[The actual text of the e-mail read as follows: "There is a widespread impression that our representative democracy represents the major campaign contributors more effectively than the rest of us. Without debating that assertion, I'd like to ask what you have found, out of your vast political experience, to have been the most impressive case study examples of successful efforts by welfare recipients -- most of whom are children -- or the working poor, or other outsiders, to shape legislation to serve their interests."]

Congressman Jim Leach: I think the writer makes a, just a very profound comment that in a legislative environment, where you have forces putting money in for one side and forces putting in for another, it’s interesting to look at the competitive forces. Basically speaking—almost by definition—the poor aren’t part of that process. It’s the big interests of one type versus the big interests of another. So the competition, in the dollar sense, is not a competition that represents all of the American people.

That is one of the primary reasons that I’ve always supported strenuous campaign reform and have always been disappointed that the approaches put on the table have been so modest -- even though I’ve voted for them. To me, I’m always disappointed how little seems to get done. I would personally take all political action money giving out of the process.

I would change the process to make it clear that the poor and the disadvantaged are better represented by taking some of the advantages from those that are over represented.

This is a very significant issue in legislative politics, particularly at the national level. 

I just wanted to put a couple of things in context.

I may have missed you already having said this, but I think there’s a fear of third parties on the part of the two major parties that is really misplaced.

Number one, most of the progressive legislation that has come out of the Twentieth Century came not initially from the major parties but from third parties of all political stripes.  And it was then ultimately adopted by the two major parties and put into legislation. So I think we all have an interest as citizens in maintaining a healthy third party system.

Number two, the state of Iowa is about as anti-third party as you can get and I think that’s unfortunate.  If the legislature would bring us up to the standards of civilized nations around the world, and the more progressive states in the United States, I think it would be to the state’s benefit and to everybody’s benefit.

Here are a couple of examples, quickly, of ways in which the two major parties not only benefit on terms of program but also in terms of winning elections by having third parties out there.  I am talking about all of them, not just the Green Party – the Reform Party, Conservative Party, Libertarians, whatever.

In New York state, for example, they have what they call fusion, which means that a minor party can endorse a candidate of one of the major parties and thereby retain its party status.  So, for example, if the Greens wanted to endorse Vilsack and he got more than 2% of the vote –  which one would assume that he will – the Green Party would maintain its party status in Iowa.

To show how this has benefited Republicans Jimmy Carter actually got more votes as a Democrat than Ronald Reagan received as a Republican in the state of New York.  And yet Ronald Reagan carried New York and got its electoral votes and Jimmy Carter did not.  How did that happen?  Because the Conservative Party in New York was able to nominate Ronald Reagan as its candidate. And it was those third party votes that put him over the top and thereby, in that instance, better reflected the public will.

Similarly, if it would be possible for the Green Party to maintain its party status through a petition system that is available in many states around the United States.  It would not be necessary for it to run somebody whom the Democrats could then characterize as a “spoiler” – whether or not that would be an accurate characterization.  The Greens could simply go out and get the petitions signed and maintain their party status.

I could lecture on this for an hour* and may someday, but it won’t be today. I just wanted to get those comments into the show.

Thank you.

Like fusion, IRV is another win-win that benefits both major and third parties.

Voters can vote both their heart and their head by picking first and a second choices.

Without IRV voters often end up with office holders elected with less than a majority. For example, if three candidates split the vote between A’s 40 percent, to B’s 35 percent, to C’s 25 percent, the candidate who gets the plurality (the 40 percent received by A) is declared the winner.

With IRV, suppose the voters who voted for the Conservative Party candidate, C, as their first choice also voted for the Republican candidate, B, as their second choice.

An IRV winner must have a majority of the votes. If no candidate has a majority of first choice votes, the candidate with the lowest totals (C) is eliminated and second choice votes are counted. Now B, who was favored by 60 percent of the voters has the majority and is declared the winner.

If Iowa maintains the 2 percent of the presidential/gubernatorial elections vote as a requirement for party status, IRV would minimize the fear of those concerned that a vote for their true first choice might end up electing their absolute last choice.]

Return to Nicholas Johnson's home Web page, www.nicholasjohnson.org