As this year's congressional elections approach, seems that everyone is waiting to see what the Tea Party organizations are going to do. Many Republicans seem terrified that the local Tea Party organizations might put up a candidate, split the vote against the local dem, and thereby hand the dems the race.
That could happen.
From what I've heard, however, I don't think the Tea Parties are contemplating starting a third pollitical party. And I don't believe that would be a good or productive idea. I was actively involved in third party politics for at least a decade and in several capacities, and that is an extremely tough row to hoe. The Reps and dems both have thrown up any number of obstacles to block third parties, starting with making it very difficult even to get on the ballot.
To get on the ballot in Illinois, you have to collect something like 25,000 signatures within a district and within a given time, something like 90 days. The Reps and dems only have to collect a few hundred signatures.
Once you submit the petitions to the local Election Board, they're available to the public for review and challenges -- and anyone can do a challenge. A challenge can take the shape of a claim that the signatures aren't valid -- that is, that the third party just made up the names, had a couple dozen people just sitting in a basement somewhere, swapping pens around and signing made-up names on the petitions.
I'm pretty sure this is the way the Reps and dems do things in a lot of districts, so it's natural for them to believe that other parties would do the same thing. It is very difficult to collect those signatures!!
With a challenge, third-party members (sometimes Elections Board staff) have to check every single name against the voter registration rolls. In Florida, they used to charge the third party a fee for every name checked. That's one way to bankrupt the third party even before the campaign starts.
The regulations and requirements for these ballot-access petitions vary from state to state. Illinois is pretty tough, but some states are tougher. It's taken the Libertarian Party more than 30 years to get more or less permanent ballot status in something like 43 or 47 states. And in some states -- Illinois for sure -- if your third party gains less than 5% of the vote in any district in any election, you lose ballot access in that district and have to start all over again with the petitions.
Even if you do get on the ballot, as a third party candidate, you probably won't be included in local debates. If anyone interviews you on TV, it will be a pathetic "David and Goliath" human interest piece rather than one that paints you as a serious candidate. But mostly, the media just ignores you.
So why not just do write-in candidates?
Have you ever heard of a write-in candidate winning an election?
A guy who was going around canvassing for the dem machine in Chicago knocked on my door one time when I lived in the city and wanted to tell me how to vote. I told him I was doing a write-in. He said, "People write in names like 'Donald Duck' and 'Minnie Mouse.' We just throw most of those out." At least he was honest, if not much committed to free elections.
And splitting the vote is a dismal possibility... Suppose a local Tea Party has some fantastic candidate in a local election. He's running against the Reps and dems. He'll probably draw more votes from the Republican... and the dem will win. That's a bit self-defeating.
You know what's easier? Get your local Tea Party organized enough to take over the local Republican organization. You having a primary? Check out the mechanics of nominations and such. If a Tea Party organization shows up in pretty good numbers at a Republican caucus or local convention somewhere, or turns out in force for the primary, YOUR TEA PARTY CANDIDATE CAN WIN!
Here's a couple examples: Radio personality (for want of a more colorful, decent description) Howard Stern showed up at the New York Libertarian convention with a bunch of show-girls and sycophants. His bunch outnumbered the regular Libertarians and nominated Howard Stern as a candidate. Similar scenario in Louisiana, when KKK advocate David Duke ran as a Libertarian there.
The Republicans were whining about indifference and lethargy among their ranks during the 2008 presidential campaign. So take them over. It isn't hard, but you need to organize. The Republicans will probably welcome you, too. They need the votes. And according to their own rules, you will have a say in hammering out policy and picking candidates. The Tea Party people won't be in complete control, but in the USA no one should ever be in complete control of any political organization. I mean, look at Washington with dems owning the White House and both houses of congress. What a freakin' nightmare! Loyal Opposition is very valuable if it's heeded. I think the Comrade is finding this out right now.
Tip O'Neil was right when he said "All politics is local." It's all grass-roots. If the Tea Parties adopt a "surge" tactic and swarm the Republican ranks, the Republican organization will be theirs. And that means being included in debates, being interviewed on TV and radio, being on the ballot with only minimal petitioning, and access to all those funds and the whole nationwide support network. You'll be taken seriously as a Republican candidate, while as a "tea-bagger," the media and everyone else will write you off as a loony.
Just a few thoughts, but based on years of grueling and rather disappointing experience with third party politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment