I'm curious for feedback on something.

Would you vote for someone in a completely new, independent party (I'm talking local level) based on a return to fundamental principles?  

No negative campaigning, no political or campaign contributions allowed. (I'm dead serious on that.)  

A straight-forward platform of comprehensive planning reform (that means an actually updated Comp Plan that serves to guide everything, like it's supposed to as well as overhaul of the Planning Commission, including even possible abolishment).

A platform that focuses on Quality of Life issues.  

A platform that advocates for a town-wide moratorium to temporarily limit development until the Comp Plan offers adequate protection.

A platform that seeks to build infrastructure where it is needed most to help promote the growth we want but still be able to retain the rural character of the community we desire.

I understand the question seems silly and of course, I'm being pretty vague on purpose.  Consider yourselves my exploratory committee.    I've been developing a detailed party plan and platform the last year.  I really never thought I'd pursue it - it serves more like a personal blueprint for me to follow in the issues I address.  But I'm not happy with the slow progress on so many important issues.  I know certain things should happen faster and I'm unhappy enough to be inclined to try myself.

I've been told, by people who supposedly know, that what I envision can't be done.  I think it can.  I have a plan but I'm curious to know what you think of such an unorthodox approach?

I hope you are really serious about running for an office in this town as we all know that we need elected officials who not only recognise the problems that this town faces but also who will resolve those problems not just talk them to death and deliver nothing.

The Village of Delanson created their own parties to run on.  The wanted to get away from the Republican/Democrat junk and vote for people strictly on the issues.  If you wanted details, Mayor Sally Burns would be the one to speak with.  She could give you a couple of ideas.  As for not having negative campaigning?  You and the newly created party may not use dirty tactics, but that isn't going to stop your opponent.  I won't speak to the issues you mention that are specific to Rotterdam, it's not my town.  I have always heard that a Conservative or Independence could not be elected without the endorsement of a major party.  Would you seek the endorsement of a major party or just run on one line?  It's nice to hear you might be willing to step up to the plate.

I have been a registered Republican since I came of voting age.  It has never really influenced my local voting and to be truthful, my views don't match up well with any party anymore.  I just pull the levers for who I think are the best candidates for the issues at hand, pure and simple.

I don't believe in endorsements.  They have never, ever influenced my own voting and I never attributed any importance to seeking or obtaing them.  In fact, I prefer NOT to attract endorsements.  ( I said it was unorthodox   )

One party line.  The party I create.  It's already got a name and the associated things that go along with it but I'm not ready to disclose any of that at this point.  I studied the election law but would really like to speak to someone that could guide me (I was thinking any of the Schenectady candidates that recently tried it, especially Mary McClane who I think actually formed a party to get on the ballot?)  I need to know I've got it right so the major parties don't get me disqualified if I do pick up any momentum.

Probably the biggest reason I have not gotten involved is the negativity.  There was no way I could let some party chairman generate propaganda with my name on it dragging the other guy through the mud.  That's not my style which is why I need complete control of my own destiny by creating the new party line.  Whether or not that style is successful or not, I'd just leave up to the voters.  I could easily live with stealing the low vote tally from Jurzynski  

I too registered Republican when I was 18, I never held any stock in it either.  My decisions for candidates were never based on a party.  I have posted previously my feelings about the two party system.  I disagree with it, but I will also admit to being politically uneducated. I think it just another form of segregation.  To have the gall to tell someone their idea isn't welcome and won't be entertained because you are a Republican or Democrat is ludicrous.  The County leg right now is a perfect example, the Republicans are not provided with information to formulate a decision, they actually withhold the info from them.  They are not told of meetings just to assure they do not attend.  In fairness, it was probably the same way when the Republicans were the majority.  As Supervisor, I enjoy representing all the people in town, I could care less what party they belong to.  Read my post in the endorsements section,  while we agree on this one we are polar opposites on the minor party endorsements.  Another reason I enjoy them is I know the Republicans will give me the nod, doesn't matter if I'm an idiot or not as long as I'm electable,  but the minor party endorsements require some work and more of a challenge.

I read your other post and responded in that thread.

I always believed electablity was derived from the people not parties.  I know how naive and idealistic that sounds so let me try to explain.

I'm a door-knocker.  I meet people.  I listen to them and discuss the issues.  Hey, I don't claim to have all the answers, just maybe some of them.  Right now, parties and money do determine electability.  My approach aims to change that.  I have a strategy that I think can overcome the obstacles to reaching the voters with my message.  But I'm getting way ahead of myself...I have not decided I will run yet....but tell me again how it can't be done...every time I hear that it helps.     

Mike, maybe you could talk to Pat Zollinger about forming a new party. If you recall, she and Vince Riggi had a similar vision. If she can't answer all of your questions, maybe she can direct you to the people who can.

Quoted Text

Quoted from Michael:

Would you vote for someone in a completely new, independent party (I'm talking local level) based on a return to fundamental principles?  

Quoted Text

Quoted from Michael:
A platform that focuses on Quality of Life issues.

Michael,

I would certainly consider supporting a third party candidate if he/she represents my views on the important issues and if I felt that the candidate would have a chance at winning the election rather than simply playing the role of spoiler.

A few of your statements require elaboration for me to comment on my level of support.  "Fundamental principles" means different things to different people.  I would need to understand the candidate's views on what constitute fundamental principles and his/her positions on the issues.

Your statement of "A platform that focuses on Quality of Life issues" also requires elaboration.  As a social conservative, I am not in favor of using public revenues to support many of the entitlement programs that are
presently in place nor do I support using public revenues to fund non-profits (e.g., Proctor's Theatre) and private businesses (e.g., Clinton's Ditch, the Big House, etc.).  I don't believe the redistribution of wealth from private citizens to private businesses and non-profits is the role of government.  It is my view that those who support the arts (e.g., Proctors', NYC Ballet, etc.) should work to secure private funding (donations, pledges, etc.) and not look to the government for financial support.  

In summary, the description of your platform is, as you concede, "pretty vague".  I look forward, however, to hearing more of your views and encourage you to become involved in government.  We need more people who are willing to step up and take back our government from the many special interests that currently hold the control and power.

Michael,
From what you're saying here, I would fully stand behind you.  In fact, it seems that you already have some great ideas and have been thinking about this for some time.  What I think we need to do is get back to what is actually in some pieces of paper that most people have forgotten about.  Those pieces of paper would be little things like A) The Constitution of the United States of America, B) The Declaration of Independence, and maybe some other documents that have been pushed by the wayside.  

And if I may ask a question of anybody here.  Has anybody ever checked to see if the Constitution has ever taken a breath?  I know it sounds like an idiotic question, but there's so many people in the Democratic Party that say's the Constitution is a living, breathing document.  Seems to me it's basic ideals that were put down on paper for people to follow.  It was never meant to be interpreted for more than it states on the paper.

I would love to join a group that gets back to the original thoughts of these papers, maybe in a party such as it would be, maybe the Constitution Party.

Michael,  Don't take this the wrong way, I've been happily married for 30 years but I think you are the "other pea in my pod".  Politically speaking.(I know I'm going to regret typing that previous line. )  

Quoted Text

I always believed electablity was derived from the people not parties.  I know how naive and idealistic that sounds so let me try to explain.

I am constantly trying to "explain" myself.  I just want to be the Supervisor of my town, do the best I can to provide services and make a nice community for the residents.  I too am naive, I want the best person for the job, regardless of the party.  I talk to residents all of the time to get their views and ideas for the town.  That is the best part of my job.  I am lucky D'burg isn't the size of Rotterdam.

I don't think I said your idea can't be done.  I don't know enough about politics to know if it can or not.  I will tell you, however, I will vote for the person who I feel can be most effective at the job, and be accountable for their decisions.  I want to know that when I am ticked off about something I can call someone and more important they will listen and understand.

Quoted Text

Hey, I don't claim to have all the answers, just maybe some of them.

The day you think you have all the answers is the day you will stop learning anything new.  I have to tell people I don't have an answer for them frequently, I find out where to get the answer and get back to them.  Someone who thinks they have all the answers doesn't belong in an elected position.  They will be closed minded and too busy trying to prove his/her way is the only right path.  I really hope you decide to run.  

PS  Aren't you glad you asked for feedback on your idea?

Quoted Text

Quoted from Rene:

Someone who thinks they have all the answers doesn't belong in an elected position.  They will be closed minded and too busy trying to prove his/her way is the only right path.

Example:  Spitzer

Quoted Text

Quoted from Brad:

Example:  Spitzer

Another example: Savage

Thanks to everybody who's weighed in so far.  I hope some others will to.  I'll try to expand on some of my thinking to help prompt more discussion but will still be playing close to the vest at this early juncture.

I'll try to reach out to Pat and Vince and others for their advice in how best to accomplish my goal, JoAnn.

It's exactly that spoiler hurdle I've got to get over, Brad.  I'm not going to be in it to raise issues, I'm going to be in it to win.  If I don't think I can, I won't get in.  I'll have a much better gauge over the coming weeks.

You picked up correctly, Kevin, on what I meant about fundamental principles.  Reform efforts always seem to wind up floundering so what better way to get a fresh start than by starting over with the things that got us started to begin with?

Thanks for the encouragement, Rene.  I am glad I asked!  I guess I have some hard thinking ahead of me.

Sometimes it is easier to 'reform' an already existing party than it is to create a new one.