For example, once all tallies are 100% in, lowest votegetter gives their votes to any other and is out, then remaining lowest votegetter does the same, etc. until you’re down to 2, one of whom ends with more votes than the other. (Yes, I realize it’s not the way most elections are done now.)

How else will these other voices be heard and have their due influence?

Who on here is bickering with Libertarians? Yes, as Dave said, we should join forces with Libs on ballot access issues, anti-war movements, agreed upon issues, but refusing to have a left party/Libertarian alliance is not “bickering” or “sectarian” it’s common sense.

Happy about Rev Billy, looking forward to someday having a viable Left party in the United States.

Next year’s mid-term election could provide the perfect storm.

In any case, the good times keep rolling along for those who created this financial crisis and their apologists in both major parties, leaving a majority of ordinary Americans to fight over the crumbs while the moronic talking heads in the mainstream media keep mumbling something about a “jobless recovery” — the first, incidentally, in U.S. history.

Mindless bickering between Greens and Libertarians, et al, is sort of ridiculous when one looks at the bigger picture. Given the magnitude of the economic crisis facing this country, a little transpartisanship among the nation’s minor parties might be in order.

should read: “NO left party would ever JOIN with Libertarians”

this is like asking Greens and Republicans to run candidates together.

this type of “formation” is not viable, has NOTHING TO DO with what I am talking about, and most people with a brain would not even consider it. NO Left Party would ever compete with Libertarians, Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke weed and are open on social issues, they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the formation of a Left party in the United States.

Though I do believe in Left formations, I have to reject the argument for progressive/Libertarian electoral alliances that some on here have made, how the hell could on run as a Green or socialist and run as a Libertarian? I have Lib friends who are among the more progressive wing of their party, and I have aided them in their campaigns when no left candidate is running, but running as a Green or Socialist AND Libertarian? Makes no sense.

Rev Billy’s campaign is exciting, if I lived in or near NYC, I would be a hard core volunteer, and I too look forward to the day when we have a viable progressive third party, hopefully Billy’s campaign will bring us closer to this.

I understand where you’re coming from, but the issue is rather complicated. On other sites, I’ve had crazed Democrats screaming at me for supporting anyone other than Bill Thompson, who they see as the only candidate who can unseat Bloomberg (altho the media consensus is that even Thompson is a long shot at this point). My argument that the NYC Democrats enabled Bloomberg’s run for a third term, and that they are not an alternative but merely a stagnant, corrupt machine, bounces off their skulls. So I check myself before arguing that small left-wing parties should step aside for the Greens. I believe that if not for Rev. Billy, many voters would be staying home, and that is probably true of the socialist and libertarian and what-have-you candidates as well.

That being said, I think it makes sense to focus our energy and resources on a national progressive party that can someday break the stranglehold of the corporate-sponsored parties on our national politics. I’m a Green for that reason, and because I support the four pillars of grassroots democracy, social justice, nonviolence, and ecology. You should think about joining the GP too.

I am not demanding that others not run, I am saying it is common sense to merge and support the strongest. You get behind the strongest, corporate America knows this, this is why their companies merge (which hurst us, but that is a whole other conversation). Think they like one another? think they agree on everything? No, but they know enough to act in their own inetrests.

This is what happened with Nader 2000, though you had a few running others for prez, but they had no support, resources, etc, but with Nader, you had coalitions of people (and yes it was messy, it always is), from different groups.

What I said about the PSL does not apply to their candidate for NYC, she looks good, great in fact, has good positions, and I really do not see the difference between her and Rev Billy, except they each are putting their focus on different issues, but their platforms look nearly the same to me, I checked the election records and she is the only other candidate besides Billy, that raised money. She should have merged her energies, resources, 7k with Billy. It is too late now for Billy’s race, but this needs to be done in the future. Though the PSL may want to continue their path to nowhere by running candidates and not merging with other groups.

I believe that there should be different groups, because the Left is so vast in different types of ideologies, but for a Herculean effort like running for office, these people need to merge. I do agree that lots of energy should not be wasted on calling people out on this, if they want to go solo, let them, but there are many who would see that it makes sense to merge.

Love Rev. Billy, I donated to his campaign, I wish more people on our side would do so as well.

I hear what you are saying. And, in some ways you are correct, that it would be good to unify and run one candidate.

But…

Think about the logistics…how do you demand that all the other parties not run a candidate? And, how do you demand that other people who have vision and think they should be on the ballot should run?

That is part of the problem. Making unity work, without stifling people and their rights.

Also, you might have a sense that if all those groups unified, a left candidate could win.

But, some people probably see winning as unrealistic when you run the numbers. So, they don’t feel unity is a useful strategy.

Mostly, it is better to support what is good, and only attack the bad guys. No need to berate your own team. Your energy is better spent cajoling, guiding, or supporting them (even if they barely seem to want the support.)

But noooooooo! We have the lunatic, sectarian PSL and the also-ever so irrelevant SWP (I am a socialist, but I am also a realist) running candidates. You would think by now that the Left would get a fucking clue, and realize that in a race where you are outgunned by money and machinery, you run ONE candidate, one fucking candidate and put all of your resources, man/woman power behind that ONE person and have a unified message. What is so hard to understand about this? Is it that Talen doesn’t support 100% of your positions? I don’t agree 100% with him on everything, either, he is way too passive on Palestine for my taste. But I am with him on about 90%! And so is most of the Left. But they get dumber and dumber as the years go by and that is why electorally and organizationally, there is really no left in the US.

A better question is why do opposition parties and their candidates continue to file campaign disclosure statements with agencies such as the “New York City Campaign Finance Board”when the very same agencies use their power to keep opposition off the ballot, or failing that, to keep them silent? These agencies attitude is “no we’re not going to allow you on the ballot, nor into OUR debates…and by the way, who are your supporters and where do they work?”

Yeah, I got your disclosure right here.

PEACE