I guess people aren't aware enough of those parties and are hoping to create a third party that gets the same immediate recognition that our current two majors receive.

I don't think Sanders would advocate a brand new political party based solely on his movement. I saw Jane Sanders on television the other day saying neither Bernie nor her want to be spoilers. They've said that since the beginning of this race and I admire them for it.

I've read that there are difficulties with registering as a green or as a democratic socialist in some places. It varies perhaps by State or even by county. Since I don't know all the details, I'm interested in information about these kinds of things.

pretty close to Bernie's, and J. Stein is a very intelligent
and knowledgable woman.

has offered to step down and let Sanders run as the lead on the green ticket for the presidential race, if he so chooses.

I'm not sure of the veracity of that since I only read it once. Maybe someone else here can clarify. I think the idea is that the green party has offered him a spot at the top of the ticket and Stein would be the VP nominee. Again, not sure.

And I think it varies in different locales on how easy or difficult it may be to get a party onto a ballot. It requires certain numbers of signatures. And those vary in different states and cities and jurisdictions. Again, I don't know the details.

Anyone who can help explain it better, much appreciated.

I think Stein is on in 21 states.
http://www.jill2016.com/ballotaccess

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Under our current system, mounting primary challenges is the most effective path. Democratic candidates calling on us to demand a New, New Deal in America clearly attract both Democratic and Independent voters.

Like it or not, unless we were able to institute instant runoff voting, the dynamics that keep the two party system in place will remain effectively insurmountable. The specter of "unelectability" is the bane of third-party bids. Too many voters for whom the third-party candidate is the first choice will refrain from casting their vote for that candidate for fear of doing more damage than good. And given the dearth of third-party victories in the public mind, that fear is not irrational.

Fight to institute instant runoff voting. When people are able to vote their first and second choices, they are able to cast their vote with confidence that if their first choice does not secure a majority, those votes will be transferred to their second choice.

Advocate instant runoff voting. Until it is instituted, mount challenges in Democratic primaries. This dual strategy is our most effective path to real change.

Thanks.

Ranked choice voting, off the top of my head, would be another. Anything but FPTP.

I should have included ranked choice. I think of them together. Should have specified.

http://www.fairvote.org/

~ would rather ride and over take an established party and then destroy it.

Perhaps it is 'in their nature.'

all existing parties carry some baggage. A new party can be whatever a new movement demands it to be.

that all existing parties carry some baggage. Very well-said.

I asked the questions because I was pretty surprised to see a lot of folks wondering or asking aloud about forming a new party, while failing to mention the green party and the democratic socialist party. I would think people at DU advocating forming a new party would at least be familiar with those two parties and at least state the pros and cons of moving to one or the other. I've voted green and I've voted democratic socialist when they've appeared on my ballot. That's usually in local elections. I'm also a registered democrat and enjoy voting.

Agree that a new party can be whatever a new movement demands it to be. One question of course, is what happens when headstrong people splinter that party. In other words, by being divisive and not inclusive, you essentially shrink your party rather than expand it enough to win elections. That's one reason I've been advocating since joining here that the best way to really effect change is at the local and grassroots levels. Gaining experience at local levels is the best way to effect change and also determine whether or not one even enjoys the political process.

I think a flaw made by many here, both Clinton and Sanders supporters, is in thinking the most change occurs by yelling at one another about how one or another poster or screen name says they may or may not vote in a presidential election or presidential primary. I think, as many do, that that's about the least effective thing one does, lol. The most effective things occur locally and offline, and then expand outward.

disenfranchised is so massive. To splinter off into the the other established parties would only dilute the movement. It would be more advantageous to assimilate the Greens, the Independents, the Democratic Socialists into the newly formed movement with all the momentum.

party can get back to its roots.

they don't have the necessary grassroots organization needed. That is precinct, county, district, and state structure.

And they must get the proper amount of signatures to even get onto ballots at those precinct, county and state levels. They also have jump through other hoops like filing things on time.

they would have a chance to avoid going through those hoops.

a fake one, make it look really successful and hide its origins.

Then deliberately screw it up.

thats what America has become.

And hasn't that been the nature of politics since the beginning of politics?

One can find a bunch of different but complementary definitions by looking at the results of a Google -

and reading the papers on it that come up. But its best to look at it in the context of the current global situation, basically we're on the verge of a new era where people wont have to work- machines wil do virtually everything, so we're in the midst of a global transition- This is why entities are going to great lengths to try to lock in the current system forever, nomatter how bad it may be for the planet- What were seeing is alliances based on class rather than by nation, the very wealthy are allying with each other everywhere to create a new supranational regulatory regime based on newly created perpetual property rights in ownership of markets and market acess- to the very great detriment of countries and people, and obviously, democracy has no place in this supranational system, it must be totally nullified without the peoples in the countries knowledge. Looking back, i am sure we are all familiar with regulatory capture- appointing the foxes to gurd the henhouses, revolving doors, crony capitalism, etc. and so on.

So, State Capture is a higher form , a nation and national institution based form- a more total form of "regulatory capture".

The term comes out of the world of financial regulators and the battle against corruption.

Another form of it is the term "captured state" - some related terms are "control fraud" and "criminogenic"


"Global Capture" is whats being worked on now, and its when supranational instruments remove most and eventually all economically relevant decision making power from States -


It should be noted that the ISDS system if a particularly destructive aspect of global capture thats occurring- due to the ever more burdensome web of supranational "agreements" which sign away huge sections of policy space removing them from deocratic control forever- in the case of corporation-state relations- setting up special ISDS (investor -vs- state dispute settlement) courts for corporations to sue taxpayers of nations for violations of "standstill" "ratchet" "rollback" etc clauses in bilateral or mutilateral trade agreements- enactment of regulations.

"Indirect expropriation" is a tort which is argued under those agreements when multinational corporations sue countries for alleged losses caused by implementing the voters wishes, but its important to recognize that people have no existence, no standing in the ISDS system.

Example of an ISDS case:

Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-12 (Number 2) | italaw (Insurance company sues nation-state for electing candidate slate that promised to implement single payer and loses due to their having signed a bilateral trade agreement several years earlier giving the insurer special rights - read the summary starting around page 12 or 13 of the award document