reform takes place. In Arkansas in 2008, a combination of gerrymandering and Democratic corruption and ineptitude resulted in the election of a Green State Representative, the only one in the nation at the time. Even though he switched to the Democratic Party before the end of his term – and was subsequently defeated in a primary – Representative Richard Carroll achieved an immense amount during his time as a Green, especially given his status as the ultimate minority party representative. Carroll introduced a bill that was eventually signed into law by the governor of Arkansas, giving minor parties more time to collect signatures required for ballot access. He also introduced a bill that would have made staying on the ballot easier for minor parties, but the Democratic Party “worked to kill the proposals behind his back,” according to a GreenPartyWatch.org interview with the party’s Arkansas press secretary. Carroll garnered a considerable amount of attention for the Green Party and for some ideas that are kept out of the political dialogue by Arkansas’ strikingly similar major parties. For instance, although Carroll is himself Catholic, he worked to amend the state constitution so that openly atheist individuals would be allowed to serve in office, for which he gained considerable recognition. Carroll was also able to lend his support to a good deal of successful bills, from a cigarette tax to the expansion of wetland conservation efforts. Just as impressive as this being the work of a single Green state legislator, all of these accomplishments took place in the part of his term while he was still a Green. It provides a glimpse of just how much a new party with fresh ideas and a bit of energy can

By Warren Redlich

Special Report: The Coming Independent Majority in America By Damon Eris

cont.p.4

Reason Foundation Poll

he American public’s deep discontent with the Democratic and Republican parties is nowhere more apparent than in the swelling ranks of self-described Independents across the country. There are more Independents in the United States than there are Democrats or Republicans. According to the Pew Research Center, 37% of Americans identify themselves as Independents, compared with only 34% who affiliate with the Democratic party and 29% who identify as Republicans. In more than ten states, Independents outnumber Republicans and Democrats combined. In a handful of others, there are more Independents than there are members of one or the

A Two Party System: The Views of the Founders

A Declaration of Independence from Party

hen in the course of human events it becomes necessary for people to dissolve the partisan political bands which have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of one’s fellow

citizens requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are insti-

tuted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety

cont. p .9

cont.p.3

The Declaration of Independence and the Two-Party System

By Darcy Richardson t would not be an exaggeration to say that the Constitution was devised, in large part, to mitigate the effect of political factions. Deeply influenced by Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and Jean Jacques Rousseau — three European philosophers who regarded political parties as a threat to stable government — the founders of the new republic were acutely sensitive to the dangers presented by these entities both to the general interest, as well as to individual rights. By and large, the framers of the Constitution viewed political parties as a source of weakness and division. “Nothing could be more illjudged,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, “than that intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties. The pestilential breath of faction,” he argued, “may poison the fountains of justice” and “it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.” Recognizing that “the latent causes of factions are…sown in the nature of man” and that “the spirit of party in different degrees must be expected to infect all political bodies,” the proponents of the new Union saw the remedy in the form of an extended republic of continent-wide proportions, a national government of divided powers and a federal system in which the states would supplement and check the authority of the central government. cont.p 9.

other major parties. In New York, for instance, there are more voters who decline any party affiliation or are registered with a third party than there are registered Republicans. Despite their numbers, Independents remain woefully underrepresented in local, state and federal government. There is but one Independent governor in the entire country, Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee. There are only two Independents in the US Senate and no Independent or third party members in the US House. In New York, there is only one Independent in the State House, Fred Thiele of the Independence Party, and a small Independent Democratic caucus in the State Senate, which has just four members.

he strongly libertarian Ron Paul is running again for the Republican presidential nomination. He is also building a significant “Liberty” faction within the GOP. What should libertarians do in the next few years? How do we balance our support for the Libertarian party on the one hand and the Ron Paul movement on the other? For the last 10 years or so I’ve been straddling the line between the Libertarian and Republican parties. While my views have been libertarian for many years, there is a lot of internal strife in the Libertarian party and sometimes it seems more practical to work within the GOP. While maintaining my friendships with key Libertarian party leaders, I ran for Congress as a Republican in 2004 and 2006. At one point I briefly served as the NY LP’s state political director. In 2007 I was elected as a Republican to my hometown town board in Guilderland, NY. I did not attempt to run on the LP line in any of these races because of New York’s absurdly difficult signature requirements. In 2010 I was the Libertarian party candidate for Governor. I attempted to get into the GOP race as well. NY allows “fusion” voting where candidates can run on multiple lines and add the votes from different lines together. I had hoped to get the Tea Party movement to support me as an outsider candidate for the GOP, but was undercut by a wealthy candidate. Despite his many failings (recent contributions to Hillary Clinton, for example), the Tea Party leadership fell for his money and his political consultants, and I was unable to get into a GOP primary.

and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that all people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, cont.p 6.

The Impossible Rise of the Vermont Progressive Party By Peter Donovan

t may come as a surprise some, but there is in fact a highly successful third party in the United States. However, it only exists in the small state of Vermont. It is the Vermont Progressive Party. Its origins can be traced back to the rise of US Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent and the only selfproclaimed Socialist in the Senate. In 1981, Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington, beating six term conservative Democrat Gordon Paquette. Even more shocking, in 1987, he defeated a candidate endorsed by both major parties. They really wanted to get rid of him! Sanders brought the best and the brightest into City Hall and implemented many reforms that were simply modern good government. He empowered a wide range of citizens to have a direct voice in city government, from students, to the poor, to the elderly. It was during Sanders’ term as mayor that Terry Bouricius, a member of the Burlington City Council affiliated with the Citizens Party, formed the Progressive Coalition, an informal alternative party which eventually morphed into the Vermont Progressive Party. Vermont Progressives started running for the Burlington City Council and getting elected from the poor, student, and middle class areas of Burlington. cont.p. 10

Third Party Independent

Independent Majority cont. from p.1

Third Party Independent News Harlem, NY 10031 Publisher Third Thing Media Media Strategy 21st Century Media Editor-in-Chief Damon Eris Contributing Authors Peter Donovan Scott Ehredt Ross Levin Randy Miller Warren Redlich Darcy Richardson Kimberly Wilder Zabby

Op-Ed

An Open Letter to the Democrats and Republicans power in America, is the job of politicians, not citizens. Regardless of his own ideological leanings, Howard Zinn was prescient on this matter, and what he wrote in a 2007 column in The Progressive entitled “Are We Politicians or Citizens?” applies to Americans of all political stripes: “When a social movement adopts

Cartoons: Randy Miller For information email info@thirdpartyindependent. com

by Ross Levin his is addressed to all progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans, to all those who believe that voting is the highest civic duty, to those who wallow in despair after voting for “the lesser evil” changes nothing, to independents who “lean toward” a major party, and to all supporters of Democrats and Republicans who cannot be neatly categorized. It is time to break free from the two major parties. While certainly colored and guided by my passions, my opinions are based in fact, history, and reason. For those who vote for and even work to elect the lesser of two evils even though they disagree with the candidates themselves, those who use the words “spoiler” and “vote-splitter” and so on, our disagreement is one of tactics and attitudes, and it does not make me crazy to hold a different political belief. In fact, if you subscribe to an ideology which limits you to the two major parties, you are probably more politically naïve than those who dare to venture outside of them. To constrain yourself to a single major political party, or to a single set of politicians, is to preemptively forfeit your own political power before the fight has even begun. A movement – whether it seeks to establish universal health care, eliminate taxes, protect the wilderness, end access to abortion, or something altogether different – cannot constrain itself to a single political party, or even the single tactic of influencing elections, or it will be doomed to To focus failure. solely on elections, especially to focus solely on the two parties which seek to hold onto their significant

“The two major parties are tools used by those in power to eliminate dissent and opposition and cement their own hold on power...”

the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in

meekly behind them. . . . That mantra— “the best we can get”—is a recipe for corruption… We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.” While this difference is based more in attitudes and tactics than sanity, stupidity, or other elements of ad hominem attacks, one side must be right and one side must be wrong. The side which preemptively forfeits its own political might by conforming to the standards and approved tactics of exactly those in power whom they profess to fight against, that is the side of the supporters of the duopoly. People with less conventional opinions are either blatantly pushed out of the parties or forced to comply with the party line, eliminating new ideas that push politics forward. The courage to be radical, honest, or different in any significant way is systematically weeded out, among activists, thinkers, and from there, ordinary citizens. This suppression of creative and out-of-the-ordinary ideas among those who are politically engaged (or obsessive) results in these ideas having less people to spread them among more ordinary people, even if the audience is still there. If you are reading this newspaper, it can be assumed that you are at least somewhat politically aware and active. So to all of you who hold political opinions yet constrain yourselves to the major parties and to the fencesitters and to those of you who do not yet see it as your responsibility as a citizen to oppose the two major parties, now is the time to act. The two parties are tools used by those in power to eliminate dissent and opposition and cement their own power. As long as the two major parties control this nation, none of our many crises will ever be solved. It is time to ask the question, will you rise up to the challenge? Will you, as a citizen, take what is perhaps the least dramatic step you can – given the context of the social movements which changed our history – toward positive change, by abandoning the duopoly? Or will you aid the powers-that-be in the looting of America?

• Ross Levin lives in Pennsylvania and will be attending Wesleyan University in the fall. He has been involved in various third party efforts, including current volunteer work with the Green party of Philadelphia. He can be reached at rossmlevin@gmail.com

One of the more perplexing paradoxes of our politics under the conditions of the Democrat-Republican two-party state, is the chasm between the large number of people who describe themselves as Independents and the small number of people who vote for candidates other than those representing the Republican and Democratic parties. There are numerous potential explanations of this contradiction. It might be supposed that many voters are simply not as independently minded as they think they are; or that they practice a form of defensive politics by voting for the lesser of two evils, or against the greater of two evils. Yet a majority of Americans consistently say a third political force is needed in the United States. A Reason Foundation survey from this past spring found that 80% of those polled they said would consider voting for a third-party or Independent candidate for in president In a 2012. poll Gallup May, from 52% of respondents agreed that the Democratic and Republican parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is necessary. In a survey commissioned by The Hill late last year, 54% of likely voters said that a viable third party would be good for American politics, and that they desire an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. These numbers confirmed the results of a previous CBS News/New York Times poll which also found that 54% of Americans say the country needs a third party. Ironically, if the majority of Americans who desire a third party or Independent alternative to the Democrats and Republicans supported such alternatives in the voting booth, they would easily trounce their Republican and Democratic rivals. Recognizing this simple fact, the professional partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties rely on a series of well known arguments to convince the more independently minded among us that we must continue to support the Democratic and Republican parties against our better judgment. They say we must support the lesser evil between the major parties, as if the lesser evil weren’t still an evil. They

say voting for third party or Independent candidates is throwing one’s vote away, as if you are not throwing your vote away when you cast your ballot for a major party candidate even though you would rather support an Independent. They say it will take too much time to build an Independent and third party movement, that we should work to reform the major parties, as if it would not take decades to reign in the corruption that is endemic to Republican-Democrat party politics. They say third party and Independent movements have often failed in the past, and that we must resign ourselves to the misrule of Democrats and Republicans whether we like it or not, as if history and political struggle were nothing more than deterministic games. In their arguments for maintaining and reproducing the current party system, Democrats and Republicans reveal that the politics of the reigning two-party state is primarily characterized by resigned cynicism, political impatience and historical fatalism. Political freedom and independence today begins with freedom and independence from the Republican and Democratic parties. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned precisely against the form of bipolar factionalism that defines our politics under the reigning two-party state: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty,” wrote our nation’s first president in a letter addressed to the people of the United States as he neared the end of his second term in office. It is time to declare our political independence from the frightful despotism of two-party government. Damon Eris can be contacted at damoneris@gmail.com

To Advertise in Third Party Independent

Call 212-470-7860 or email spinmediaworld@gmail.com Page 3

Third Party Independent continued from p.1 change, if given the opportunity. But power is not acquired and utilized solely through the election process. In Philadelphia, where I am a frequent volunteer for a recently revived Green Party, our candidate for Sheriff, Cheri Honkala, was part of a coalition of poor people, homeless people, activists, and elected officials who stopped a City Council bill attempting to ease the criteria for police to arrest the homeless. The bill’s primary supporter on City Council was, according to Philadelphia

Weekly, “worried about the protests.” Another example can be found in Maine, a state with a relatively well-organized Green Party. In 2010, small businessman Fred Horch ran for state representative in Brunswick, Maine. He ran one of the strongest Green state legislative campaigns in the nation, losing by less than 200 votes. He beat a Republican and lost to a Democrat. Since then Horch has formed the League of Brunswick Voters. It is, in his words, an organization meant “to follow what our elected officials are doing and

to provide a platform where citizens can propose better public policies.” Greens have managed to influence their communities without formally taking power, led by activists like Fred Horch and Cheri Honkala. In Philadelphia, we’ve used the power of protest to effect change, while in Maine a failed electoral bid is being used to create a stronger and more democratic community. Despite a popular misconception, the Green Party is not the left wing of the Democratic Party. There are several key differences even between the most

Two-Party Failure Requires a Third Party Solution Article by Scott Ehredt

here are three scenarios in which the federal government may appear effective. Unfortunately however, each scenario also demonstrates the failure of our political process to address critical national issues in a timely manner. These failures indicate our political process needs to take an evolutionary step forward if we are to compete globally. We can sweep away the gridlocked government of the Democratic and Republican parties and replace it with pragmatic government according to the will of the informed political center. The National Centrist Party aims to replace politics as usual with politics as it should be: representative, competitive, honest, civil and pragmatic. The first scenario where government may seem effective is in response to a crisis such as the current situation with the national debt. Some would heap

by Randy Miller

et me first present some background. In January 2009 I attended the biannual conference of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP), a.k.a. independentvoting.org. At the conference, I did some polling and follow-up phone calls as part of a volunteer training workshop. In the next office, one of the staffers pulled some interesting news stories to share with me. The first story was a transcript of an interview with Utah’s then Governor Jon Huntsman in which Huntsman astutely observed that closed GOP primaries and gerrymandering were suppressing voter turnout. The second factoid they brought to my attention was current voter registration statistics for Utah: 8.8% Democrat, 39.0% Republican, and 51.5% unaffiliated. I'm keenly interested in statistics and scientific realities – an interest the parties don't share with equal passion. In preparation for this column, I called the

praise on legislators for “saving us” when in reality it is their job to conduct the financial affairs of our nation in a way that prevents crisis. It is a failure of our political process that we are now faced with a national debt crisis. In the second scenario, the Federal government may also seem effective when one party fully controls the legislative and executive branches because they are able to pass legislation along party lines (e.g. Health Care Reform in 2010). Unfortunately this much control is rarely available and the laws passed typically do not enjoy support of a majority of voters, as was confirmed when the electorate relieved the Democrats of control of the House in 2010. Passage of legislation along party line vote is a failure because such legislation serves less than half the nation. The last case involves “compromise” between the major parties where both get what they want but the American people as a whole are worse off as a result. Consider Medicare Part D where

the parties provided a great service to seniors, but neglected to set up matching revenues to pay for it, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the resulting debt. Or consider the recent stimulus bill where one party got an extension of Bush Tax Cuts while the other got a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. While we all appreciate lower taxes, there is a direct negative effect on the budget deficit. It is a failure of our political process that the Democratic and Republican parties' idea of compromise leaves America in a compromised financial position. It is not surprising that government is so ineffective since it is essentially a self-regulated monopoly. The Republican and Democratic parties operate as a duopoly and consequently experience little competition. Can you think of any company in the private sector that has existed for 150 years as our major parties have? There are few because competition ensures that business must continually evolve and innovate in order to stay in business.

Greens refuse to be kowtowed like progressive Democrats and other supporters of the major parties. After all, what good does it do to elect people if they’re afraid to use their power?

progressive of Democrats and Greens, including – but certainly not limited to – the Green Party’s firm basis in ecological values, its refusal to take corporate donations, and its commitment to smalld democratic ideals. One of the more significant of the divergences is how these groups use their power. Although small, with only 136 elected officials currently and a much smaller base than either major party,

Socially we have evolved a great deal as well. But politically we still have 100% of the same major parties that we had 150 years ago. If these were private entities, government would have long ago forced competition on them for the benefit of the American people. But because the duopoly also writes the rules of the election process, they happily create or maintain structural impediments to competition as a means to ensure their continued grip on power. As a result, it’s difficult to name any major evolutionary step in our political process since the Civil Rights Movement 50 years ago. Any private company that failed to evolve or innovate its process over the past 50 years is long gone. It is time we expose the Democrats and Republicans to the same fate by fostering competition from a moderate third party. Competition can bring about an evolutionary step forward in our politics either by electoral victory of a third party or by forcing the ruling parties to adopt a new election process that represents the views of more Americans. A successful third party will need to be positioned between the two major parties, which seem willing to open the space between them ever wider. Be-

cause you’ve read this far, I can safely assume you take politics seriously. If American politics has one common thread, it is liberty. Yet our current political process risks our liberty. In the words of John Adams, “There are two ways to enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt.” If we are to ensure our liberty, we must manage our finances in a mature way. But the existing political process has proven consistently that the government it produces is only capable of mismanagement. Now that it has become a crisis, the Republicans and Democrats are forced to address it, but they likely will do so only with half measures. The only way to prevent the next crisis (and incremental decline of our living standard) is to replace the political process by which we produce our Government. The major parties will not do this unless they see they have no other choice. We must provide them with no other choice by banding together in opposition under a third party. Does this sound reasonable, but you’re not sure if you want to “get involved”? Consider what those who have gone before you have done to secure your liberty. We have brave acts of men and women in previous generations who

won Women’s Suffrage as well as Civil Rights. And of course we have the heroics of men (and women) that risked and, in many cases, sacrificed everything in combat as they faced difficult circumstances in the extreme (e.g. Iwo Jima, Normandy). Have you earned your liberty? Have you secured liberty for the next generation? By becoming ever more polarized and abandoning the center, the Republican and Democratic parties have presented us with a historic opportunity to provide pragmatic, honest and civil governance according to the will of informed Centrists. We do not need to storm the beaches of Normandy to secure liberty for the next generation. In fact, the steps needed are easy and financially trivial at an individual level. Yet they are no less crucial; it will not happen without you. The National Centrist Party offers this evolutionary step, which we believe will replace politics as we know it today with politics as it should exist: politics that are representative, competitive, honest, civil, and pragmatic. Find out more and get signed up at www.NationalCentristParty.org. Scott Ehredt is the co-founder of the National Centrist Party

What should America know about the independent movement in Utah? Utah Lt. Governor's office to get up to date voter registration numbers and see what if any trends could be identified. They reported 8.7% (D), 37.2% (R) – oops I almost typed ($) – and 53.5% unaffiliated voter registrations: a 2% gain for indies between 2009 and 2011. In 2007, the local news outlet KSL (ksl.com) reported that Utah voter identification was 45% independent, 38% Republican and 21% Democrat. The article also reported that just 5 years earlier in 2002, independent voter identification was a mere 19%. Ross Perot, the Reform Party candidate for President in 1992, finished second in just two states: Maine and Utah. The tally in Maine was 39% for Clinton, 30% for Perot and 30% for Bush Sr. In more conservative Utah, Clinton finished last with 24.7% to Perot's 27.3% and Bush's 43.4%. What can the reasonable observer make of all this?

First, it is clear that the systems in place are not working toward the end of a government by the people, of the people, for the people in Utah or the United States. Party bosses and insiders are content however and vigorously defend the status quo just as their antecedents defended the practice of denying the vote to non-white, non-male, and nonproperty holding citizens. Parties view their success as nothing more than an effective counterbalance to the 'other' side that they view with derision and suspicion. Second, the bulk of voters today are more savvy than even the party loyalists. Playgrounds today for example are outfitted with various and sundry children's toys, but the parties are content to bicker and argue figuratively about the code of conduct for the teeter-totter. In the 21st century, the parties are plying their phony old smoke and mirror tricks and focusing on ideological gags that a

growing segment of voters have rightly pegged as merely ancillary. Independents are primarily concerned with structural political reforms that open up the process to all citizens without regard to partisan affiliations. Third, I think it is generally recognized among the electorate that it is time for some things to change. They may not all be able to put their finger on what exactly, but there exists a common awareness that some old institutions need to step aside. This scenario is playing out right now here in Utah. Last year our sitting Senator, Bob Bennett, was ousted at the Republican Party convention without facing a primary election. This occurred despite the fact that polls showed the majority of Utahans favored Bennett over any of his opponents. The feat was accomplished primarily by Tea Party advocates and delegates. Today's right wing phenomenon is merely concerned

about the personal economics of taxes. Colonial Americans successfully reformed the disconnect between access to political power and the governed. I could fill an encyclopedia about abuses thrust upon the people by the Utah Legislature who mistakenly think the people desire ultra-conservatism and inaccessible representatives. I think for now however I will share a brief summary of some organizing activities I am trying. 1.Keep in touch and sustain relationships with active and outspoken independents 2. Draw political cartoons 3. Thank citizen authors and editors for editorial works supporting non-partisan redistricting and open primaries. 4. Create engaging content and develop personal relationships. We need open primaries now. In January, 61% of Utahans polled supported open primaries yet the parties don't and

refer to current primary elections as 'their' primaries though they are funded with taxpayer dollars. The problem is that on this point of contention there exists a condition worse than the days of Jim Crow laws--currently a veritable poll tax is excised from the general fund, but an abridged ballot is only provided on condition of allegiance to a private political party. Thankfully this arrangement is crumbling in a few states. Populist movements have been the means of securing greater access and influence in our 'by the people' government. Open primaries and independent redistricting are the kinds of reforms that Utah and the nation needs now. No other progress on ideological concerns can be realistically expected until the voice of the people can be truly heard and acted upon. Randy Miller is the founder of the Utah League of Independent Voters

PAGE 4

Ban Hydrofracking A Permanent Ban – Not Just A Moratorium A hydrofracking moratorium has been in place in New York for the past two years while the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) does its environmental review. The moratorium issued by Gov. Paterson by executive order expires July 1, 2011. It was a symbolic gesture at best. When the DEC review is complete, the state government will then be able say it now knows how to regulate hydrofracking. Then it will be “Drill, Baby, Drill,” which inevitably means “Spill, Baby, Spill.” We know more than enough about the dangers of hydrofracking and natural gas burning to demand a ban. It's time for New Yorkers to demand a permanent ban, not another temporary moratorium!

Environmental Destruction Hydrofracking for gas injects toxicladen fresh water and sand at extremely high pressure into rock layers to shatter the stone and release the gas. In over 30 states hydrofracking has generated immense environmental problems, including contaminated drinking water, toxic waste ponds, drilling fluid leaks, and flammable tap water.

Sickness and Disease Residents of drilling areas have become chronically ill from liver, heart, blood and brain damage as well as leukemia and other cancers due to exposure to carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and radioactive wastes in the air, water and soil.

Economic Depression Property values plummet near fracking wells due to potential damage to wells, streams, land, and roads. Fracking New York will create a short term gas boom for outside investors followed by a long term economic bust for New Yorkers that destroys the environmental foundations for a sustainable prosperity. New York needs full employment security in a sustainable economy based on renewable energy, organic agriculture, tourism, and clean manufacturing.

Climate Catastrophe Natural gas is a dirty fossil fuel that releases greenhouse gases that cause global warming. A Cornell study finds that the global warming impact of natural gas is equal to or greater than coal due to the carbon dioxide released by burning gas and the leakage of methane, which is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas over a century. Burning all of the recoverable gas in the Marcellus Shale will release 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the full US per capita share of the 250 billion ton world carbon release cap through 2050 that climate scientists say is needed to prevent runaway global warming.

Ban Hydrofracking Build Clean Energy! Dirty natural gas is not a “bridge fuel” to renewable energy. It is a dangerous diversion of precious time and resources away from building a clean energy system. We must immediately focus all of our energy policy and investments on a rapid transition to safe energy based on energy efficiency and clean renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, wave, ground heat, sustainable biofuels and a smart grid.

Green Party of New York State P.O. Box 562, Syracuse NY 13205 www.gpnys.org

Third Party Independent

A Declaration of Independence from Party cont.from p.1 pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under a most frightful Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of the people of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to alter

our former Systems of Government. The history of the present party system is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations in the imposition of policy, in the legislation, execution and judgment of law under our nation's constitution, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute partisan Tyranny over the people and these States. To prove this,

let Facts be submitted to a candid world. The ruling parties have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. They have forbidden our Governments to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended,

they have utterly neglected to attend to them. They have refused to increase the size of the legislatures – to pass Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

They have called together legislative – and executive – bodies in closed rooms and at places and times unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of the Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing the people into compliance with their measures, or hiding from the people the work of its representatives.

They have both ignored and dissolved constitutional and peaceable assemblies repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the rights of the people.

cont. page 7

Page 6

Third Party Independent

Cont.fromp.6 They have refused for a long time, after such demonstrations and dissolutions, to allow others to be elected, thus the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion – and other threats – from without, and convulsions within. They have endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. They have, in addition, failed to secure the nation's borders. They have obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing their Assent to the establishment of Judiciary Powers in the appointment of judges. They have made elections dependent on the Will of judges alone for the tenure of public offices. They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers – from newly invented agencies – to harass our people and eat out their substance. They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies for undeclared and unconstitutional wars. They insist to retain the power to search and seize any property without a warrant in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. They have affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power – in the military-industrial complex. They have combined with others – via foreign entanglements – to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their Assent to Acts of pretended Legislation: For keeping large bodies of armed

troops, as well as police and other agents of the executive power, among the people: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for Murders and other crimes which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off Trade and commerce among the several states and other parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us overland and beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these states. For violating our federal and state constitutions, abolishing our most valuable Laws while instituting others most despicable, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending or threatening to suspend our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. They have abdicated Government here, by declaring us beyond Constitutional Protections and waging War against us – as in the war on drugs, the militarization of police, the expansion of the executive, the imperial presidency. They have conspired to allow their corporate sponsors, backers and political allies to plunder our seas, ravage our coasts, burn our towns, and destroy the lives of our people. They are at this time raising and transporting large Armies of domestic and foreign soldiers to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny,

already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation. They have constrained and encour-

aged our fellow Citizens to bear Arms against their Country – and indeed against other countries without even a constitutional declaration of war –, to become the executioners of their friends

and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. They have excited anger and incited domestic insurrection amongst us, and have instituted policies to bring on the inhabitants of foreign nations, the merciless Savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A person and party, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to rule a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to these parties and to our brethren. We have warned from time to time of attempts by the legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would in-

evitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, solemnly publish and declare, that we the people and these united States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent people and States, that we are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Democratic and Republican parties, and that all political connection between us and the twoparty state, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent people, we have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States and people may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Page 7

Third Party Independent

A Two Party System: The Views of the Founders Darcy Richardson

which, by implication, means a society consisting of only two factions. Hamilton also did not seem enthralled by the prospect of two factions engaged in per-

cont. from p.1 Such an arrangement, argued James Madison, a soft-spoken and scholarly Virginia lawmaker, would be particularly effective against the most dangerous kind of faction — a majority. “When a majority is included in a faction,” he wrote, “the form of popular government…enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion of interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” A large republic, encompassing a wide variety of interests, classes and parties, would dilute the strength of any majority. The separation of powers, checks and balances, and the states would further fragment and frustrate “tyrannical” majorities. Paradoxically, then, the Founders — while deploring political factionalism and the rise of party politics — created a system that they hoped would promote the widest possible variety of political groups. In the best of all imaginable political worlds there would be no parties — accordingly, everyone would be an “independent.” But, failing that — and such a failure was deemed inevitable — the next best situation would be a multiplicity of factions in as unlimited a number as possible, for this would be the best way of avoiding the tyranny of a self-perpetuating, self-interested and irresponsible majority. The Framers, of course, did not prescribe the appropriate number of such factions, sects or parties. Madison favored “a great variety of parties” and a “multiplicity of interests.” He was wary of a society where “the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker,”

The assumption of a two-party rivalry was a situation that he did not look forward to with much enthusiasm. John Marshall, arguably the ablest man to ever serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, also bemoaned the idea of rival parties, believing that nothing debased the human mind more than a political party.

petual rivalry. “The habit of being continually marshaled on opposite sides,” he wrote, “will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.” In discussing the role of parties in approving presidential nominations, Madison observed that the “choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight.” The assumption of a two-party rivalry was a situation that he did not look forward to with much enthusiasm. John Marshall, arguably the ablest man to ever serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, also bemoaned the idea of rival parties, believing that nothing debased the human mind more than a political party. John Adams, anticipating the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, presciently observed that the development of two strong political parties or factions would be the worst of all possibilities. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Adams wrote that parties and factions “will not suffer improvements to be made. As soon as one man hints at an improvement,” he noted, “his rival opposes it. No sooner has one party discovered or invented any amelioration of the condition of man, or the order of society than the opposite party belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it…” That’s perhaps truer today than when Adams wrote it. The intellectual Jefferson, likewise, held a dim view of political parties. “If I could not go to heaven but with a political party,” he wrote in 1789, “I would not go there at all.” Even as late as 1816, the poorly educated Andrew Jackson, who had little in common with the nation’s founding fathers and the scholarly Puritan that he succeeded as president twelve years later, said that it was “time to exterminate the monster called party spirit.” James Monroe, who governed during a period of relatively little political opposition — serving two terms as President shortly after the Federalist Party collapsed in 1816 — also expressed serious reservations about political parties. Similarly, George Washington, who also viewed the idea of political parties with more than a little disdain, kept his distance from the organizers of America’s earliest political parties. He believed that political parties were inherently evil. He said in 1790 that if liberty and independence, which had cost the new nation “so much blood and treasure to establish,” were to be preserved, then “we must drive far away the daemon party spirit and local reproach.” Despite Washington’s obvious disapproval, the words of caution offered by Adams and the suspicions of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Marshall and Monroe, political parties quickly developed in the new nation. Although the Constitution made no provision for political parties, by 1792 two distinct parties — the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans — were vying for control of the young nation’s destiny, and except for a brief period following the demise of the fading Federalist Party, it’s been that way ever since. Though independent and thirdparty movements have sporadically threatened two-party control of our nation’s politics, some 220 years later we’re saddled with two corporate-dominated parties — each battling for political supremacy as the country teeters on bankruptcy while slowly slipping into what might be the worst economic depression in history — that are arguably much worse than anything our Founding Fathers warned against. *** Darcy G. Richardson is the author of six books, including five volumes of a planned seven-volume history on independent and third-party politics in the United States. Long active in independent and third-party politics, he was an independent candidate for lieutenant governor of Florida on a ticket headed by Iranian-born economist Farid A. Khavari of Miami in 2010. He can be found online at battlegroundblog.com

cont. from p.1 The general election offered some big lessons. First, advertising can be very effective. We did a limited amount of advertising in two key markets, my home region of Albany plus Syracuse. Our results were dramatically better in those two areas than elsewhere in the state. Radio advertising in particular seemed to be cost-effective. Second, our online efforts did not appear to produce much value. We spent a substantial amount of time and money on web ads and Facebook networking. It didn’t catch fire the way we’d hoped. Third, teamwork is important. We suffered due to distractions. For example, the candidate who came in second at our convention sued us twice. At the same time, working within the GOP has shown me that there is just as much dysfunction in the major parties. They have the same problems we do, with egos, infighting, backroom dealing, and more. The difference is that minor parties can’t afford to have such problems because we don’t have the advantages of the major parties. The LP is facing a unique challenge as the 2012 presidential election looms. Congressman Ron Paul ran a credible effort in the 2008 GOP primary and is taking another shot in 2012. Dr. Paul was the LP candidate for President in 1988, and has been a Republican congressman for many years. Many libertarians, like me, see Ron Paul as a fantastic candidate. For one thing, we see him as having a real chance to actually bemescome the GOP nominee and even to win the presidency. Yes, of course it’s a long shot, but at this stage of the game everyone is a

long shot. Also, Ron Paul is about as libertarian as you can get in a candidate. Just by being a credible candidate in the GOP primary, he brings more attention to libertarian ideas. Even if Dr. Paul doesn’t win, his presence promotes not just the ideas but also libertarian-leaning candidates. The most obvious example of this was the 2010 election of his son, Rand Paul. Also in 2010, Justin Amash won a congressional seat from Michigan. In just one election we went from having one Ron Paul in the House to having two in the House and one in the Senate. With 435 members in the House and 100 in the Senate, Rand Paul’s seat is worth roughly 4 House seats. So 2010 increased the libertarian weight in Government by 500%. Looking forward, I struggle with where to put my energy, time and money. I firmly believe in libertarian principles. I also bear a deep distrust of the Republican party. Most Republicans claim to support fiscal conservatism and limited government. But when Republicans find themselves in control of government, they demonstrate that this is but a lie. George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay all caved to special interests and massively expanded the federal government. So on the one hand the GOP’s failings push me toward focusing on the LP. On the other, the Ron Paul movement pulls me back with the hope that we can force the Republican party to

The Libertarian Party’s Role in 2011 and Beyond

follow libertarian principles. And of course, the LP’s own problems are discouraging. I’m moving to Florida shortly and hope to continue working with both parties. I will devote most of my energy for now to the Ron Paul movement. I have already made friends with members of the LP in Florida and hope to develop those relationships as well. And I will try to get involved with the mainstream GOP in the hope that I will be able to promote libertarian ideals from within. I wish I

could say I have the answers. I still

don’t know the best course, but no matter what I will keep trying. That’s the best advice I have for everyone else. *** Warren Redlich was the 2010 Libertarian candidate for Governor of New York. His vote total was triple that of the 2006 LP candidate and double any previous LP candidate. Warren served as Ron Paul's election lawyer in New York State in 2008, and was elected to the Guilderland NY Town Board as a Republican in 2007. Warren is an attorney and internet entrepreneur. His Albany NY law firm (link to redlichlaw.com) handles personal injury and criminal defense, including traffic tickets, D W I , marijuana a n d other drugs, and gun rights cases. His web business, SpinJ Corporation, develops and manages a directory of over 11,000 traffic courts (link to towncourt.com) that helps over 3 million people a year.

Page 9

Third Party Independent

Public Access Politics By Zabby

n invitation to disgruntled Democratic Party and Republican Party members from Suffolk County, Long Island, NY: Welcome to you, disgruntled democrats and disgruntled republicans,

women and men who are willing to join a coalition to wage primary challenges in the upcoming 2011 elections! By running in a primary, you have the potential to get one of the 19 part-time jobs at the Suffolk County Legislature, paying $85,000 per year plus benefits. We will help you run a primary campaign on Public Access Television to defeat the hand-picked choices of the Republican and Democratic Party bosses. The petition period for primary candidates in New York is June 7th to July 14th. The last date to file the petitions is July 14, 2011 at the Board of Elections. Disgruntled third party enthusiasts (Conservative Party, Independence Party and Working Families Party), tired of the way party bosses encourage cross-endorsements of the same old democrats and republicans? Then you too can run primaries for your line against the same. Together, we will fight the extended history of corruption, cronyism (pay to play), corporate welfare, tax evasion, fraud, local bank bailouts, and business as usual behind closed doors. Once in office, the new coalition can enforce the law, to start. Also, we can use home rule to self-determine and customize law in our own local neighborhoods on social, economic, ecological and political issues independent of burdensome General Law — one size

fits all state law. (See CELDF, The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, for strategies to use home rule to protect the environment.) We will stand up, assume power and secure local governing authority to fight

the corporatocracy and plutocracy operating against us. We have a natural right to good self-governance. There can be no hope, no change without action. Those now in office are derelict in their duties and responsibilities to oversee

We will help you run a primary campaign on Public Access Television to defeat the handpicked choices of the Republican and Democratic Party bosses. The petition period for primary candidates in New York is June 7th to July 14th. The last date to file the petitions is July 14, 2011 at the Board of Elections.

and enforce the law. The incumbent politicos avoid transparency and ac-

countability. The Suffolk County Legislature holds meetings during the day, which circumvents the Open Meetings Law (Section 100)* They are afraid to have the public witness their deliberations and decisions in the making of public policy. We, the coalition of good democrats and republicans, can run primaries by petitioning for ballot access. The rules for gathering petitions can be found in NY State Election Law. If you would like help, former Libertarian Party candidate Chris Garvey would be willing to give some assistance or direction. His e-mail is: ChrisGarveyLP at yahoo dot com. In addition, you could look through the how-to-run for “Election” page at onthewilderside.com (which is run by a Green Party member and an independent voter). Let’s determine what we want our local community to look like and be. We can change the law of the land so that we, too, are not colonized as slave-wagers; we can stop pollution and contamination of our food, air and water. Why is it that Suffolk County residents have to pay to use our parks and beaches? Our laws do not serve the average working person or retired senior citizen. Even though Suffolk County Legislators are considered part-time employees, and only meet once a month, they make $85,000 a year, plus benefits. This is why nobody is doing due-diligence watching the store. This is why they do not want us to watch them on T.V. The Suffolk County Legislature is the only level of government not on television. We need to take back our parties and our government, so that we can create and enforce good laws for our community. *The Open Meetings Law (Section 100): “It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go in to the making of public policy”. [NY Municipal Home rule law (Chapter 36-A of the consolidated laws Article 3, Section 23)] *** Zabby is an active participant in civic and governmental issues. She is the founder of PEGLATM, Public, Educational, Government, and Leased Access Television Movement, which educates and raises awareness of the ability of citizens to get free training and free air time to put their shows on television. Zabby is a Public Access Television producer with several programs showing throughout Suffolk County and Nassau County. Zabby also produces a weekly show on WUSB Radio, Stony Brook, NY, called "A Woman's Perspective on Politics". You can write to Zabby at: Zabby c/o WUSB 90.1FM / State University of New York / Stony Brook,

Top Ten Reasons Why We Need National Third Parties by Kimberly Wilder

op Ten Reasons to encourage, support and, of course, allow national parties other than the Democratic Party and the Republican Party: 10. If the only two choices are Democrats and Republicans, what happens when those two parties agree, and find themselves behind closed doors? 9. If the rule is only two parties, what if someone wants to go back to the Whigs and the Tories? Who gets to pick which two parties? (Why these two parties? Why not two others?). 8. If America can have more than one religion, why can’t we tolerate more than one party? And, how can you deny someone -- either by law or social pressure -- the right to assemble with like minds in a way he or she believes will be effective? 7. If the only choice in 2012 is Democrat Barack Obama or a Republican nominee the party insiders believe will win, where is the possibility for real change? It would be a miracle for the Democratic convention to choose anyone but the incumbent President. So, the Democrats have no reason to reconsider their current policies or platform. And,

instead of choosing liberty or true conservatism, the best the current Republican Party seems to know how to do is to aim more towards the right-wing (or to find a more charming celebrity). So, a third party is the only chance for a new discourse, a breath of fresh air, or even a Hail Mary pass at better leadership. 6. Why do we need national third parties? Because the bipartisan front of the Democratic and Republican parties demonstrates that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It takes courage for little people to stand up with other little people against those in power. 5. Third parties create smaller organizations, where new people, people of diversity, and people without huge amounts of wealth or family connections have a chance to practice leadership and provide input for a national platform. 4. National third parties work in other countries. Ballot access expert Richard Winger notes: “In other countries, such as Canada and England, they have completely neutral election laws, a field of national third parties, and a very healthy political process and discourse. . . Their laws do not discriminate in favor of any parties, or against any parties. Ballot access in those two countries is exactly the same for every party, big or little, old or new.” 3. If your sister, friend, political hero, or co-worker wants to run for President under the banner of her third party of choice: Would it be your duty to stop her? Would it be your choice to stop her? How would you feel about people who criticized and blamed your friend who wants to run for office? How would you feel about unfair laws and petitioning rules that blocked your hero from running for office? 2. Even more importantly, you might want to run for President one day. What if you want to run for President based on an issue, idea or party name other than the Democratic Party or Republican Party? If you were running, would you think it was fair for people to discourage you from doing it? To attack you for trying to run? Or, to block you legally from trying to run? 1. The most important reason we need national third parties is explained in a quote from a seasoned, third party hero, who said: “Historically, the great ideas that have animated social justice and driven it to some sort of success in our country,

have all come from 3rd parties. And, aren’t we glad that ballot access barriers were much lower in the 19th century than they are today, much less obstructive? Because, that allowed the Liberty Party, the Anti-slavery Party, the Women’s Right to Vote Party, the Labor Party, the Populist Party, the Farmer Party to get on the ballot. “And, aren’t we glad that there were some voters in the 19th century who didn’t say, ‘Well, we’re going to vote for the least-worst on the issue of slavery between the Whig Party and the Democratic Party.’? Who, instead voted for the small party that led the fight electorally, speaking out against slavery? “Aren’t we glad there were some voters who didn’t try to figure out who was the least-worst on the women’s right to vote between the Democrats and the Republicans? And, supported the women’s right to vote through the Woman Suffrage Party? “Well, if we like that, then we should like it in the 21st century, as well.” The quote is from Ralph Nader. The understanding it presents should remind all of us how important it is to work for ballot access and the rights of third parties. This article is based on a debate presentation from 2009, revised for 2011 Dear Reader, Can you think of any other reasons to support third parties? When I first wrote this piece, I tried to incorporate some of the best ideas from other third party activists, such as Richard Winger (who was gracious enough to give me pointers) and Ralph Nader (who I studied via old videos). We would like to hear from you. If you have your own “Top Ten Reasons Why We

Need Third Parties” -- or, even just one or two reasons I overlooked -- please submit them for possible publication to info@thirdpartyindependent.com *** Kimberly Wilder is a poet, and an activist concerning issues of peace, justice, the environment, and electoral activism. She is the co-founder of the blog www.onthewilderside.com. She also contributes items at www.independentpoliticalreport.com. Kimberly Wilder came to political awareness through Libertarian thinking, and spent many years as a Green Party volunteer. She lives on Long Island, New York, where she is currently enrolled as a blank/independent voter.

Third Party Independent is Looking For Dynamic Salespeople!

The Impossible Rise of the Vermont Progressive Party Cont. from p.1 They cleaned up the waterfront that had been trashed by industry, started city-wide recycling, and established a public/private partnership with a land trust to make low and moderate rental and home ownership available. The Progressive Administration started a women’s small business technical assistance program and an affirmative action ordinance for the awarding of city contracts. The city-owned public electric utility created nationally-recognized efficiency programs, developed a woodburning electric facility, and provides Burlington residents with the lowest electric rates in the state. Progressives began to run for the Vermont state legislature from Burling-

ton districts, which elected one, then two, then three, then four representatives. Today, the Vermont Progressive Party has five members in their State House, and two members in the State Senate. While the party itself has not yet garnered traction on a federal level, these seemingly small gains represent big steps for a third party in the United States, as they've gained a strong foothold in state government. In 2000, the Vermont Progressive Party established itself as an official statewide party, and in their first statewide race they attained the status of Major Party, electing their first legislator outside of Burlington in the southernmost Vermont city of Brattleboro. In 2008, Anthony Pollina, the Progressive party candidate for governor, received

21.8% of the vote in the statewide race, beating his Democratic rival who received 21.7% of the vote. Many observers hold that the Democrats, who originally were not going to run in the race, simply ran a candidate to act as a "spoiler" against Pollina. Clearly, despite what they naysayers in the Democratic and Republican parties claim, it is not impossible to build a successful, electable third party in the United States, absent electoral reforms that will be more friendly to third parties and independents. Now how exactly did this third party build itself up as a serious organization in the state of Vermont? We'll have to explore that topic in a future article.

Call 212-470-7860 or email spinmediaworld@gmail.com

Page 10