In a statement on Twitter, Kevin Gaughen announced:
It is time to make history. We are taking the new Keystone Party nationwide. I am organizing the very first convention of the Keystone National Party. At this convention, we will be creating bylaws, adopting a platform, selecting our national board of directors, forming new state affiliates, and possibly nominating candidates. The convention will be held in Pennsylvania this autumn. I’m still working out details.
Keystone’s short-term goal is to be up and running in several states by 2024 with a presidential ticket. Our long-term goal is to get liberty-minded people elected to office and to push public policy in a sensible direction.
Please note, Keystone is NOT Libertarian Party 2.0. We aim to be better than that, in three ways:
A. We’re leaving the kooks behind. We are not anarchists, extremists, nor are we far right or far left. Keystone is decidedly classically liberal, in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson or John Locke. See our platform here:
B) Keystone is neither a purity contest nor a philosophy club, nor do we exist to do “bold messaging” and host rallies. We are a political party; our job is to run candidates and win elections. Keystone has a strong focus on pragmatics and action.
C) Keystone will be run professionally. We aim to have measured and mature public messaging, competent leadership, and we intend to only nominate candidates who we believe will increase the goodwill of the organization.
If you would like to attend the convention, please send me an email at [email protected]
Include:
• your phone number
• your physical address
• a short history of your previous political activismWe are going to be making history in Pennsylvania this fall, and I hope that you can be part of it.
States that allow qualified parties to change their name, based on precedent and sometimes by an explicit law, are Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Also New York lets a party change its name immediately after it gains qualified status.
@Steve… “Open primaries” (in reality the proper term is blanket primary) do nothing of the sort. They actually hinder discussion. Only the very same top polling candidates get the attention. In fact in primary debates (if there even are any) the media still restricts access, but even more severely. They have one debate with all the top polling candidates completely dropping mid-tier candidates from the Republicans and Democrats, and still completely ignore third-parties. Less popular candidates still remain underfunded and have no chance in winning. Instant Run-Off also has something called the “center squeeze” issue, which is where center candidates are squeezed out while even more and more left and right fringe candidates rise to the top.
You still have the largest pluralities making all the major decisions in the primary and first round of the general election. The majority of voters are still stuck having to compromise on a candidate they don’t like. We’re also ignoring the fact that who gets elected doesn’t matter. The party leadership of a party is so totalitarian that they will order everybody in line to vote down a partisan divide. The elections are not about who gets elected but how many get elected from each party to determine which party leader will holder dictatorial control over the chamber with their party lackies supporting them no matter what.
The only electoral system that solves all these issues is proportional representation; Single Transferable and addition member proportional. What this does is break parties into their factions. With there now being more parties, there is less control in any one party leaders hands as they will be required to compromise with other party leaders to form a governing coalition. This also allows more organic shifts in political alignments and allows center coalitions to form instead of sharply right or left divides. Open primaries and instant run-off will NEVER do any of that.
Jim, the earlier versions didn’t have an LP run by a group openly trying to destroy their own party. The problem with 3rd psrties that become successful enough to get ballot access is that they become hostile take over targets. One thing I like about the forward party is they are openly challenging the clossed primary system. Open primaries with some form of instant runoff or acceptance voting may broaden political discussion.
https://federalistpartyofamerica.org
What other parties are there that have been ideological similar to the Libertarian Party over the years? The only ones that I have come up with since the LP was founded are the Objectivist Party, the Personal Choice Party, and the Boston Tea Party. Those were all between 2004 and 2012. The only other one that I can think of is the National Democrats in 1896.
@NewFederalist… I actually talked with the PA chair before the 2022 election about exactly that (I’m looking at starting my own party in the same general ideological area so I was hoping for them to be the PA affiliate). They had no interest in a name change.
@Shawn… If they change the name after getting ballot access, they lose ballot access. Most states consider a name change to be forming a new party.
It will be interesting to see how this develops.
They can change the name later. They have greater hurdles to overcome first.
Once they have a national organization, maybe then they can work out the branding.
The name makes a lot less sense for a national party .
Not a bad idea but not a particularly good name. Keystone may make sense in the Keystone State (Pennsylvania) but not much nationally.