FINDING OTHERNESS

A Blueprint for an Independent Conversation about 2020

By Jacqueline Salit
June 2017
 FINDING OTHERNESS
A Blueprint for an Independent Conversation about 2020

Coming off of the raucous 2016 presidential election and its fitful aftermath, the
independent movement is faced with opportunities and challenges on a grand
scale. The behemoth battles in Washington, and the media circus surrounding
them, serve to mask the gulf that continues to widen between the government
and the people. Given that gulf, independents and reformers must be considering
(at least!) the following two questions:
1) With rampant public anger about the state of our politics and the mind-
numbing dysfunction in governance, how should we be working to fix the system,
revitalize American democracy, and give greater power to the American people?
2) Should independents and structural reformers also be considering a strategy
for the 2020 presidential elections? If so, what is that strategy, what are the
prospects for a unified strategy, and how would we get there?

is that we now see the most vigorous working

The First Question
The first question is already being engaged by an
unusual assortment of active forces.* Taken together,
these conversations and the initiatives to come out of
them are the workshops in which responses to the
public demand for a workable and fair political system
are being hammered out.
The persistent upheavals in American elections,
combined with the continued disalignment away
from the political parties and towards political
independence (44% of Americans self-identify as
independents) have delivered to the independent/
reform movement a mandate to go to work together
on remaking the political system. The good news
relationships among disparate independent and
reform forces since the 1990s.
To be sure, there are substantive and tactical
differences among these players. Some have clear
missions for specific structural reforms. Some have
strong funding pipelines. Some have roots in the
poorest communities, including the communities
of color where the Democratic Party has held
sway for two generations, but where there is
growing disaffection with the partys promises of
empowerment. Some have ties to the third party
movement, the Perot revolt of the 1990s, the Sanders
revolt of 2016, the Obama-to-Trump swing voters, or
to Americas self-described independents. Some come

* This engagement began at the series of conferences and summits that took place during the first half of 2017, including the 50 State Solution sponsored by California
Forward in San Francisco; the National Conference of Independents sponsored by Independent Voting in New York, along with the adjunctive Political Reformers Round
Table sponsored by Open Primaries; the UnRig the System conference in Kansas City sponsored by Level the Playing Field, the Independent Voter Project, IVP Colorado,
Represent.Us, the Centrist Project, FairVote, the Bridge Alliance and former independent U.S. Senate candidate Greg Orman; the Centrist Project Summit in Chicago; and the
Bridge Alliance gathering in Dallas. Though not directly tied into this circuit, I would mention Arizona State University Morrison Institutes State of our State post-election
conference,as it highlighted the importance of independent voters and our capacity to act as bridge-builders between partisans.
2
out of the business community, the tech sector and
Silicon Valley with little political experience but an
affinity for creative disruption. Some are attempting
to litigate the barriers to a more participatory
democracy. Some focus on online outreach and
education while others do direct base building and
leadership training among activists. Some have run
initiative campaigns for reform or for public office or
aspire to expand independent candidate recruitment
and impact. All believe that systemic reform is urgent.
The Second Question
Turning attention, then, to the second question:
whether and how independents and reformers should
craft a shared strategy for the 2020 presidential
elections. This is the far trickier question. The raw
popular demand for political alternatives combined
with a new level of development of the independent/
reform movement suggests to me that a unifying
strategy is possible. The question is whether there is
sufficient will to develop it.
My starting premise is this: the period between
now and 2020 offers a heightened opportunity to
challenge the corruption of the partisan/special
interest complex and the reinforced hegemony of
the major parties. A dream scenario might ultimately
include an independent presidential ticket in 2020
backed by an unorthodox coalition of outsider and
insider forces.
The Opportunity for
Otherness
An insightful post-conference season memorandum
was written by the renegade pollster and analyst
Pat Caddell, who gave input into a number of the
reform conferences. He commented on a recent
Washington Post/ABC News poll which found only
55% of adult Americans identify as either Democrats
or Republicans. The partisan preferences read as
follows: 31% identify as Democrat, 24% identify as
Republican, 36% as Independent, and 6% as Other,
while 4% had no opinion.
Of course, Pat observed about the independents,
this large plurality of Americans is totally ignored.
Caddell went on to cite the results of another series
of questions in which respondents were asked to
Credit to Caddell! The idea
of the politics of otherness
captures something very
particular about the nature
of this moment. Wisely, he
doesnt prescribe in advance
what the otherness should
consist of. That task, or,
better still, that process
falls to us all collectively.
describe the President and both major parties as
either in touch or out of touch with the concerns
of most people in the United States today. Among all
respondents, 58% said Trump was out of touch, 62%
said the Republican Party was out of touch, and 67%
said the Democrats were out of touch. Caddell rightly
observes that the most significant finding here is
about the Democratic Party. Given Trumps generally
negative ratings, it is shocking that two-thirds of the
electorate finds that the opposition or resistance
party is so out of touch, Caddell asserts, concluding
that this, illustrates the great opportunity for the
politics of otherness.
C
redit to Caddell! The idea of the politics
of otherness captures something very
particular about the nature of this moment.
Wisely, he doesnt prescribe in advance what the
otherness should consist of. That task, or, better
still, that process falls to us all collectively. We must
offer and shape expressions of otherness, and,
in doing so, help independents and the American
people as a whole determine what strategy(ies)
are in their best interests. This is a different
methodology than simply deciding in advance that
what the American people need is more choices on
the ballot. The methodology of otherness builds
with the raw materials that have been co-generated
by the independent movement and the voters.
3

The contemporary
independent movement has
been, since its inception in
the 1980's, its high water
mark in the 1990's, and its
continuous self-reinvention
since then, a creative force.
C
addell identifies the need for our sector to
move into the political void as urgent. I would
add, should the Democrats, the New York
Times and everyone else gunning for Trump succeed
in bringing impeachment proceedings against the
President, it would accelerate the timetable in which
independents and reformers would need to come
together to make a stand. While the constitutional
line of succession to the White House is clear, the
ensuing crisis would put pressure on independents
and reformers to stand up together for a thorough
democratization of the electoral process in the
elections to come. After all, while the particulars of
Russian interference in our election are still being
investigated, the question of Democratic Party and
Republican Party interference in the free exercise of
voting is pretty clear!
But even under a more stable timetable, if current
leaders in independent politics dont pursue our
opportunities to join forces and, instead, allow
for a scattered field in 2020 where, for example,
minor national parties such as the Greens and the
Libertarians; various state-based parties; Americans
Elect; Level the Playing Field; the Draft Bernie for a
Peoples Party movement; Stand Up Republic; Michael
Bloomberg; the networks of African American
and Latino activists chafing at Democratic Party
politics-as-usual; and the community of nonpartisan
reformers each go their own way, we willin effect
be handing the status quo a free pass to continue
business as usual.
At the 50 State Solution conference in California in
January, the journalist James Fallows was a keynote
speaker. Taking issue, I felt, with the large-scale
hysteria in progressive circles over the election of
Trump, Fallows declared, This is a creative, not a
repressive era. Well put, Jim! The contemporary
independent movement has been, since its inception
in the 1980s, its high water mark in the 1990s,
and its continuous self-reinvention since then, a
creative force. It has experimented with new and
post-modern political paradigms, unorthodox and
controversial partnerships that broke ideological
and color barriers, and disruptive forms of electoral
process. Now we can build on all that, leverage that,
and expand that to create a blueprint for 2020.
How to draw in, how to incentivize, and how to
consolidate a joint 2020 process is a conversation
that needs to begin now.
The Third Party Route
With few exceptions, pollsters generally measure
public dissatisfaction with the Republican and
Democratic parties by asking whether people feel
there is a need for a third party. The yes numbers
have been consistent at 55% or 60% since the 1980s.
Rarely (actually never!) do pollsters probe alternatives
that are alternatives to parties. The third party
question serves as a placeholder for something other
than the Democrats and Republicans.
Being a veteran of a number of national party
building efforts myself, I understand the appeal
of the party route. I also understand the pitfalls
of a party-based strategy. It narrows the process
to an emulation of the major parties, not a good
direction when the American people are so fed up
with partisanship and the ways that parties serve
themselves rather than the country. Arguably,
the most successful independent parties in recent
times have been anti-party parties, such as the
Independence Party of New York, which elected
Michael Bloomberg mayor of New York City three
times. He governed as an independent and disrupted
the partisan ecology, and the city was better for it.
We partnered together over 10 years time, beginning
in 2002, to try to bring a nonpartisan municipal
system to New York, but we did not achieve that goal.
The political parties (major and minor) were dead set
against us, and the independent movement was still
too weak to overcome them.
But the times they are a changin. In their wisdom,
the American people chose to conduct their 2016
4
anti-party rebellion INSIDE the two major parties,
to exploit their fault lines and wreak the maximal
disruption there. Good for them!
A
s I see it, our goal should not be to propel a
new independent party, but instead a new
independent process. And, if we seek to
generate an independent presidential ticket, the idea
that we should passively wait (and hope) for a viable
and well-financed independent presidential candidate
to show up is no alternative. Not in these times. A
question, then, is can the independent movement
stir the pot? I think we can and should! In my view,
we need to do two things. We need to test the major
parties interest in a sweeping democratization of the
electoral and governing process, while simultaneously
laying the groundwork for a coalitional independent
presidential ticket. For discussion purposes, lets call
this approach an inside/outside strategy.
The Conduct of the
Presidential Primaries
A movement took shape in 2016 to hold the parties
and the bodies that govern elections (which, by
clever, if not intelligent design, belong to the parties)
accountable for their nominating process. We all
sawand some of us instigatedan eruption
of public protest over the conduct of last years
primaries. These protestsreactions to the exclusion
of independent voters from participating in the
presidential electionsbrought public awareness of
this form of voter suppression to a new level. How
can a democratic nation, in which 44% of its citizens
and 48% of millennials do not align with a party,
permit primary rules that bar them? Add to that the
conspicuous privilege accorded the superdelegates
in the Democratic Party rules, the obvious bent of
the supposed to be neutral Democratic National
Committee (DNC) towards Secretary Clinton over
Senator Bernie Sanders, and the demand for party
loyalty placed by the Republican National Committee
(RNC) and the DNC on all candidates for their
nomination, and the primary season was as rife with
conflict over the rules of the game as it was over any
programmatic issues.
A few reports from the field: In Arizona, 30,000
votersmostly independents from the states
swelling 38% constituency of the non-aligned
Our goal should not be to
propel a new independent
party, but instead a new
independent process.
signed letters to the State Democratic and Republican
Party chairmen (circulated by Independents for
Arizona and Open Primaries) demanding that
they use their authority to open the Presidential
Preferential Primary Elections to independents.
They refused. On primary day, with thousands of
independents turning out because they believed
they had the right to vote, combined with a grossly
inadequate number of polling sites, especially in
populous Maricopa County, the election was a
debacle. Long lines, questionable vote counts, and
charges of voter suppression from black, Latino
and independent activists ensued. Elected officials
scrambled to explain. But, in the November election,
the Maricopa County registrar lost her re-election
bid (as did Sheriff Joe Arpaio!). As Arizona attorney
and longtime Democrat and civil rights leader Danny
Ortega put it in an interview we did together in
January 2016, given that 48% of Latinos in Arizona
are registered as independents, their exclusion from
the primaries is egregious. Ortega said:
S o what do you have? You have a system that keeps
people from voting in the primaries, the primaries
decide whos ultimately going to win in the general.
And we have a situation where the candidates,
in my opinion, are not being chosen by the whole
community, theyre only being chosen by a select
few I believe that the current election system,
particularly in the primaries, is really another
mechanism for voter suppression because it keeps
people from voting for who they want to.
Also in 2016, Democratic voters in Colorado were
turned away from presidential caucus sites because
party officials were unprepared and overwhelmed
5

Overall, during the
2016 primary season,
approximately 20 million
American independents
nationwide were barred from
participating. The corruption
of party hierarchs became an
issue in both major parties.
by the larger-than-expected turnout. Registered
Republicans didnt get any vote during the
nominating season as the Colorado Republican
Partycanceled its caucus. Over one million registered
independents were unable to participate at all. Two
initiatives designed to fix these problems were backed
by a coalition organized by business leader Kent
Thiry and his group, Let Colorado Vote. Proposition
107 restored presidential primaries and ordained
that they be open to all voters; Proposition 108to
facilitate unaffiliated voters casting a vote in down
ballot primariespassed at the polls in November,
the former with 64% of the vote. This, in spite of
numerous attempts to undermine these reform
campaigns, including the states voter guide which
used language crafted by the state legislature to
describe both measures in a biased and misleading
way. The voters werent fooled! (The legislature,
however, continued to manhandle these reforms
in its implementation legislation in 2017. Sadly, our
efforts to defend the intent of the voters failed.)
I
n New York, the state with the strictest closed
primary rules, 3.2 million independent voters
wereexcluded. To make matters worse, New
York has the earliest re-registration deadline in the
country. Thus, those independents who would have
been open to re-registering in order to vote in the
primary would have had to make the switch more
than six months earlier. People who were barred from
voting in the New York primary included 37% of
voters under the age of 30; 15%of African American
voters; 22% of Latino voters; and 35% of Asian
voters. Young independents who wanted to vote for
Bernie Sanders were shocked when they were turned
away at the polls. Even Eric and Ivanka Trumpboth
registered independentswere locked out, unable to
vote for their father.
A week before the New York primary was held,
150 activists gatheredonthe steps of City Hall
toprotesttheclosed primarysystem and to demand
that the presidential primaries be open in the
future. As I told Russell Berman from TheAtlantic
at the time, The political parties in New York
have the state on lockdown, and theyre very
committed to protecting that. You can see I have
an inclination to understatement. Overall, during
the 2016 primary season, approximately 20 million
American independents nationwide were barred
from participating. The corruption of party hierarchs
became an issue in both major parties.
The Sanders Factor and the
Pressure to Make Amends
The Bernie Sanders campaign burned a shocking
pathway through the primary season and bumped
up against these limits. If you google Democratic
primary rigged, you will find almost half a million
articles and blogs covering the 2016 presidential
election. WikiLeaks released thousands of DNC
emails to and from party officials discussing how best
to undermine the Sanders campaign. This behavior
led to a recent lawsuit against the DNCs transparent
favoritism. Lawyers defending the DNC argued that
the party was under no legal obligation to run a
fair primary. Its no wonder, then, that the Sanders
networks have spawned a campaign calling on Bernie
to form a third party.
The misconduct of the Democratic primaries has
remained a sore point with the partys activist base.
Faced with the prospect of having to unify itself in
the wake of the Trump victory and the defeat of the
undefeatable Hillary Clinton, the DNC empanelled
6
a Unity Commission charged with bringing different
factions of the party together. Its first meeting was
held in Washington, D.C. in May, and the first day
was devoted to a discussion of party rules, including
the questions of open presidential primaries and the
superdelegate provisions.
A
s reported to me by Tiani Coleman, an
attorney and former chair of the Salt Lake
County Republicans in Utahnow a leading
member of Independent Voting and the head of
New Hampshire Independent Voters, who attended
the Unity Commission meeting as an observer for
Independent VotingDemocratic Party leaders are
well aware of the conflicts surrounding the open
primaries question. The Sanders appointees to the
Unity Commission were attentive to these dynamics.
Predictably enough, though, the Commissions
interest in the open primary question turned on
whether and how the inclusion of independents
might help the Democrats win the White House in
2020. But for many independents, and for many
Americans, it is no foregone conclusion that the
preferred scenario for 2020 is to hand power back to
the Democratic Party. Surely, the Washington Post/
ABC News poll narrated by Caddell bears this out.
Even 44% of Democrats surveyed believe their own
party is out of touch.
The dynamics of the Unity Commission remind me of
the circumstances we faced in the mayoral elections
in New York City in 2001. Two terms of a Republican
near-fanatic mayor who had sown racial division
and polarization led the Democratic Partywith a
five-to-one voter registration majorityto believe
it would sail into City Hall. They were so confident
of a win, they repelled any discussion of a coalition
with the Independence Party (IP). The IP made its
partnership with Michael Bloomberg, and Bloomberg
won the mayors race, with independents providing
his margin of victory. Locally, the Democratic Party
refused to place any stock in independent voters or
in nonpartisan reform. Big Apple Democrats believed
they, and they alone, should have the monopoly on
reform and good government. Talk about the foxes
guarding the chicken coop!
The question of how the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party nationally intend to relate to
Americas now plurality independent electorate is
already on the table. We know that the Democrats,
Lawyers defending the
Democratic National Committee
argued that the party was under
no legal obligation to run a fair
primary. Its no wonder, then,
that the Sanders networks have
spawned a campaign calling on
Bernie to form a third party.
on the national level, have, as they did in New York,
made very calculatedand costlychoices. Back in
2012, Independent Votings general counsel Harry
Kresky and I began an eight-month dialogue with
David Axelrod and David Simas, the masterminds
of President Obamas re-election campaign. Our
dialogues were an effort to persuade the Obama team
to reconstruct the 2008 coalition with independents
that had secured his victory over Hillary Clinton
in the Democratic primaries (30 states permitted
independents to vote that year) and his general
election win over John McCain.
Ultimately, though, Simas informed us that
Democratic Party stakeholders had nixed the concept,
insisting they could win the election with the
Democratic base alone. They were right in the short
run. However, insofar as this benign neglect caused
the Democrats to hemorrhage independent support
(Romney won independents over Obama 50% to
45%) the stage was set for the independent swing to
Trump in 2016.
Both the RNC and the DNC went on record in 2016
opposing the use of open primaries in presidential
elections. We want to know their positions for 2020.
There are already some very creative approaches being
introduced in connection with this question. Chad
Peace and the Independent Voter Project in California
proposed state legislation in 2016 that would create
a single ballot in the presidential primaries and allow
all voters to choose any candidate. The Secretary of
State would provide the results of the primary, broken
down by voters party affiliation or non-affiliation.
7
The parties could then count whatever votes they
wanted for their nomination process. The resolution
had two Republican co-authors and received votes
from two Democrats in committee. Though it didnt
make it to the floor, I hope to see it come back
around, in another legislative, or even legal, form.
N
ow that we are in the early stages of a run-up
to 2020, the Independent Voting networks
are laying tracks to engage with state parties,
with local elected officials of both parties, and with
the DNC and RNC to determine whether, how, and
on what terms non-aligned voters will be included
in the parties primaries and nominating processes.
Put another way, we seek to discover whether either
of the two major parties is prepared to invest in a
meaningful coalition in which independents are a
genuine partner, or whether the parties intend to
continue to ignore us or attempt to manipulate us
into their own partisan framework. The Rules of
Engagement, therefore, are a fundamental reform
issue for 2020.
A Unifying Strategy for 2020
However, if the engagement of partisan hegemony in
2020 is to include strategies that might yield a major
independent presidential ticket with true ties to the
on-the-ground movement, a process for coalescence
among the disparate elements of the independent
movement would have to be developed.
Beginning in the 1980s, the question of whether
and how to architect a unified independent political
movement has been on the table. On the one hand,
the barriers to coalescence have been ideological,
meaning that unless there was agreement on
political program, (in the traditional sense of policy
and ideology) there could be no coming together.
However, the template of the national Reform
Party, which came into existence in the mid-90s
following Ross Perots first presidential run and Dr.
Lenora Fulanis second presidential bid, shattered
that assumption.* A genuine left/center/right
alliancea fusion between the pro-socialist black-
led New Alliance Party (which had run Fulani) and
a center-right network of Perotistasformed an
experiment called the Patriot Party. I was Deputy
* In 1988, Dr. Lenora Fulani, the popular community organizer and developmental
psychologist, became the first woman and first African American to qualify for
the presidential ballot in all 50 states. She ran again in 1992.
Campaign Manager for Fulani in 1988 and 1992 and
then, as one of several architects of the new coalition,
became the editor of the Patriot Partys newsletter.
It was quite a challenging exercise in the politics and
language of cross-ideological partnerships. In turn,
Patriot pursued an alliance for two years with the pro-
third party networks of United We Stand America,
and with Perot himself, which produced the Reform
Party. This unorthodox cross-ideological mating
yielded a potent, if short lived, vibrant political
alternative which sponsored a contested open
presidential primary conducted online, via telephone
and via mail ballots the first ever. Ross Perot
defeated former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm
for the nomination of the being-formed National
Reform Party in 1996.
After the 1996 election, this new national party came
into existence with state-recognized ballot status
in more than 30 states, and a reform platform that
largely eschewed divisive and defining social policy
issues. We were attacked by critics for standing for
nothing, while in truth the Reform Party stood for
something very important: a way to bring Americans
together to engage the issue of power. Populist in its
orientation but by no means right wing, the Reform
Party had unlocked the door to cross-ideological
partnerships: Put ideology on the back burner and
move on to democracy, to unrigging the system, so
that the American people could take back control
of our political apparatus. Though this bonding
was sometimes defined as centrist, or seeking
the sensible center, this was a serious misnomer.
Centrism seeks a mid-point on issues. The Reform
Party approach was a radical departure from issue-
based politics-as-usual because it focused on process
and power, not program.
T
he brief but spectacular history of the Reform
Party, including its enemies, internal and
external, could fill a book. In fact, I wrote one
called Independents Rising, published by Palgrave
Macmillan in 2012, and the story is too detailed and
complex to recapitulate here. Suffice it to say, though,
the Reform Party established some important
precedents that can help us to navigate through
todays choppy seas.
It created the basis for the explosivethough
short-livedpartnership between Fulani and the
social conservative Patrick Buchanan, which defied
traditional ideology. In that brief encounter, we saw
8
 We saw that an alliance between
left and right and between Black
America and blue collar and
suburban white America could
be the foundation of a new pro-
democracy, anti-establishment
populist movement.
that an alliance between left and right and between
Black America and blue collar and suburban white
America could be the foundation of a new pro-
democracy, anti-establishment populist movement,
and the Buchanan/Fulani experiment offers some
precedent for a future link-up between Trump voters
and Sanders voters. At the same time, the Reform
Party flame-out taught us that being a party made us
ripe for disruption. We learned that the temptation
to re-introduce ideologyas Buchanan did in the
unfolding of the 2000 Reform Party campaigncould
overwhelm and destroy the party.
W
e also learned that when an independent
presidential candidacy of weight and
appealeven to a targeted sector of the
electorategains traction, the hammer blows of the
party establishment quickly follow. In a twelve-year
period, spanning from Lenora Fulanis historic 1988
bid, to Ross Perots explosive independent rebellion
in 1992 and 1996, to the Buchanan foray into
independent politics in 1999/2000, to Ralph Naders
impactful 2000 run, the furor of opposition and attack
was huge. The prospect of any elements of either
the Republican electoral coalition or the Democratic
electoral coalition being peeled away in alliance with
independents sets off a firestorm of destruction. We
can expect the same and more for 2020.
Not a New Party, but a New
Nominating Process?
More recently, and properly taking some lessons
from the Reform Party into account, have been the
sequential efforts of UNITY 08 and Americans Elect
in 2012, followed by John Kingstons Better for
America project in 2016. The first two designs sought
to generate an alternative independent presidential
nominating process, though they never produced
a candidate. The latter transmuted quickly into the
anti-Trump offering of conservative Evan McMullin
for president in 2016. Several state party leaders who
had been part of the Reform Party infrastructure
notably Phil Fuehrer of the Independence Party of
Minnesota and Wayne Griffin of the Independence
Party of South Carolinagave their ballot lines to
McMullin. (I played a role with Griffin in the South
Carolina negotiations.)
Importantly, though, Peter Ackerman, a backer of
UNITY 08 and the founder and main funder of
Americans Elect, rifled through the debris of
UNITY 08 and established its most conspicuous legacy:
a successful legal challenge totheFederal Election
Commissions (FEC) position that UNITY was subject
to the same contribution limitsas parties or candidates.
The D.C. Court of Appeals found that because what was
being funded was a process (not a party or a candidate),
UNITY could receive contributionsin any amount. This
decision laid the groundwork for funding Americans
Elect in 2012 and established the principle that non-
party actors could create out-of-the-box independent
blueprints that federal regulators would have to adapt
to. This is crucial!
Still, Americans Elect failed to produce a
candidate of the caliber that Ackerman sought,
but it did illustrate a major structural barrier to
a competitive independent presidential candidacy:
the presidential debates. Ackerman told me, and
others, that being unable to recruit a mainstream
competitive presidential contender in 2012 was
largely a function of being unable to guarantee a
slot on the Commission on Presidential Debates
(CPD)-sponsored debates. Thus, he set out to do
something about this problem.
T
he criteria for inclusion in the CPD-sponsored
events made it impossible for an independent
to gain entry. In 1992, Perot was the last non-
major party candidate to have access to the stage,
and his admittance was the result of a gentlemens
agreement between the RNC and the DNC. Level
the Playing Field (LPF) came into existence, funded
by Ackerman and directed by Cara McCormick, to
attack the CPDs exclusionary criteria and the FECs
complicity in the arrangement. He chose a legal
broadside against the 15% rule, which requires that
9
a candidate be showing at 15% in national polls
before she or he is admitted. Though the admission
criteria had been litigated extensively by previous
independents, including Lenora Fulani, Ross Perot,
Ralph Nader, and John Hagelin, LPFs goal was to use
the FECs administrative process and the subsequent
litigation to undermine the legitimacy of the 15% rule
and then force the CPD to guarantee a debate slot for
one qualified independent presidential candidate.
Ackermans initiative was broadly supported within
the independent and reform movement, gaining
endorsements from an array of elder statesmen
long associated with the independent cause.
The prominent pollster and good friend to the
independent movement, Douglas Schoen, prepared
a voluminous dossier to support the claims. Green
Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Party
candidate Gary Johnson were conscripted to join
the complaint. There was some dissension over the
question of how to determine who the single qualified
independent would be, including from me. But the
LPF initiative had a positive impact on two counts.
Its extraordinary legal team, headed by Alexandra
Shapiro of Shapiro Arato, persuaded a District Court
judge that the FEC had been cavalier in the LPF
request for a rulemaking procedure, in which the
15% rule could be properly reviewed. The District
Court remanded to the FEC a mandate to thoroughly
consider the complainants arguments and evidence.
The Court testily told the FEC: Do your homework!
Then, the FEC resubmitted a response, rejecting the
request for a rulemaking again. (No surprise there!)
However, the second impact of the LPF initiative was
to open the question of whether and how disparate
forces in the independent movement might join
together behind a single ticket. Was there a scenario
in which the solution to the debates problem
namely, the guarantee of a slot for one independent
presidential candidatecould be used to incentivize
a unified campaign involving a power-sharing
arrangement among a group of players?*
As Ackermans administrative process with the FEC
was getting underway, Independent Votings general
* In 2002, Independent Voting (as the Committee for a Unified Independent Party)
sought an Advisory Opinion from the FEC, asking whether independents would
be allowed to aggregate the vote totals of several independent presidential
candidates to achieve the 5% benchmark for federal funding in the subsequent
election. Our hope was to create a structural and financial incentive for a unified
strategy. The FEC ruled against us.
The second impact of the
Level the Playing Field
initiative was to open the
question of whether and
how disparate forces in the
independent movement
might join together behind
a single ticket.
counsel Harry Kresky sent a memo to Shapiro
outlining how a power sharing arrangement might
be created, both to remedy some legal vulnerabilities
in the plan, but also to suggest that Ackerman play
a leading role in unifying the movement. Kresky
wrote that, While the capacity of such a process to
withstand legal and political challenge is important,
as important is how it can advance the formation of
a unified, inclusive and democratic third force in
American politics.
Were a power-sharing process to be undertaken,
connected to a debates strategy or not, it would
raise complicated issues of control, candidate
selection and campaign messaging. For example,
whether, and to what extent, pre-existing third
partieslike the Greens and the Libertarians, or
various state-based partieswould be willing to
trade off ideological and brand control for a more
coalitional and reform-oriented process for choosing
a ticket is an open question.** Recently, state-based
ballot status party leaders such as Phil Fuehrer of
the Independence Party of Minnesota; Sal Peralta of
the Independent Party of Oregon; and Wayne Griffin
of the Independence Party of South Carolina have
floated their interest in some kind of unification
effort for 2020.
Then there are the particular opportunities for
alliances created by the Sanders voter revolt against
** In 2004, Ralph Nader attempted such a strategy, though in that instance the
unification was instigated around his candidacy. He was roundly rebuffed by
Green Party officialdom, though he was supported by the Independent Voting
networks, the remnants of the Reform Party, and a network of renegade Greens.
The liberal press forcefully trashed the effort. Evan McMullin attempted another
version of this in 2016.
10
Then there are the particular
opportunities for alliances
created by the Sanders voter
revolt against the Democratic
Party, the Trump voter revolt
against the Republican Party
establishment, the rising numbers
of independents in the Latino
community, and the black
communitys eroding loyalty to the
Democrats in the post-Obama era.
the Democratic Party, the Trump voter revolt against
the Republican Party establishment, the rising
numbers of independents in the Latino community,
and the black communitys eroding loyalty to the
Democrats in the post-Obama era. More than one
million African American voters who had backed
Obama chose not to vote for Hillary Clinton, a sign
of that erosion. As Fulani, who has long championed
political independence for Black America,
commented, The issue of poverty in our communities
will never be resolved as long as black people are
denied voter mobility. If we stay put politically, we
will stay put in poverty.
Two Roads, Some Models
Taken together, these circumstances point to the
opportunity for independents to develop a multi-
layered strategy for 2020. A version of an inside/
outside strategy was architected in 1988 with two
different candidates, which became known as the
Two Roads are Better than One strategy. The inside
candidate was Jesse Jackson, seeking the Democratic
Party nomination for a second time with a greatly
expanded Rainbow Coalition behind him. Jacksons
campaign set fire to a broad insurgency, pressing for
equality of opportunity and an end to the tilted playing
field in American political and economic life.
The outside candidate was Fulani, running as
an independent, who built a Rainbow Alliance of
supporters in all 50 states and who harshly criticized
the Democratic Party for its mistreatment of Jackson.
A stones throw from the Democratic Convention
in Atlanta, to a crowd of 4,000, she famously said,
Jesse, you are a great leader, but you have led us to
the wrong place. Though Jackson never sanctioned
the outside component of the 1988 effort, its appeal
was nonetheless manifest as many Jackson supporters
moved to endorse Fulani in the general election.
The potency of an electoral alliance between
independents, who are unapologetically alienated
from the political system, and the communities
of color, who are increasingly repressed by that
system, is clear. The number of voters identifying as
independents is increasing in the black and Latino
communities, particularly among youth. And, the
links between these outsider constituencies are
more pointed. Civil rights attorney Michael Hardy,
who serves as General Counsel to the National Action
Network and Rev. Al Sharpton, connects the voting
rights of independents to the history of voting rights
battles for African Americans. In testimony submitted
to the DNC in 2016, Hardy said:
I was one of many who sat inside the U.S. Supreme
Court on a brisk February morning in 2013 when
the arguments were made in Shelby County v. Holder
regarding the constitutionality of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act. We all know the history of the struggle
and the blood of Americans that soaked our soil to
win the right to vote. We were shocked by the Courts
decision to strike down Section 4 of the VRA and
thereby gut the power of Section 5s pre-clearance
requirements. We knew this was a dark day in our
history and that it would lead to serious efforts to
limit voting rights.
Additionally, for the first time, the inclusion of
independent votersnow 41% of the electorate
in the presidential primary process has become a
matter of broad public discussion. In some states,
the primaries were open to independents, in
others they were not. It is estimated that over 30
million Americans were denied the right to vote
in the presidential primaries because they were
independents. What we are seeing is a broadening of
the traditional voting rights agenda.
11
Is A Single Candidate
Inside/Outside Ticket
Viable for 2020?
A word on the legal issues that such a strategy
confronts, were the movement to organize a single
candidate to run both inside a major party and
then as an independent. Forty-five states have
adopted what are known as Sore Loser laws that bar
candidates from competing in party primaries and
going on to run as independents if they do not win
the partys nomination. The fact that most states
also bar fusionthe option of running in a general
election on the ballot line of more than one party,
in which voters can choose which line they prefer
to use to cast their ballotmeans that a candidate
is also barred from adding an independent label, if
they win their party primary. Suffice it to say that
the parties have engineered a no exit matrix of laws
and regulations that close off gateways to political
independence. If the Sore Loser principle were to be
applied to presidential elections, an inside/outside
strategy involving the same candidate would be
prohibited.
H
owever, even if an inside/outside scenario
were to be developed, there is ample
precedent and argument that the Sore Loser
shackles do not apply at the presidential level. Simply
put, and well argued by Richard Winger of Ballot
Access News, no minor party candidate for president
had ever been kept off any states general election
ballot on the grounds that he or she had run in a
major party presidential primary. That is, as Winger
explains, until 2012, when the state of Michigan
denied Gary Johnson the right to appear on the
Libertarian ballot on the grounds that he had been a
candidate in the Michigan Republican primary. This
decision was challenged in the District Court. The
Libertarian Party lost and has applied for a rehearing.
Winger cites not only the numbers of presidential
candidates who have run inside/outside (Theodore
Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, Eugene McCarthy,
John Anderson, Lenora Fulani, and Gary Johnson, to
name some) but also points out that there is no basis
for the application of Sore Loser laws in presidential
elections because, according to the U.S. Constitution,
votes cast for president in the general election are
actually votes cast for electors, not for candidates.
It is true that votes cast for president in the general
election are actually cast for electors. If this were not
true, Hillary Clinton would be president of the United
States today, not Donald Trump.
In any event, we can surely expect that were some
kind of independent inside/outside strategy to evolve
for 2020, it would draw a torrent of challenges from
the major parties and their spokespersons in the
major media. The call for (and the mechanisms for
enforcement of) party loyalty are deeply entrenched.
Lets not forget that in the first Republican
presidential debate in 2015, each of the 17 candidates
on stage was asked to pledge support to the eventual
GOP nominee, if it were not himself or herself.
Donald Trump was the only one who initially refused
to take the loyalty oath (although he went on to sign
it in September, 2015).
A Call for Dialogue
Independents are in a position to take advantage, not
just of the disaffection with both parties and with the
President, but of the new recognition of the systemic
and cultural barriers to moving beyond them.The
Democrats are enmeshed in trying to synthesize
economic populism with identity politics, while
taming the globalist ties of the partys superstructure.
Trashing Trump is surely a welcome distraction from
that problem. The Republicans are balancing their
populist voting base with their Wall Street embeds
and their social conservative apparatus. All this, while
trying to manage a federal government, including
its national security, intelligence, foreign policy and
military apparatus, all rife with internal conflict and
partisan power struggles. Meanwhile, the American
people are coming to view both parties as directly
responsible for our sorry state of affairs.
W
hat, then, is the independent vision of
otherness? It seems clear to manyleft
and rightthat America has to reconsider
its role in the world in order to grow and prosper.
That, paradoxically enough, is part of the appeal
of America First-ism, even though the Trumpian
version comes complete with a build-up in military
spending and a withdrawal from certain international
agreements.
12
Mustnt otherness include a rejection of traditional
liberalism and traditional conservatism, of the
ideology of ideology? Mustnt it offer a rejection
of traditional political alignments? Mustnt it
push democracy and nonpartisan restructuring
Mustnt otherness include
to the forefront? What does otherness mean for a rejection of traditional
historically marginalized communities who were
offered identity politics and not much else? And liberalism and traditional
what of poverty, the maldistribution of wealth, the
racial divide, and the profound weaknesses in our conservatism, of the ideology
infrastructure and our educational and healthcare
systems? Are there solutions to these problems of ideology? Mustnt it offer
absent there being a new process for finding
solutions? And mustnt the American people directly a rejection of traditional
involve themselves in creating, not just consuming, political alignments? Mustnt
this new vision?

How do the independent movement and the growing

it push democracy and
sector for nonpartisan reform come together to create nonpartisan restructuring
political tools that are useful to the American people?
How do we bring grassroots independents and the to the forefront? What
seething rebellion in the major parties together in the
run-up to 2020? does otherness mean for
This paper, by no means exhaustive or conclusionary, historically marginalized
is intended to stimulate and to help frame a
conversation within and around the independent communities who were
movement about our collective prospects for 2020.
I hope this paper generates comments, additions, offered identity politics
critiques, and alternative paths and tactics. And,
bottom line, I hope there is agreement that because of and not much else?
the state of our country, and because of the widening
gap between the political elites and the American
people, these are conversations we need to have.

Jacqueline Salit
Jacqueline Salit is the President of Independent Voting,
a national organizing hub for independent voters and
activists, with affiliates and networks in 40 states. She
is the convener of the biannual National Conference of
Independents. In 2012, Salit authored Independents Rising
(Palgrave Macmillan), and has spent more than 30 years
disrupting the partisan status quo. She can be reached at
national@independentvoting.org or 1-800-288-3201.

Many thanks to Independent Voting for its support in the writing and production of this paper.
13