Keenly interested in third party politics, I chose to look at John Anderson in 1980. Like many others, I had always assumed that his finish with 7% of the vote indicated that he never really had a shot. Not so. To the contrary, Anderson had a real opportunity to present himself as a viable alternative to President Carter, but his campaign succumbed to the idea that any vote for Anderson would be "wasted." 

It's exciting to think how a candidacy such as his could be much more viable today: no worries about ballot access (thanks to the efforts of Americans Elect), greater ability to get a message out aside from the traditional media, greater public dissatisfaction with Washington and both parties, the ability to raise money more online, the ability to more quickly build a grassroots network of support, etc. 

Paper after the jump.

Paper after the jump. 

That's the question I posed in a comparative study I wrote for my one of my courses at Georgetown University this summer. I compared the 2000 presidential election in the United States (where the third party challenger, Ralph Nader, did poorly) to the 2010 election in the United Kingdom (where the third party challenger, Nick Clegg, performed relatively well). 

Both countries have electoral systems that discourage third party formation (see Duverger's Law). However, I theorized that the inherent disincentives for voters to support a third party may be overcome when their level of dissatisfaction with the status quo reaches a high enough level. That data I collected supported this theory. It's not a ground-breaking finding by any means, but it does have some serious implications. As I write:

"To the extent that voter dissatisfaction is a predictor of third party support, the case in the United Kingdom suggests what may lie ahead for the United States. Since 2000, public opinion in the United States has trended toward where public opinion in United Kingdom was in 2010. The number of Americans who believe the United States is on the right track decreased by 25 points from 2000 to 26% in 2011. 

 In the same period of time, the number of Americans who are satisfied with the United States system of government and how well it is working decreased by 26 points to 42%. Unemployment in the United States rose to over 9%. In the 2012 presidential election, voter dissatisfaction with government and the direction of the country may create a vacuum in which a third party candidate emerges. Voters’ fears of wasting their votes or spoiling the election by voting for a third party candidate may be overcome by a greater desire for an alternative to the two major parties."

Full text after the jump.

Splashlife is a realtively new organization. Their mission is to "connect every one of the 75 million members of our generation with one another, and with the tools and resources we need to realize our best and biggest dreams."

The survey they had us fill out was rather lengthy, and heavily edited down (which makes sense). But I've posted my compelte answers after the jump, as I some considerable time thinking about it!

It seems odd that as much as I am involved in politics, I have not worked for a candidate before. I guess that's because I have never had the opportunity to work for someone I really believed in. In this case, I did – her name is Pam Lutfy. I got to know Pam during her time on the local school board. She's thoughtful, intelligent, a good listener, and a consensus-builder. Most of all, she does what she feels is the right thing to do. I'm hard pressed to think of another public official I can describe in the same way. 

She decided to toss her hat into the Republican primary against two other candidates – an incumbent, and the handpicked replacement of the other outgoing Republican commissioner. That act in itself took courage. Competitive elections are rare because the party establishment usually chooses its candidates and that's the end. Indeed, a handful of other Republicans who wanted to run dropped out once the outgoing commissioner's replacement was picked.

To the Editor:

In the 2010 primary election, about 11% (4,998) of Pike County’s registered voters turned out to vote. Without federal races on the ballot, it is likely that even fewer voters will show up to the polls for next week’s primary on May 17. While there is no easy cure for voter apathy, there are at least two bills pending in the state legislature that would lower existing barriers to voter participation.

First, House bill 994 would open Pennsylvania’s primary elections to independent and nonparty voters. These voters, more than 3,500 in Pike County alone, are currently not allowed to participate in the primaries. Open primaries would allow all citizens to exercise their vote in a meaningful way, by choosing which party’s primary to vote in. This would increase voter turnout.

Consider this year’s race for County Commissioner. Three republicans are competing for two spots, and one democrat is running unopposed. The race will likely be settled by the end of the day on May 17. Why should republican primary voters be the only ones who have a say in who the next County Commissioners should be, when the job of a Commissioner is to represent all of us?

Second, Senate bill 652 would allow citizens to both register to vote and exercise that right on Election Day. Right now, citizens must register to vote a full month in advance of the election to participate, before many even start paying attention to it. This may have been rational at one time in the past when registration forms took time to process, but there is no justification for such an advanced deadline in this Information Age.

This reform can be particularly important to engage young people, who are more unfamiliar with the system. In the 2008 election, youth voter turnout in states with Election Day registration was 9% higher than other states, according to the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE).

In the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

Please go vote on May 17^th. If you are one of those independent voters or missed the registration deadline and are unable to, please contact your legislators instead. 

Sincerely,

Nick Troiano

Westfall

I tweeted out some of the great nuggets of information (see #efd11 on Twitter), but one presentation really caught my eye. 

He explained three main reasons why young people who are active online are also more civically and politically engaged:

1. They have expanded social networks within which they can learn about causes and recruit for their own. He gave the example of people donating to the Japan Earthquake relief through Farmville. 

2. They have an appreciation for collective action (think multi-player gaming).

3. It teaches skills that are useful in political and civic life (i.e. communication, organizing, etc.).

Also, former Congressman Lee Hamilton delivered one of the best speeches I've ever heard, on the topic of civic education. Luckily, I caught it on Flip:

Part of the reforms that came as a result of our work that year, and continued the next during my absence, was a student referendum that ended contributions to the endowment. This did two things: it effectively doubled student activities funding on campus and it freed up $3.4 million in accumulated endowment money to be spent by the student body. But how?

That's a question I began thinking about in February last year, when I got the idea that we could do something extraordinary with these resources – create a Social Innovation and Public Service Fund. I was inspired by the new social innovation fund that passed with the Kennedy Serve America Act in 2009, and also saw a need as a student social entrepreneur (starting myImpact.org) that resources and seed money were not available on campus. At the same time, data showed more and more students going into banking and finance than into public service careers. Can you really blame them with all that student debt?

So the SIPS Fund, I thought, could serve a variety of purposes. Primarily, it could help students who have great ideas for non-profits or social enterprises get off the ground and it could incentivize more students to engage in volunteerism and seek public service careers (such as by offering loan repayment assistance).

I teamed up with a very bright, independent and up-and-coming student government senator, Clara Gustafson, to bring this idea to life. And after months of meeting and brainstorming, we launched the proposal this week. We have a great website up and running, and published an op-ed in The Hoya this week.  

Now, we let the bureaucracy begin. We will be formally presenting the proposal to the recently established Endowment Commission soon. The Commission will make a recommendation to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee will report to the Senate. The Senate will then issue a referendum. And then all students will vote on that referendum. It'll be a long haul, but I'm excited for it. We have a good team behind it.

This issue was very important to me when I was a junior and senior in high school. It really bothered me how our school board was keeping in place a politically popular policy, even though it violated students' rights. That they were not legally compelled to do anything, hardly seemed like a justification for the school board to keep in place a policy that was found to be unconstitutional. In the last school board election, all but one candidate said they supported keeping the policy, according to a survey.

Back in the fall of 2009, a parent began raising the issue again. It prompted the school board's solicitor to advise the board that it should take the steps necessary to revise the policy so it is in compliance - despite pushback from the board and superintendent. 

That's when I wrote a letter to the editor in support of creating a review taskforce, posted below. I believe the taskforce was created, but to date, still no changes have been made. And now, the district is being sued. Who knows what the cost will be to defend it. This is disappointing and frustrating to me. It seems to me that the role of a public official is to uphold the law. While most are very good people, my high school's school board members failed in that role.