They think their new party can help with gridlock? I don’t understand how, but I hope they succeed.

Actually, I’m more worried about the problem of special interest influence. For example, the banking deregulation that led to our current economic hardships was caused by lobbying, not by gridlock.

One solution is to refuse to vote for candidates of either main party, and signal our desire for a third party. That party would have to be cleverly centrist, so that it attracts disaffected voters from both main parties about equally. It sounds like this A.E. group does not exert much control over the candidates’ positions, but I think they do select the final six candidates; presumably they would select based partly upon the candidates’ ability to get dissatisfied voters from both main parties.

A.E. could appeal to voters like me by banning its candidates from accepting special interest money (and other forms of influence). Many voters are fed up with the way that such influence has contributed to the bad policy-making that has harmed them.

Most voters would not vote for a candidate who had been convicted of bribery, no matter how “electable” he/she is or what his/her policy positions are. So why vote for any candidate who accepts legal bribes in the form of special interest money?

Whether or not A.E. turns out to be that kind of third party, voters don’t have to wait for anyone to change the campaign finance system. They can simply refuse to vote for any candidate backed by big money. That denies power to the source of that money, bypassing the need for reform (and the lobbyists who would stop that reform because their jobs would be threatened).

There are some politicians who take very little money from any sources except individuals (in other words, they are not indebted to special interests). Ron Paul reputedly is such a politician.

For the purpose of running for President, Ron Paul has exhibited lousy judgment by pandering to racists. This makes me wish we had a better visible candidate who doesn’t take influence money. Until I see such a person, I’ll continue to support Paul.

Don’t worry about Ron Paul’s weird ideas. Congress will limit Dr. Paul from doing anything dangerous as President. As President, he would not write laws; Congress does that. He does get to choose nominees for his Cabinet, but the Senate must approve them. He will use his threat of veto power to reduce the scale of legislation and government.

Maybe the media aren’t conspiring to dismiss Ron Paul; maybe the media decision makers just assume his views are too radical and that his lack of wealthy supporters means he has no chance. I assume he can’t afford big advertising buys from the major media, because he doesn’t accept the influence of powerful interests!

In the event that no influence-free candidate wins the primary for either major party, my strategy would require voting for neither Democrats nor Republicans. Other parties’ candidates still appear on ballots. It does not matter which candidate, because that candidate will not win the election this time around. It’s OK to vote for a goofball or weirdo.

If more people start voting for those outside party weirdos you see on ballots, it becomes more likely that sensible independent candidates or even third parties will emerge in various elections. Then we can vote for those people. Also, that will pressure the two main political parties to adapt to voter preferences more than big campaign donors would like.

That third party strategy has a risk of splitting the liberal vote between two candidates (as happened with Ralph Nader) or the conservative vote between two candidates (as happened with Ross Perot). The best third party candidate would be an “electable” centrist who can steal votes equally from both parties.

Lack of change results from almost everyone voting for either Democrat or Republican mainstream candidates. Why do we just jump back and forth, voting one or the other into office? By now it’s clear that that won’t change anything.

Why should we forget about the past harm they’ve done? That harm was not accidental; it was the result of both responding to lobbying and acting based on party ideology. We should assume that politicians of both parties will repeat some of their past harmful actions.

Some voters were seduced by Obama’s charisma or saw his election as a chance to break down a racial barrier; they did not consider that he is just as compromised by special interests as previous candidates were.

Enough people voted for Republicans in 2010 to give them a House majority, while we were still suffering from the economic consequences of policies pushed by Republicans. We got rid of them only two years before that. What about Republicans had changed in two years, that we should trust them? Nothing. Their bad deeds merit their permanent banishment from public office, unless they stop taking special interest money.

Oh…….maybe it is the concept, that if a third party candidate should run, that is conservative, it would split the GOP vote, and hand the election to Obama?????

Crazy? Maybe NOT!

And without a chance of winning even a dog catchers job, either. Who is funding these clowns?