Lawmakers for Sale: An Interview with Randy Miller, Founder of the Utah League of Independent Voters

As Utah is widely considered to be a Republican Party stronghold, most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that an outright majority of the state’s registered voters are not Republicans but rather Independents. The Utah League of Independent Voters aims to change that. Last week, Randy Miller, founder of the ULiV, decided to put his State Senator and Representative up for sale on eBay to raise funds for the organization and protest a political system that puts party above people. The action caused a small stir in the local press, the Independent political blogosphere and on Twitter, and even provoked a response from the Senator himself.  Randy was kind enough to provide a short interview via email.

TPID: What made you decide to put your state senator up for sale on Ebay? 

Miller: Generally, the GOP in Utah thinks they have been given some magic mandate from the people of Utah and they have taken a number of measures for the last 3-4 years to constrict the political process and set themselves up as a 'merchant in the temple' whereby to participate in the political process, one must go through them. And there are other ideological issues not in harmony with the people of Utah.

Three years ago or so they passed a school voucher bill. The next year it was overwhelmingly rejected by voters. Redistricting takes place in the legislature this year. 73% of Utah residents support an independent redistricting committee. The legislature refuses to consider the measure. It was not allowed on the agenda in committee last year. There were multiple bills this year to move to partisan elections for state school board positions while 78% of Utahns favor direct non-partisan popular elections for those positions.

So when a widget doesn't do what you want it to do you sell it at a garage sale if it has any salvageable value. So that is what I did. Besides it wouldn't hurt to get a little fund raising out of it for the fledgling independent voter movement I have started--the Utah League of independent Voters.

TPID: The auction has been taken down by eBay. What did you write on the listing? How long was it up on the site?

Miller: The listing was on eBay for probably 10 hours or so. I was out on a date with my wife when in was pulled, but it was getting about 100 page visits per hour. I listed Brad Wilson ($R) district 15 in a dutch-style auction and sold 3 of those for $25 a piece. One paypal transaction was completed before the listing was pulled. Here is the text of the original listing:

So the 2011 Utah Legislative session concluded at midnight last night. I need to get rid of some things around the house, so I thought I could list my representatives for sale on Ebay. I don't need them anymore. They evidently never needed me. I am selling Senator Stevenson because he voted for:

• SB270 (food tax)
• HB477 (to make the e-correspondence for the legislature and governor's office secret)
• HB229 (to tell the state school board to indoctrinate our children with the notion that we are a wepwesentative wepubwic and not a democracy etc. etc. whatever)
• SJR 9 (to make the state school board controlled directly by the guv)
• SB165 (to prohibit the use of electronic signatures on citizen candidate nominations and initiative / referendum petitions)

Buyer beware. This toy is broken. I wish it would be recalled. It is a representative that does not represent. Well, it represents its party well, but fo the people it is supposed to represetn, it just doesn't work. I will consider a trade for a representative that does represent the people of its district well.

All proceeds will be used to support and expand the outreach of the Utah League of independent Voters, a voice for the voters in Utah who aren't thrilled with the prospects of parties. We support initiatives like open primaries, non-partisan redistricting and are looking with interest at the initiative to roll back SB165.

TPID: What was the response? How many bids were there? What was the highest? etc.

Miller: I think there were 19 bids from 7 bidders, 2 of which were personal acquaintances and politicos who wanted to pledge some money even if they didn't win the bid. I got pledges for nearly $1000 and a commitment from them to be on the board and officially make ULiV a PAC. The highest bid was $305. For those who haven't bid on eBay for a while, that means that $305 was an increment just above the second highest bid--the highest bidder only has to pay slightly above the next highest bid. Their bid is automatically incremented up to be more than all second place bids until their bid is surpassed. Somebody evidently bid more than $305, how much I do not know.

TPID: Did you receive any complaints from your representative's "rightful" owners in the party, the professional lobbying industry or political class?

Miller: No, but somebody probably snitched to eBay. In fact the ksl.com article indicated he thought the gag was funny and laughed out loud. He even commented he wondered how much he was worth.

TPID: There have been a number of news articles on your action. What has been the response from the general public? Have you gotten many emails or phone calls? 

Miller: I have had a few people contact me wondering how they can volunteer. I've received a bunch of ‘atta boys’ from friends on Facebook, but I think more than anything I hit the funny bone of thousands of people who are thinking the same thing, why won't the legislature listen to the people instead of the narrow group of party delegates. The parties would naturally respond (and have) that we are all perfectly welcome to come participate in their caucuses and conventions as if that is the only legally contemplated way to participate at the grassroots level of our democracy.

TPID: One article reported that you were trying to raise awareness and funding for the ULIV. Has it been a success in that regard? Has web traffic gone up? Have you received more interest or donations etc.?

Miller: Yes. I have pledges from 3 donors totalling in the ballpark of $1000. Two of those donors, close friends and political activists are also willing to form a board and make ULiV a truly legal entity.

TPID: Before going to Ebay, did you consider other options such as Craig's List? Maybe you could have traded up for an Independent lawmaker? 

Miller: Somebody did recommend that I forget eBay, move and and make the listing on Craig's List. Truthfully, I don't know the ins and outs of craiglist very well. I'm not opposed to it, but I think the novelty of a real time auction had some real interest and appeal.

TPID: What is the mission of the ULIV? What does the organization have planned for the future?

Miller: The mission of ULiV is to open up the democratic process to the people to whom our government rightfully belongs--the people. We are not concerned about ideological differences. I am not concerned if the voice of the people goes in a direction that I think is imprudent or doesn't fit with my ideology. The mission of ULiV is to act as a voice for the nearly 800,000 strong, 51.5% plus majority of [Independent] voters in Utah. These independents no doubt are concerned about the partisan filters of caucuses, primaries and redistricting which are not legally contemplated to be controlled by factions through which candidates must pass before being presented to the voters. The folly of that arrangement has come to the forefront after this legislative session. Perhaps we are building enough political will to turn the corner and instill some equity into our governing processes.

TPID: Do you have any plans for another auction?

Miller: I am planning on listing the offending legislators on boocoo.com later tonight with some weasel words added to prevent the account from being suspended in like manner. The funny thing about eBay is that they suspended my account for one year for "selling Human Body Parts and Remains". Seriously, if somebody was really doing that I would hope they would call the police and terminate the account permanently. Hard to know what makes them tick.

TPID: Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions!

Readers should be sure to check out the ULIV’s main site as well as Randy’s blog.  As of this posting, the new auction at boocoo is still online. The current price for Sen. Stevenson is $0.01.

Exclusive: Interview with Darcy Richardson, Independent Candidate for Lt. Governor of Florida, Part III

As noted in the introductory post of this series, this week TPID is publishing a lengthy interview with historian and long-time independent political activist Darcy Richardson, who is a candidate for Lt. Governor of Florida running on Farid Khavari's Independent gubernatorial ticket.  This post contains the final portion of the interview, in which Darcy discusses Farid Khavari's economic proposals for the state of Florida, the difficulties of overcoming mainstream media bias, and the general outlook for independent and third party politics this year and beyond.  See also Part I and Part II.    

TPID: Given that Khavari is an economist, it is no surprise to find that the centerpiece of his candidacy is a robust economic plan for the Sunshine State. The two key components of that plan are the foundation of a state bank and the implementation of a "zero-cost" economy. Would you briefly describe these two aspects of the economic proposal and explain how they are interrelated?

Richardson: As the first candidate for public office to seriously promote the idea of a state-owned bank since the Great Depression, Dr. Khavari's state-owned bank — relying on the commonly accepted practice of “fractional reserve banking” — would provide fixed-rate, fifteen-year mortgages at two percent and credit cards at six percent, while providing much-needed credit to Florida's struggling small and medium-sized businesses.

The Bank of the State of Florida would also provide attractive rates on car loans and other consumer borrowing while offering CD’s yielding a 6 percent return.  It could be the catalyst, says Khavari, for an “economic miracle” in Florida.

The bank’s profits would be used to reduce and eventually eliminate property taxes in Florida while helping to fund the state government, which faces a $5 to $6 billion budget shortfall in 2011, in much the same manner that the Bank of North Dakota regularly contributes to that state’s budget.

In the past decade, for example, the nation’s only state-owned bank plowed nearly $300 million into North Dakota’s treasury, enabling the state legislature to mandate property tax reductions.  Consequently, it’s one of the few states that doesn't find itself in a fiscal crisis. In 2009, North Dakota — one of the reddest states in the country — enjoyed a record $1.3 billion surplus.  It's not surprising, therefore, that North Dakota also boasts the lowest unemployment rate in the nation. Incredibly, the state’s jobless rate was only 3.7 percent in August.

I’ll frankly admit that I initially struggled to understand Khavari's concept of a zero-cost economy. The basic idea is to create wealth by freezing, then reducing and in some cases eliminating costs altogether so that individuals can save and invest for their retirements. It's designed to create what Dr. Khavari calls a "carefree economy."

The idea of a state bank is directly related. Imagine the potential savings, for example, if you had a two percent interest rate and could pay off your mortgage in ten to fifteen years instead of thirty years. Homeowners would save hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Of course, it'll never happen as long as the existing commercial banking industry — the ones responsible for our current economic plight — continues to have its way, but it could be a reality once state banks are established throughout the country.

A bold and imaginative thinker, Farid Khavari is the guy who can make it happen — at least here in Florida.

Fortunately, a number of other candidates around the country are also advocating the idea of state-owned banks, including Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, the Democratic nominee for governor of Michigan. Several Green Party candidates, including New York’s Howie Hawkins and Rich Whitney of Illinois, are also vigorously championing the idea. 

TPID: Since the mainstream media often act as if they are the public relations arms of the Democratic and Republican parties, it can be quite difficult for third party and independent candidates to get a fair hearing for their ideas. Will you and/or Khavari be allowed to participate in any of the officially organized debates or candidate forums for this race? If not, will you be participating in any independently organized debates or forums?

Richardson: Farid has been invited to a couple of candidate forums, but for the most part invitations have been few and far between. In fact, we were excluded from Friday's Univision debate between Alex Sink and Rick Scott — an hour-long exchange in which the major-party candidates traded jabs and insults while saying little about how they might fix Florida's ailing economy.

Dr. Khavari also hasn't been invited to participate in a debate sponsored by Leadership Florida and the Florida Press Association to be held Oct. 20 at Nova Southeastern University in Davie, Florida, as well as another debate sponsored by CNN and the St. Petersburg Times on October 25.

The criteria for the October 20 debate sponsored by Leadership Florida and the Florida Press Association is an arbitrary and virtually insurmountable fifteen percent threshold (with a +/- 4% margin of error) in a recent Mason-Dixon Poll.

We're exploring our legal options, but I'm not holding out any hope that Dr. Khavari will be participating in any televised debates with his major-party opponents between now and Election Day. 

TPID: As a historian of the third party and independent political tradition in the United States, could you speak to the prospects of the third party and independent political movement in Florida or nationwide in 2010 and beyond?

Richardson:  Well, my favorite third-party candidates in this election cycle — a political potpourri that includes Dan La Botz in Ohio, Howie Hawkins in New York, Arizona's David Nolan and Christina Tobin, who's running for California Secretary of State, to name a few — probably won't be rewarded by the voters to the degree they clearly deserve. The same is true of the Green Party’s Rich Whitney in Illinois.

They're all legitimate — and attractive — third-party candidates with long personal histories of battling the increasingly corrupt duopoly, but most voters will inexcusably ignore their candidacies.

The strongest showings on Nov. 2, I suppose, will be posted by a handful of major-party personalities like Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and Florida's Charlie Crist, career politicians whose motivation for running as independents, in almost every instance, has more to do with self-preservation that any deep or lasting commitment to the idea of open politics in this country.  Regrettably, their sudden conversion to alternative politics is a matter of convenience more than anything else.

In conclusion, I'm not particularly optimistic about 2012, but if the Republicans, as expected, take both the House and Senate and a majority of governorships on Nov. 2nd, and are then widely viewed as the governing party — presiding over an ever-deepening depression while continuing to coddle the nation’s wealthiest citizens — then maybe, just maybe, the American people will finally have had enough and will seriously begin looking for an alternative. 

Hopefully, there'll still be something to salvage at that point. 

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions Darcy!

Exclusive: Interview with Darcy Richardson, Independent Candidate for Lt. Governor of Florida, Part II

As noted in the introductory post of this series, this week TPID is publishing a lengthy interview with historian and long-time independent political activist Darcy Richardson, who is a candidate for Lt. Governor of Florida running on Farid Khavari's Independent gubernatorial ticket.  In today's installment, Darcy discusses campaign strategy and Farid Khavari's remarkable biography.

TPID: Since Independent Bud Chiles withdrew from this race, support for an alternative to the Republican and Democratic candidates seems to have collapsed, judging from recent polls. What is your strategy as we head into the final weeks of the campaign season?

Richardson: Great question. Chiles should have stayed in the race, if only to chip away at both major parties. In the end, however, the pressure from the Democrats was simply too great.  Sadly, you're absolutely correct in observing that support for an alternative in Florida's gubernatorial contest appears to have completely collapsed. At this point — and let's be completely honest here — we're not even registering in the polls.  

Money, alas, has been a major problem.  Farid initially hoped to raise $200,000 or more from the Iranian-American community, but it hasn't materialized — at least not yet.  Consequently, we've only spent about $40,000 so far, making it somewhat difficult to get our message out.  That said, Farid hasn’t ruled out the idea of loaning his campaign $100,000-120,000 for our final push. Needless to say, it would be a huge investment.

As for myself, I plan to spend the final weeks of the campaign promoting the idea of a state-owned bank while trying to familiarize Floridians with Farid's remarkable life story. It's a really compelling — and moving — saga.

Khavari’s father was murdered by the radical Islamic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1980 for refusing to renounce his Bahá'í faith, and his first wife died as the result of medical malpractice, but Farid doesn't harbor even the slightest trace of bitterness.

He's one of the most optimistic — and passionate — people I've ever encountered in politics.  His sincerity — his noble sense of purpose and the sheer conviction of his deeply-held beliefs — shines through every time he speaks. He's not a politician.

Farid recognizes that recession-ravaged Floridians are hurting, and they're hurting badly. He genuinely wants to help them. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida was one of only two states that experienced a spike in unemployment in August, reporting an official jobless rate of 11.7 percent, compared to 9.6 percent nationally. Unofficially, the unemployment rate — the U-6 rate —is much higher, well over twenty percent in several Florida counties.

Florida also has the second-highest foreclosure rate in the country, more than twice the national average. We experienced 544,000 foreclosures last year. Moreover, some 46 percent of all residential mortgages in Florida are currently “underwater” — and market values are expected to drop another thirty percent.

That's a lot of economic pain and suffering.

The hopelessly indebted classes in this country — the working poor and the dwindling middle-class — have suffered enough during this seemingly never-ending economic crisis while the most affluent Americans have seen their portfolios improve considerably.

According to Forbes magazine, the richest 400 Americans, sharing a combined wealth of $1.37 trillion, saw their wealth increase by 8 percent over last year, while a vast majority of Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

We need radical economic change — and somebody who’s willing to fight for America’s better self to make it happen. 

In the next post in the series, Darcy discusses Khavari's economic plan, including the idea of founding a state bank and that of a zero-cost economy. 

Exclusive: Interview with Darcy Richardson, Independent Candidate for Lt. Governor of Florida

Darcy Richardson is a veteran independent political activist, a historian of the third party and independent political tradition in the United States, and an Independent candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Florida, running on the gubernatorial ticket of economist and author Farid Khavari.  He is well known in third party and independent political circles for his multi-volume history of third party politics in the United States, entitled Others, as well as for his numerous articles on historical and contemporary political underdogs, many of which can be found at Uncovered Politics, a political news and opinion website he co-founded earlier this year.  Darcy was kind enough to provide Third Party and Independent Daily with a lengthy interview on his political career, the state of the campaign for governor in Florida, Khavari's economic plan and the current outlook for third party and independent politics in the United States.  The interview will be published here in a number of installments over the course of the week.  In the first part, he discusses the arc of his political career and, in the process, provides a short history of the Consumer Party. 

TPID: What made you decide to join Farid Khavari's independent gubernatorial ticket? Have you run for any elected offices before? What campaigns have you previously been involved with?

Richardson: I began following Dr. Khavari's campaign about fifteen months ago, shortly after he declared his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. I was initially attracted to his proposal for a state-owned bank modeled after the powerful Non-Partisan League’s state-owned bank in North Dakota, the 1919 brainchild of Arthur C. Townley, a cigar-chomping ex-Socialist Party organizer.

It wasn't until shortly after he dropped out of the Democratic primary and filed as an independent a few months ago that Farid asked me to be his running mate. Needless to say, I was deeply honored to be considered.

Not to date myself, but I made my political debut in 1979 when I ran for commissioner in Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. At the time, I was a Democratic precinct committeeman.

The following year, in 1980, I ran for Pennsylvania Auditor General on the Consumer Party ticket, an affiliate of the newly-formed Citizens Party. The Citizens Party nominated environmentalist Barry Commoner for President that year. I was 24 at the time.  Prior to that I had volunteered in Eugene McCarthy's 1976 independent presidential campaign and had managed my father's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant-governor of Pennsylvania in 1978.

The Consumer Party was founded by Max Weiner and a few other activists in 1967 as the political arm of the non-profit Consumer Education & Protective Association (CEPA), one of the country's first consumer protection organizations.  A red-diaper baby and one of the nation's first consumer activists, Weiner founded CEPA a year earlier, shortly after Ralph Nader first burst onto the scene with his book, Unsafe at Any Speed.

For years, the raspy-voiced Weiner could be found shouting into his bullhorn on the east side of Philadelphia’s historic City Hall, railing for lower utility rates and mass transit fares and against shady business practices and political corruption. He was a folk hero to thousands of ordinary Philadelphians concerned with pocketbook issues.

In any case, I have quite a few fond memories of the 1980 campaign. I had been an alternate delegate to the Citizens Party's founding convention in Cleveland, Ohio, earlier that spring and also served as chairman of the Citizens Committee of Montgomery County, the party's national ballot access fundraising committee.

The Philadelphia-based Consumer Party sent a team of experienced petitioners headed by Lance Haver — the rabble-rousing and feisty Weiner’s eventual successor at CEPA — around the country to place the Citizens Party ticket on the ballot. A skilled community organizer, Lance had joined CEPA fresh out of college in 1978. He’s currently the city's Director of Consumer Affairs, a cabinet-level position created by Mayor John F. Street in 2003.

If memory serves me correctly, the party eventually qualified for a spot on the ballot in 29 states and the District of Columbia.  The Citizens Party attracted some outstanding individuals, among them author Studs Terkel, Maggie Kuhn of the Gray Panthers, a close ally of the Consumer Party, and Sidney Lens, a prolific writer, peace activist and labor organizer who ran for the U.S. Senate on the party's ticket in Illinois. Lens, who died in 1986, was a veteran of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s People’s Party in the early 1970s and was one of the leading lights on the American Left.

Failing to convince former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to accept the party’s presidential nomination in 1984, the Citizens Party faded away shortly after Sonia Johnson’s ill-fated presidential candidacy that year — a race in which the ex-communicated Mormon finished in fifth place, about 6,700 votes behind reclusive perennial candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche.

The Consumer Party, on the other hand, was a fixture in Philadelphia politics for more than a quarter of a century. The party's high-water mark occurred in 1987 when party founder Max Weiner — I called him "Mighty Max" — polled 133,826 votes, or 21.6 percent, in a bid for an At-Large City Council seat. Everybody thought he would win.

Two years later, Max was leading his Democratic and Republican rivals in a bid for City Controller when his heart gave out two weeks before the election. He was leading in all the polls at the time of his death. His grieving widow, Besse — a remarkable woman in her own right — was substituted in his place and received nearly a quarter of the vote.

Altogether, I was active in the party for about a dozen years, running for the U.S. Senate as the party’s nominee in 1988 — the same year I managed the late Eugene McCarthy’s fourth bid for the presidency — and briefly mounting a campaign for Congress on the party's ticket in a special election in Philadelphia's 2nd congressional district in 1991.

I withdrew from the latter race in October of that year and gave my place on the ballot to Chaka Fattah, a young African-American State Senator who wanted to run on our ticket. Fattah, who eventually captured the seat when he defeated the incumbent congressman in the Democratic primary three years later, finished second in the special election, garnering 28 percent of the vote in a four-candidate field.

In addition to waging a handful of other local races, I also managed Dr. John Logue's campaign for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania in 1982. The Yale-educated Logue, who finished second in a three-way primary that year, was the founder and director of Villanova University's Common Heritage Institute and published extensively on UN reform, law of the seas and international relations.

The white-haired Logue, who had previously taught at Fordham and Notre Dame, was an active World Federalist — he co-founded the Philadelphia chapter of the World Federalist Association — and believed strongly in global governance. Restructuring and strengthening the UN was the centerpiece of his frequent bids for the U.S. Senate.

I've remained politically active since relocating to Florida in 1993, running briefly for Duval County Supervisor of Elections as an independent in 2005 and managing Brian P. Moore's independent antiwar candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2006.

In 2004, I vigorously defended Ralph Nader’s candidacy against the mean-spirited and obstructionist tactics of Democratic operatives trying to keep the longtime consumer activist off the ballot in as many states as possible, taking part in at least fifteen radio interviews across the country.

More recently, I also provided some behind-the-scenes assistance to Brian Moore's 2008 presidential campaign on the Socialist Party ticket and dabbled briefly in the Boston Tea Party, a Libertarian offshoot founded by the edgy and contemplative Tom Knapp of St. Louis in 2006.

Tune in tomorrow for the next portion of TPID's interview with Darcy Richardson.

The Angry Moderate? An Interview with Alan Reynolds, Deputy State Chairman of the California Modern Whig Party

The Modern Whig Party received a boost last week with a front page article in the Wall Street Journal that profiled the group and detailed its efforts to "tap the angry middle." The story led to coverage of the group by a number of other media sources, including the Daily Show's Indecision Forever blog, and Brian Lehrer's morning program on NPR in NYC. One of the Modern Whigs quoted in the WSJ story was Alan Reynolds, the Deputy State Chairman of the party's California affiliate. I contacted Mr. Reynolds, and he kindly agreed to answer a few questions via email. Our discussion covered his response to the WSJ article, his motivation for getting involved with the Whigs, their immediate plans in California and his take on the state's gubernatorial race, among other things.

What did you think of the Wall Street Journal article on "the angry middle"? Did you find it reasonable? skewed? accurate?

Reynolds: I think it painted a realistic view. A political party is not created overnight, nothing is. We have an uphill battle, and do not necessarily expect our numbers to be those of longer established parties. I believe our view of focusing on Methodology over Ideology to be a good one, especially in a time when practicality dictates realistic changes that people can embrace, instead of the far right or left. Also, I don't believe we are a political party for only the "mild mannered," though they are free to join with us, we believe strongly in what we stand for, but are willing to adapt.

The article quotes you saying "the cards are stacked against us." Would you elaborate on this?

Reynolds: I believe that this means that, in what is in effect a two-party system, as a third party in general, it is difficult to penetrate onto the level of the Republicans and Democrats, and as as Modern Whigs we are a new party, which makes things even more difficult. This quote from the WallStreet Journal article was actually from Andrew Evans [oops! sorry. -d.] and I asked him to address it as well. Andrew writes: "the cards are stacked against us and this means that we realize we have a lot to do to be able to be to the point where we can be an option for the American people in every race, every election. There are very difficult and biased ballot access laws, which we and other parties must overcome. We know that our goal to offer Americans non fringe, moderate, practical solutions will take time to realize but we are committed to giving our all to serve the American people."

How did you get involved with the Modern Whigs? What attracted you to them? What turned you off to the major parties?

Reynolds: During the primaries for the 2008 presidential election, I found myself not being happy with any of the major party candidates, and started to look around for alternatives. While I had taken a look at the Libertarian party and even voted for them in the past (as well as Republicans and Democrats) they did not quite fit with me. The basic tenants of the Modern Whig party did fit, and the development of the "Methodology over Ideology" works well with my personal focus on results and frustration with partisan bickering. As a party we are composed of both people on the left and right who want to focus on the issues that can be changed without being drawn to extremes on issues that are divisive. While we may individually have views on these issues, we can still work together.

What are your responsibilities as Deputy State Chairman of the party?

Reynolds: Our State Chair in California is a busy individual, as he is also our Western Region Chair and serves on the Executive committee for National. What I try to do is provide guidance and answers to interested members and those that might want to take on a more active role in the party as well as provide leadership for various ongoing issues and projects. In addition I intermittently manage a Twitter page, @CAModernWhig, and generally work with our members and leadership on whatever needs to get done.

What kind of work are you (i.e. the Modern Whigs) doing in California? What are your immediate goals?

Reynolds: Our focus is on continuing to develop our message and let people know that we are a real option for them. We are working toward our goal of becoming a qualified political party in California, which is an ongoing project and encouraging people to make their presence felt in local government, whether that is to run for office, appointed positions, or just to be involved.

While the Whigs are organizing, what would you like to see result from this year's elections in California?

Reynolds: As we have no candidates of our own running for Federal or State positions our focus is to find candidates in other parties that we feel somewhat reflect our values in order to recommend them. There is also a strong sentiment from certain members that we need to have a change in our elected officials and that most of them should be replaced with new people. Considering the state of matters in California, I do not believe this to be a surprising view. In essence we need to support candidates that will listen to the voters and legislate what their constituents believe in, of course keeping in mind both the US and CA Constitutions, whether these are Independents, Republicans, Democrats, or third party candidates. In addition we will be posting a Voters Guide on the propositions on the ballot.

In an analysis on the CA Whig Party website from July, you size up a number of candidates for CA governor, and come down in favor of Chelene Nightingale, but state you could be swayed in favor of another candidate. Have you changed your opinion in this regard, or do you still stand by that analysis?

Reynolds: The analysis you refer to specifically did not include the Republican or Democrat candidates, not because I felt either of them to be lacking, but because I felt people might already know more about them than their 3rd party counterparts. The comments made in the analysis were my personal views and meant to get people to think about their options. At this time I have not completed an in-depth additional analysis, and while none of the listed 3rd party candidates fits my views 100%, I would still lean towards Chelene Nightingale among them, but have not yet decided who I will vote for.

On the front page of the CA Whig Party website, an announcement highlights the candidacy of independent/Whig Jeff Vanke in Virginia, stating that he is "competing in what is tantamount to a two-person race against a vulnerable Republican. There is no Democrat in the race while Vanke, a moderate, is currently polling in double digits." Given that this is in fact a 3-person race, with the Republican polling 71%, Vanke at 12% and the Libertarian Bain at 7%, is this not a misleading description of the situation in Virginia? I expect misleading statements from Democrats and Republicans, but have higher expectations for independents and third parties. Would you commit to placing a more accurate description of this race on the CA Whig website?

Reynolds: I believe that the statement mentioned is intended to be read to mean that due to there being only one candidate from a "Major Party" and with the Whig candidate, Jeff Vanke, being the other candidate polling in "double digits" (at the time of the poll) the race is essentially focused on the 2 individuals in the lead.

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions!

Exclusive: Interview with Jaimes Brown, Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Colorado, on Electoral Reform and Approval Voting

Jaimes Brown is the Libertarian Party candidate for governor of Colorado. He is an outspoken advocate of electoral and political reform, and one of the few candidates for elected office who calls for the implementation of approval voting in the United States. I recently contacted Mr. Brown via email and asked him a few questions about alternative voting methods and why he thinks approval voting is superior to plurality voting and instant runoff voting. He kindly obliged. The interview is published in full, below. Follow the links at the end for more information on approval voting.

TPID: You state on your campaign website that the current plurality voting system is counterproductive and effectively rigged against the people. What do you mean by this? Can you expand upon this criticism?

Brown: There is a lame argument ("one man, one vote") against any form of ranked voting. We should really think of elections as "one person, one ballot". Several of our founders vehemently opposed having any political parties, and we have come to realize why they did. The Constitution makes no mention of political parties or plurality voting.

As evidenced by the 2000 election in which Nader split the vote of the theoretical "left", polls show that had Nader not been in the race, enough of his votes would have gone to Gore to give him the presidency. In 2004, the people had an "anybody but Bush" sentiment. Approval voting would accommodate that type of sentiment. Plurality voting is counterproductive because it splits the vote of philosophical allies. The numbers indicate that a majority of voters in the 2000 election preferred Gore over Bush... if they had been the only two choices on the ballot.

Plurality voting systems cause (as a long term effect) 2-party domination. Political scientists call that "Duverger's law." NES poll data showed 90% of Nader supporters chose not to vote for him in 2000. Over time this weakens third parties, which just strengthens this effect.

The last 3 US congresses & senates have contained ZERO third-party members. 98% of major US races are predictable 1 year ahead of time, so it is even worse than "2" choices, more like "1.04." Examples:

• 2004, top issue was the Iraq war. Polls indicated majority of US public was against it. Both Bush & Kerry, were for it.
• 2008, top issue was bank bailout. Polls indicated majority of US public was against it. Both McCain & Obama, were for it.

In both cases, thanks to the voting system and 2-party domination, the US public had no way to get what it wanted. This was a failure of "democracy." Also, entire views and view-combinations are simply 100% shut out of power, and hence the media, due to 2-party domination. Obviously "democrat" and "republican" are not the only views the US public has.

TPID: Among those who advocate alternative voting methods, many call for the implementation of instant runoff voting. But you do not. What are the drawbacks of IRV on your view?

Brown: Instant runoff voting (IRV) also causes 2-party domination. IRV is much more complicated and expensive to implement than Approval Voting. IRV leads to higher voter-error and ballot spoilage rates. IRV generally requires changes to voting equipment, and consulting companies to count the ballots. In contrast to that, Approval Voting is simple to count, and can be handled with any existing voting equipment. The complexity of IRV makes it difficult to assure honest elections. In particular, ballots cannot be counted in precincts, thus reducing election transparency and enabling fraud.

TPID: Why do you advocate approval voting instead? What is approval voting?

Brown: Approval voting is more indicative of voters' actual preferences and is more easily implemented. Approval voting is "approving" all the candidates the voter approves of. With the Nader/Gore model, let's say there were 4 candidates on the ballot: Bush (R), Gore (D), Nader (G) and Browne (L).

Those who favor Nader could have approved of Gore also so their vote wasn't "wasted" on the candidate who best represented them. Those who favored fiscal responsibility could have voted for Browne and also approved of Bush in hopes that Bush was fiscally conservative (which only history could prove he wasn't). These are just examples. The reality is that our individual opinions are diverse and dynamic and approval voting accounts for our diversity.

TPID: How and when did you first learn of approval voting?

Brown: I have dabbled in voting mechanisms even before I was a registered Libertarian, because as mentioned above, the will of the people is not served by the two-party system or plurality voting. While I'm no expert in electoral theory, In the past few years, I've found the evidence compelling for approval voting as a method to achieve the will of the voter.

TPID: As a Libertarian, how does your political philosophy inform your critique of plurality voting and IRV? How has it informed your advocacy of approval voting?

Brown: As a libertarian, neither Republicans nor Democrats represent my primary political philosophy. I think of the Republican party as having three major factions; Imperialists, Theocrats, and Free Marketeers. As a libertarian, I only share one of these philosophical objectives. I think empire building is incompatible with free markets. Similarly, I think of Democrats as being Socialists, Labor Unionists, and Civil Libertarians. I am very skeptical of Socialists, although they tell me it's for my own good! There is a place for Unions, but I think laws should account for Unions' primary objectives. Where I agree completely with Democrats is when they advocate civil liberty, which tends to be incompatible with the reality of socialism.

The point of this is that we can debate the particulars of political theory, but I want candidates and politicians who represent more than 33% of my core political ideology. As long as we have a two party system, I have to choose which 50% to 70% of my freedom I have to sacrifice. Gridlock is as good as Americans can hope for. This is why anti-incumbency voting is so prevalent... but in "voting the bums out" we just replace the bums with more bums.

With all this in mind, if IRV is not solving the problem, I'm looking to something that does solve the problem. I think Approval Voting is the most immediately achievable solution. I'd obviously just prefer that all of our politicians were honest, had more personal integrity, and focused on liberty over authority. I have absolutely no preference to Republican or Democratic candidates. I believe in person over party and principle over personality. The two party system is about maintaining their authority, not advancing our liberty.

TPID: What kind of response have you gotten advocating approval voting as a candidate for governor in Colorado?

Brown: Anyone who has cared to understand the principles behind it have been overwhelmingly supportive. As with all issues, first they ignore it, then they fight it, then they accept it as self-evident. Unfortunately, I think we're still in the ignorance phase, but hopefully, we can go straight to the self-evident phase.

TPID: Do you have plans to continue this advocacy beyond the gubernatorial campaign? What is your advice to others who would like to see the implementation of approval voting?

Brown: Absolutely, it's not about me, it's about liberty. I find it offensive that the two parties have spoiled the whole system and they have the audacity to label anyone with a fresh approach as "spoilers"! My advice would be to continue to point out to all political parties, independents, and citizens that we all win by implementing approval voting. Democrats would have been better off with it in 2000, Republicans would be better off with it in the 2010 Colorado Governor election. The people are better off with it because we will get better representation. Isn't that what a Republic is all about?

TPID: You are the first candidate for any office whom I've heard advocating approval voting. Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions!

Brown: Thanks.

For more information on approval voting, head over to Citizens for Approval Voting and the Center for Range Voting, and be sure to check out Least of All Evils, a highly informative blog devoted to approval and range voting.