September, 10 2009 MIKE BLOOMBERG UNVEILS PLAN FOR AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION AND WEEKEND VOTING The Mayor's Plan, "Easy to Vote & Easy to Run" Will Also Eliminate Barriers that Discourage Residents from Voting and Will Reform New York’s Antiquated Ballot Access Laws Mike Bloomberg announced his "Easy to Vote & Easy to Run" plan to transform the City's election system over the next four years. The plan will make it easier for New Yorkers to participate in the democratic process by reforming New York's antiquated ballot access laws to enable more candidates to run for office and give unaffiliated voters greater ability to participate in the democratic process, creating a New York City "Democracy Index" to assess the administration of elections in New York City, and urging Congress to pass laws that enable automatic registration of all eligible voters and to move Election Day from Tuesday to the weekend. Since taking office in 2002, Mayor Bloomberg has been a vocal advocate for election reform. After the 2004 presidential election, the Mayor created the Election Modernization Task Force to provide guidance to the Board of Elections on new voting machine implementation, phone and internet voter assistance, poll worker training, and other issues. Many Task Force recommendations were incorporated into 2005 State legislation, ensuring the City received federal funds to comply with new voting machine regulations. Today’s announcement builds on the Mayor’s record of accomplishment. "For far too long, our election system has been plagued with antiquated rules and procedures that effectively limit its fairness and effectiveness," said Mayor Bloomberg. "This plan will enable more New Yorkers to engage in the democratic process by making it easier for them to run for office and easier for them to vote." Heather K. Gerken, the J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale Law School, an election law expert, and an advocate for the modernization of our country’s antiquated election administration system, endorsed the Mayor’s plan. Professor Gerken is also the author of The Democracy Index, a blueprint for how the United States should spur improvements to its election system by using a ranking system, similar to that utilized by U.S. News & World Report to rank colleges, which would measure the ability of states to efficiently run elections against their peers. "Mayor Bloomberg has taken the lead in improving New York City's election system with this impressive new election reform plan," said Professor Gerken. "A New York City Democracy Index will help the City identify problems before they happen and ensure that every New York voter can have confidence in the election system. This first-in-the-nation index is destined to become a national model for other localities and states, and perhaps even the federal government." Marc Morgenstern, Executive Director of Declare Yourself, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit campaign to empower and encourage every eligible 18-29 year-old in America to register and vote in local and national elections, also endorsed the Mayor’s plan. Since 2004, Declare Yourself has registered almost 4 million young people, contributing significantly to the turnout of 24 million young voters in the 2008 Presidential Election. "Mayor Bloomberg's plan will improve voter access, particularly for under-represented groups such as our young people," said Mr. Morgenstern. "The Mayor's creation of a democracy index and support for voter registration modernization can help move our election system into the 21st century and promote fuller participation in our democracy." Norman J. Ornstein, Co-Founder, Why Tuesday?, a non-partisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2005 to find solutions to increase voter turnout and participation in elections, praised the Mayor’s plan. Mr. Ornstein is also a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, serves as an election analyst for CBS News and writes a weekly column called "Congress Inside Out" for Roll Call newspaper. "This set of reforms is a huge step forward to making the voting system work and revitalizing democracy in New York," said Mr. Ornstein. "It should serve as a model for elections across the country." Key Elements of Mike’s "Easy to Vote & Easy to Run" Plan: * Create a "Democracy Index" to Reform NYC’s Election System: The city’s "Democracy Index" will include metrics that assess the effectiveness of the election administration process, focusing on easily comprehensible and quantifiable performance outputs related to registration, voting and tabulation, rather than complicated policy inputs. For example, the index will measure how long voters must wait in line and how long it takes for voter registrations to be processed. * Make 311 NYC’s Voting Hotline: Mayor Bloomberg will work with the City’s Board of Elections to enable 311 to field all election-related requests for information, including questions regarding poll site location, absentee ballots, and complaints about election administration or fraud. * Support National Voter Registration Modernization: To boost voter turnout while making our election administration less costly and more efficient, Mayor Bloomberg will support the federal effort to automatically register all eligible voters, also known as "Voter Registration Modernization." This important reform would save the Board of Elections time and money that it can then put towards preparing for Election Day. * Support Federal Effort to Institute Weekend Voting: To make it easier for voters to exercise their right and to increase voter turnout, Mayor Bloomberg will call on Congress to pass the Weekend Voting Act, sponsored by Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and Congressman Steve Israel of Long Island, which seeks to shift Election Day from Tuesday to Saturday and Sunday. In polls, one quarter of eligible voters who failed to vote blamed scheduling difficulties. * Halve the Signature Requirement for the Petitioning Process: In order to make it easier for candidates to qualify for a spot on the ballot, the Mayor proposes changing State election law to halve the number of signatures required to the lesser of (a) 2.5% of the party voters in the district or (b) half of the current number required under State law. * Streamline Ballot Access Requirements: After consulting with good government groups, the Mayor will propose State legislation that would significantly simplify and streamline petition requirements by eliminating the arcane, technical rules that currently exist. The legislation will set a higher threshold for disqualifying petitions and candidates, and streamline the process for correcting errors. * Open Up Petitioning Process to Independent Voters: Independent voters represent nearly 20% of the electorate and are the fastest growing group of voters in the city. To enable them greater participation in the political process, the Mayor proposes changing state law to enable independent voters to gather and sign petitions for candidates that are members of a political party. ### pdf link -0- Voters Keep Re-electing Congressional Losers The Anti-Incumbency Movement is Dead By Joel Hirschhorn Voting out congressional incumbents failed this year, showing the anti-incumbency movement to be a clear letdown. For some years many groups and their websites have been advocating voting out congressional incumbents as an effective means to reform government and make it work better. Two of the better ones are Vote Out Incumbents Democracy and Tenure Corrupts. Congress' average seat retention rate since 1855 is 95.4 percent. There was a 3.6 percent decrease in seat retention in Congress from 99.2 percent in 2004 to 95.6 percent in 2006. But this modest improvement was aimed mostly at Republican incumbents, when what is really needed is a bipartisan approach. Considering the totally awful public approval of Congress you would think that 2008 would be an historic year for voting out congressional incumbents, especially because it is so easy to blame both Democrats and Republicans for the nation's woes. Moreover, public interest in politics and this year's general election were higher than in a long time. And the Internet is awash with passionate statements against incumbents of both parties. So, how have Americans just behaved? How did congressional incumbents do this year? This year the retention rate was typical at 95.6 percent overall (and unlikely to change significantly when some unsettled races get resolved). Likewise, though most incumbent Republicans were reelected, out of just 20 incumbent seats lost, only one was for a Democrat. Need proof of just how little political competition there is? Consider uncontested House seats that incumbents did not even have to defend, including 32 Democrats and 12 Republicans that did not face a two-party challenger. As usual, no third-party congressional candidate was elected, with just a few able to hit around 20 percent, mostly when there was only a Democrat to run against, while in the vast majority of cases they stayed in low single digits. In the presidential vote category it looks like just 1.6 million people voted for third-party candidates, compared to 1.2 million in 2004 - not much of an improvement. In other words, we have once again witnessed the pendulum-effect, where voters may feel strong anti-incumbency sentiments but in only a few cases express them as voting in candidates of the "other" party. So power shifts, but the corrupt status quo two-party system remains. While I have agreed with the motivations of those leading the anti-incumbency movement I have concluded that there is something so rotten about our political system that there will never be a sufficiently large anti-incumbency vote to have any real impact. This year proves my point. In the larger picture, the anti-incumbency movement merely serves as a distraction from more sensible approaches for reforming and revitalizing American democracy. It is just another of a seemingly endless array of ineffective and marginalized political reform movements. Until American patriots and dissidents unite behind something a lot more powerful the two-party plutocracy will remain in power. The core problem is that the public has been thoroughly brainwashed to believe in the two-party system. One major consequence is that they refuse to vote for third-party candidates, so that even when they see what is tragic about our politicians they think the solution as voting for a challenger from the "other" major party. This happens despite the high fraction of voters registered as independents. The anti-incumbency movement could only be successful if it was truly bipartisan so that voters rejected not only ALL incumbent Democrats and Republicans, but also refused to elect new members to Congress from BOTH major parties. Merely shifting control of Congress from one of the major parties to the other has never worked effectively. Why? Simple, both major parties have been corrupted by the same corporate and other special interests that pervert public policies to serve them rather than the general public. The problem is that we still do not effective political competition in a nation that prides itself about competition. The two-party duopoly and plutocracy has worked hard to block true political competition. When it comes to congressional elections, gerrymandering has been used as a potent weapon. Gerrymandering of districts by both major parties when they have the power to accomplish it has not only protected incumbents, it has also made it nearly impossible for third party congressional candidates that are on a huge number of ballots to be successful. Nelson Lee Walker of Tenure Corrupts recently made these sage observations: "I'm coming around to the idea that the bulk of the American people are basically stupid, stupid, stupid! Why? How else can we explain how Congress, which has a 9% approval rating, gets reelected about 95% of the time? Do we ever "throw the bums out"? Listen to these stats: Senate: As of 2008, of 100 Senators, 39 (39%) reelected for 18 yrs or more, 4 over 40 years! House: As of 2008, of 435 members, 143 (33%) reelected for 14 yrs or more, 5 over 36 years! And the longer these guys are in office, the more of them will run unopposed in future elections, since nobody will bother to challenge them. Unopposed races have doubled in the last 20 years, from 40 to 80 seats. And who is responsible for this sad state of affairs? YOU!!! Not your dumb neighbor. Not the media. Not the crooked political system. Just YOU, the typical stupid American! The guy who complains how those crooked politicians are ripping off the country and sending us all down the tubes, and then reelects them!" In this of all years these critical views are hard to dispute. After all, could it be any clearer that the anti-incumbency movement is a failure? I urge those who have put so much time and energy into the anti-incumbency movement to call it quits and devote themselves to strategies that may be more effective. One option is to work hard to form a new national third party. Another is to support the relatively new nonpartisan attempt by Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org to compel Congress to give Americans what they have a constitutional right to have and what has been requested by the required number of states, and what the Founders believed we would need when the public lost trust and confidence in the federal government: an Article V convention that could consider proposals for constitutional amendments, a number of which could truly reform the structure of our dysfunctional political system. For too long Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and we "dumb" Americans have let them get away with it, in large part because both Democrats and Republicans have feared (and instilled fear about) such a convention. The same people that keep getting elected to Congress! How's that for symmetrical infamy? [Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.] 2008 © Associated Content, All rights reserved.
Independent Green, Glenda Gail Parker, urges Virginia to boycott major parties, show leadership. Alexandria, VA -- If ever there was a reason for voters in America to question the authority we grant to our political leaders, now is the time. Never before has a small group of elected officials taken advantage of the public’s trust and totally squandered it on false hopes and misguided intentions. Our career politicians seem to be daring voters to vote them out of office by passing an $800 billion plus bailout package – one that only passed after holdout members were able to insert their earmarks. Providing money to failing financial institutions without stepping in to help struggling home owners is a foolish venture and indicative of who our members of congress and the White House actually represent. What did the voters get in the Wall Street bailout? The most brazen extraction of our national wealth ever committed. What did the taxpayers get in the Wall Street bailout?   After eight years of doubling our national debt, continued waste, fraud and abuse in our federal budget management, and the increase of government intrusion in our lives by legalizing government surveillance, shouldn’t our citizens be ready to boycott those responsible?  Our ruling class lead you to believe that there is a difference between the two big parties, yet they both bear responsibility – they hope voters won’t recognize that. So who should we really be voting for? None of the above. The Independent Greens of Virginia were America's first state party to oppose the Wall Street Welfare program. We were the first to advocate Rail as a positive solution to cut our dependency on foreign oil and to describe the war-for-oil for what it is. Both major parties have been complicit in the charade. Presenting a tax cut while fighting two wars and ignoring positive solutions yields the proof that the ruling class thinks the American taxpayers are not capable of non-partisan voting. Instead of drawing up federal budgets that serve as a statement of our values as a country, we are repeatedly embarrassed by how and where we allocate the precious resources that the taxpayers have pledged with trust. Instead of asking for sacrifice during the last six years of war-making, we were sold tax cuts that amount to nothing more than credit card advances on oil when we could have put those monies to building consumption-reduction rail and a bridge to alternative energy and its distribution system. The war-for-oil machine has succeeded in churning through billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, cost overruns, and un-auditable improper payments. One would think that Americans would be upset, maybe even bitter, considering the sacrifices that our brave soldiers –past and present- have endured for our country. Never again can we trust our governing elite after playing “fast and loose” with some mortgages then holding the Nation’s wealth hostage to succeed in diverting Billions of our tax dollars right into their bank accounts. I’m a businesswoman, a retired Air Force officer and governmental budget analyst on the ballot for the US Senate in Virginia yet excluded from speaking in the debates this year, just as in 2006. I ask for your non-partisan vote.  Let’s make Virginia America’s leader for Rail, Solar and Wind power.  Let’s innovate with Rail.  Let’s cut dependency on foreign oil in half. I have years of experience in cutting budgets and doing it right. Though it may be a stretch for you to consider voting outside of the big two parties, you may agree that we can’t keep sending millionaires and lawyers to Congress to represent our middle-class interests. We can grow the economy, balance the budget, pay off the debt, create jobs AND cut dependence on foreign oil by making a serious commitment to expanding and modernizing our rail system. Rail returns $18 to the community for every dollar invested. We can build rail and balance the federal budget. Rail will make us safer, provides cleaner air, cleaner water and makes us more productive. So I ask you, why should debates be conducted without my voice? Why are the two parties so insulated against progress that they fear the logical solutions that I offer? Are they so afraid of losing their funding source that they forget about the greater good? Now is the perfect opportunity for American voters to boycott the two parties on Election Day 2008 and beyond until they open the process and allow all qualified candidates to make their case in a public forum.  We urge voters to take advantage of the timing and vote out all the incumbents. If you vote for either of the two big parties, you can expect Washington to continue stealing your tax dollars, and your children's future. With all the alternative choices available this year, the only wasted vote is one for either of the big parties.   Our team offers solutions specific to Virginia and ask Virginians to play a leadership role. We offer a simple plan to pay off the federal debt in five years – by installing an auditable accounting system in the Department of Defense where no-bid contracts and improper payments are bankrupting our Treasury. By just counting the money, then we can track it and cut out the wanton waste of tax dollars.   Finally we urge Virginians to stand for office. Take stock of the issues that matter to you. Join the debate, get on the ballot and run for office. Do you realize that 50% of our General Assembly runs unopposed? We need you involved. Democracy cannot survive without you. Election day is November 4, 2008.	RUNNING FOR OFFICE IN 2009? SEND US YOUR PRESS RELEASE TO BE POSTED HERE. Campbell’s Offer to Multiple Debates Accepted by One of Two Opponents. For Immediate Release Contact: Joe Oddo, 703.338.0200   Moon dodging public forums.   March 4, 2009 -- Fairfax, VA – Two debates are scheduled between Centrist Independent Carey Campbell and his Braddock District opponent John Cook. One will be televised on News Channel 8. The third candidate, Ilryong Moon was invited but declined to participate.   In the forum Wednesday evening, Mr. Campbell reiterated the benefits of rail infrastructure investments. “Studies point out that we get back $18 for every dollar invested in rail.” He proposes a rail link around the capitol beltway connecting Alexandria, Springfield, Annandale and Tysons Corner. Concerned citizens attending the North Springfield debate on Tuesday pressed each candidate about what specific cuts in the Fairfax county budget they would make as we face a projected revenue shortfall. While none would commit to cutting essential county services, Campbell was the only one who has read the line items and has found opportunities to save tax dollars. “I am an accountant. These other two gentlemen are lawyers. I question why my tax dollars are being spent on economic development offices in Paris, Berlin and London. I want my tax dollars spent here in the US.” ### --- One of the best parts about running for office is the opportunity to express yourself in front of a large audience (though many fear this aspect – it should be viewed as a welcome opportunity for any third party candidate.) Here is a sample of what you can deliver… Slightly modified from an October 2006 televised address: A patriot must always be ready to defend his country from his government. I’m Joe Oddo, Independent Green running for Congress because we need Action Against Apathy. I want to encourage you to get involved. To run for office. To insist we are allowed in the debates and covered by the media. I offer solutions starting with the National Election Reform Platform. A ten-point plan to institute fairness and security into our election process.  With this platform we can excite, encourage and empower citizens to run for office. It is vital that our citizens get interested and engaged in politics. 2008 presents an opportunity for 468 capable and credible independents to run and get elected to Congress to promote this platform. See all ten points at: IndependentAmerica.org. I offer fiscal solutions that will balance the federal budget now. Pay off the federal debt in five years. And fix the tax code for real tax cuts, not credit card advances. There is nothing compassionate or conservative in military adventurism. This administration promotes addiction to a new drug called fear. We no longer face facts. We prefer to fabricate them. We lost over 4,000 young American soldiers, and caused thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths. Why? For war industry profits. Everyone knows it. One of every four tax dollars are being spent at the Defense Department. From their own report, billions are being mismanaged through "improper payments". That's new government-speak for "waste, fraud and abuse". We can fix that with an auditable accounting system so we know where our money is going. We can save billions more by closing bases in Germany and Japan. And by scrapping useless weapons programs. I ask you, what real liberal or conservative would ever sanction the Patriot Act, or NSA domestic spying? Why should we give away the rights guaranteed by the Constitution now, when they served us well for the multitude of threats we defeated during that last 230 years? Instead it’s: be afraid. Be very afraid. Don’t worry about your tax dollars going to campaign contributors through no-bid contracts. Don’t pay attention while they strip away our rights, or rob our Treasury blind. We won’t hear them say: War as a foreign policy of the United States is wrong. Peace is the answer. Nonviolence is the answer. How do we correct this? By running for office. By paying attention to the shenanigans of this government. By joining a third party and getting on the ballot to have your voice heard and message delivered. This is taking Action Against Apathy. Because I am an optimist, I offer solutions that the two parties will not address. Join us. Our Web site is IndependentAmerica.org. Please Vote Oddo in November. Thank you.
New York Times December 15, 2007 Ohio Elections Official Calls Machines Flawed By BOB DRIEHAUS CINCINNATI — All five voting systems used in Ohio, a state whose electoral votes narrowly swung two elections toward President Bush, have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election, a report commissioned by the state’s top elections official has found. “It was worse than I anticipated,” the official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said of the report. “I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others.” At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers. Ms. Brunner proposed replacing all of the state’s voting machines, including the touch-screen ones used in more than 50 of Ohio’s 88 counties. She wants all counties to use optical scan machines that read and electronically record paper ballots that are filled in manually by voters. She called for legislation and financing to be in place by April so the new machines can be used in the presidential election next November. She said she could not estimate the cost of the changes. Florida, another swing state with a history of voting problems, is also scrapping touch-screen machines and switching to optical scan ones for the election. Such systems have gained favor because experts say they are more reliable than others and, unlike most touch screens, they provide a paper trail for recounts. Ms. Brunner, a Democrat, succeeded J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who came under fire for simultaneously overseeing the 2004 election and serving as co-chairman of President Bush’s re-election campaign in Ohio. She ordered the study as part of a pledge to overhaul voting after problems made headlines for hours-long lines in the 2000 and 2004 elections and a scandal in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, that led to the convictions of two elections workers on charges of rigging recounts. Ms. Brunner’s office temporarily seized control of that county’s board of elections. The study released Friday found that voting machines and central servers made by Elections Systems and Software; Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold; and Hart InterCivic; were easily corrupted. Chris Riggall, a Premier spokesman, said hardware and software problems had been corrected in his company’s new products, which will be available for installation in 2008. “It is important to note,” he said, “that there has not been a single documented case of a successful attack against an electronic voting system, in Ohio or anywhere in the United States.” Ken Fields, a spokesman for Election Systems and Software, said his company strongly disagreed with some of the report’s findings. “We can also tell you that our 35 years in the field of elections has demonstrated that Election Systems and Software voting technology is accurate, reliable and secure,” he said. The $1.9 million federally financed study assembled corporate and academic teams to conduct parallel assessments. A bipartisan group of 12 election board directors and deputy directors acted as advisers. The academic team, made up of faculty members and students from Cleveland State University, Pennsylvania State, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Pennsylvania, said systemic change was needed. “All of the studied systems possess critical security failures that render their technical controls insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election,” the team wrote. In addition to switching machines, Ms. Brunner recommended eliminating polling stations that are used for fewer than five precincts as a cost-cutting measure, and introducing early voting 15 days before Election Day. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company	AP Associated Press New Jersey Assembly wants electoral votes for popular vote winner By Tom Hester Published December 13th 2007 TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey may enter a compact that eliminates the power of the Electoral College to choose a president. The Assembly voted 43-32 on Thursday to approve legislation delivering the state's 15 electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote, although the measure could result in the electoral votes going to a candidate opposed by Garden State voters. The goal is to ensure the national popular vote winner becomes president. Democrats who sponsored the bill have noted how Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but President Bush won the electoral tally. Sponsors Assemblymen Joseph Cryan, D-Union, and Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, contend the agreement would ensure all states are competitive in presidential elections, make all votes important and guarantee the person who received the most votes nationwide wins the presidency. The compact would take effect only if enough states _ those with a majority of votes in the Electoral College _ agreed to its terms. A candidate needs 270 of 538 electoral votes to win. Maryland is the only state to pass the compact into law, while governors in California and Hawaii vetoed bills to join the compact. Action on the compact is pending in other states, including Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois and North Carolina. Republicans criticized the bill as undermining federal elections by eliminating a factor that forces candidates to pay attention to voters in smaller states. The bill has been pushed by the California-based National Popular Vote organization, which is led by a bipartisan advisory board. The New Jersey Senate is slated to consider the bill on Monday. It tried to vote on the legislation earlier this week, but sponsors couldn't muster enough votes to get it approved. --- On the Net: National Popular Vote Movement: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index
Third parties seek impact Charlottesville Daily Progress Monday, October 30, 2006 Third-party politics is always interesting, and especially so in Virginia this year. Central Virginia has in Joseph Oddo its own third-party candidate, representing the Independent Green Party, against Republican Virgil Goode and Democrat Al Weed in the 5th District race for Congress.  The usual questions and complaints are heard in this race about third parties: - Third parties aren’t a viable part of the democratic system. - Third parties sidetrack voters, pulling support away from viable candidates. And: - Who are these people, anyway? The Independent Greens are not who many people think they are. The Independent Green Party is often confused with the Green Party, from which it broke away. But while the Greens generally lodge left of center, the Independent Greens trend rightward. The Independent Greens have a brief platform that calls for fiscal responsibility in Washington, including balancing the federal budget, paying off the debt, holding the Pentagon accountable for its spending and eliminating non-competitive no-bid contracts. That’s the conservative part. The party also endorses building high-speed rail across Virginia to reduce traffic congestion. That’s the green part. Its goal of reducing reliance on foreign oil also reflects a traditionally conservative view. The party also calls for terms limits for House and Senate - a position some conservatives would call liberal. And it advocates reinvigorating democracy by mounting challenges to entrenched incumbents and a powerful two-party system that, Independent Greens contend, seeks to lock out newcomers. Which takes us back to those complaints. By polling just enough votes to prevent someone else’s victory, the third party is seen as a spoiler; by failing to attract enough votes to win, the third party is seen as nonviable. Such criticisms may be accurate enough. Ironically, the political establishment also often operates as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: By marginalizing third parties - such as by keeping them out of debates - the establishment ensures they will stay on the margins. If a candidate has garnered enough voter interest to be listed on the ballot, he or she also should be included in public debates. Third party adherents generally see their role as something other than either winner or spoiler. They know the odds against them are slight. But they want to spread a message, wake up the electorate, shake up the establishment. In 1992, Ross Perot’s third-party presidential campaign “failed” in that Mr. Perot came nowhere near being elected to the White House, but in a sense it succeeded when Republicans embraced one of his campaign planks, the balanced federal budget, and moved to implement it when they took control of Congress in 1994. Today, the Independent Greens say they want to raise issues that the major parties are afraid to take on. They want to make voters think more deeply about campaigns and issues of governance. They want to make elections more interesting and bring voters out of their apathy by offering alternatives to the usual campaign fare. They may want to throw a bit of a scare into the major parties, so that the Big Two at least will have to engage them on the issues and perhaps - as with Ross Perot and the GOP - even adopt some of their goals. Critics may be right about the spoiler effect. But third parties can have some worthy aims worth supporting. Voters will have to probe their own consciences to determine if they want to allocate their valuable support to candidates deemed viable, or spend it on a third-party effort to shake up the establishment. This story can be found here.	Click here to keep our active independent movement growing!