We believe the best long-term path for us to pursue strategically is the creation of a swing coalition over the next four years within the US Congress composed partially of ARP representatives and Senators and partially of Republicrats (Independents, Republicans & Democrats) who are sympathetic to the American Reform Party principles and goals, to which we shall apply the term 'Trojan horses.'  Our goal should not be to win either house of Congress outright; that would be unrealistic and a waste of our time and energies. 

Furthermore, when the ESSC last met, on May 30, we concluded that it would not serve any useful purpose for us to focus on the 2012 presidential election.  If someone is interested in running on our banner as a presidential candidate that is fine, provided the candidate is sober and respectable but, unless that someone is well known and has a high degree of credibility, the 2012 presidential race should not be our primary focus. 

Rather our presidential focus should be on 2012 with the afore-mentioned creation of a congressional coalition functioning as a crucial element of that campaign.  Remember too that the creation of a congressional coalition can not only be brought about by electoral victories but also by strong showings which cost the winning candidate a 50+% majority of the vote.  There is nothing like a swing group in the electorate who is effective in its turnout to get a politician's attention.

While this conclusion remains the official conclusion of the ARP ESSC, the fact remains that this issue may need revisiting in light of the recent news that former Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker may be again considering throwing his hat into the 2000 presidential ring.

In further aid of our operating principle that ARP's strategy be narrowly focused, we propose that we create contacts and help to organize less than half of the states within this country. We have selected states where the vote for Perot in 92 and 96 was above the national average percentage.  Just to remind you, Perot's vote in 92 was 19% and his vote in 96 was 8%.  Using that as our criterion, we have chosen to focus on the following 25 states:

Alaska,   California,  Connecticut,      Colorado,   Delaware,  Florida,   Hawaii,      Idaho,Maine,Massachusetts,Minnesota,Montana,Nevada,New Hampshire,   New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio,Oregon,   Rhode Island,     Utah,    Vermont,       Washington,West Virginia,    Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The Congressional Special Committee has concluded that there are a total of 10 races which should be our party's highest priority as we seek to make inroads in our national houses of Congress. (Click here to open a new window with that Top Ten list.)

To summarize our results, the top priority Senators who are vulnerable, and where there is also a challenger who seems a logical choice for us to support, are Montana Senator Conrad Burns, New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith, Minnesota Senator Rod Grams, and Washington Senator Slade Gorton.  (Click here to view a table of our Senate prospects in a new window.  You may leave that window open as a reference as you read through this proposal.)

Where the House is concerned, there are 18 House seats which appear vulnerable and where we appear to have viable candidates available whom we could support. Of those there are six seats which we believe deserve to be given the highest priority by ARP. (Click here to view a table of our House prospects in a new window.  You may leave that window open as a reference as you read through this proposal.)

Now let us deal with our target states in turn in alphabetical order.  If we do not list a congressional district within a given state it will be because we feel there is both an unsympathetic incumbent there and weak support for our issues and/or third-party/independent candidates there, both sufficient causes for us to give that race a pass