At the Independent Party we reject the conventional wisdom of the pundits that politics is always a battle for those voters in the “middle.” The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes independent thinkers as outside the “mainstream,” when they are stating fundamental Constitutional guarantees or applying critical thinking to incessant corporate and special interest spin.

Independent thinkers are distrustful and cynical of the spin. We are tired of attempts to define issues in a partisan way. We can see through the efforts to cloak bad laws as "moderate" and "centrist" compromises between extremes. We are looking for answers outside the terms dictated by focus groups, traditional interest groups, and big money contributors. We are looking for citizens willing to support independently thinking leaders.

The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false. People can share progressive views on important issues but have conservative views on other issues. Many can be libertarian on social issues but welcome a government that assures consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety, Social Security, and other safety nets. We all want protection from the government itself and therefore demand checks and balances, separation of powers, accountability--and in Oregon, protection of the legislative power of the people: our initiative, referendum and recall system.

There is no single set of agreed upon issues, but in state politics here are some of mine. We hope you will comment and add other issues.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM is the single most important reform that we must make because no other reforms will be possible until it is done. Visit www.fairelections.net.

Big campaign contributions are essentially legalized bribery and has given special interest groups more access to and more influence over our politicians then We the People have. Very often these special interest groups represent multi-national corporations with no stake in anything except their own profits. Why should they enjoy greater access to and influence over our elected representatives than the very people they are supposed to be representing?

Also on my list are reforms to curb the abuses of two-party dominance. Consider the idea of INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING (IRV), long-advocated by the Pacific Green Party. See www.pacificgreens.org. IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference without worrying about "wasted votes" or “spoilers.” It is a voting system for single-winner elections that guarantees majority winners in a single round of voting See the animated explanation at www.chrisgates.net/irv. Pierce County (WA), a county of nearly 800,000 people with the City of Tacoma and large rural areas, has joined Burlington (VT) in adopting IRV for elections where candidates run by party. In November 2008, the Pierce County Executive and other key county leaders will be elected with IRV. The IRV measure was placed on the ballot by an elected charter commission, and the successful campaign for IRV was led by local leaders of the Libertarian and Green Parties.

We also support FUSION VOTING, proposed by the Working Families Party of Oregon. In New York state, for example, candidates can run on multiple party lines. The state's Conservative and Working Families Parties usually endorse the Republican and Democratic candidates, respectively, but have also been known to shake up elections by endorsing their own candidates. Why would anyone vote for a major party candidate on a third party line? Well, by supporting Eliot Spitzer as a Working Families Party candidate rather than on the Democratic line, for example, voters sent the message that the issues Working Families championed (universal healthcare, a living wage) are very important to those voters and a key voting block in victory.

Linda Williams, IPO sponsor.