Serious question for third-party advocates:

[Robb]

...and, for the sake of DU rules, let's assume all responses are hypothetical, as I'm authentically interested:

If you truly believe both parties are beholden to interests other than their constituencies, what safeguards exist to prevent a third party from being similarly beholden?

In other words, if a third party became large and influential enough to seriously challenge Democrats or Republicans, who's to say the same influence peddlers wouldn't peddle successfully to them?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. There are no safeguards. All we can hope for is that people get sick and tired of the

same garbage, vote in totally new people who promise to make anti-lobbying laws and election reform, and do it quickly, and then things will be repaired. But for that to happen, people have to get really tired, and Americans don't get tired easily. They can endure a lot of butt-kicking from the rich.

[CreekDog]

6. Yes, there is one safeguard --the policies supported are like Kryptonite to moneyed interests

at least the amoral, bottom-line is all that matters, ones.

[LeftyMom]

2. Unless I'm mistaken any genuine response to this post would at least

come a bit close to the line of verboten "third party advocacy." I suspect this may be intentional, judging by the use of that phrase from the DU rules in the OP.

This looks suspiciously like a flypaper thread.

[CreekDog]

4. what? from the mod that told all of us that dared criticize Obama to just leave DU?

perish the thought!

[Bonobo]

7. Yes, and it also is not serious since it is clearly a rhetorical question.

The OP already firmly believes that it is impossible for a 3rd party to avoid becoming beholding to the same interests and so is actually advancing the argument that that is a pre-ordained problem.

In that sense, it is yet another passive aggressive yawn-inducing OP.

[G_j]

35. and from a mod at that

:think:

[CreekDog]

3. because those interests support the status quo --and a successful third party is not that

pretty simple really.

and furthermore, any party that is good enough for an incredibly good liberal like Rocky Anderson to champion is NEVER going to have the support of anything mainstream/corporate.

[Robb]

5. But how can it be successful without being influential and therefore a target?

Without serious election reform beforehand, the system won't allow a serious challenger without all the money and influence that is, arguably, inherently "dirty" and full of obligations real and imagined.

[CreekDog]

8. I don't know except that the money seems to not work like it used to

Negative ads don't work like they used to.

All the things that money buys, and those things just don't move the "product" like they used to.

So maybe if it just mostly stops working, then ideas might have a better shot, not on the basis of their marketing, but on the basis of their acceptance.

[Robb]

14. It's the worst part of the notion of a "marketplace of ideas"

...that since it's a "marketplace," we have to "sell" them. But to an extent, replace "marketing" with "education" and you've still got the same problem: more money is better at it than less money.

[CreekDog]

22. I don't know that money is the problem --I have money and I vote for the poor

I wish more genuine Social Democrats, like they have in Europe, had a counterpart party here in the USA. We have the Democrats, which I vote for in the absence of something better.

But I live in California and the one hope I have is that this reactionary minority that saddled us with broken infrastructure, Prop 187 and Prop 13, will simply fade away and be replaced by people that can dream.

[Fumesucker]

9. That sounds like a good reason for just walking away from politics altogether..

You're right, anyone else or any other party is going to be vulnerable to the same influences.

One of the main reasons OWS is not aligned with any particular party, third or otherwise.

[Robb]

11. Which is actually the beauty of OWS

...and, I think, the part of it that has establishment folks the most concerned: that the movement might actually have the capacity to effect the sort of change that would necessarily be a prerequisite -- serious, comprehensive election reform.

[Fumesucker]

20. There's a vast ocean of money, influence and political power sloshing around..

Sometimes I think that those who notice it the most are the ones who aren't swimming in it but rather sitting on the bottom looking up through the murk.

[RKP5637]

51. I'm also hopeful OWS becomes a huge voting block that wields a lot of

power without a specific party affiliation. Once OWS makes a specific party affiliation that party's political machinery will co-opt them IMO. My hope is OWS encourages more of the old dem party prevalence.

[RetroLounge]

10. and, for the sake of DU rules

should we assume you're not a troll-mod looking to find people dumb enough to break your rules?

:shrug:

RL

[jpgray]

12. The threat that a corrupted party can be deposed and destroyed by voters

Which, to be credible, means millions would have to advocate for a third party on a fairly frequent basis. :) It's impractical in our system at present, but it's the only possible answer to your question.

[Robb]

16. Exactly. And were that threat credible

...it would scare the individual politicians as well as the parties as a whole -- which could lead to less "corruption" (the only word to use, you're correct) within a party.

But how to make that threat real? Election reform. And the only way to get it at the moment is to scare the pants off the people currently holding the reins, scare them into making laws that create this threat down the line.

[jpgray]

23. The problem is that non-voters are on no one's radar, and if you vote, you vote for corruption

Not the same kind of corruption in all cases, but anyone who spends all day on the phone talking to people with excess money (anyone running a in a campaign for national office) can't help but respond to the cares that din out of the receiver all day. For example it's what Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown are both doing right now, but presumably with different aims and to a different effect. Al Franken wrote a great article about it.

There are a few prerequisites for disarming corrupt parties or politicians, as I see them:

1. Break up media monopolies.
2. Instant runoff voting.
3. Public financing of campaigns.
4. Dismantle the revolving door.

The last one is often overlooked. As long as you can go Tauzin and push nightmares like Medicare Part D to the reward of millions in lobbying or industry for your connections, election reform isn't going to be a complete solution.

But again, the obsession with polls ends with voters. Sitters out are written off. Third party voters are a fluke or completely ignored unless there is some sustained polling strength.

[Robb]

28. Well, except inasmuch as everyone wants non-voters to turn into voters.

Not everyone has the best of reasons for that, of course. :)

So if you've got (as I think we do) a movement like OWS that has mobilized the disenfranchised sitters-out, it seems almost a foregone conclusion that the endgame must be a new system. The trick, I think we all agree, is keeping the old devils off the new field.

[joshcryer]

52. Fix apportionment and it's fixed. We're way under-represented.

[The Straight Story]

13. I'll go there. Let's suppose you are in an abusive relationship and decide to leave for someone else

What safeguards are there that the next person you hook with won't be abusive?

Almost none. But there is one. If the next person does the same thing you leave again.

There are many more fishes in the sea, and there are many more people to vote for than just the ones we are told are 'right' to vote for.

It is not about a party, or a person, but about principle. If you stand on party first then do you really stand for principle?

[Booster]

15. If we coud get the money out of politics we wouldn't even have

to think about a 3rd party becoming just as corrupt as the rest. I'm not even sure if I was sent to Wash if I wouldn't fall in lockstep with everybody else. You're almost stupid if you don't and you're not going to change anything for saying no to the money - everybody just laughs at you.

[Robb]

17. Bingo.

Getting the big money out would also temper the top-down control of all parties, leading to a field where there could be 100 parties or none -- or, at a minimum, parties that operated very, very differently from what we see today.

[unkachuck]

18. money and crapitalist....

....philosophy now owns and drives our two major parties....a new party in words and practice, with a working philosophy dedicated to the service and well-being of the American people, would be the number one safeguard....

[The Straight Story]

19. heh, was just listening to this and it reminds of politics (use some imagination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLQl3WQQoQ0&ob=av2e

Adele, someone like you.

[mmonk]

21. None. Therein lies the impetus behind the OWS movement.

[Zorra]

37. +1

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. No safeguards

America is a broken country.

[NNN0LHI]

44. What would be an example of a country you would consider not broken for comparative purposes?

[coalition_unwilling]

27. I'm not a third-party advocate but if I were, I'd say that 100%

consensus, as I've seen it practiced at Occupy Los Angeles, would easily prevent said third party from becoming beholden. If anything, 100% consensus would make it too difficult for a third party to become beholden, paradoxical as that may seem.

[Robb]

30. Too difficult because the establishment money sources

...would find it too difficult to base policy on such a swiftly moving target? Is that what you mean?

[coalition_unwilling]

31. Well, that's true of course. But what I meant was that a 100%

consensus process would allow people unable to be bought from 'hard blocking' proposals stemming from the money men.

I think I'm responding to your OP and response above, but feel like I may be missing something here.

[FarLeftFist]

29. Candidate X gets 36% Candidate Y gets 34% Candidate Z gets 30%.

Hmmmm, No clear majority. 1st day in office with a 64% DISapproval rating. Might not be a bad thing. I need to further think about this one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Real answer...citizens united need to be vacated

all elections have to be publicly funded... no private funding whatsoever, and the time to hold campaigns must be cut as well.

Oh and even further, we seriously need proportional representation, and this per force will actually break both major parties into component parties.

Those are real reforms the system needs to end quite a bit of what ails. us... but first order of business, citizens united needs to be vacated.

Oh and there is more... those in the public service cannot go into private service for three years... and those who are in private (influential, such as defense contractors) cannot be hired without a hiatus of six months into the government. This of course in an effort to stop the rolling door problem.

Of course this goes far deeper than your question, Sorry.

[Robb]

33. Not at all, I think you have the meat of the matter.

All excellent ideas.

[MADem]

34. Of course that is what will happen. What's needed is a way to get rid of

corporate personhood and still enable people to sue corporations (which was part of that convoluted argument). Then, we can limit lobbyist access, and limit corporate contributions to campaigns.

Once they have a harder time shovelling money at politicians, the politicians will be less interested in them.

Probably the best way to handle it all is publicly finance all campaigns--not allow any private money in the mix at all, at least after a certain point. And demand a realistic level of support to get rid of the dilettantes--Nader, for example, does not need to be taking up airtime because he ain't gonna win. Give over a pile of TV time/bandwidth to each candidate, let them babble on all day; have the cables put that crap ON DEMAND, too. Have interminable, often boring debates.

Some of this might be unworkable, but we've got to do something. It's stupid and obscene, the process now....

Most people forget that in many of our lifetimes, primaries didn't play the role they now do--many states didn't even bother with them. Now they are regarded as moneymaking opportunities and everyone gets in on the game. It's a very corporate approach.

For the record, I am not a Third Party advocate, I am just interested in the topic.

[flvegan]

36. A call-out, by a Mod no less. Okay, I'll bite.

None. There is no safeguard to prevent a third party from being similarly beholden (your wording). But see, then it comes down to that third party. Don't categorize. Don't be all "Dem/Publican/Idiot" and be open minded.

Labels are stupid. Makes those that adhere to them stupid as well.

[Rex]

38. Well, not for a third party, maybe 20 or so.

It is amazing for a country that boasts huge diversity and HAS a lot of choice (20 types of toilet paper) yet seems to only want two ruling parties. Really, nothing would prevent a third for fourth group from becoming corrupt cronies for corporations. America is all about the $$$.

[Shampoobra]

39. There are lots of other serious questions, similar to that one...

...such as:

If we succeed in getting corrupt and violent police officers off the force, who's to say the officers who replace them won't be just as bad?

If we boycott Walmart until they go under, who's to say that the company that gets Walmart's former customers won't be just as bad?

If working within a system to improve it is the only reasonable option, then perhaps we should start asking corrupt and violent police officers to play nice, rather than trying to get rid of them; and maybe we can convince Walmart to become a socially-conscious employer, instead of boycotting them.

I hope these hypothetical scenarios are taken the way I intend them. My point is, looking for a better alternative is always preferable to saying, "It's no use trying to find a better alternative because for all we know, they might all be equally corrupt."

The threat of a third-party exodus might be the only thing that creates a positive change within the Democratic party (in the same way that fear of losing customers might promote positive change in a discount retailer).

[loyalsister]

40. I'm not a 3rd party advocate

But, in the end I would hope that one would listen to outside group influences. There are many organizations that hire legislative liasons, and recruit volunteers to lobby. Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Human Rights Commission, MOVE ON....... They may not be paid, but the process and goals are basically the same. Obviously the difference is money. But, at this point we don't have one without the other. The idea of getting rid of all outside group influences is a dangerous path.
Don't we want our candidates to have endorsements from unions, women's groups, human rights organizations, even single payer advocates, etc...

There are better ways to try to beat them at their own game. They go to Washington with $. We should show up where laws are made with VOTERS- lots and lots of them.

[ellisonz]

41. And with the 41st post of the thread...

May I remind everyone: Robb is a Dingbat.

Search: site:democraticunderground.com "Robb is a dingbat"

About 119,000 results (0.15 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1260&bih=613&q=+site:democraticunderground.com+%22Robb+is+a+dingbat%22

:wow:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

42. Is there such a thing as "a former dingbat"?

[ellisonz]

43. No.

But there's "Dingbats Anonymous" :spank:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

45. We admitted we were powerless over dingbatism...

[Ikonoklast]

50. Why are you so virulently against Dingbatism?

Accept the Dingbat as the Master Of Your Fate.

[Junkdrawer]

46. The next third party. n/t

[sabrina 1]

47. I'm not for a third party I'm for a second party.

To build a third party right now, is far too difficult and could not happen in time to accomplish anything.

We have the foundation for a second party already in place. I'm for kicking out all the infiltrators, the Third Wayers/DLCers or whatever they are calling themselves now, and replacing them with real Democrats. There is a party for them, and it would serve the country better if they went back to the Party of Reagan and started replacing the extremists in that party. I'm all for infiltrating the Republican Party.

This too will take time but new tactics are required now. And I believe there is a better chance of at least replacing a few of them now than there was when we still thought that just because someone has a D after their name we should support them.

[Wind Dancer]

48. Exactly.

I agree with you completely. Wish I could recommend your post!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. It would be nice to break the grip of the establishment parties and find out.

Of course, since the two establishment parties are already beholden to the oligarchy and preserve their power with money given them, we probably won't find out.

[Marrah_G]

53. Your post, while I am sure was meant to push people to stick with candidates the Dem party runs....

instead makes me just think " well wtf, why even bother then".