The theme of the TEDx event was "Us vs. Them" - and the organizers wanted to include a talk political in nature. Of course, the most obivous "Us vs. Them" in politics today is Democrats vs. Republicans. But in my talk, I argue that this partisanship is only a symptom of the real problem – a division within our republic between a "political class" and the people. To get back to a "We the people" government, I suggest some fundamental political reforms as well as a need for a bottom up reinvigoration of civic participation. Leave your feedback!

In theory – AE a brilliant idea: 50-state ballot access for a bipartisan/non-partisan presidential ticket chosen directly by the people through an online convention. It leverages our new technology to open up the process to more people (not just those on the extremes) and expand the pool of candidates to those who otherwise would not run through the circus of either party's primary. But in practice - it has proven more difficult than expected to engage voters in the process and attract credible/viable candidates and draft movements. 

[Read an article published on the univeristy's website here, and download the full SIPS Fund proposal here.]

It has been an amazing journey since I first began brainstorming this idea close to two years ago to (finally) seeing it pass referendum. There were many, many obstacles to clear and I frankly never thought it would succeed. So what made it come to life? It took a compelling vision and a solid plan, but more than anything else, what made it possible was building a really good team. 

The SIPS Fund story reminds me of this entertaining video on leadership:

I was doing a crazy dance for a while. Having many other things on my plate, I tried to find someone or a group of people to champion the idea with me. The first couple of people I approached didn't work out. But then came along, Clara Gustafson –– whom I did not know well, but I had a lot of respect for as an outspoken underclassman member of the student government. She started doing the crazy dance with me. 

Then came Paige Lovejoy, a fellow student who said she heard the idea, loved it, and just wanted to help make it happen. We built a thirteen-member steering committee, and together, we sheparded the proposal through the process. In January, 2,300+ students showed up to vote in favor of the idea. 

What made the project come to life was the fact that no one really cared who got the credit for it. We shared a vision and wanted to make it happen. We took joint ownership of it.

If one person was most responsible for the SIPS Fund coming to life, it's not me. It's Clara. Anyone can dream up an idea. On the other hand, as the narrator says: "It takes guts to be the first follower. You stand out and brave ridicule yourself. Being a first follower is an underappreciated form of leadership."

Clara was just elected President of the Georgetown University Student Association. She knows how to lead. But she also knows how to lead by following. I think we can all learn from her example.

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!