Brand New Congress: 535 progressive candidates, 1 ticket

[Daedalus]

@SamSam

That is a matter of willpower: at least at the local level, the “design” can be changed. It’s not easy, it’s hard work, but it can be.

First-past-the-post is not written in stone.

It’s true, but it’s the reality we’re currently dealing with, and the reality that Brand New Congress will be dealing with. It’s cool that Cambridge has STV, but those 535 progressive candidates won’t be all running in Cambridge. They’ll have to deal with a system that isn’t amenable to third parties.

[lolipop_jones]

@Brainspore

Sanders’ tax plans are less extreme than the tax plans under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.

As I’ve said many times and many places, give me Ike’s whole tax code to replace today’s, with all the deductions, with the brackets adjusted for inflation, and I am one hundred percent with you. Just adjusting the rates to cancel out the 1970’s bracket creep would be well worth it.

But plug Ike’s tax brackets into today’s tax code? No fewkin’ way, man.

[anon26940528]

@Ryuthrowsstuff

people aren’t going to vote counter to their ideology simply because they’re dissatisfied/angry with conventional options.

Watch me.

[hello_friends]

@FunkDaddy

Put 500+ candidates together under one website with unified policy and you have a party, not a bipartisan effort.

Are they caucusing with Democrats or organizing a separate party?

Interesting, but maybe too big? Why not target local elections in one community which exemplifies GOP failure? Then repeat elsewhere. As @Abiatha_Swelter noted, paraphrasing, the bonds between communities and their representatives and policies need to be durable enough to resist astroturfing.

[Jim_Kirk]

Yes, I’ve had to explain to some good friends that if the candidate I prefer doesn’t get the nomination, that doesn’t mean I have to vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils.

“Oh, but write-ins or third party candidates never win!” they say.

Yes, with that attitude, they won’t.

[TobinL]

@Jim_Kirk

“Oh, but write-ins or third party candidates never win!” they say.

Well my cat sure didn’t win when I wrote him in on the ballot as write-in was the only choice for the local position.

[daneel]

Who was managing your cat’s campaign?

[fche]

Almost every equity-seeking group would be crippled without them.

If only…

[FunkDaddy]

@Daedalus

So the third party in this case worked toward its agenda by co-opting one of the other two parties, and then nothing so far has come of it (because FPTP is still how we elect people unless I’m mistaken). That’s a point in favor of changing the major parties rather than working on a third party!

Not even close. The third party had for the previous parliamentary session supplanted one of the 2 larger parties as official opposition of the government. In the election following that they did what they have often done before and taken their progressive ques from the more progressive, but smaller, party in a bid, among many, to reclaim seats lost and regain power. It worked, among other strategies, and the government we have now would never, ever have agreed to end FPTP if it weren’t necessary for them to adopt the planks of the more progressive party. Just as they wouldn’t have adopted universal health care among many other social advancements.

The third party worked toward it’s agenda, full stop. There was no effort to co-opt, it was the other way around. We expect the government to fail in many of it’s grandiose promises, but a few will put it at risk. Electoral Reform is one of them. They will likely try to get rank(ed) ballots instead of PR, but they can’t expect to go without electoral reform and not get eaten.

The fact is most of Canada’s social advancements come about for the fact of a third party either holding, or threatening to hold, the balance of power between two parties that would otherwise be doing exactly what the Dems and Repubs are doing, crawling to the right, one dragging the corpse of the other, getting little to nothing done, trading power back and forth and stopping at that because gaining power back or preserving it becomes the only goal.

You are right in one respect, you can’t expect a third party to rise up and take the House, Senate and or WH in one fell swoop, not without some terrible calamity or such anyway. But if you had a third party with even 10% of the seats in your legislative branches, your deadlocked, useless dread-naughts that take all their cues from money alone would have the fear of the people put in them, and no blood spilled for it.

You can blame FPTP, but the fact of only 2-parties is worse.

@Daedalus

What benefit is there in excluding members of the two dominant parties that agree with the platform?

Exclude who? What support is this you cite, that would never implement the platform? Without the tool of party unison their platform will go nowhere, and if that platform and those candidate that claim it win back the House and Senate, under the banner of the Democratic party? Biz as usual babe, because the threat ends there. Even just the cycle of exchanging power is protection for power.

The threat of being cast aside, made the third party, put into the wilderness. That is something you don’t have.

@Daedalus

My position isn’t an ideological one it’s simply a functional one: at this point in time (circa the 2018 election), a “third party” of progressives won’t do much. Though a fund that provides money to candidates whose agenda lines up with it no matter what party affiliation that candidate has could do some interesting things

Pragmatism isn’t actually intended to be an excuse you know. A third party, so long as they hold seats, doesn’t need to do much beyond hold their principles and do what doesn’t happen now, work with other parties.

And 2018 is looking good for a race that could propel a third party…into third place. Srsly. You think some money, a fund and some platform is going to do as much as 10% of seats in an otherwise balanced House remaining effectively in play after the dust has settled?

Get it? Third parties don’t need to win. They make other parties need to, and keep that need between elections, while providing the opportunity to break deadlock between elections.

[FunkDaddy]

It is unclear. Replacing incumbents that are career Democrats, with laypeople? Since no Dem incumbents could meet their requirements it would be necessary, but it seems incredibly unlikely.

More likely they’ll get watered down to water if they try the bipartisan progressive approach under existing party banners.

[Aloisius]

@Daedalus

In 2018, the entire house of representatives is up for grabs. … The Senate’s got some folks up for re-election, too (including Bernie himself, if I’m not mistaken).

Am I missing something? Every two years the entire House of Representatives is up for grabs - including this year. They have two year terms.

And every two years, about a third of the Senate is up for re-election since they have six year terms which have gotten pretty evenly staggered over the years.

Arguably, this year is the most advantageous year to regain both the Senate and the House - especially if Trump or Cruz end at the top of the ticket since they aren’t exactly loved by large segments of their party. Focusing on 2 years from now - during midterms when liberals historically don’t bother to vote - seems rather dumb.

[Quinquennial]

I have to agree that this sounds incredibly like a new political party, but I also understand why they don’t want to go that far.

I think it would be very difficult for a split from the Democrats to work (presumably a spilt from their party due to the Sanders-like platform which has no resemblance to anything the GOP proposes, save from Trump of all people). All that would do is dilute the vote so that the GOP comes right up the middle even without popular support.

I think the only way a new party would work is if both Democrats and GOP split into new parties at the same time. The fascists could have their party, the rest of the GOP can have their Whig-based party, the Democrats could split into centrist and left wing parties which they are clearly a merging of.

Rather than winner takes all contests, you’d see groups forced into coalitions where more voices are heard and respected. Well, hopefully not from the fascists too much.

[hello_friends]

Whether dem or third party, I think prospective reps need engagement with their local communities and issues and a community organizing practice focused on new ways to reduce economic risks. That’s how to build credibility and solidarity with supporters and also franchise a new organizing model that can be scaled and replicated.

[jannamark]

I managed to sign up w/o also making a donation.

[FunkDaddy]

I think the focus should be much broader than economic risk. Hella lotta people are turning away from basing all on economic principles, economic policies etc that tend not to particularly serve their interests but give ample opportunity to have others trounce issues they do want addressed with “It’s the economy, stupid” aka the byline of pink-slip America.

[hello_friends]

You’re right. I should say economic risks and cultural misrecognition. Or, better, would be representatives and representative committees should concentrate on listening to their communities and figuring out how to deliver what they want by any nonviolent means.

[FunkDaddy]

@hello_friends

Or, better, would be representatives and representative committees should concentrate on listening to their communities and figuring out how to deliver what they want by any nonviolent means*

*live gladiator exhibitions excepted

[Bloo]

I didn’t see this issue after skimming through all the replies, so forgive me if I missed one and this is a duplicate.

I do not think it possible to replace all 535 members in one election, since Senators have 6-year terms with one third up for election every two years.

[mrfixit]

Came here to mention this. Seems like this is for 2018 and onward as well.

What’s their position on electoral reform? I’d be much more in favor of candidates running how Lessig tried to run: promise to pass electoral/campaign finance reform then resign. Parroting a lot of other people, but two parties is a symptom of the system. FPTP pretty much ensures two parties and strategic voting. People bringing up the NDP are forgetting to mention that they have been in government or the official opposition in the western provinces for quite some time. It’s all Republicans and Democrats top to bottom in the US, with a few exceptions.

[Christy_Stockman]

Uh. Because there are never 535 congressional seats*1 up for election at the same time.

So either:
1) you don’t know this.

(That is cause for some concern and certainly makes me wonder
if you could even possibly have the political acumen to try such a stunt*2)

   ---  or  ---

2) you think I don’t know this.

(That is cause for even greater concern.)

So if you will admit that you have neither the time nor resources to even try something so pointless (besides the fact that you have
probably missed every filing deadline there is) Why don’t you try something that you could do and that could make a real change?

Start something new.

Maybe it is a people’s Congress or a new progressive party or simply a watchdog group. Maybe just the first country-wide politically
progressive flash mob. Yeah, I kinda like that. Start a mob.

Recruit 4,350 people (10 folks in each of the 435 districts)

who are each committed to Bernie’s Agenda and have two goals:

1- recruit 10 new people to volunteer (one or two every quarter until 2018)
and
2-rewrite the federal budget that you can all agree on by consensus
(then make every candidate answer why they will or won’t support it in the 2018
elections)

(If you honestly think you could do all that in in less than 6 months, I’ll send you 100 dollars.)

*1 The House’s 435 seats are up for election every 2 years. Only one-third of the Senate comes up for election every two years.
This year, 2016, as in most years, there are about 34 senate seats up for election. Making a total of 469. That’s the most that you can affect
in any one election.)

*2 much less ever having a rat’s ass chance to ever pulling off said stunt, which would be great—don’t get me wrong. Five hundred and thirty-five progressive Representatives and Senators could affect the radical sea change this country disparately needs. Changing congress would be much more effective than getting Bernie in the White House, which I voted for even though I know it will never happen.