Posts
I'm in email dialogue with one of the National Centrist Party founders and hope to persuade him and them to major on strategic election reform that achieves a dynamic centrism by handicapping the cut-throat rivalry between the two major parties and enables more folks, via third parties, to influence the working center of the US's politics.
dlw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The last thing the NCP needs is to make a fringe idea a major part of their platform. If they want to be a party for centrists, they need to make their priorities align with the priorities of centrists, not their own. And if you want this to be a major issue among centrists, then it's your job to go out and convince them. It's not a political party's job to tell their people what to think, it's the other way around.
There's a problem with any group trying to organize as a "centrist" party. It's amorphous, undefined, and subjective, and the groups that'd make up the "center" disagree as much as the people in the wings do. At best they could try to be like a non co opted tea party variant, and pressure members of one or more parties to be more like their "center" (like OneMaine), but even then, centrists can (and have) been made to look weak and capitulating by more solid folks in the "wings".
Plus, I checked out their (NCP) site, it doesn't even look remotely professional. If you can't figure out how to create a professional looking website in the 21st century you're not to be taken seriously.
D: I have to agree with Solomon. The idea of SER with multi-seated seems like a pretty big jump from where we are at today...how do we sell it? Isn't it enough to allow people to not waste their vote via IRV and eliminating the financial connection between special interest groups and candidates? Let's talk more in the coming days, but you have some convincing to do. My main concern is that a centrist party is far enough from tradition (i.e. the devil we know) that we can't afford to offer very radical departures from our current political process if we are to be taken seriously. And at the same time...I do believe the NCP must be willing to offer a complete rebuilding of the political process "from the ground up" so we represent a clear alternative to the existing process. So you’ll get a full hearing.
Tirade: One version of success is, in your words, “a non co opted tea party variant”. If we have only 10% of voters paying attention to the NCP, we can possibly direct their vote toward the most centrist candidate among the R’s and D’s offered. We can try to sway 50 house seats toward centrist Democrats and 50 house seats toward centrist Republicans by asking voters to support candidates they normally wouldn’t…understanding that other voters in other districts are helping elect candidates that the voters do support. I realize that may not be clear: Consider just two districts. District A offers a centrist Democrat but a fringe/safe-seat Republican. District B offers the opposite. So we ask center-right R’s in district A to abandon their natural choice of the Republican in favor of the centrist Democrat, understanding that the same will be asked of centrist D’s in district B. This kind of cooperation among districts can lead to a more centrist House. Centrist candidates from both sides (in order to gain NCP backing) will have signed off on a number of NCP initiatives such as a reasonable balanced budget amendment and reform of campaign finance. And once in office they will carry through with their pledge to vote for these initiatives. The outcome is less than perfect but still meaningful.
Also, we know our website sucks. What really needs to be evaluated is the content. We intend to offer an evolutionary step forward in politics. If we are close to the mark, get involved and bring us closer to the mark. Demand government from the center and reform of the political process by taking that easy step of “signing up”.
Some form of instant runoff (there is a lot of debate on which specific formula to use) IS definitely something that looks like the next logical step, as well as things like requiring that parties either pay for their own caucus or primary, like the indy party of Oregon did, or have open primaries, and push back against the terrible Top Two stuff that some groups are tricking people into supporting by hiding it behind the banner of open primaries.
But really the main issue is that it's the job of think tank and issue org type groups to push for new issues, while it is the job of parties to REPRESENT the views of their members, not tell them what to think. If people want to push for these obscure election reform ideas, they need to go out and convince millions of people of the idea, not expect to be able to just need to convince a handful of leaders, who will then foist that idea upon their members.
"There's a problem with any group trying to organize as a "centrist" party. It's amorphous, undefined, and subjective, and the groups that'd make up the "center" disagree as much as the people in the wings do."
This is the case with any organization that has any sort of big (or pick a size) tent. Both major parties consist of ad hoc confederation of groups. This is no different with a centrist party. If others can do it, there is no reason to think an effectively managed centrist party can't.
And no, the center is not at all amorphous. It only seems so because that is the stereotype. I've not seen any polling that suggests the center is any more or less so than any other segment of the political spectrum you might want to parse out.
And Scott is right on the money with his talk of not always fielding a candidate, but sometimes choosing to back a moderate or centrist candidate from another party. The Indy parties in Oregon and NY do this. And when a moderate can't be found that the membership likes enough to endorse, then the party can try to recruit (if recruiting is even necessary... most political candidates decide to run of their own accord) one of their own to run. If a party member decides to run AND the party sees a moderate from one of the major parties who asks for the party's endorsement, then the two can make their cases to the members and the members can vote to see who get's the party's official support. If memory serves, this is roughly how it works with the IP in Oregon.
In this way the party can both try to exert influence by helping moderates within the two major parties, as well as push it's own candidates.
I disagree with the pledges though. The membership of the party should be the only hurdle to official party support. No parties that I'm aware of do that, and for good reason.
The website sucking, which is true, is just one symptom of the real problem... the lack of seriousness. Not the lack of serious intent, unlike some I am more than convinced your hearts couldn't be more in the right place, but it appears that the NCP people will have to go through the bitter taste of defeat before they see that the way they are going about things is backwards. Same with the Modern Whigs.
"Some form of instant runoff (there is a lot of debate on which specific formula to use) IS definitely something that looks like the next logical step, as well as things like requiring that parties either pay for their own caucus or primary, like the indy party of Oregon did, or have open primaries, and push back against the terrible Top Two stuff that some groups are tricking people into supporting by hiding it behind the banner of open primaries."
I like IRV myself, and possibly fusion voting (though it has it's issues). STV may be worth investigating as well, if FairVote can give the idea more political capital (it is gaining a bit in my state of California, though we'll see).
"But really the main issue is that it's the job of think tank and issue org type groups to push for new issues, while it is the job of parties to REPRESENT the views of their members, not tell them what to think. If people want to push for these obscure election reform ideas, they need to go out and convince millions of people of the idea, not expect to be able to just need to convince a handful of leaders, who will then foist that idea upon their members."
I agree. I'm not pushing DLW's "strategic election reform".
"And no, the center is not at all amorphous. It only seems so because that is the stereotype. I've not seen any polling that suggests the center is any more or less so than any other segment of the political spectrum you might want to parse out."
It is, because the de facto center is not only unified under one goal, it shifts on a regular basis. It's not like say "Socialism", or "fascism", or what not. It's simply the perch where "acceptable" and "viable" politics branch out from. It doesn't necessarily have to be defined by what the public thinks either (as often their views are manipulated through sources of propaganda and/or media)
You're right about the big tent, which is why I think any centrist party will have to up play certain centrist factions over one another, and there's likely to be a lot of infighting, given there is a fair share of disagreement in the "center". I predict the Libertarian lite moderates will fight with the pro social support social conservative moderates if there is any formation of a centrist banner.
As for the OneMaine/Oregon ID party approach, I think that would work out best. Moderate the parties and give them a bitch slap when they go to far, and they may make a valuable addition to our politik in the US. Now, if they were participatory, and the public could be allowed to influence the de facto center, well, that'd be even better.
"Tirade: One version of success is, in your words, “a non co opted tea party variant”. If we have only 10% of voters paying attention to the NCP, we can possibly direct their vote toward the most centrist candidate among the R’s and D’s offered. We can try to sway 50 house seats toward centrist Democrats and 50 house seats toward centrist Republicans by asking voters to support candidates they normally wouldn’t…understanding that other voters in other districts are helping elect candidates that the voters do support. I realize that may not be clear: Consider just two districts. District A offers a centrist Democrat but a fringe/safe-seat Republican. District B offers the opposite. So we ask center-right R’s in district A to abandon their natural choice of the Republican in favor of the centrist Democrat, understanding that the same will be asked of centrist D’s in district B. This kind of cooperation among districts can lead to a more centrist House. Centrist candidates from both sides (in order to gain NCP backing) will have signed off on a number of NCP initiatives such as a reasonable balanced budget amendment and reform of campaign finance. And once in office they will carry through with their pledge to vote for these initiatives. The outcome is less than perfect but still meaningful."
This would work out well I think. The rub is independent organizing from the power centers that be (IMO).
If you could make it participatory (I'm not saying you aren't) so the public can influence the de facto center, I'll throw my support your way. But you'll have to get some web design skills down, since you have to look professional for anyone to take you seriously.
I should be clear, by moderate the parties, I mean to excise or at least reduce the influence of culture war distraction "wedge issues", and bring about meaningful policy differences between the parties, and to actually represent their party base (rather than small wealthy minorities in the parties). I'm not sure if the current crop of "centrists" are up to that task though. Scott Ehredt does seem to have some of the right ideas though.
Post a Comment