The future of the Ron Paul Revolution

[JasonM]

I think it's prudent to start thinking about what to do beyond the primaries and beyond the 2008 elections regardless of whether Ron Paul makes it or not.

Electing Ron Paul as president is only step 1 to the real revolution. What we really need is a lot of Ron Pauls in Congress, or else we will be left with what we started with.

The only way that we will ever make a difference is if we infiltrate the Republican (and Democratic) party at all levels and nominate people who believe essentially all the same things as Ron Paul. It means that we have to take it to the next level and some of us may have to start trying to start getting candidates from within our own ranks and pushing them forward through the local republican primaries, and then subsequently getting them elected.

The various 3rd parties around the US are not going to do anything worthwhile or get anything accomplished as they are. What they need to do is infiltrate the main parties and run for their nomination, not run separate from them. Given the low turnout rates for primaries around the nation, it would be infinitely easier for libertarian or constitution parties to push through a candidate with their values into one or both of the major parties than to get on the ballots of every state.

We need more Ron Pauls in Congress, and we are the ones to supply them.

[ronpaulhawaii]

I don't wanna ever hafta "infiltrate" nothing, if I don't have to, ever.

I like the 'politely bold' approach. Seems to work...

I comepletly agree about the need for us all to maintain and build this movement towards Liberty.

KUTGW

[JasonM]

maybe "infiltrate" is the wrong word, but it's simply not productive to try to run 3rd party. Ross Perot was an independent and got some 20% of the vote, but all he really accomplished was drawing votes away from republicans and causing Bill Clinton to win.

[nexalacer]

While it's true that Presidents must be of one of the main two parties, Representatives have been elected as independents enough times to make it viable. Of course, it's EASIER to run as a part of a party, but if you're preaching the liberty message, I don't think it matters. If you do the footwork, you're likely to get elected as a representative, imo. People don't even usually know their representative or they know him as "that guy I voted for last time", or so it appears to me. Thus, if you get your name and message out it's likely to make for positive steps. Getting to the point.... if you really believe in this message, run for the house, get elected as whatever party you can, and let's get this revolution going!

As for myself, I am currently abroad getting some teaching experience, but as soon as I return, I am planning to make a shot for the house.

[David Merrill]

...What we really need is a lot of Ron Pauls in Congress, or else we will be left with what we started with.



What we really need is a constituency. Congressmen and congresswomen represent. Congressmen are hobbled to do something so simple and fundamental as abolish the main problem - the Federal Reserve System. Why? Because the constituency endorses the private credit offered by the Fed.

Stop endorsing private credit and the Fed will be abolished without Congress. But at least Congress would have a constituency telling it what the people want done.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[beermotor]

I agree with this sentiment. Once we get President Paul elected, which looks more and more likely every single day, I think we see a lot of people running for office as "Ron Paul Democrats" and "Ron Paul Republicans" which means of course, they they do not toe the party line and say what they believe. Here are my views, if you like them, put me in office and I Will Represent You Faithfully, Consistently. And of course, with those views, real change can be had for your constituents.

[JasonM]

My sentiments exactly.

[foofighter20x]

maybe "infiltrate" is the wrong word, but it's simply not productive to try to run 3rd party. Ross Perot was an independent and got some 20% of the vote, but all he really accomplished was drawing votes away from republicans and causing Bill Clinton to win.

Bah... Don't be a sell out, man!

Why not instead of being chained to a two party system we instead try to puch for an amendment to the Constitution that will allow a more accurate representation of the people?

Get that system in place, where almost everyone can get some representation, and you won't have to worry about infiltrating any thing.



My suggestion has been to amend the constitution to set the size of the House of Representatives at around 300 seats and require that it be elected by party list voting. For every 0.33% of the vote a party gets, they get a seat. Remanders are discarded and any unfilled seats are cut for that election cycle. This also solves the problems of vacancies and would let the parties district the entirety of the country based on however many seats they have. It'd work way better than our current 10 year census/reapportionment cycle and keep stupid political games like in TX during 2003 from being played.

[Bison]

I agree the Revolution should continue beyond this election. I disagree that it has to happen with the big two parties. The publics disgust with the two major parties is at an all time high and those are favorable conditions for a third party to make gains.

Third parties can overcome the "they have no chance of winning" label. The way to do that is to start out on the local level. Take baby steps in effect. Start small, build your voter base , win and then tackle a state wide election. After you have been successful on that level then you can try and parlay that success into a national election. But first you have to be able to overcome that statement by pointing to wins on a local level.

The Constitution Party and Libertarian Party can agree on many issues and should vote for each others candidates where one of their own is not running. Can you imagine how much better off this nation would be if two constitutionally sound parties were the two major parties in politics?Of course there would still be areas that they disagree on but at least we would not be in this current mess.


Essentially Ron Paul is running as a third party candidate inside his own party right now. The major difference and benefit is that he already has ballot access. Thats the major obsticle to any third party candidate, getting ballot access. In fact some here might consider finding one of the third parties and signing their ballot access petition. Perhaps you could take one home and get your friends and family to sign it. That would require little to no effort on your part, but it would make a huge difference for the party petitioning. Then the party could stop spending its time and money on getting access and actually spend it on running a competetive campaign. A small token like that would not interfere with your campaigning for Ron.

But I say let the revolution continue in any way it can. I am just glad people are finding the freedom messege attractive. I think Ron Paul has made many converts to that messege, especially among the young, and they won't be going away any time soon.

[JasonM]

Bah... Don't be a sell out, man!

Why not instead of being chained to a two party system we instead try to punch for an amendment to the Constitution that will allow a more accurate representation of the people?

Get that system in place, where almost everyone can get some representation, and you won't have to worry about infiltrating any thing.


One problem: The dual monopolists of the democrats and republicans and the power brokers in those parties would never stand for it. Unless there is a drastic change in the psyche of the American people, even a Ross Perot with all the money in the world could not change the political landscape and overturn this political reality.

Even Ron Paul described his campaign in 1988 as the libertarian candidate as "worthwhile but unproductive" in one of his interviews.



My suggestion has been to amend the constitution to set the size of the House of Representatives at around 300 seats and require that it be elected by party list voting. For every 0.33% of the vote a party gets, they get a seat. Remanders are discarded and any unfilled seats are cut for that election cycle. This also solves the problems of vacancies and would let the parties district the entirety of the country based on however many seats they have. It'd work way better than our current 10 year census/reapportionment cycle and keep stupid political games like in TX during 2003 from being played.


Yea, well you go ahead and try to make that happen. I'll join the movement when it materializes (if at all).

But like it or not, there IS a two party monopoly on this nation's politics, and they are the Republicans and Democrats. Many have tried to undermine this monopoly and they have all failed. Even if all the 3rd parties were to get together and fly under 1 banner, it wouldn't make a dent. I mean when was the last time a 3rd party candidate was included in a presidential debate with the Republican and Democratic candidates?

I rest my case.

The better strategy for change is to simply accept this reality and treat the primaries as an election before an election. That's pretty much how it swings unfortunately.

[constituent]

look into Mike Gravel's voter initiative concept... it needs lots and lots of work, but it's a start.

[JasonM]

I agree the Revolution should continue beyond this election. I disagree that it has to happen with the big two parties. The publics disgust with the two major parties is at an all time high and those are favorable conditions for a third party to make gains.


or simply for folks to stay home and not vote at all, increasing voter apathy. Most Americans have the attitude that a vote for a 3rd party during a presidential election is a "Wasted" vote. You might have increased membership in 3rd parties, but one of the 3rd parties has to make exponential gains in membership or they will simply become another "Nader" stealing votes from one side or another (rarely both).




Third parties can overcome the "they have no chance of winning" label. The way to do that is to start out on the local level. Take baby steps in effect. Start small, build your voter base , win and then tackle a state wide election. After you have been successful on that level then you can try and parlay that success into a national election. But first you have to be able to overcome that statement by pointing to wins on a local level.


I certainly agree on the "starting small" part. Parties like the Libertarians and Constitutionalists need to put funds towards voting for candidates at the local level, instead of donating on a national level to a presidential campaign.

Once they have lots of folks at the state and local levels, and have lots of people in Congress, then they can start thinking presidential elections, which are the end game, not where you start. So many resources are wasted trying to promote presidential candidates when those resources would be better used to get a state legislature or Congressional representative instead. Libertarians have a few folks in the House already I think. They just need to increase those numbers significantly.





Essentially Ron Paul is running as a third party candidate inside his own party right now. The major difference and benefit is that he already has ballot access. Thats the major obsticle to any third party candidate, getting ballot access. In fact some here might consider finding one of the third parties and signing their ballot access petition. Perhaps you could take one home and get your friends and family to sign it. That would require little to no effort on your part, but it would make a huge difference for the party petitioning. Then the party could stop spending its time and money on getting access and actually spend it on running a competetive campaign. A small token like that would not interfere with your campaigning for Ron.

But I say let the revolution continue in any way it can. I am just glad people are finding the freedom messege attractive. I think Ron Paul has made many converts to that messege, especially among the young, and they won't be going away any time soon.

Much more effective than balloting or signing petitions is if the minor party candidates were allowed into the presidential debates. It's no good getting your man on the ballot box if people don't even get to see your man on national TV debating the other candidates (another huge benefit of going with a major party).

[pennycat]

Now hold on a minute. Before everyone buys their one way ticket on the 'no third party can win' train, remember that the Republican party was at one time 'a third party.' It started as an off-shoot of the Whig party in 1854. Currently dominate party's have the edge. But when people are not heard by the entrenched establishment, third party's spring up to fill the void.