web analytics

JerseySmarts.com

The Constitution Party Asks For Your Input – Through Their Words

Posted on by

At some point last year I began doing some preliminary analysis of election results, specifically looking at third parties and how they perform through the scope of small town election results. In other words, if you start the “Bob’s Political Party” and you put yourself on the statewide or national ballet, how many votes might you receive in a small town? Hey, it interests me, okay?!

In any event, last year I put myself on the mailing list for the Constitution Party. This party, as I understand it, supports a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. Frankly, as an Adjunct Professor of Political Science I can certainly appreciate the fact that not many people in our society understand the basics of the Constitution nor the powers or limitations of our federal style of government.

Back up for a moment – I’ve also spent some time considering the words that politicians use in their campaigns and what the reality of their campaign promises mean through the vernacular of their campaign rhetoric. For example, then-Senator Barack Obama campaigned to be the President of the United States by making a lot of promises – some of which he simply could not fulfill. Obama promised that taxes would not go up “one dime” for anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Well, that’s not something that Obama can promise because in our system of government the President does not unilaterally make tax policy. More properly stated, Obama should have said, “I pledge to work with Congress and push a policy of not raising taxes on anyone making under $250,000.” However, who wants to hear a promise of “trying” to push a certain policy once elected? Exactly…

But words are interesting in politics and as someone who has been tangentially monitoring the Constitution Party over the last year, I find the survey on their site to be worthy of an entry on this blog. By the way, you can read (and take) the survey by clicking here. What do I find so interesting about it? Well, click on that link and take the survey.

Notice anything? How about the style in which the questions are written? Look at this question:

The undercutting of our free market system, begun by Republicans and accelerated by President Obama, has resulted in near government ownership of too many banks and industries. Do you agree that the Constitution Party (CP) should remain steadfast in opposing both parties’ push for more federal control over our financial sectors and businesses?

For those of you who study this type of stuff (i.e. communication), I’m sure you’re loving this question right now! How about that first sentence? Why not say, “This is what the Constitution Party believes about this particular issue and we’re going to ask you to agree with us in the next sentence, okay?” Honestly, this is a little bit disappointing from a third party that I think has some potential at the local and regional level of politics.

From what I’ve gathered, the Constitution Party is trying to present a real alternative to those in the Republican and Democratic parties who expect this country to be operated as the Constitution dictates that it must. That’s an honorable goal – especially in today’s hyper-partisan political climate where both the Republicans and the Democrats use interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of clauses in the Constitution as the base of their domestic and foreign policies. But where the Constitution Party does itself no good is to put up a “survey” that is packed with leading questions. Not a good strategy.

A better strategy for the Constitution Party would be to go to the 23rd District of New York and set-up camp. This is a district that provided 45.2% of the vote to a Conservative Party candidate. Imagine if the Constitution Party could legitimize itself to the voters in the 23rd District and make a real showing in future elections? Better yet, a good strategy for this party might be to recruit well-known candidates to run for office at the local level and build on local success. It’s almost like building a new business – you don’t just open up 50 Wal-Mart-sized stores in 50 states and expect them to be successful tomorrow. You need to build a brand.

But building that brand should not include time wasted on self-aggrandizing surveys.

Could 2012 Be the Year of the Third Party?

Posted on by

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently suggested that 2012 might be the year that a third party takes a big bite of the Republican Party. More specifically, Gingrich states:

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012,” Gingrich said Wednesday during a speech at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri, the local television station KY3 reported.

That’s no joke, folks. If it’s coming from Speaker Gingrich then you know this discussion is taking place at the highest levels of the conservative base. Conservative voters in America want something to vote for and everyone knows that what they want does not look like Senator John McCain (for better of for worse).

Speaker Gingrich makes an excellent point here and it follows something that I’ve been thinking for a while, namely that the two major political parties in America are too big and trying to serve too many masters. Americans like options. Right now, we don’t have any substantial options between our big political parties.

By the way, some third parties are already chomping at the bit to become the new political party of choice for conservative Americans. Some of you may remember after the election when I spent some time analyzing the voting results in my hometown. I mentioned at that time that the Constitution Party did relatively well (one or two votes, can’t remember) in one of the smaller districts that I was reviewing. Anyway, I received an e-mail from the Constitution Party talking about how they want to be that third party. They cite how they are the fastest growing political party in the country and after reading what Gingrich had to say and watching the flow of American politics on my own, I can’t say that I’m surprised.

Building a Third Party Base at the Local Level

Posted on by

Over the last few days I’ve posted some information about a third party in the 2008 election – the Constitution Party. I’m just putting this information out there because I really believe that third parties are railroaded by the mainstream media and that America needs a strong third party to challenge the Democrats and Republicans. But as I look at these parties, I begin to wonder why they don’t start smaller and use more aggressive tactics.

For example, I’ve been looking at the voter results in my hometown of Mount Arlington (obsessively so). The Constitution Party received 2 votes in my hometown out of a total of 2,536 votes case. Repeat: they received 2 votes. Honestly, that’s not too bad! Mount Arlington isn’t too big and for a third party to pull any votes is impressive. Write-ins received 14 votes, Ralph Nader had 13, the Libertarians had 5 votes, the list goes on. In total, third parties received 41 votes or 1.6% of the vote.

Again, that’s not totally bad in this type of election, but if the third parties want to do better then they should be building a stronger base at the local level. For example, there were 4,387 votes cast for the Mount Arlington Borough Council (you get to cast two votes, which means a total of 5,072 votes could have been cast – some voters obviously chose not to vote for Borough Council or only cast one vote). I have to imagine that if a third party really wants to make an impact, they would spend a good deal of time and money at the lowest level of government and try to win these smaller elections. You win the local election for Mayor or Town Council or whatever, prove that your policies work at the local level, then try to expand to other local municipalities or to the county level (depending where you are in the United States).

The Republicans won in Mount Arlington and from what I can see, they’ve done a fine job of leading. They were handed the short end of the stick thanks to Governor Money Bags’ new anti-small town policies, but they’re managing. That said, their leading candidate received 24.34% of the votes cast. A third party should be able to meet that percentage if they wage a good campaign.

Or maybe there are other reasons why third parties aren’t making it in America. If I were running a third party, I’d choose a few small towns across America and use them as examples for why my party should be elected to higher offices. Hell, I’d even look at taking in disenfranchised members of the Republicans or Democrats and use them as the candidates for my party! Why not use those folks who already have name recognition and some type of rapport with the public?

But I would do more. I would hold voter registration drives and be sure to get those people who have never registered or never thought of registering. Go door to door if necessary and have unregistered voters fill out a voter registration form at the same time as they fill out an absentee ballot request. Put them on that perpetual absentee ballot program and tell them that it means they can literally vote from home – so long as they drop the ballot in the mail in time. If it’s legal (and I don’t know if it is), drop them some simple, uncomplicated campaign propaganda. Get them a button or a bumper sticker or something.

It just seems to me that third parties aren’t utilizing these very simple tactics in order to take a foothold at the smallest levels of American society. Again, maybe they are doing these things in places other than New Jersey and I don’t see it, but I have to think that third parties could be doing a better job of getting the word out about their existence and their platforms.

The Constitution Party in the 2008 Election

Posted on by

Continuing with my look at the Constitution Party, I thought I’d relay some information both e-mailed to those of us on their mailing list and posted on their website. This message talks about how the party fared in the 2008 election. From the e-mail:

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and his running mate Darrell Castle wound up with close to 179,000 votes, showing even with no ads and comparatively little media attention, the message of liberty resonated with many.

The tally was a 24% increase over the party’s vote total in 2004. However, this year we were not on the ballot in California or Pennsylvania, and in 2004 those states accounted for 33,000 votes. The Baldwin/Castle ticket even grabbed 3,418 write-in votes in Texas, the highest for any write-in candidate in that state.

While the Constitution Party lists their final tally to be “close to 179,000” votes, Wikipedia lists their total for 2008 as 181,342. Not too bad, really. Both the Libertarians and Ralph Nader finished ahead of the Constitutionalists, but they got a few thousand more votes than the Green Party. More from their message:

In addition to larger percentages of votes, 20 states will remain ballot qualified meaning fewer time-consuming and costly ballot-access campaigns will be necessary going forward. This is a 33% increase over 2004.

Many people do not realize that one of the biggest hurdles that young political parties have to overcome is actually getting on the ballot! You don’t just “wind up” on the ballot – you have to actually collect signatures and petition to be on the ballot in each state. It’s not the easiest process and as the quoted message above alludes to, it’s not an entirely quick process either.

It would appear that the Constitution Party made a decent showing for a third party with no financing and no advertising in the 2008 election. America needs a strong third party at the national level – could it be this one?

Sizing Up the Constitution Party

Posted on by

One of my favorite things to do during Presidential election years is to research third party candidates and learn more about third parties in general. In 2004, I began to look a little bit at the Libertarian Party. This year, I’m looking at the Constitution Party. This is a political party that was originally formed as the United States Taxpayer’s party in 1992. The purpose of that party was to limit the federal government’s ability to tax and reign in federal spending. After a few years they decided to change their name to the Constitution Party because they felt the new name better reflected the organization’s direction. From their website:

The Constitution Party strongly champions the principles of government laid down by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, principles which have been abandoned by our political establishment. Unlike other political organizations, we do not believe these principles are outdated. We recognize that the Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the land and must be enforced.

As you can see, this is a party that is strongly in favor of states’ rights and restoring the Constitution to its proper place as the pinnacle of American democracy. That may be hard to do in today’s society since so many of today’s common thoughts (i.e. equality of all peoples) are not specifically cited in the Constitution. Of course it would only take a normal person to realize that the Constitution implies equality for all people, but who wants to get bogged down in that type of argument? More from their website:

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

There you have the states’ rights listed as point number 6. I’m actually a big fan of point number 7 regarding American sovereignty. No, I’m not an isolationist, but I think it’s time our troops leave Japan and Germany… We could use their expertise, knowledge, and sheer manpower in other areas of the world (like Afghanistan) or right here in our own country! We forget that not only do we have the most powerful army in the world, we have the most intelligent. America could use that intelligence within our own borders.

The first two points and the fourth one are pretty much a statement of what all Americans are looking for in their federal government. No controversies there. The third point seems to be one that the majority of Americans agree with, but not the folks in certain areas of the country. Definitely not going to get a Constitution Party Mayor in San Francisco any time soon! Point 5 can become dicey as the intent of the Founders can be interpreted in a few different ways. I would assume that the Constitutionalists would be in favor of a rigid interpretation of the Founders’ intent. In some cases that might not be such a bad thing.

I joined the Constitution Party mailing list and added a link to their national party and their New Jersey state party to the links on the side of this blog. Like I said earlier, I always like keeping up with what third parties are up to – this country needs a third party to emerge as a real contender!