Category Archives: Independents and third parties

Could third parties affect Senate race?

Elections, Independents and third parties, Politics, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Let’s start with an apology: I’m sorry for using the word “poll” in this first paragraph. There have been many polls in this year’s U.S. Senate race, and there will be many more. In one poll released this week, however, two numbers stood out.

It’s not the 44 percent of likely voters picking Tom Cotton or the 42 percent supporting Mark Pryor in the latest Talk Business & Politics-Hendrix College poll. Those two candidates consistently poll at about those levels. Their focus henceforth will be on ensuring those base levels show up on Election Day – mostly by scaring them – and on fighting over the other 14 percent.

The question is, how much of that 14 percent is available, and to whom? And that’s why the other poll numbers might matter: 4 and 3.

Unlike many polls, this one also included the minor party candidates. Mark Swaney of the Green Party polled at 4 percent, while Libertarian Nathan LaFrance attracted 3 percent.

I’m a word guy, not a math whiz, but 4+3=7, and in an election this close, that’s a factor.

Granted, many of those respondents are just sick of all the negative ads and picked one of the other two names, despite there also being an “undecided” option. But let’s spend a few paragraphs focusing on those respondents who purposely chose Swaney and LaFrance. They might have an effect on the election, maybe an important one, because they are probably taking a bigger bite out of Pryor’s support than Cotton’s.

The Green Party’s main issues are climate change and nationalized health care. They are unapologetically liberal. It’s safe to assume that most of the informed respondents who said they were voting for Swaney would be Pryor voters if there were only two choices. Few are playing “eenie meenie miney moe” between the Green Party and Cotton.

Libertarians, on the other hand, are for smaller government in every way. They would cut taxes and government spending significantly, so on economic issues, they are to the right of Republicans. However, on social issues, they generally support gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, and keeping abortion legal. They’d slash defense spending, too. In many ways, they’re to the left of Democrats.

So the 4 percent (the informed ones, anyway) who said they would vote for Swaney would have picked Pryor if there were only two choices. But the informed portion of LaFrance’s 3 percent would have gone either way – probably more for Cotton, but not exclusively.

I’m not saying this necessarily will change the outcome, but Pryor is being hurt more than Cotton.

The numbers won’t stay this way. Swaney and LaFrance are poorly funded candidates who don’t have money to advertise and probably have reached their ceilings of support. A percentage of those who do vote will gravitate toward Pryor or Cotton because of the so-called “spoiler effect.” In our winner-take-all system, voters have an incentive to choose the least objectionable of only two parties, lest the more objectionable candidate win.

Here’s where you might say this is why we need just two parties, and that people shouldn’t “waste their votes” on candidates who can’t win. You might say those liberal Green Party supporters should just choose Pryor, the less conservative of the two major party candidates.

Green Party voters don’t see it that way. They would say both Pryor and Cotton are the conservative candidates, and that Swaney is the only one who represents their values. If you really believe both Republicans and Democrats are ruining the planet, must you vote for the one you think is less ruinous? Libertarians say Democrats and Republicans both are the parties of big government – the same party, in fact, just two sides of the same coin.

This is the land of many choices, except in elections. But there are ways our democracy could be more open but still efficient. One is instant runoff voting, where voters rank their candidates top to bottom, and a numerical process determines the winner. Green Party voters could make their statement by picking Swaney first and then Pryor (or LaFrance) as their number two.

But we don’t have instant runoff voting. We have winner-take-all voting, in a very close race, where a few percentage points matter.

Note: Here’s a link to the Talk Business & Politics-Henderix College poll.

Above is an excellent video by C.G.P. Grey explaining why the spoiler effect makes it so hard for third parties and independents to break through. Below, C.G.P. Grey explains instant runoff voting, or what he calls the alternative vote.

What the third party candidates said

Elections, Independents and third parties, Politics, , , , ,

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications

It’s still a tossup as to who will be the next governor, but we know who it won’t be: neither Frank Gilbert nor Josh Drake, the Libertarian and Green Party nominees.

Gilbert, the Libertarian, and Drake also know neither of them will be the next governor – not in a system dominated by Republicans and Democrats. Nevertheless, they’ve put their names on the ballot.

Here’s the shorthand for what their parties stand for. Greens are pro-environment and pro-government health care. Libertarians are for less government in both economic and social issues.

Drake and Gilbert presented their cases during an Arkansas Press Association debate July 11 – and, by the way, kudos to the APA for giving them that opportunity. Here’s what they said …

About same sex marriage. Drake, the Green Party candidate, said the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, regardless of what the majority says. Gilbert said government should stay out of the marriage-defining business, adding that he was offended that his wedding preacher said he performed the ceremony by the authority vested in him by the state of Tennessee. The government had nothing to do with his marriage, he said.

About the “private option,” the state program that uses Obamacare dollars to buy private insurance for lower-income Arkansans. Gilbert, the Libertarian, opposes it “unequivocally” and criticized the legislative Republicans who made it possible. Arkansas should not be involved in a coalition with the debt-ridden federal government to make possible this “terrible idea tacked onto a disgusting idea,” he said. Drake said other civilized countries offer universal health care, and so should the United States. Absent that, he said it’s “absolutely lunacy” to consider turning down those federal dollars when many Arkansas hospitals are struggling.

About Arkansas’ bursting-at-the-seams prisons and jails. Gilbert said too many people are being arrested and incarcerated and said his first step as governor would be to “pardon every nonviolent drug offender in the state of Arkansas.” Drake said the war on drugs has been lost and that it’s time to consider if some people in prison really ought to be there.

About C&H Hog Farms, the industrial-sized farm that has prompted concerns about potential contamination of the nearby Buffalo River. Drake, the Green Party candidate, said such an operation should not be located near a watershed and that the state must protect its water supply and its tourist attractions. Gilbert said he didn’t trust bureaucrats to protect the environment and that water use disputes should be handled through the court system.

About the lottery being under closer control of the governor. Drake expressed doubts about giving the governor too much power and said he’s “not a big fan of the lottery” or of gambling in general. Gilbert said the lottery should be managed by private individuals rather than bureaucrats. Given the opportunity, he would end the lottery.

About taxes. Gilbert would eliminate personal and corporate income taxes as quickly as possible. Doing away with the costs of corporate welfare would make it easier, he said. Drake said taxes on the wealthy should be increased so the sales tax on food can be ended and other sales taxes lowered.

In his closing argument, Drake said third party candidates should be included in more debates and given more attention by the media. Having more political parties would be good for the press, he said, because contested races create more intellectually stimulating campaigns, which attract readers and viewers. He didn’t say it, but viable third party and independent candidates, given a chance to compete, might attract enough support that they could buy ads, too.

Gilbert cracked up the audience in his closing remarks by saying, “I encourage you to look around yourself and see if you think there’s a whole lot that the Libertarians can make worse, and that there might not be a thing or two that the Libertarians could make better. Pick up your dice, throw them, and if it comes up snake eyes, vote Libertarian.”

By the way, also participating in the APA debate were the two major party candidates – Asa what’s-his-name and Mike somebody.

Should states decide on immigration?

Elections, Independents and third parties, Politics, U.S. Congress

By Steve Brawner

Should immigration be more of a state issue than it is now? Ken Hamilton, Libertarian candidate for Congress in the 4th District, says it should be. The federal government sure can’t seem to solve it on its own.

Here’s how immigration would work if Hamilton, 58, an El Dorado accountant with Murphy USA, got his way. The federal government would continue to enforce border security and decide who gets to come into the country, but it would do so based on requests from the states. Some states would want a lot of immigrants, others not so many.

So say California decides it needs 10,000 farm workers. The federal government would grant that many visas to work in California only.

Then California would take it from there. Immigrants could work wherever they want within that state’s borders – unlike today’s employer-based visas, which force them to serve a particular boss who is regulated by the federal government. Immigrants could travel to other states, but they couldn’t work in them legally. However, certain immigrants such as migrant farm workers could receive visas allowing them to travel between states based on growing seasons. California could offer permanent state residency to those immigrant workers who follow the rules. It also could allot visas to members of its current illegal immigrant population. Eventually, immigrants could earn U.S. citizenship. In the meantime, states could determine what benefits they receive.

“The states can tailor the program to what they need,” he said. “If they need high-tech, they can do it. If they need farm workers, they can do it. I think that’s the best way to do it rather than a top-down, one-size-fits-all program out of the federal government.”

Hamilton says a state-based approach would break the logjam in Congress. Democrats typically favor a path to citizenship. Republicans, meanwhile, are split between two factions. Establishment Republicans want a more open policy because employers need the workers and because the party needs to better appeal to Hispanics, a fast-growing minority that is siding with Democrats in elections. On the other side, a large faction of Republicans say a path to citizenship amounts to awarding amnesty to lawbreakers. Secure the border, they say.

The result has been a sometimes ugly debate that hasn’t solved anything. We all know the current system inadequately controls the border. We all know it’s resulted in millions of illegal immigrants living here as part of a shadowy underclass without a real stake in society or an opportunity to achieve the American dream. We all know this situation provides a lot of cheap labor but also hurts certain American workers. But, election to election, little changes.

Hamilton, of course, almost certainly won’t be elected. The United States remains staunchly a two-party system despite voters’ unhappiness with what’s happening in Washington.

But picking winners and losers is not the only reason we have elections. It’s also a chance to have a national debate about the issues. The two major parties, whether they are promoting a path to citizenship or favor just closing the border, haven’t gotten us anywhere.

They can’t even figure out what to do with illegal immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents and have much-needed technical skills. American taxpayers pay for an undocumented child immigrant to go to public school, sometimes from kindergarten through the 12th grade, but then it’s difficult for them to go to college and nearly impossible for them to fulfill their potential in the workforce. We won’t even give them a chance to earn their citizenship by serving in the military.

So now someone else is offering another option: If Washington can’t solve the problem, let the states take charge.

Got a better idea?

America needs worse politicians

Elections, Independents and third parties, Politics

By Steve Brawner

Want better government? Make candidates worse at politics.

Politics is about winning elections, and today’s big campaigns and special interest groups have turned it into a science. Using sophisticated data mining techniques, they know our buying and online habits and therefore how we’ll probably vote. If you’re a 55-year-old Southern white male who drives a Ford truck and visits conservative news websites, the campaigns know it, and because of that, they know you’re almost certainly inclined to vote Republican. If you drive a Volvo and regularly shop at Whole Foods Market, they know you’ll probably vote Democrat.

Using that data, campaigns can reach individual voters through a technique known as microtargeting. Turnout and fundraising, not persuasion, is the goal. If you’re likely a Republican, the Tom Cotton campaign will send you material meant to push your buttons so you’ll show up on Election Day and hopefully donate money. The Mark Pryor campaign, meanwhile, will not waste its resources on you. If you don’t believe this, keep a tally of the political ads you see online and in your mailbox. Chances are you’re mostly hearing from only one of the candidates.

So don’t worry that anyone is somehow looking at your ballot. It’s not necessary to commit election fraud and risk a scandal. They know how you’ll vote before you do.

But while candidates are getting better at politicking, elected officials are becoming worse at governing. This current Congress is on track to be the least productive in modern history in terms of bills passed through both houses. That’s good in many ways because no productivity is better than bad productivity. But it also means little of substance is being done about the national debt, immigration and other issues that demand action. Do you think Congress is doing a good job?

Furthermore, when Congress can’t get anything done, it cedes power to a president to use executive orders to do what he wants. An example is what’s happening with No Child Left Behind, the education law passed by Congress under President George W. Bush that greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. The law expired seven years ago, but because Congress can’t agree on anything, its outdated and unworkable requirements haven’t been repealed. How can schools still educate children? Through waivers granted by the Obama administration that have expanded the federal government’s role in education even more.

It’s no coincidence that we’re getting worse at governing while we’re getting better at politicking. Americans are culturally divided anyway, but the political process is making the divisions worse. We’re bombarded by messages telling us our side is right and the other side is evil, so we tend to elect people who believe the same way, or at least pretend to believe it. Cooperative statesmanship becomes difficult when you’ve told your constituents that the other side wants to destroy America.

The political center – so vital to keeping the country on a forward path – has thus melted away. There are only 15 Democrats remaining in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. The declining number of Republican centrists have limited influence in their party. With so few in the center, Republicans and Democrats have completely different priorities and are working from different sets of facts. The primary organizing principle they all share, “How do I get re-elected?” is accomplished by a tactic they also have in common: Divide and conquer.

What can voters do? Make candidates worse at politicking by making it harder for them to categorize and manipulate us. If we say we’re independent, as a rising 42 percent of us told Gallup we are late last year, then we should act like it. Polls show that most of us who say we’re independent consistently lean one way or the other. So occasionally lean some other way – for example, by giving third party and independent candidates a chance. Research news websites that offer a different perspective than your own.

That will confuse the microtargeters. We also might learn something, or even change our minds on an issue. And in the process, we might get a better government.