The Senate in 2006

We were told that the Democrat's best chance to retake a house of congress was retaking the Senate in 2004. Underestimating the Republican grip on the South, we actually lost four seats and the Democratic representation in the Senate is at its lowest point since the great depression. In 2006 the Democrats must turn the tables, or at least stop the bleeding. Here are the Democrat's best chances in 2006 to pick up seats:

Ohio: Republican Incumbant: Mike DeWine
The state is clearly split down the middle, but has no Democratic statewide elected officials. Mike DeWine is a realitivley unknown and unacomplished Senator and any Democrat should at least make a race of it. Rumors have been swirling for years that one time Cincinatti mayor Jerry Springer wants to make a run for either governor or senator. Springer was said to seriously consider running for years now, but stayed on the sidelines because his show would hinder him. Springer has ended production of his show, and may be eying a 2006 run. His name recognition and media savvay would surly be an asset. And despite the content of his show Springer is a progressive democrat through and through.

Rhode Island: Republican Incumbant:Lincoln Chafee:
Senator Chafee is by most measures the most Democratic member of the Republican party, which serves him well in this heavily Democratic state. Rumors that he is planning to switch parties have been put down directly by the Senator, probably for practical reasons of wanting to stay in the majority, rather than any idelogical agreement with his new collegues like Tom Couburn and Jim DeMint. Although popular, Rhode Islanders may come to resent hurting the democratic majority in the Senate just to suport their preferred canidate, just as Alaskans defeated popular Democratic canidate Tony Knowles.

Pennslyvania: Republican Incumbant: Rick Santorum
This guy is crazy. I can't believe he was elected in the first place, and if I were from Pennsylvania I'd be embarassed. Although most pundits give him a decent chance at reelection I can't beleieve that a state that voted for both Gore and Kerry would give the hard right such a victory as the reelection of Senator Santorum

Missouri: Republican Incumbant: Jim Talent
The man who eventually wound up in the seat famously lost by John Ashcroft will face a difficult challenge in 2006. Although a Republican leaning state, Democrats can still win statewide elections.

Virgina: Republican Incumbant: George Allen
This first-term Senator may be vulnerable if Democratic governor Mark Warner decides to make a run after term limits force him to retire. Warner may hold off to contest the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, with all the talk of Democrats needing a redstater at the top of the ticket. ALthough the south is still GOP terrirory, we still have a chance in Virginia.

Naturally the Democrats would not only have to win all of these seats, but also hold onto all of theirs to retake the majority. This seems unlikely, and a pickup of two seats in the increasingly Republican country would be a coup. These Democratic Senate seats seem vulnerable:

Michigan: Democratic Incumbant: Debbie Stabenaw
As a Michagander I can tell you, Senator Stabenaw is vulnerable. Stabenaw was not a very popular canidate in 2000 and only won because her opponent Spencer Aberham was even more unpopular. Although a Democratic state, Michiganders would throw Debbie out if a charismatic young canidate came along. Luckily all the star power in the state is on the Democratic side, with wildly popular governor Granholm probably being a presidental canidate weren't it for the fact she was born in Canada, and Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick a virtual rock star in the hip-hop world.

Flordia: Democratic Incumbant: Bill Nelson
Famously a swing state, Flordia has a Republican governor, a new Republican Senator, and voted for Bush twice. Still Bill Nelson has a chance, especially since Jeb Bush says he's not running. The traditional midterm effect of the governing party losing popularity would probably be enough to push Nelson through.

Washington: Democratic Incumbant: Maria Cantwell
Squeaked out a victory in 2000, Cantwell is vulnerable this time around. Possible canidates are Dino Rossi (if he dosen't win the governership).

What is Instant Runoff Voting?

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is nothing but a method of electing a candidate in a political election. Most people in America don't know that there is actually more than one way to run an election. Elections in America are run using what is called the First Past the Post system.

First Past The Post (FPTP)
In this system, the candidate with the plurality of votes wins. So as long as a candidate gets more votes than anyone else, that candidate will win. If there are five candidates (A, B, C, D, and E) in an election each with the results as follows:

Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: 10 percent
Candidate C: 25 percent
Candidate D: 20 Percent
Candidate E: 30 percent


Using the First Past the Post election method in this election awards the win to Candidate E even though that candidate was voted against by 70 percent of the voters. That 70 percent of the people have no representation in this election, even though they constitute a majority of the people.

How it Works
Instant Runoff Voting is a majoritarian system the candidate with the majority of the votes wins. No candidate can win the election without wining 50 percent of the vote. So every winner will at least represent the majority of the people. How does this work, however, if a situation such as the above occurs? Simple. The system not only asks the voter what their first choice candidate is, it asks them their second and third (or fourth or fifth) choices as well. If the first round of voting produces no candidate with a 50 percent majority, the system uses this information to simulate a series of "instant runoffs" where in each round the candidates with the least amount of votes is eliminated. When that candidate is eliminated, the system distributes his/her vote to what his/her voters say was their second choice. If there is still no candidate with 50 percent, another candidate is eliminated and his/her voters are redistributed based on their second choice preferences (or if their second choice candidate was eliminated in the second round, their third choice). The process continues until there is a winner with over 50 percent of the vote.
For instance in the situation above, take the same results:
Round One
Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: 10 percent
Candidate C: 25 percent
Candidate D: 20 Percent
Candidate E: 30 percent

Since no candidate got a majority of the votes, a new round of voting needs to be simulated. First, Candidate B must be eliminated. His 10 percent of the vote must be redistributed. Say 90 percent of his voters preferred candidate C as their second choice and 10 percent candidate D. 9 percentage points would be added to Candidate C's total, and 1 percentage point to Candidate D. The others would be unchanged. The new total would look like this:
Round Two
Candidate A: 15 percent
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 34 percent (+9)
Candidate D: 21 percent (+1)
Candidate E: 30 percent

since no candidate has a majority after round two, the system runs another round. Candidate A is now eliminated with his/her 15 percent of the vote redistributed to the remaining candidates. Say that two thirds of Candidate A's supporters have Candidate D as their next preference candidate and one third have Candidate C. That situation would add 10 percentage points to Candidate D and five points to Candidate C. The results would look like this:
Round Three
Candidate A: --eliminated--
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 39 percent (+5)
Candidate D: 31 percent (+10)
Candidate E: 30 percent

Still no candidate has a majority. So candidate E is eliminated. Suppose one third supports Candidate C, two thirds Candidate D. The results:
Round Four
Candidate A: --eliminated--
Candidate B: --eliminated--
Candidate C: 49 percent (+10)
Candidate D: 51 percent (+20)
Candidate E: --eliminated--

Finally the process has produced a winner! But take a look! The winner in this election using IRV is Candidate D, while the winner using FPTP is Candidate E. The same election with the same candidates, and yet the two voting system produces two different winners. The question is, which one is more legitimate? Candidate E got more the vote in the first round, but that was only because the anti-E vote was split among four different candidates. More people actually preferred Candidate D this election to Candidate E. The IRV system takes this fact into account. The FPTP system does not. The IRV system thus more closely represents the will of the people.

All of these rounds of voting take place instantly. The ballots are tabulated by computer and the process is entirely automated. All the voter has to do is provide the information by ranking their candidates.

How They Compare
No election system is perfect, but IRV certainly is more democratic than the FPTP system the United States uses. The requirement that at least 50 percent of the electorate must choose a candidate just makes sense in a country where the majority rules. The raking of the candidates makes sure that a candidate that is most preferable to the electorate will be chosen. The preference voting system also eliminates the "nader effect" where a third party candidate can risk hurting his/her own cause just by running because his/her candidacy draws votes away from a viable candidate. With the IRV system, the votes of the third party candidate are redistributed if no candidate wins a majority. (If a candidate does win a majority in the first round, a spoiler is a moot point.) The adoption of IRV allows third parties a chance to build their parties without alienating supporters by spoiling elections.

Usage

IRV is used around the world in nations that have opted for a more democratic voting method. Currently all elections in Australia use a form of IRV. Ireland also uses IRV for their presidential elections and their elections to the European Parliament. Other nations, such as New Zealand, are also experimenting with IRV at the local level and considering their use at the federal level.

Prospects in the United States

IRV is currently being used in municipal elections in San Francisco. It’s prospects in the rest of the country is mixed. Most people are not aware of the need for electoral reform, or know what STV is. There is evidence, however, that Americans would be accepting of a move that would allow more representation. Witness the millions of people who voted for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. It is encouraging, also, that the implementation of IRV would not necessarily require federal legislation. The individual states are in charge of all elections, even federal elections to the presidency, the senate, and the house. Each state can choose to give their electoral votes to the winner of an IRV election if it so chooses. In many states all that stands between FPTP and IRV is a simple ballot initiative. The implementation of IRV would be quite easy in the United States, but the problem remains unknown to most people, even those heavily involved in politics. Most people don’t think twice about the election method, but as we’ve seen it does has a huge outcome on who wins.

The Making of a Progressive Media

Bill Clinton never would have won the Presidency without CNN. In 1992 people turned to the network that bought them the war in 1991 for advice on the election. Clinton's media savvy, and Ted Tunrer's political leanings combined to make CNN a pro-Clinton source for news. George HW Bush was humiliated in the coming election because he didn't understand the new world of 24 hour news.
His son did not make that mistake. In 2000 George Bush had a powerful ally in 24 news, the startup Fox News. Realizing that they lacked a crucial advantage with the centrist CNN supporting the centrist Clinton wing of the democratic party, and CNN dominating the scene, conservatives founded their own network. Their already huge advantage in the propaganda game combined with Rupert Murdoch's business sense and Fox News soon overtook CNN as the lead cable news network.
George Bush never would have won the White House without it.
People all across the country have been persuaded by Fox News that they too are conservatives. They too share the values of the rich, white elite. Fox News's aggressive tactics and disregard for journalistic standards are worryingly anti-democratic. Yet their commercial success trumps all.
If ever a progressive movement has a chance of success, we must take the people off of their thought-drug and give them a new one. Television news is a horrible thing for democracy. People screaming at each other is not a debate. Soundbites are not ideas. Politics was not meant to be a 24/7 exercise. Yet television news is a reality, and it is unthinkable to campaign without it. CNN has lacked the balls to stand up to Fox News. A news progressive friendly network must be founded to open the airwaves up to progressive thought.
Here's the gameplan. There are two network news departments without a 24 hour cable news partner, CBS News and ABC News. Neither network is willing to expand into cable on its own, the competition is too strong and the risks too great. But with a big partner, willing to bear the brunt of the costs in return for their personnel and expertise. Imagine the respect and experience of CBS News with the money of George Soros!
CBS News would be a perfect fit because its corporate parent is Viacom, which as owner of MTV, VH1, Nickelodean, Spike, ect. has a great history of running a cable station profitably. They lack a cable news partner, but would most likely take one if the opportunity came along.
This new network may at first have to find its feet. But using Viacom's corporate power, CBSNews could work their way into the third place position, dethroning and possible ending MSNBC, taking thier slots on cable systems. The new landscape in cable news would be FoxNews (right), CNN (center) and CBSNews (left). This situation would fully represent the ideas of the country, and the network would certainly find a viewership. 48 percent of the country did vote against the president. The only thing holding this up is the money. A sponsor must be found. George Soros, we need you!

The Democrats in 2006

The next federal election is only two years away. An incumbent president will attempt to gain seats for his party in an off-presidential year, a feat he accomplished four years prior. Although much is unknown about the country and the races in 2006, the Democrats must decide now what their strategy will be. Will they resist President Bush or will they cooperate with this recently reelected incumbent president. Which strategy is more likely to work?
In my view, the strategy of absolute defiance of the administration is best. Although Bush won reelection, that was mostly because of his Kerry-bashing. He's not out of the woods yet, particularly on the economy and Iraq. Democrats must capitalize on the uncertainty coming in the next two years. They must resist the judicial nominations tooth and nail. They must fight every legislative priority of the administration, becoming the party of the deficit hawks. They must give the American people in 2006 a choice, not an echo. Bush's popularity can only slide between now and the next election day. The Democrats must fight. What do you think?

The "Values Gap"

There is no question that if the Democrats lost on a single issue in this election, it would be the issue of "moral values". The real hot issue in this election wasn't the economy, Iraq, or the War on Terror. It was what the electorate judged to be each canidate's moral orientation.
There are several reasons for this somewhat surprising result. First, during a time of war, the personal qualities of the commander and chief suddenly becomes much more relevant. The political situation changes so fast, knowing the solid core of a person provides comfort.
Second, the modern campaign emphases almost unavoidably the personal qualities of the canidates rather than their ideas. When was the last time you've read a party platform? People used to base their vote on those! But now, with television campaigning and negative advertising, the personally of the president suddenly becomes much more important. Canidates are always on TV, and they are expected to act like it. Always funny, always presidential, always charismatic, never tired, never weak, never stopping. The better actor seems to win (as evidenced by the fact that our Conneticut born Andover-Yale-Harvard prep school child has transformed himself into a local Texan rancher), not the better canidate.
Third, there is a true reactionary conservative Christian movement in this country whose numbers only grow in size. Whatever they prefer to be called evangelicals or the Christian right, these people have hijacked the Christian religion and turned the faith of Jesus, the man who walked among the prostitutes, chastised the rich, broke bread with the lepers, said the meek would inherit the Earth, and advised the wise to turn the other cheek into a militant intolerant faith persecuting gays, minorities, and the "seculars".

The Democats' response to this rising Christian movement has been timid. They have stayed defiantly secular in their outlook, despite the increasing mixture of politics and religion. This is a mistake. The Democrats need to confront the religion gap head on, and they need to do it by tearing down the Christian Right and expose it as the intolerant, phony, sacrilegious fraud that it is. Jesus was not a warmonger. Jesus would not approve of the death penalty. He suffered from it. Jesus was not a supply-sider, robbing from the poor to give to the rich. The hypocrisy of the Christian Right is there for the exposing, and the Democrats only need to provide a strain of humanistic true Christianity to combat it. Perhaps the next pope will humanize that church in the coming years. Already the Episcopalian are humanizing theirs. The Democrats need to latch on to that leftish faith in order to combat the increasing militancy of the right. If they do not the "values gap" will only widen as the largely religious electorate rejects what it sees as the party of atheism.

The Small Victories

Election 2004 was not a good day for the Democrats. It seems that barring the discovery of massive last minute fraud, the Democrats will not regain the White House, and along with it judicial appointments. They will also loose representatives in the House, and the Senate will go from nearly dead even to 55-45 Republican. The Democratic Leader of the Senate , Tom Daschle, lost his own seat.

Despite these truly horrible results, some races were won. The next Senator from Illinois will be Barack Obama. Obama, the son of a Kenyan immigrant and first black president of the Harvard Law review very much represents the future of the Democratic Party. A minority, well-educated, socially liberal and midwestern, Obama represents the best of the Democrats. Not only that, but as he will be the only black member of the Senate he assures black representation in the upper house (theoretically with 13% of the population blacks should have 13 senators, but the affirmative action for small rural white states assures they are underrepresented.) His charisma and star power seem to make him a logical choice for even higher office, but in the meantime his intelligence should serve the Senate well, particularly a Senate with men like Tom Couburn and Jim DeMint lurking about.

The next Senator from Colorado will be Ken Salazar, a well-educated, Hispanic, southwestern Democrat, who can win rural votes. This profile also represents the future of the Democratic party, as well as the future of America as a whole. Although much has been made about the Republicans securing the fast growing South while the Democrats slowly consolidate their grip on the declining RustBelt, the fastest growing region of the country is actually the Southwest. It's good to see the Democrats making gains in states where population growth is so large, with Democratic governors in Arizona and New Mexico and a new Senator from Colorado. Calcareous experience as a public servant should serve him well in the Senate, and I have a feeling his popularity will only rise in office. (It's hard for Obama's to rise any higher.) Salazar just may bring Colorado over to the Democrats next time around. In the meantime, its good to see that the Democrats will have a Hispanic member of the Senate to balance the Republican Mel Martinez of Florida.

In the House the picture is more muddled, with local issues dominating the election. Ken's brother John Salazar picked up a Republican seat in western Colorado, adding to Colorado's Democratic credentials. In Illinois the longest serving Republican member of the House was taken down by newcomer Melissa Bean. Bean represents something quite separate from the two Salazrs. Rather then portending a Republican state moving to the Democrats, a rare occurrence, Bean stands for the increasing consolidation of the two geographical bases of the two parties. It is becoming increasingly rare to find any Democratic elected officials in the Red states, and any Republicans in the Blue. The cleaning of the Southern Senate seats and Tom Daschle's loss shows this very clearly, but so does a race like Bean's. In theory, such an occurrence, if done to completion would make for Democratic gains. But all politics is local, such a deep geographic polarization is unlikely, especially with the black enclaves in the south and the gerrymandered suburban districts in the north.

Overall, it seems, the Democrats have added a few new stars to their party, despite their humiliating losses nationwide. The 2006 elections should be interesting, with a new crop of Senators being challenged and Governor's races nationwide.
On a final note , the Democrats seem to have won the governorship of Montana. I don't know what that's all about exactly, but it might portend a significant demographic shift as retirees and young families from the Pacific Northwest migrate further inland to get away from it all. Place like Missoula and Boise are trending more and more Democratic. Small victories, but perhaps a sign of good things to come.

Towards A New Progressive Majority

This blog was born on election night 2004. That night the prospects for progressive politics in the United States looked dim indeed. The most regressive, reactionary president in modern American history was reelected by a comfortable margin. His party gained seats in both legislative bodies, and as several Supreme Court justices seemed eager to retire, the judiciary was in his hands as well. There was little hope for progressive Americans.

Yet strangely this Republican domination of the three branches of government was possible despite the fact the electorate was almost equally divided between the two parties. The populace was not overwhelmingly Republican. The domination of the House was made possible mostly by partisan redistricting following the 2000 census. The domination of the Senate was made possible by the structure of the American constitution which grants disproportionately representation to smaller, rural states (where Republicans are strong) than to bigger, urban states (where Democrats are strong.) The Presidency was largely determined not by resistance to progressive ideas, but more by the extraordinary events of September 11 which gave President Bush a huge following he kept throughout the election. Had the election in 2000 been by popular vote, and Gore was President on September 11 that following would have been his and 2004 would have been his election to win.

So for progressives there is perhaps reason to hope after all. The results of the 2004 election were made possible mostly by the institutional bias in our electoral system. Without redistricting, we have the House. Without affirmative action for small rural states we have the Senate. Without the electoral college, we have the Presidency. With the presidency, we have the judiciary. Even further, without the winner-take-all electoral system we have no Nader spoiler effect, and more progressive third party choices.Many "pundits" will tell we progressives that the Democractic party has lost its soul and the 2004 election proves that progressive politics have lost its values and its orientation. They may be right. But remember, this is a 50/50 nation. And 50 percent ain't bad for a party that has lost its soul. Truly, this election's most enduring legacy for the Democratic party is that electoral reform is needed NOW. We need Instant Runoff Voting. We need to abolish the electoral college. We need to consider other electoral systems such as mixed member districts and proportional representation. These reforms, more than any "soulsearching", should be the Democrat's top priority in the years ahead.

But much soulsearching does need to be done. Certainly something is wrong when the party of Roosevelt and Truman looses the working poor to the party of Hoover and Nixon. Certainly something is wrong when most voters make their electoral decision s with "moral values" in mind, yet amongst Democratic canidates, talking about morality is taboo. Certainly something is wrong when an unpopular incumbent President who mistakenly took the nation into war, allowed the largest attack on American soil to take place, and presided over the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression wins by a comfortable margin over our canidate because his unanswered negative attacks sowed enough doubt into the American electorate to scare them into believing that a Kerry presidency would be even worse. It is partly the strategy of the campaign. It is partly the decision made in the primary process. It's partly the money in politics. . It is partly the Christian renaissance. But as I said,, the largest reason why Election 2004 went against the Democrats was because the election system was rigged. That is pretty straightforward. The second largest reason why the Democrats lost the 2004 election is more complicated.

After Barry Goldwater's massive loss in the 1964 presidential election, a conservative movement was born among his followers. These people, Ronald Reagan among them, decided that rather than focus their efforts on the next election (which they won anyway, thanks to Vietnam) they would lay the groundwork for future conservative victories. A handful of very wealthy conservative families, among the Mellon-Scaifes and the Coors, were brought on board to fund new conservative institutions, to be staffed by the young supporters of Goldwater .
The big idea behind these institutions was to win elections before the actual campaign begun. Instead of trying to change people's minds every four years, with all the variables of different candidacy and changing times, these institutions were going to change how people thought, not just how they voted. Doing that, converting the nation's thought-patterns from largely liberal and progressive(even among Republicans) to largely conservative and reactionary was the key to building a built-in base of support for Republican causes. It was an extraordinary bold goal for a nation that just elected Democrat Lyndon Johnson and his bank-breaking "Great Society" and was soon to elect a man from the opposition party who favored nationalized healthcare.

Yet as bold as their goals were, they were able to achieve them. Reagan was the first step, but they couldn't persuade those older depression-era voters who saw Government lend a helping hand that Government was the root of all evil. With those voters largely passed by 2000, they finally achieved, 40 years later, what Barry Goldwater had attempted to do in 1964. A conservative majority at all levels of government, with the right wing of the Republican party holding the reins.

How did they do it?

Mostly it was through their institutions that, unlike canidates, lasted beyond the elections,win or loose. With money from a few wealthy families, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Brookings institution and others began to dominate the war of ideas in American political discourse. The last refuge of Progressive thought was in academia, but even academia could not compete with the institutions who offered big salaries and media exposure. Eventually even academia was attacked by the conservative movement, with groups like Accuracy in Academia complaining about the lack of conservative bias in our schools. The politics of a few wealthy families became the politics of half a nation thanks to an amazing decade-long propaganda campaign.

True, one could agonize about how Democrats don't support gun rights strong enough, or they're anti-values, or they're uncomfortable with religion, they love to tax, or they're too pro-gay and pro-minority for the "mainstream" voter. They're too "liberal", to use the recently minted slur. But it would be more accurate to say that the "mainstream" has been shifted by the conservative institutions and who are out to change the hearts and minds of America. These institutions thought up the strategy of using these wedge issues to divide and conquer the American electorate with issues only marginally related to politics. Forty years ago, progressive taxation was popular, America didn't have a gun problem, and minority rights were supported by everyone who didn't live in the south. It wasn't the Democrats who've changed, it's the people who have changed. And the answer to the Democrats' electoral problems isn't to court the voters that the Conservatives created for themselves, its to create new Progressive voters by imitating the Conservative's methods. We need our Heritage. We need our Cato. We need to win the war of ideas against the conservatives before we can win the war of votes.

We also need to win the battle to distribute those ideas. Despite the promise of the internet, the media has steadily become more conservative over the last forty years. Dan Rather used to be centrist. Now he's seen as a communist. Opinion on television broadcasts was long taboo in America, after the horrible misuse of opinionated propaganda broadcasts in fascist states made opinionated news in a democracy unthinkable. Then came Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Without these conservative news networks the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and Bush's victory in 2000 would have been unthinkable. Unbiased information would have made Gore a clear favorite. Biased information clouded the judgment of voters, and the results have been clear.

That's it. That explains why the Democrats are loosing out there. Agonize all you want about the "issues" or "values". But three things: 1. The bias of the electoral system 2. The influence of conservative institutions 3. The superior distribution of conservative ideas, largely account for the deficit in Democratic voting, which after all, is only a few percentage points fewer than the Republicans. Any revival of Democratic and progressive politics in this nation must take into account these factors. We must press for electoral reform, beginning at the local level. We must build our institutions and think-tanks to take on the conservative advantage in the war of ideas. And we must find a way to distribute these ideas to the public through the mass media.
Many Democrats realize this already, and this plan of action has already started. The Center For American Progress is seeking to become the Democratic think-tank giant and several progressive attempts have been made to break into the mass media. Electoral reform, however, is the most crucial aspect of this plan, and it is the most neglected among Democrats. Sadly, because of the boring technocratic nature of the topic many Democrats aren't aware that their opinions are underrepresented because of the flawed design of the electoral system. This is our most pressing concern. The adoption of Instant Runoff Voting(IRV) with Mixed Member Districts (and a consideration of proportional representation) would give Democrats control of government once again. Progressives, educate yourselves on electoral reform and demand it at a local basis!! State ballot proposals can change the way the President, Senators, and house members are elected. We don'tneed federal legislation! There is reason to hope in this election, but we must focus on the right things. This blog will be dedicated to this effort. I hope you will join me in rebuilding the Democratic party to represent the New Progressive Majority.