Inside D.C.

Time for a third national political party — no party line votes allowed

With the November 4 midterm elections less than a month away, I’m contemplating forming a third national political party for folks like me.  I may call it the Pragmatic People’s Party, or P3, for short.  While it’s too late to get the flyers printed and the website up before the next election, 2016 isn’t that far away.

I’m feeling a bit disenfranchised this election cycle.  I’ve been accused of being a Republican (R) because I’m a baby boomer, I’m male, I make a good living and I lobby primarily for business.  I’ve been accused of being a Democrat (D) because I figure one’s private life is exactly that, so do what you will as long as you don’t do it in the streets and scare the horses.  I live in the in the District of Columbia, so I am a registered Democrat because 75% of DC residents are registered Ds and I don’t get to vote for my mayor unless I vote in the Democrat primary.  When I first moved to DC, I was a reporter, taking great pride I was a registered “Independent.”

I confess when it comes to voting, I am none of the affiliations listed above – nor do I fit the ever-changing definition of Libertarian (L) – at least not in the conventional, blindly loyal, smug, one-is-better-than-the-other definition of party affiliation.  When I make a campaign contribution, it’s as likely to go to an R as a D, and I may even toss some dollars at an L.  I’m convinced more voters today feel as I do; we defy classic definition as liberal, conservative or somewhere in between.

As a member of P3, people will understand there is no such thing as a black and white issue, and our candidates will not take all-or-nothing political positions.  We want a clean environment, but we recognize that until there’s practical and general application of alternative fuels and energy generation, we will have to responsibly mine, drill and explore;  we’d love to buy all things American, but we recognize the economy is global, and building U.S. markets abroad makes sense; health care should be universal, but a hybrid system needs to be created that does not bankrupt the government over time, is not beholden to insurance companies, nor require a PhD in computer sciences to access; we want the nation’s immigration laws reformed and the borders secure, but we recognize there are 12 million illegal immigrants in this country doing jobs citizens won’t, and unless we want to shut down agriculture, we need to deal with that reality, and while we’re a peace-loving people, with a priority on the security of the homeland, we recognize others out there are not, so a strong defense is in everyone’s best interest.

There will be no expectation of P3 members to vote a straight party ticket.  Bless them, my family in Minnesota is generally card-carrying Democratic Farmer Labor (DFL), and the notion of voting for an R or an I or even an L rarely occurs to them, and if it does, they lie down until the notion passes.  P3ers, by definition, vote for candidates who have practical solutions to real problems, and who can be judged by past performance, current positions and promised future actions, not the political party with which they choose to affiliate.

P3ers will not vote for someone just because that candidate’s name has been on a ballot in every election since the first moon shot or because his or her father or mother used to hold the seat. And if asked in a national poll if Congress is out of touch with the American people, they will respond with a resounding “yes!;” they will not add “but not my member.”  P3ers will evaluate every candidate/incumbent in every election as if they’re a fresh challenger in an open race.

On the issue of “only the rich can run for Congress,” I like the British system for electing its Parliament – Google:  “Representation of the People Act 1983” – a system which limits party fundraising and spending, as well as candidate fundraising and spending, and — here’s the best part — how long a campaign can run.   And when I say “limit” you’ll see that what’s allowed in Britain to be spent for an entire election cycle likely wouldn’t pay 25% of the average one-month TV buy in the U.S. for a House candidate.  The law  also limits how the monies can be spent, who can pay for what, and requires very strict public reporting — in some cases, weekly.  The law, which dates to 1883 is designed to create as even a political playing field as possible by not letting fundraising rule who gets elected.  And given Parliament can be dissolved in a New York minute, that whole term limit issue is also addressed.

If this idea catches on, I foresee an end to the two-party system in the U.S., and maybe that’s a good thing if it provides true representation for everyone as the Founding Fathers intended.  The future would be an American Congress populated by Ds, Rs, Is, P3s, Greens, Tea Partiers and the rest.  This system works just about everywhere else on the planet, maybe it’s time to give it a try.