2 votes

Discuss: How to get a 3rd party elected in 2016

I think we should get to brain-storming ideas on how to drive a 3rd party forward the next election cycle. We come from very diverse fields of experience and there are many wonderful minds that could contribute something important. I will update this post as frequently as I can until we can come up with a powerful system.

We are in an age of advanced communications and technologies. How can we use these to their most effective advantage? Think big. Don't be afraid of "stupid" ideas because we may evolve those ideas into something workable.

I believe it is 100% viable, with the right ideas, to reach enough people to promote a 3rd party forward and combat the establishment.

I would very much appreciate if you aided in brainstorming! Let's come up with a solid solution!

Once we feel comfortable with a system, we can begin work on getting it established and running! :)

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not Voting Party

I am not interested in getting a "Party" elected. I am interested in getting Liberty on the Ballot. Someone needs to run on Ron Paul's 2012 platform and I don't care what party they are in...I will vote for the person speaking the Message of Liberty> I am not interested in a specific person, nor in a specific the party until I hear a specific message: Liberty.

I think what needs to be figured out is how Friends of Liberty are going to get the Liberty Platform into the arena. If it ends up being thru a 3rd party great, I'll be there in support. I could not support ANY of the 3rd party candidates this time around. The message of Liberty was perverted/subverted by all of them.

The Message of Liberty is a powerful one. So powerful that tptb will do anything to keep it from being heard. We need to be aware and vigilant as to WHAT that Message is and make sure it is THAT Message that is supported.

6 Tips

Here are six tips by Billiameo. They are excellent and pithy:

1. No race is a "lost" race if a message of principle is espoused and spread.

2. Yesterday's Statist could be tomorrow's freedom fighter.

3. Be an activist first and a statesman second.

4. If a person holds at least 1 principled stance they can be won over to liberty; if they hold none they cannot.

5. Most people are like water, they follow the path of least resistance.
-Make their path toward education in all things freedom a well traveled one with a deep groove by revisiting the information continuously. In time they will find liberty easier to understand than tyranny and freedom more desirable than chains.-

6. Be like a stone, when someone floating downstream wants to stop they will have you to hold onto. Enough stones can dam up a river and stem the flow of the masses.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

That is really good advice

Thank you!


There are factions of the liberty movement that seem to have irreconcilable differences (e.g. Libertarian and Constitution Parties). We could however agree 100% on national candidates: Compare the Constitution and Libertarian Parties' platforms and you will see that in theory they disagree on abortion, gay rights, gambling, etc., but if they would pick candidates who stick to their respective platforms (and abide by the Constitution), they would govern exactly the same in all matters federal (this goes for the myriad of other liberty third parties out their). Just look at Ron Paul as an example. Most Libertarians would be willing to vote for him even though he is pro-life, because he understands what the job of president does and does not entail. There is no significant difference between the Constitution, Libertarian, American Independent, etc., Parties in how they would govern nationally because they all accept (or at least pay heavy lip service to) constitutional government.

Combining multiple parties would multiply votes instantly. If we could have a Party that is solely national, the gay rights issue, for example, wouldn't be an issue. I probably would have voted for Gary Johnson if he didn't espouse a belief in inserting the federal government into the marriage equality issue. At this point, I would probably even be willing to vote for a candidate who believes in foreign entanglements, as long as all wars are declared by congress, and no "Appropriation of Money to [armies] shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

Could we have a fusion party where we all pick the same Presidential candidate? Or perhaps a national party legally comprised of multiple parties from the same states (i.e. Constitution and Libertarian Parties are separate in Florida but one party nationally)?

There is strength in numbers and we really wouldn't govern differently at a national level.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

OK...here's an idea!

We could kill everybody in office from both sides of the isle and replace them with exact duplicates pre-programmed with Libertarian chips in their brains!!...hey, I can dream...

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

But of course...

..that would be wrong, heh heh!

So no, let entropy take its course.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Consolidate and Transform

Consolidate and Transform the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, rename it the Conservative Party. Then market it to Tea Party and conservative members of the GOP, conservative Democrats and independents as a solution to the RINO run GOP.

conservatives have been alienated in the GOP for a long time. They need a home they can fit in with. Build a conservative but libertarian leaning platform. Give it a name they can be comfortable with - Conservative Party. And invite them in where it is warm and friendly.

We have to remember the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party have negative images to conservatives even if they have 80-90% the same stand on issues.

Some lesser important policy positions will have to compromise a little. Like Legalize marijuana but not cocaine, or not open borders, etc.

Bottom line for a 3rd party to become a major party it must be open to some compromise. Not on major things but on less important items. Otherwise they will not grow.

I like this idea

The name shouldn't be Conservative though. We should be the National Liberty Party.

Would help to have $100 million of his own money to contribute

like billionaire Ross Perot did in 1992.

Gary Johnson had $3 million. Obama and Romney each had $1 billion (a thousand million).


I believe that if we can reach out and educate as many people as possible, it will not (or at least should not) matter so much what party they belong.

The two-party duopoly still has a strangle-hold on the masses. For now, we must do what we can do, as the irate minority, to work our way through.

Ron Paul is a prime example of that.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Don't listen to the establishment fools

They love their establishment and would say and do anything to protect it.

I have a few suggestions.

In my opinion if you want to establish a 3rd party, it would make more sense to try and get a 3rd party congressman elected first before making another 1 or 2 percent shot at the white house.

Find a respectable 3rd party libertarian in your district with a personality and start a campaign for him/her NOW. Or run yourself. Don't wait until 2014 or 2016, start getting that name out.

Start a libertarian meetup group for your county.

Start a website with a blog that documents your progress as a how-to for others to follow so they can avoid the pitfalls and use your success stories for encouragement.

Don't focus on bringing just republicans into your 3rd party, disenfranchised democrats are just as likely to join, I would know.

Most importantly don't wait for somebody else to do this.

If you were able to get a libertarian representative elected it would be an amazing feat. Don't set yourself up for disappointment with shooting for president.

I heard David Seaman on the Joe Rogan Experience. I think he is running as an independent, but he lays down the groundwork for what it could look like.

The definition of insanity.

Some people just like being insane. Look. Google single-member-district-plurality and you'll figure out why hardly anybody wastes his vote on third party losers. All the third party candidates combined got less than 2% of the vote. Americans are NOT dissatisfied with the two-party system regardless of what dreamers like Jesse Ventura pretend. We ARE a two-party system and always have been and always will be.

If there's one thing that you learn from history it's that third-party libertarians NEVER seem to learn from history.

If you don't want to help us take over the Republican Party then at least help us educate people on history, the Constitution, economics, and freedom. But, for crying out loud, don't fight against us by trying to siphon off potential liberty votes into third parties.

Easy. Ever play checkers?

Red vs black. Protect the back. Jump. Double jump, Crown me. No butterflies.

Notice, however, that three people can't play at the same time? What do I mean by this? THREE TEAMS CANNOT PLAY AT SAME TIME. The game is not designed to have 3 payer checkers.

So what did gamemakers do to make it fun for he whole family?

They redesigned the game and invented Chinese checkers where 5 teams can play at the same time.

Nice trick, right?

But notice they had to redesign the game first? (READ: they redesigned the game BEFORE a 3rd team was able to win.)

If you want 3rd party to have ANY success in this game then start by reforming your local elections rules with Instant Runoff Voting.

Until which a time that your precinct, city, county, state, or country uses an Insant Runoff Voting system then you are only fooling yourself if you dont register R or register D to work within the system the way it's designed now.

So there are your choices. IRV or reform the GOP from within - or do both.

Agreed - couldn't have put it

Agreed - couldn't have put it better myself. Become a Republican and change the rules so 3rd parties are allowed to win.

this is how parliaments work with instant runoff voting

this is how central committees vote.
this is how the Libertarian party runs their primary.

only system stupid enough to force lesser of two evils is our federal elections.

In BC Canada they tried and

In BC Canada they tried and split the vote on the right 25%, 25% and then the liberals got in and drove out all business. So, they then dropped one party, and had mostly Conservatives take control of the other right wing party. And then, liberals snuck in there and are traitors. So now, there are referenda on proportional representation which is great but the people voted it down. If it go it, there would be super right wing Jeffersonian parties which would be GREAT.

The only way the Dems are

The only way the Dems are going to be defeated from here on out is to pander more to each individual demographic and promise them more free stuff than the Dems. The Obama micro-targeting campaign of 2012 will be the new blueprint for all future elections.

Welcome to the permanent entitlement society where pretty much the one and only issue is..."what's in it for me??". Permanent, that is, until our economy completely crumbles under its own bloat.

All third party candidates

All third party candidates combined did not even top 1.5% of the vote. The best plan is Ron Paul's plan, keep making gains in the GOP at the LOCAL level and make certain they cannot screw us again in 4 years.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

100% pure impossibility

100% pure impossibility.

We should continue the Ron Paul strategy to reform and take over the Republican party from within.



In less you changed the system first

Instant runoff voting Is a system that offers the voters a way to rank candidates in any order they wish without spoiling their vote. YouTube it.

Ross Perot came closest

He was leading in the national polls just 5 months before the election, with 39%. Then, he dropped out. Then, he dropped back in. He got into the presidential debates (1992 was the last time there were more than 2 candidates in the debates). He ended up with 19% of the vote.

He had ...

(1) Ballot access in all 50 states. He got volunteers to do this.

(2) He had a clear message: he was anti-NAFTA ("That big sucking sound you will hear ..."). And he was right. This message hit home with A LOT of people. Not a good, but a GREAT message is probably the most important thing of all.

(3) He got good media exposure, for the most part. This cannot be counted on by any third party who wants to challenge the system. He is more likely to be bashed by the media. So, you will need a way to BYPASS the media, such as internet, email, direct mail, radio & TV ads, etc.

(4) He got into the debates. This might require a lawsuit that must be set up LONG before the actual debates. Otherwise, it will require either getting a high polling number in the national polls (unlikely without good media exposure or even being mentioned in those same polls), or EXTREME pressure on the media because they will ignore anything less. They have an agenda.

(5) He ran infomercials on TV because he had MONEY. Do the same thing if you got money. If not, it will have to be alternate methods to get the message to millions of people.

That's if you want to go for the office of president. The Libertarian Party has been trying for 40 years and they have failed miserably.

First, you need to find a message that MILLIONS of Americans can buy into and that will MOVE THEM to abandon what they think is "normal." Then, you need to get that message out and do so through channels that are hostile to your message (or find alternate channels).

My idea is different.

I say forget the presidency and, for the most part, forget the federal government completely. Go for the states.

We need to enforce the Constitution. THAT is the #1 problem.

However, we do not need to enforce the Constitution from the federal level. We can do it from the state level.

I say take over STATE legislatures with candidates who will enforce the 10th Amendment.

It would be possible to focus on specific districts, which means marketing resources could be focused to bypass the media -- direct mail, email, local radio & TV, people knocking on doors, etc.

But I think it would be best to do so by taking over both major parties.

The Overton Window can go BOTH ways.

The problem with using Perot

The problem with using Perot as an example is the American public has already become massively more stupid than they were in the early 90s.

If Ross Perot ran today, most people wouldn't even understand what he was talking about.

Third parties are a waste

They are a good place to dump your vote when protesting the two real candidates, but they are never going to compete with the two parties. The founders set up the system as a two party system. Thats just the way it is. Work within the system or tear it down. Unfortunately, when a system is torn down, what replaces it is never what was intended. Usually its something worse.

Work within the Republican party, change it from within. After two more years of Obama, the country is going to be desperate for real leadership and the Cause of Liberty will be there to provide it.

That is our mission. That is our mandate. There is not other course.

We live in a new age

Where our advanced communication and technology has the potential to significantly change the way things work. What I am trying to do is bring together innovative minds to use the internet (or other means) to the fullest advantage in changing the course of history.

The Most Important & Relevant Speech of Our Time!
Just 2 steps, be the media!!!

The founders did not set up

The founders did not set up the system as a 2 party system. Otherwise there would not be more than 2 parties... there are more than 2 parties.

I agree that the Republican party should be changed from within, keep pushing that forward! However, that is not what this thread was made for discussing.

Libertarians hit a milestone 1 million votes this election. While that is insignificant, how much screen-time and discussion in the general public do Libertarian candidates ever get?

If the media reported Ron Paul more fairly, then would we have him as president today? I believe that concept stands within reason. Think of the Republican party as being "the two party system" and Ron Paul being "a third party" as an example.

3rd parties stand a fair chance if they are reported fairly.

Since the media is unable to conduct fair reporting, let's come up with an alternative solution to promote the Libertarian party... AS WELL AS changing the republican party.

The Most Important & Relevant Speech of Our Time!
Just 2 steps, be the media!!!