A major impediment in the anti-GOP approach of creating and running alternative parties is the issue of ballot access. Some states have insanely strict requirements for access, requiring thousands, or even tens of thousands, of signatures, which, even if obtained, are subject to legal challenges by Republican and Democratic operatives intent on preserving their “one party with two wings” electoral monopoly. Further, social pricing concerns create a problem for any explicitly pro-White party in getting the required number of signatures to begin with.
However, Colorado is much more enlightened  and should serve as a model for what we need nationwide.
As in 2008, Colorado has 16 candidates listed, the most of any state. Others, such as Oklahoma, are far more restrictive, allowing only incumbent Democrat Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.
Also qualifying for the Colorado ballot are Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein, both with registered minor parties, and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, which, thanks to Tom Tancredo’s rogue 2010 gubernatorial run, is for now deemed a major party here.
Eleven other candidates simply had to submit a “letter of intent” and a $500 filing fee. No petition of signatures is required.
Such loose eligibility criteria means the crop of contenders is a motley bunch, including Ayn Rand devotee Tom Stevens of the Objectivist Party, actress Roseanne Barr with the socialist-leaning Peace and Freedom Party and Merlin Miller of nationalist group American Third Position.
I would suggest however that it would be optimal to make access a bit more stringent than the Colorado system, for three reasons. First, to dissuade crazies with $500 from clogging the ballot with insane and/or frivolous candidacies – for example, the National Hamsters’ Rights Party or some such thing. Second, to make malicious sabotage campaigns more difficult. Imagine a pro-White party on the ballot, with some support, and opponents wanting to disrupt that. Any “anti” or “cogelite” with $500 could quickly create a pseudo-“Nazi” party to be put on the ballot, to siphon support, confuse the masses, and run a “false flag” campaign to discredit honest racial nationalism. Third, a somewhat more stringent requirement would force the third party candidates to be better organized and more serious and therefore run a better campaign.
In addition to the Colorado requirements, I’d also suggest the following.
First that the party be an actual organized political entity (like the A3P) and not something thought up by one individual on a computer in their parents’ basement. This requirement would be proofed against Republicrat challenges – as long as some sort of minimal standards are met – for example, an officially registered and chartered party with a platform, etc. – then ballot access will be granted, with no question. The standards required should be clearly laid out and, as already stated, minimal and within the grasp of any small yet organized political group.
Second, that to be on a Presidential ballot in any given state, the party must run a minimum of three candidates: President, Vice-President, and at least one candidate for another high-level position such as senator, congressman, or governor. To be on the ballot in all 50 states would therefore require a minimum of 52 candidates, including the two on the Presidential ticket. This again would raise a real yet minimal barrier to frivolous campaigns.
Ballot access in non-Presidential election years, for other positions (e.g., senator, congressman, governor, mayor etc.), would require “official party” status as well as a requirement to run candidates for at least two different positions on the ballot (assuming more than one open position on the ballot for that election).
This proposal is a rough draft and others may have additional ideas on this subject. But I think what we minimally need is: (1) a liberalization of ballot access, doing away with signature requirements, (2) some minimal standards that would ensure that only serious candidates are on the ballot, and (3) the whole procedure needs to be secured against Republicrat legal challenges, so that the ballot can be kept open to any candidate/party that can meet the clearly defined, minimal requirements.
We need to cooperate with other existing or potential third parties  across the political spectrum to get ballot access liberalization actualized. This is as good a time as any to do so, with rising dissatisfaction with the current political process.
Now, I’d like to briefly change direction and make a few additional points. I know that some “conservative Republicans” have been following the political discussions at Counter-Currents recently. To those who refuse to break with the GOP, can I ask that you at least make yourselves useful? How about organizing some PACs to politically target any GOP senator or congressman who supports amnesty? Get challengers to them in any future election cycle, get them out of office, and send a message. Speak up and oppose amnesty, ask why Reagan’s amnesty didn’t create an army of Latino Republicans. Ask why the GOP is intent on adding millions of Democrat voters. Point out that amnesty would cost the GOP support of their voting base. Doing so may help your precious party (what you want) and at the same time would increase racial balkanization (what we want) by enraging minorities and bringing racial conflicts of interests – at least implicitly – to the forefront of American politics. And when the GOP caves in on this issue, as I am sure they eventually will, these talking points can be used to underscore Republican betrayal and stupidity.
Finally, I’d like to comment on the hypocrisy of the whole “amnesty compromise” scenario. We hear talk that any amnesty will be tied to “strict border enforcement.” What that implies is two things. First, it is an admission that we do not currently have strict enforcement. Second, and more importantly, it also implies that the System knows the things it can do to improve enforcement, but is willingly not doing them – and is making amnesty a condition for enforcement. It’s a form of extortion – “we’ll refuse to enforce the law and we’ll refuse to secure the border, unless you agree to give the amnesty.” Amazing that all the Republican droolcups can’t see this.
Of course, the whole border security promise is a sham. Did Ronnie Raygun and those who followed him in office, including the two Bushes, keep the original promise to “secure the border?” No, it was a lie. The same will happen now. After a show of enforcement, they’ll eventually just let it fade away. After all, what can be done about it? You won’t be able to reverse the amnesty, once given. You see, the amnesty is a “done and over” sort of thing, but enforcement and border security is an ongoing, continuous process. You think the political will to carry out strict enforcement will be there once the amnesty is over and done with and irreversible? No way. If for no other reason, all the new Latino voters will make sure that enforcement is gutted as soon as possible. Again, if the security promise is reneged on, there’s nothing you can do about it. It happened before and it will (eventually) happen again, guaranteed.
And, anyway, the long-term “solution” to illegal immigration is to legalize the whole world, to increase the immigration quotas to such an extent that illegal immigration becomes unnecessary, since anyone and everyone who wants to come to the USA would be able to do so, easily, legally, and immediately. Enforcement would then be completely superfluous. And the GOPers with their “I’m not against immigration, only illegal immigration” would sputter and fume but could say nothing – for that would be “racist.” Amazing that the GOP droolcups don’t recognize any of that, either.