First, the platform of the Working Families Party is directed explicitly toward addressing economic issues — that is, economic inequality is seen as the fundamental issue American democracy must face, to which more characteristically “social” and “cultural” issues are secondary. As their web site says, “…the real divide in this country is not between the left and the right, but between the top and bottom.” In this sense, for better or for worse, they continue the class-based politics that was once the provenence of the Socialist Party. Much of their efforts are directed toward increasing the political power of labor unions and workers. They focus primarily on issues like increasing the minimum wage, universal health care and augmenting government spending on forms of public assistance such as welfare and social security, as opposed to “cultural” issues represented by what are referred to as “the three G’s”: guns, God, and gays. Strategically, this stems from an effort to get poor, working-class citizens who would normally vote Republican because they go to church, own guns and are homophobic to support traditionally Democratic issues (like raising the minimum wage) or Democratic candidates.

Which leads to the second difference: aside from its lobbying efforts, the WFP has used to its advantage a distinct electoral strategy. Most of the Working Families Party’s success is based on “fusion voting,” and antiquated form of voting that currently only exists in a handful of states, New York (where the WFP is most established) being one of them. Under fusion voting, a minor party like the WFP can endorse on its ballot line a major party candidate (most often, but not exclusively, Democrats). The totals from each ballot line is then added together for the candidate’s grand total. Therefore, rather than run its own candidate like the Green and Peace and Freedom Parties, the WFP will often endorse a Democrat as also a WFP candidate. In certain cases, the WFP has been known to run it’s own candidate when no major party candidate supports its agenda. More often, however, the WFP will offer its support to a Democrat in order to a) differetiate a more progressive Democrat from an entrenched, usually encumbent ‘machine’ Democrat or b) help a Democrat in a largely Republican district win victory by focusing on the economic issues surrounding the campaign. Though on a large scale, such as a US Senate race, this endorsement may matter little, especially in a typically “blue” state like New York (or California), on a local level, such as with a county legislator or city mayor, an endorsement (or lack thereof) from the WFP will in many cases make or break a candidate.

I am fed up with our lawmakers. All of the Republicans and Democrats in
Washington are a bunch of wimps that cannot make up their minds except
when they want to give themselves a pay raise.

Why does it take so long to decide what is best for the country? This
November, I am NOT voting for any person who has the words ‘incumbent’ behind or ‘re-elect’ in front of their name.

I am looking very hard at the Reform Party.

As the old saying goes, “When in doubt, vote them out.”

——KEN SPENCER, Yuma “ARID ZONA”

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER VETERANS HOME Post Script, May be ALL Independents and Minor Party and Micro Party types can unify around the slogan and bumper sticker “DUMP INCUMBENTS”