New political party name - what do you think?

[netmouse]

Brendan and I are trying to figure out a good name for a new political party. One that would (at the very least) grab those states marked out in purple on the US map. (The ones where the separation between how many voted for Bush and how many voted for Kerry was less than %10). We have lot of political ideas of what a new party needs to focus on, but let's stick to practicalities for the moment. It needs a name. A name that has good, sensible connotations. One that does not have strong negative associations. One that can be pluralized to indicate members of the party (ever wonder why the Rainbow Party never got anywhere? Are you a Rainbow?).

Tonight Brendan had an idea we both liked: The Common Party. Members of the Common Party would be Commoners.


Interestingly enough, www.commonparty.org is already registered, by someone in Ohio. In June 2004, Mike McCaib called for a common party on FightingBob.com. On September 21 of this year, James Manning posted an argument for a 'Common Party' in his blog, "Peace on That" in a post that was linked to by Dell Gines.

I like it for its focus on common sense and finding commonalities.

What do you think?

Comments

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

The name sounds fine, but I don't understand what the party is. Everyone wants common sense. Mike McCaib seems to describe it as a one-plank party platform on campaign finance reform. Or does its platform consist of the Democratic Party platform outlined in James Manning's points?

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

Right now I'm focusing on the name. Then we need an animal. An Owl has been proposed but I'm not sold on the idea. A little too lofty, I think.

So far as I can tell, generally people want government to be more open, more ballanced, more constitutional, and for laws (and taxes) to be less complex.

I think potentially some of the power platform planks for this party would be process based. Not just campaign finance reform but things like eliminating the two-party jerrymandering system, making sure people have access to the polls and that their polling places don't change arbitrarily. Making sure the federal government follows its own laws and the decisions of the courts. Insisting on sufficient time for representatives to review a bill before it is voted on. Making the full text of bills available to the public, in such away that proposed changes and the people who proposed them are transparent - creating an online information system like Thomas.gov that is actually purposed for use by citizens, not legislators. Making sure public resources are used for the public good (there I'm thinking in terms of taking away television broadcasting priviledges from companies that abuse them by presenting lies as news, for instance).

In general, I want to promote the idea that representatives should represent their constituencies and not vote in party blocks. Representatives should be involved and informed and policy decisions should be made or at least informed by people who know how the world works and how to get things done.

[(Anonymous)]

"In general, I want to promote the idea that representatives should represent their constituencies and not vote in party blocks. Representatives should be involved and informed and policy decisions should be made or at least informed by people who know how the world works and how to get things done."

Sounds a lot like Tammany Hall to me.