There's a few realities of increasing ballot that most folks are not aware of..
First off, to my knowledge, NO party other than the Libertarians have ever acheived 50 state ballot access. That includes the Greens. In the 90's we allied with the Green Party to pool resources to mount legal challenges to the states that had ridiculous monopoly imposed restrictions. So having fought this ballot access thing for 15 years, I'm aware of their problems as well. Both Nader and Perot ran as "independents" which tells you how ridiculous it is to be a "registered Independent. Officially means you'd vote for anybody.
Which brings me to the 2nd point. ONE THING that would help was if folks DROPPED their registration as Dem or Rep and chose a 3rd party. Yup -- aren't a lot of good choices right now.. But if enough folks dissaffiliated from the monopoly -- and registered with 3rd parties -- ballot access becomes easier in most states because "registered party members" equals ballot access. Seeing this trend happen would ENCOURAGE better choices to be bold enough to declare a national campaign.
Thirdly, I believe there's a huge demand in BOTH parties to fine tune the message. This means natural splits WITHIN both the REP and DEM parties. Clearly you saw the schism between the Clinton wing and the Progressive wing of the DEM party in 2008 primaries. Same for the current RINO - T.P split in the GOP. Many important distinctions could be made between 2 DNC teams and 2 GOP teams. You could solve the Norquist Tax Pledge split for instance by having a team declare war on Corporate Welfare, insistence on permanently killing earmarks and pork, and changing the tax code. On the DNC side, you could have Green/Progressive coalition and the more traditional DEMS. PLENTY of room for choices, coalitions, and real differences.
Finally - you need to look carefully at the "wasted vote" canard. I already posted the fact that the monopoly ROUTINELY abandon their constituents in "no-win" races by refusing to back candidates in those races. ALL those votes are "wasted".. 64 HOUSE SEATS IN 2008 ran largely uncontested.
But in a case where a Libertarian might keep a Rep from winning -- there are 2 sides to that story. It's bad for Republicans --- but it offers a choice to DEMs who can't support their candidate. The CHOICE if it exists --- always says something POSITIVE for someone.
Hell look at the difference that just having Ron Paul and his son in Congress has made. As soon as you break up the monotony of the collusion between the 2 parties with a few non-compliants, you start to see issues and debates framed quite differently...
First off, to my knowledge, NO party other than the Libertarians have ever acheived 50 state ballot access. That includes the Greens. In the 90's we allied with the Green Party to pool resources to mount legal challenges to the states that had ridiculous monopoly imposed restrictions. So having fought this ballot access thing for 15 years, I'm aware of their problems as well. Both Nader and Perot ran as "independents" which tells you how ridiculous it is to be a "registered Independent. Officially means you'd vote for anybody.
Which brings me to the 2nd point. ONE THING that would help was if folks DROPPED their registration as Dem or Rep and chose a 3rd party. Yup -- aren't a lot of good choices right now.. But if enough folks dissaffiliated from the monopoly -- and registered with 3rd parties -- ballot access becomes easier in most states because "registered party members" equals ballot access. Seeing this trend happen would ENCOURAGE better choices to be bold enough to declare a national campaign.
Thirdly, I believe there's a huge demand in BOTH parties to fine tune the message. This means natural splits WITHIN both the REP and DEM parties. Clearly you saw the schism between the Clinton wing and the Progressive wing of the DEM party in 2008 primaries. Same for the current RINO - T.P split in the GOP. Many important distinctions could be made between 2 DNC teams and 2 GOP teams. You could solve the Norquist Tax Pledge split for instance by having a team declare war on Corporate Welfare, insistence on permanently killing earmarks and pork, and changing the tax code. On the DNC side, you could have Green/Progressive coalition and the more traditional DEMS. PLENTY of room for choices, coalitions, and real differences.
Finally - you need to look carefully at the "wasted vote" canard. I already posted the fact that the monopoly ROUTINELY abandon their constituents in "no-win" races by refusing to back candidates in those races. ALL those votes are "wasted".. 64 HOUSE SEATS IN 2008 ran largely uncontested.
But in a case where a Libertarian might keep a Rep from winning -- there are 2 sides to that story. It's bad for Republicans --- but it offers a choice to DEMs who can't support their candidate. The CHOICE if it exists --- always says something POSITIVE for someone.
Hell look at the difference that just having Ron Paul and his son in Congress has made. As soon as you break up the monotony of the collusion between the 2 parties with a few non-compliants, you start to see issues and debates framed quite differently...