The platforms of the major parties have become all but obsolete. We all recognize the well known political boilerplate and once the party convention ends, the speeches and positions of the nominees comes to the fore.
In contrast, we are trying to create a new party from nothing. Our party platform is vital. A concise and organized document provides a standard which we in the center can rally around. It can also serve as the basis of a contract with candidates that choose to embrace the Unity movement. At the least, it can serve as a yardstick by which we can measure candidates.
The shoutbox forums are a good start for those of us that already get the need for a centrist political party, but they are too fragmented, too divisive and far too verbose to serve these purposes. The posts run the gamut from the far left to the far right.
A broad range of opinion is vital to the debate but at some point we have to unify around workable solutions.
I therefore propose a platform wiki as a mechanism for creating a Unity08 platform. By forcing us to edit each other’s words, it will force us (by shear exhaustion if nothing else) to settle on more moderate proposals. It will also showcase the positions where we (mostly) agree. Too often, the noisiest but least important parts of the political debate attract more attention than they merit.
One of the tools that the two major parties use to lock out third party challengers is the Electoral College. The current winner-take-all tradition for apportioning delegates creates an impassible barrier to a third party challenger. The constitution requires the Electoral College; the winner-take-all tradition is the purview of the individual states.
We should all be aware of, and embrace, the National Popular Vote movement which is seeking to get the majority of the states to sign on to an Interstate Compact that will (once a critical mass has been achieved) require each and every one of them to apportion Electoral College delegates in proportion to the popular vote within the state. In effect, it will re-enfranchise the purple voters.
All the analyses that I have seen indicate that this change will be party neutral (i.e. it won’t tip the elections to one party or the other). What it will do is force the parties to stop pandering to the extreme base and start addressing the concerns the swing voters in the middle.
That can only be a good thing.
--Vern
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
- Vice Adm. H.G. Rickover
I stand for all proposals that do not take my vote and cast it for the candidate I'm trying to defeat simply because I live in a red or blue state! - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
There is already a Unity Wiki.
And there is now a page on which to write a platform being developed by someone (whoever is behind IP address 71.112.2.226) inspired by Vern McGeorge's post.
I've been to your site and I will contribute to the platform there. I think it would have greater impact if it was front and center here however.
I wish the founders would aim higher, but perhaps if we build it, they will come (around).
--Vern
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
- Vice Adm. H.G. Rickover
"We should all be aware of, and embrace, the National Popular Vote movement which is seeking to get the majority of the states to sign on to an Interstate Compact that will (once a critical mass has been achieved) require each and every one of them to apportion Electoral College delegates in proportion to the popular vote within the state. In effect, it will re-enfranchise the purple voters."
It would also promote the election of minority candidates if you don't have any run-off election capability, i.e., it could either elect candidates who fail to win a national popular vote majority or it could routinely throw the election into the House of Representatives.
It would also likely encourage fringe candidates to enter the race in particular states in hopes of drawing attention to themselves or fracturing the electoral vote in favor of one major candidate or another.
Rather, it assigns all electoral votes to the candidate who receives the highest number of popular votes nationwide. For instance, if California voted 52:48 for a Democrat, but the national popular vote was 52:48 for a Republican, then ALL of CA's 46 electoral votes would be cast for a Republican - 180 degrees opposite of how CA ballots were cast.
That outcome could be challenged on 14th Amendment grounds where the amendment reads, "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States... is denied... the basis of representation therein shall be reduced...
It's true that people would still vote, but the votes would be ignored in deference to the national vote, so the "right to vote... for the choice of electors" would be effectively denied.
Also, counting the national vote in a state election seems to violate the Constutional guarantee that each state is a self contained republic. So it could also be challenged on grounds that it violates Art IV Sec 4 where, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does mandate the award of all the states Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote nation wide.
My first response was Gaak! I mean I'd hate to see our current administration acting on a 400+ vote mandate from the Electoral College even if we all knew that it was a totally artificial artifact.
But, I read the Every Vote Equal book (or at least large swaths of it) and really looked at how other means of allocating votes (such as by popular vote within the state) would change a handful of battleground states into a handful of battleground districts. In other words, the professional politicians would concentrate on an even thinner slice of the voting public and disenfranchise even more of us.
The math is a bit daunting for a light read, but unmistakable. Nation wide National Popular Vote is the only way to really break the log-jam and yield a good result.
I’m still in favor of it.
--Vern
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
- Vice Adm. H.G. Rickover
The math is really very simple - one man/woman, one vote. The EC causes many problems both real and perceived, and solves none that I can see.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
it would be nice if a tab "my issues" were available
to postulate our issues along with "bio, view, edit ,track, etc..." profiles.
so i could review others issues; by which coalitions could be forged....
not to mention be able to re-calibrate my own issues.........(many times i confuse myself.)
to ultimately reach...........
agree / disagree / don't care / don't know..coalitions
thanks