.
News Alert
SEASIDE HEIGHTS LIVE: Video Shows How The Beach…

Letter: 'Independent' Candidates Confuse Labels

Toms River resident shares views on third-party candidates

Letter to the editor as submitted by Toms River resident Joseph Lypowy:

Recently I heard a representative of one of the major polling companies on a talk show state that the independent segment of the electorate is not as significant as many believe it to be. Even though nearly 40% consider themselves to be independent, of those, about 15% lean towards each major party leaving only 10%. Of that 10% Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is expected to take 6%, The Constitution Party 2%, and the remaining 2% amongst the other fringe parties and write in’s.

Even though occasionally, you will find a legitimate good independent candidate, I have found out from experience, many times the so-called “independent” turns out to be a shill for one of the other major parties, or have some kind of hidden agenda. One example was the first Toms River Mayoral race where Democrat Paul Brush ran as an independent, and immediately after being elected, rejoined the Democrats. Later on, I found out, this so-called “independent” campaign was mostly funded and managed by Democrats, including dirty money from the imprisoned Wayne Bryant sleaze machine.

Many times the electorate gets coned thinking they are voting for a reformer or someone who is not controlled by party politics, but behind the scenes are. Sometimes these independents are encouraged to run as spoilers and take voters away from their opponent. An example of this is the last 3rd District Congressional race, where the late John Adler was caught red handed running an operative as a fake “Tea Party” candidate in an attempt to steal votes from his Republican opponent.

Even though I believe most Libertarian Party activists are sincerely dedicated, I sense this year, that many Democrat operatives are boosting that party in order to draw votes away from the GOP candidates. In turn, some of these operatives have infiltrated Tea Party groups throughout the state and are encouraging members to vote for their preferred spoiler. One method to spot some of these is that they are many times sympathetic towards the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

 

Joseph A. Lypowy

Barry Fleckmann October 10, 2012 at 02:11 PM
So, WHO was the winner of the courtcase, between the New Jersey Conservative Party, and the COMBINED Republican and Democratic Party, and who WERE the losers? ANSWER: George Gilmore WAS the winner (he ALWAYS is in Ocean County politics), and the losers were the citizens of Ocean County. Good luck on Election Day, Scott, but you guys DON'T have a snowballs-chance-in-Hell of winning. Again, George Gilmore ALWAYS wins! The electorate ALWAYS loses.
Scott Neuman October 10, 2012 at 02:35 PM
Barry. I'm not a good loser..
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress October 14, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Barry - the 80% figure is from personally collected data when our candidates were making the effort to obtain ballot access, which we achieved before the June 5th deadline - with nearly 2000 total signatures collected. Each of our candidates, as part of our efforts, DID ask the stated affiliation of those who we approached for signatures. This was one-on-one, not a phone call effort using the County provided lists, the data from which is easily skewed - as in the old joke "in Democratic Households Surveyed, Jimmy Carter leads Ronald Reagan with 52%". We asked these questions to determine the level of 'knee-jerk' support the two so-called "major" parties had...and were pleasantly surprised with the answer. Many folks who planned to vote in the primary were not really satisfied with their choices. To play it safe, we thanked them for their support, and did not collect their signatures, and collected only those of declared independents...but the few we had to turn away was hardly an impediment. If you look at the data from the Counties, the number of registered "independents" grows every year - and the number of the two major parties' electorate declines - sadly, in many cases, due to attrition. Old ideas are dying out with those who supported them.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress October 14, 2012 at 09:53 PM
There is an irony in that we are standing on ideals even older - 1.) "Article the First", which, through a fair and equitable apportionment of the House, and smaller Congressional Districts, as mandated by this Amendment passed in 1792, 2.) Un-tainted decision making ("Change the Rules" pledge), which removes influnce by "K-Street" Lobbyists, special interests, and corporate donors seeking access and contracts, from the legislative process VOLUNTARILY, and PUBLICALLY, by each legislator pledging to abhor undue influence and to decline to serve in a voting role in committee on any such committee where a large-dollar donor may receive an inequitable benefit... and 3.) Ballot Position rights - removing "privilege" from the election process, and compelling the State Board of Elections to apply it's own laws, and to further insure that it ONLY applies laws and ordinances that are compliant with the United States Constitution. Not only are "First Amendment" rights at stake - right of Assembly and free speech - but the equal protection clause is also damaged by present legislation - we have successfully demonstrated this to be so, with thanks to the State's own attorney's statement ON RECORD that the left side of the ballot is a privilege. (The judge was NOT happy with that statement). We have the right to use our name, and the right to an equal opportunity in PLACEMENT on the ballot - not ACCESS - we achieved that when we turned in our petitions.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress October 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM
10 percent approval in Congress for the incumbents. Divisiveness and Gridlock preventing even simple legislation from moving forward. No budget in 1200 days and COUNTING - but we're supposed to allow them to continue to spend, not knowing where things stand. "The fix is in ", with so-called "major" challengers running not for election, but for later favor in appointment under the false two-party system... Selecting an issue as important as health care, and CREATING an ARGUMENT, rather than providing a solution. Sure, ACA passed - but it is poorly written, and is a duplication of services we already had. The government model for health care? Visit Walter Reed and see how they were/are doing for the veterans. Those folks who work within that system work very hard - but they are hampered by a bureaucracy that micro-manages the process into an almost Soviet inefficiency. We CAN do better - but you have to bench the players on the field, now - and put in the "rookies" - or lose the game altogether. I keep saying it - and only hope you are listening - "Stand for what's right, or settle for what's left". Frederick John LaVergne, "Democratic-Republican" for Congress, NJ Third District.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »