Colorado Forward: A New Voice in State Politics

On this episode of the Berthoud Beat Podcast, host Trent Budish sits down with Dave Ryan, Celeste Landry, Bob Chew, and Sam Bradley of the Colorado Forward Party to discuss the organization's emergence in Colorado, its core principles, and its vision for the future of politics. The conversation explores the role of independent voters and how a growing movement outside the traditional two-party system seeks to navigate today's evolving political landscape.

Join Founders Club! Get a full year of the Berthoud Surveyor for just 88 cents along with over $300 in coupons to local businesses.

Join the club here: https://form.jotform.com/261457828902061 

Read our articles!

Berthoud Surveyor website: https://berthoudsurveyor.com/ 

Get community updates!

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BerthoudSurveyor/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/berthoudsurveyor/ 

Questions/episode ideas? Contact: editor@berthoudsurveyor.com 

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:10

Welcome back to the Birth of Beat Podcast. I'm your host, Trent Brutush, and today we're taking a closer look at the Colorado Forward Party, a relatively new political movement that describes itself as Principles First, Policy Second. Unlike traditional political parties, the Colorado Forward Party doesn't require its candidates to support detailed platforms on issues such as taxes, healthcare, immigration, or abortion. Instead, it focuses on political reform, civic engagement, and a set of shared democratic values. Supporters say this approach can reduce polarization and better represent independent voters. Critics question whether a party without a clear policy positions can effectively govern. So today we'll explore those questions and learn more about what the party stands for. Today I want to welcome Dave Ryan, Celeste Landry, Bob Chu, and Samuel Bradley to the podcast. Welcome everybody. Thank you, Trent. Hello. Starting off, um, would you all please introduce yourselves and your roles within Colorado Forward?

SPEAKER_03 1:13

I am Bob Chu and I am running for United States Senate under the Forward Party banner. I am running because I don't think the Republicans nor the Democrats have demonstrated the ability to solve the serious problems we face. So I'm running as an independent. Thank you, Bob.

SPEAKER_00 1:32

My name is Celeste Landry, and I'm the Forward Party's candidate for Colorado Secretary of State. I've worked for 15 plus years in the nonpartisan sphere, mostly with the League of Women Voters. I must say that the League of Women Voters does not endorse candidates, so they're not endorsing me or anybody else, but um that is where I got my chops. Um and they're an excellent nonpartisan organization. I have three priority issues that I'm focusing on in this race: the right to vote, better representation, and election integrity. And I encourage everybody to go to my website, Celesteforsos.com.

SPEAKER_04 2:15

Thank you, Celeste. And I'm Dave Ryan. I'm the uh the current chair for the Colorado Forward Party at the state. And I've been involved in politics in Arizona and here in Colorado for about 20 years, advocating for uh policy changes that uh help improve the life of our citizens. And since I joined the Colorado Forward movement, it's about uh systemic change, which we believe at the core is part of a big part of the dysfunction that we see in our political life. So we uh at the core of it, we are focused on systemic change like independent redistricting, uh open primaries, and uh voting methods like rank choice voting that assure that everybody gets to vote for who they want, and that the vote that the the winning candidate gets at least 50% of the vote.

SPEAKER_01 3:13

Thank you very much, Dave. Thanks, Trent. I'm Sam Bradley. I'm the forward party candidate for Larmer County Assessor. We all really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you and your listeners today. I'm uh Larimer County native, born and raised uh just a couple minutes down the road. Spent uh the last two decades as an engineer and small business owner, and I'm running because I want to take the next step and give back to my community and serve the community I was I was raised in.

SPEAKER_02 3:47

Thank you so much, Sam, and thank you all again for being here today. Uh now, if we could go ahead and start out, uh, what is the Colorado Ford Party and why was it created?

SPEAKER_04 3:59

Yeah, if we take a step back a few years and at the national level, there were both uh conservative and progressive groups, uh groups led by people representing that had uh political experience uh on the left and the right, who felt that polarization in our country was tearing us apart. They agreed to come together several years ago, uh, blend their organizations together to create what we now know as the forward movement, a national movement. And once that national movement was created, it's about how do we create uh political political influence or power in in at the state and eventually at the national level. And so multiple states began the path to uh become certified as minor parties. So here in Colorado Forward, uh we've uh achieved minor party status two years ago, and uh we've been building momentum uh every month that goes by, uh, looking at this as a long-term project to reach people across to Colorado and uh and and help influence making our voting processes better, electing people who put community and uh community before party and before self so that they can serve their uh the their constituents. It was at the core, it was created because of the dysfunction in our country. And that's why we're that's why we're here. We want to make a difference in improving that.

SPEAKER_02 5:35

Now, the party can often describe itself as principles first, policies second. Uh, what does that mean in practice and what does it mean to each of you?

SPEAKER_00 5:48

Well, I I'm the candidate for Colorado Secretary of State, Celeste Landry. And for me, I love the policies because they're respect the rule of law, um pro-democracy and pro-election reform. So those work great for secretaries of state and county clerks. And I will say there are 11 candidates right now for county clerk who are unaffiliated. That's up from four unaffiliated candidates uh four years ago. I expect most of them to win their election. I I love this trend. I think that um we should the pop the principles that the forward party believes in are things like being ethical, being accountable, being transparent, using data to make decisions, um, working across the aisle. Um so they're very common sense, good governance principles, and that's what it means to me in practice.

SPEAKER_03 6:55

Thank you. Colorado is leading a national trend. More and more people are abandoning the Republicans and the Democrats on a daily basis. Uh, nationally, only about 54% uh identify with either an R or a D. It's about 27% each. And the other 46% identify as neither. In Colorado, we're leading that with 52% not identifying as an R or a D. Now, if the trend is down, downward, uh that tells you something. That tells you that neither of the major parties are uh reflecting what the voters are really looking for.

SPEAKER_02 7:44

Thank you so much, Bob. So we'll go ahead and start with you on this question, Bob. How is your approach different from both Republicans and Democrats?

SPEAKER_03 7:58

I don't have to follow a party platform, and I really like that because uh in on some topics I lean a little more to the left, and on other topics I lean a little more to the right. And I want the freedom to really sit down, assess each topic, and come to my own conclusions, uh, and that's where I stand. Um, and that's the way our country worked way back before political parties came into being uh to what they are today. Legislators took positions around individual issues and formed uh caucuses or groups that were uh for or against a particular issue. That's how it worked, and we need to get back to that. We need to destroy the uh stranglehold that the parties have on the legislative process and let individual legislators respond to the needs of their constituents. Perfect, thank you, Bob.

SPEAKER_04 9:06

Trent, if I could if I could add something to that. So you know, being uh being involved with the GOP for quite a few years, but also in conversation with many from the Democratic Party and through observation, both both major parties employ what I would refer to as a purity test. The pe the candidates that they will eventually support have to be the purest ones, if you will, in in front of you know uh to be in order to be nominated or to be supported by their party. So we we don't have purity tests here, other other than as Celeste outlined, is you know, support the constitution, follow the rule of law, be a good person, put service before self.

SPEAKER_03 9:51

I would I would add to that um that people don't want to change their mind. The politicians don't can't bring themselves to change their mind. If they take a position, so if new information comes up or circumstances change that might warrant a change in position, they're kind of stuck. Absolutely. And I want to have the freedom, uh, as new information arises, conditions change, to be able to change my position um and be proud of it.

SPEAKER_00 10:26

And as somebody running for secretary of state, I feel like I shouldn't even be taking stands on anything except for respecting the rule of law and being in favor of election reform. Um, I worry about candidates who tout the party line because that's the way they'll get the party endorsement. I worry about policies that are all about protecting the party. I don't want to protect a party. I want to do what's best for the voters, best for the nation.

SPEAKER_02 11:02

Thank you so much, Celeste. And let me just say I really appreciate what you guys are doing here trying to really revolutionize the political atmosphere, not only in our state, but across the country. I was always taught growing up to vote for what matters to you, not for a party, regardless of what they're running on. Uh, which leads me to our next question. The party frequently talks about Colorado's large number of unaffiliated voters, such as myself. Uh, why do you believe so many voters identify as independent today?

SPEAKER_00 11:39

Well, there are some structural reasons why it happens in Colorado. If you go to register your uh get a driver's license, you're automatically registered as unaffiliated. Uh, then you get sent a card by the by the election officials asking if you want to change your party affiliation. But um, there's been a study done that says that uh despite that automatic voter registration as unaffiliated, most of the people who are registered as unaffiliated really do want to be unaffiliated. And in Colorado, we passed uh the legislation that allows uh voters who are unaffiliated to vote in either the Democratic primary or the Republican primary. Or in this case, this year, the Unity Party primary has opened up their primary to unaffiliated voters. The Libertarian Party has not. That's their right to do that. But the major parties, it's it's quite hard for them to close their uh ballot to in to unaffiliated voters. So unaffiliated voters have more choices. And uh my mom just moved to Colorado in January. She registered as unaffiliated because that if unless you're running for office or uh you want to get very involved in a major party, which has its problems as we've just been talking about, um why not be unaffiliated? Right.

SPEAKER_04 13:14

You know, an interesting thing, Trent, we've seen over the last several years is that without a lot of promoting our brand statewide, we find a many people, most of the people who have come in contact with Forward have searched us out because they're searching for something better. And it's those searchers out there that we're in this year, we're really making a concerted push to increase our brand awareness across the state. For those searchers, we want them to be able to find us and then choose whether to associate or not. I can tell you, many of the folks that have been part of our team, uh uh, whether they take a small role or a more significant role, they were former Democrats or Republicans who chose, who chose to be unaffiliated, to be chose to be part of something like Forward, which could actually demonstrate what we believe is like the values that started our country, which is our country our country comes first.

SPEAKER_00 14:19

They weren't just with a major party, but they were pretty much actively involved with those major parties and platforms, right?

SPEAKER_04 14:26

Absolutely. I like myself, I was very active with the GOP until it got to the point where I just couldn't stand in front of people and uh and and uh and and support support the what was being said.

SPEAKER_02 14:40

Thank you guys very much for that. Um now Colorado itself is a melting pot of different races, backgrounds, ethnicities. Every part of the state's gonna be completely different. Um, and everybody enjoys different rights in this state specifically. Um, where does the party stand on individual rights and liberties? Um, and that could include anything from uh, you know, Second Amendment or uh driver's licenses and the privilege versus the right debate with that. Um even public lands and conservation. Um where do you guys all stand with that?

SPEAKER_04 15:22

So so I mean, just as a as a as a general rule, I mean it it's about uh as as much as possible not having government directly involved in our lives. I mean, that would that would just be a general uh outline of of who we are. But I I think it it does it does come down to like we said, the the the party doesn't have doesn't dictate to that to the candidates. So a candidate in Mesa County is going to be different than a candidate in El Paso or Boulder County. Um but what we do expect is that everyone will be be supportive of what their constituents want, that they will um uh that in a in a legislative process, in a lawmaking process, that the the uh that they respect the the the the vote made by their peers. And so they can we want to be able to support them in whatever in the positions that they take. But at the end of the day, it's really going to be the collective vote of of what policies are implemented.

SPEAKER_03 16:29

When I uh finished college, I joined the Navy and became an officer on a nuclear attack submarine. Uh when I became an officer, I took an oath, which we're all probably pretty familiar with, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I took that oath. I'm no longer part of the military, but I feel an obligation to continue to live that oath. And what's been happening uh lately really bothers me. So that's one of the reasons I'm running to serve our country and our constitution. So the rights that are enshrined in that constitution are part of the oath that I took to uphold. Um, further, I think there's plenty of problems that neither party is addressing, and that's why I'm running as part of the forward party, so that I can address those uh not beholden to any party platform philosophy, but what I think is right for the country today, tomorrow, and for generations to come. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 17:43

So, in terms of um rights, uh there's the right to vote, which is one of my priority issues. And I I want to say two things about that. One is uh in Colorado we passed a law, how uh Senate Bill 21-188. I know my law numbers, it turns out, um, which would help people who are blind or can't fill in a ballot with a piece of with a pen uh to vote electronically. Now we don't want a lot of people to vote electronically because electronic ballots are not secure and they're not private. We do let UOCava, that means the overseas and military voters, vote an electronic ballot because they might not have a way to actually vote. And and we want people to have that right. Um, the thing with the um the print disability people, the blind and the people who can't fill in a ballot with a pen, is that um we one of my opponents actually wanted to let a lot more people vote electronically. And and this is where we need to balance rights and election integrity. So fortunately, I, working with the League of Women Voters, was able to make that a much smaller group of people who limit it to those with a print disability. And that was wonderful. The Secretary of State's office was very happy with us for letting people exercise their right, but not jeopardizing election integrity. And then the second example I want to give is um one of the things that really motivated me to run this time is that uh for the first time in American history, we had an election in El Paso County last year because the legislature passed a bill and they passed two of them, one will take effect next year. And that election filled the seat, so it wasn't a primary, it filled the seat, but it didn't let everybody vote. If you belong to the wrong political party, you were not allowed to vote. So um I I any secretary of state will swear an oath to the Colorado and U.S. constitutions and should not allow that sort of election to go forward. So thanks for asking the question.

SPEAKER_02 20:26

Of course, and thank you all for your answers. Uh moving on to our next segment. Uh the question we have for you is one area where the party does take clear positions is election reform. Um, so let's begin with ranked choice voting. It seems to be a very popular uh topic amongst your platform. Uh, for listeners who are unfamiliar with the concept, how does ranked choice voting work?

SPEAKER_00 20:52

So I'm gonna take that question because uh ranked choice voting is actually an umbrella term. It means many different kinds of ranked voting, but not all kinds of ranked voting. And if you go to my website, CelesteforSOS.com, you can read the nationally uh published article that we wrote, and it has my byline on it. What is RCV anyway? Um so in Colorado, we're allowed two kinds of ranked choice voting. One is a single-winner form, so just to elect a mayor or a governor or something like that, which is called uh instant runoff voting. And then we have the other kind, the multi-winner kind, like if you want to elect multiple people on a city council. Uh right now it's uh right to voting is only allowed in municipalities and uh special districts. So the way it works is a candidate ranks their ballot, and in the single winner version, it you just keep counting the top vote. So the number one choice in the first round, and then if and then if the number one choice gets a majority of the vote, you're done. If not, then you look at who got the fewest number one rankings, you move to the second ranking on those ballots and add that those votes to the number ones on the other ballots, and you keep going down until you end up with somebody who's got more votes than anybody else. You can go all the way through until you've got one candidate left if you want, but yes. So it doesn't guarantee a majority, as a lot of people like to say. And I have to say this because I'm the Secretary of State candidate, right? So we're going to be accurate here. It doesn't guarantee a majority except in the first round. But uh after the first round, it does get guarantee a majority of the people who are still have their ballots in the in the tabulation.

SPEAKER_02 22:58

Thank you. Uh now what concerns have you all heard from voters and how will you address them?

SPEAKER_03 23:07

It's complicated to some. It's a little more difficult to understand. Um but on the other hand, uh, it will give independent candidates a much better shot at being viable because it takes the air out of the fear factor balloon that, oh, if you vote for an independent, maybe the other major party will win and life on earth will come to an end if that happens. So it will take that argument uh out of the equation.

SPEAKER_04 23:42

You know, what and just to just to build on that, one of the one of the things that happens is because folks can only vote for one person, and they may have a different choice, they may have a preference for another lower level or minor level candidate or an independent, their voice cannot be expressed in the current process. A process like ranked choice voting allows a person to express their voice in the process, and in the data, we can actually see what the population actually feels about policies promoted by different organizations or different approaches. So, right now we we have no trend, and we have no visibility to that. Now, just uh uh we actually in in 2024 we had several examples again in 2022. We did as well. So in 2022, the we had a new congressional district, CD8. There were three candidates, uh two, a qualified, very qualified Republican, very well qualified Democrat Party or a candidate, and a libertarian who didn't really want to run, but he threw his name in there, took 4% of the vote. And presumably that would have been more of a conservative-leaning uh voter. But because we didn't have a process like ranked choice voting, where somebody could have expressed their opinion as him number one, and maybe the Republican or Democrat as their number two, that ended up swaying the election because the winning margin was less than 2%. So it very and that played out, uh, it was in the in the uh Colorado uh uh politics, and I believe in the in the Denver uh Denver paper of several examples like that across the state, where because we don't have that kind of process, it can actually influence the outcome of the election. And at the same time, like I mentioned, it doesn't allow voters to express their preference for who they really who they prefer.

SPEAKER_00 25:41

So, in that uh contest that you're talking about, Dave, I think that there would have been even more people voting for the libertarian candidate if they could have put a second choice. Yes, absolutely. Right. So you get a better sense of where the electorate really stands with these alternative voting methods. Um, and I want to give a plug for proportional representation, which is the the multi-winner form of ranked choice voting will result in proportional representation. And if we use that to elect our US House of Representatives or our state legislature, you wouldn't have gerrymandering. It would gerrymandering go away. We can talk more about that if you want, but yes.

SPEAKER_04 26:28

And you know, when I take my grandkids to an ice cream store and say, what's your first choice and your second choice? They get that pretty quick. So when folks say it's complicated, I'm I'm sorry. It's hard for me to buy into that.

SPEAKER_01 26:41

And Trent, I I think it's important to mention here that there is at least one other state that uses uses ranked choice voting now. And so this isn't like an off-the-wall, unproven concept. I know Alaska's one, maybe there's another.

SPEAKER_00 26:57

Maine.

SPEAKER_01 26:58

Maine.

SPEAKER_03 26:59

There's still controversy in the in those states. People will always find a reason why it's not right. The major parties will push back on that every time. Oh, yes, they do not want that. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 27:12

But it's very important to for us to at least look at these different voting methods and and offer the voters the option of doing it. And if you live in a uh city, you can now adopt uh the single winner version. And I, as Secretary of State, I'll prioritize writing the rules, which the Secretary of State was supposed to write since 2008, so that we could have the proportional ranked voting. Um, because we need to reduce strategic voting and we need to deal with vote splitting. I mean, this is an issue in several of the statewide races this year.

SPEAKER_02 27:52

Now, we've talked a lot about the two major parties today and a lot of the pushback that they have on independent voters and independent parties. Um now, you guys also support nonpartisan primaries, which you have explained. Why do you believe that primaries should be open to all voters?

SPEAKER_00 28:20

I I I think there are two different things that are better than what we have right now in Colorado. One of them is open primaries, which is what they have in Minnesota. Minnesota has the highest turnout of any state for um voters. And in an open primary, it doesn't matter what political party you belong to. You go to the polls and you say, let's see, there are four possible party ballots. I want party A's ballot. So this year uh I'm a forward party member. I don't get to vote in the primary. You know, it they call this state an open primary, it's not an open primary. An open primary means what you just said, Trent. Every single voter gets to vote in the primary. So that's one alternative option. Another alternative option is what was in Prop 131 two years ago that the voters um rejected. I think they didn't know a lot about it, and there was a lot of um pushback against it from the parties in particular. But in that, uh it they do you would have a primary like you have in Alaska or in California, where all the candidates run in the primary. So you have a big primary uh field, and then the voters get to choose one. In California, only two advanced to the general. In Alaska, four advanced to the general. I personally think four is better for a number of reasons that you could go into if you want. Um, but those are the two options, either a real open primary like Minnesota, or an all-candidate primary like uh California and Alaska.

SPEAKER_04 30:02

Something that just uh had stuck in my cross, if you will, for the last several years is um, and I realize we're we're your your audience is going to be a mix of independents, Republicans, Democrats, and so I I say this just as uh somebody who's disappointed in our in our system. And it has it it goes directly to this question, and that is um when uh uh President Trump in his first term was uh uh up for um uh he he he was uh uh not convicted, he was um impeached in the house, went over to the Senate for uh for conviction. They did they didn't reach the threshold required, but there were eight Republican senators that felt strong enough to buck their party. Four of them knew they were gonna retire that year, right? So they they kind of gave their thumb to the party. The four the other four are still in the Senate, they came from open primary systems. So think of uh Dr. Bill Cassidy, very well respected senator in Louisiana. Louisiana has had an open jungle primary where everybody every voter can vote for who they want, and they've had that open jungle primary for 50 years. It worked very successfully in Louisiana. As soon as Bill Cassidy voted to convict the president, immediately the process started to change the change the law because it's completely dominated by the GOP to close the primaries for certain races, including Bill's race. We called it the the kill Bill Cassidy bill. And if you uh recall just very recently, the Louisiana primary knocked out Bill Cassidy. And it that was a process that started two years ago, three years ago, to make sure Bill Cassidy did not make it back into the Senate because he was willing to book the party based on what he thought was right. And I think that speaks directly to what Bob Chu just mentioned earlier.

SPEAKER_00 32:20

I do have to say that uh Louisiana did not have a jungle primary. Everybody calls it that, but it was a jungle general election with a runoff if nobody got 50%.

SPEAKER_04 32:31

So thank you, Celeste. Sorry, but it was it was a it was I grew up in Louisiana. It was okay, so but it would it was an open system and detailed okay.

SPEAKER_03 32:43

Well, and in Indiana in December, uh Trump wanted gerrymandering of those districts, and the Indiana Senate is almost 75% Republican. But those Hoosiers stood on principle and said, No, we're not gonna gerrymander. And in the primary that happened a month or two ago, almost all of them got the booked because they refused to uh kowtow. Now, this gets, in my view, this gets to a deeper problem that we have, and it's a constitutional problem. If the legislature is supposed to be an effective check and balance on the executive branch, how can it do that job if the executive branch is so effective at cutting out any dissent in its own party? That to me is one of the biggest constitutional problems we have sitting here today. Now, how do we fix that? That's a tall order. You can't muzzle the executive branch, you'd never be able to police whether their PACs are doing stuff, all right. So I think it gets back to how we structure primaries and how we structure districts without if we could get away from you know structuring districts around party lines, that would neuter the ability of the executive branch to threaten people uh in the primaries. Thank you.

SPEAKER_02 34:36

Uh so next we will be moving on and discussing governing without a traditional platform. And you know, when it comes to politics, I don't excuse me, I don't really like the word governing. I prefer serving. How do we serve our public without a traditional platform? Because at the end of the day, that's that's really what that is, right? Uh so if the party doesn't take positions on major policy issues, how would elected officials actually govern or serve?

SPEAKER_03 35:09

This is pretty easy, and it gets to one of the uh values of the uh uh forward party, which is basically to govern uh using data. All right, make your decisions based on the information, use data to drive solutions regardless of ideology, and that so that means looking at the facts, it means listening to constituents and governing accordingly. Now, people can do their research, they can go to my website, bobchew2026.com, and find where I stand on the issues. I'm going to be coming out with even more detailed policy positions around our national debt, deficit, entitlement reform, uh health care costs, and all that. So people will know where I stand, even though I don't have an R or a D next to my name. Thank you, Bob.

SPEAKER_02 36:11

Now Sam and Celeste, um, the the same to you. Where would voters find out what exactly you stand for in your uh affiliation?

SPEAKER_01 36:23

Oh well, ladies first.

SPEAKER_00 36:25

Um I my three priority issues are on everything I print, um, on all my signs, on my business cards. Uh they I mentioned them in the introduction. They are the right to vote, better representation, and election integrity. And if you go to the priorities page of my website, Celesteforsos.com, that's C-E-L-E-S T-E for SOS.com, then you'll see my record on those issues. And I haven't succeeded yet in achieving all of the improvements I'd like to see in those areas, but I'm running so that I can make some more progress.

SPEAKER_01 37:15

So uh Trent, I really appreciate um that question. And at the end of the day, running for assessor, I personally consider assessor to not be a political position, to be a customer service position, right? So working for the people, exactly what you sort of touched on at the beginning. And so a party like uh forward party, where I don't have to worry about the politics associated with certain issues, uh, I believe would make the job of being assessor easier. Because I could simply focus on transparency, data-driven decisions, analytics, and just trying to serve the public, realizing that the public is the customer and it's the assessor's job to work for them. So, in my opinion, it's a really strong asset for somebody in a position such as assessor.

SPEAKER_02 38:18

I appreciate your stance on that. Thank you. Um now, could two forward party candidates have dramatically different positions on healthcare, taxation, education, or other hot point issues?

SPEAKER_04 38:33

I I think I think absolutely, yeah. Yeah, I think what you'll you'll find is that um the the forward party does uh we don't put anybody who wants to run us forward on the ballot. We in in the in all the states that do put candidates forward, there's an initial state review of that particular candidate, why they want to run. We look at their background. Are they people that we think would represent uh the party well? And then there's also a national assessment. The national team also does that double look and a deep dive into the background of the candidates. And so it's um uh it's it's not unusual that you'd have somebody from uh you know Minnesota maybe have a different perspective on health care than somebody here in Colorado within within from one county to the next, right? We have we have a number of uh divides in our state, whether you call it rural and urban or uh you know uh uh yeah, then the traditional left versus right, uh, education, class level, etc. There's there's all these different divides. And we we we embrace uh the spectrum uh that those gaps that those uh those gaps represent that try to bring people together and look at the commonality that that we have. But at the end of the day, it's uh uh some uh an elected official in a rural area is gonna have different needs and different perspectives on healthcare and education than maybe somebody in a in a uh highly urban, more affluent area, right? So it's like we're not a party that's gonna tell those elected officials or those candidates what the party believes they should uh stand for.

SPEAKER_00 40:17

What the forward party does do is says you need to listen to your constituents. What do your constituents want? You need to talk to your constituents. You know, if you're gonna do something that's controversial, uh that's okay, but talk to your constituents because they need to know why you voted the way you do, and and you need to listen to their concerns. I I love that part that you're it it's a two, it's service, as you said. It's not top-down governing.

SPEAKER_03 40:52

Both sides have something to say, both sides have valid points on any given issue, and and the ability to listen to the other side instead of tuning out, shouting down, or shutting down. Um that is what gets us to better outcomes, better legislation, legislation that is not just this party's legislation, um, that then get reversed in the next the next time the other party has has the job. That's healthy and that's a better outcome.

SPEAKER_02 41:36

Thank you. So you guys have touched on what unites the party just beyond electric uh election reform, as well as a lot of the key standings that the party holds. Now, would the party ever consider adopting positions on certain policy issues in the future, or will you continue to maintain your stance now on whatever is better suited to the position, the areas they're in, etc.

SPEAKER_04 42:07

So I mean as a as a growing party, with not only here in in Colorado, but across the across the country, there are forward groups taking positions on policies. You will you will see that, but that comes through consensus, right? It's not something that's dictated by the party, but where we have consensus across these different divides that I mentioned, and we have we have ideas of how to move forward together, you can see us developing policy positions on that, that we will actually stand for in the future. We're we're not we're we're we're getting close to a couple things in that area, but you're gonna it's that's gonna be something that evolves over time. As we get more momentum, as more people become involved with us, more people understand our brand, and we're in conversation with them. Those those areas where we can agree uh across the things that divide us, you'll start to see us taking positions. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 43:04

Perfect.

SPEAKER_04 43:05

Thank you. Oh no, she was she was looking at our other ad in the paper. It says listening to it.

SPEAKER_00 43:14

Can we be talking about uh our event here in Berthod on June 20th? Because in it the title of it is The Colorado Forward Party Listening to You. So I would like to invite everybody hearing this podcast, if if it's not if you're listening to it before are on June 20th, come to the Berthod Cornerstone Cafe from 11 30 to 12 30. The doors open at 11. You can stay till one. So, but uh the three candidates who are here, uh Bob Chu, C H E W, Sam Bradley, and I, Celeste Landry, will be there to talk to you. Uh there's going to Be a free sandwich bar provided, and we want to find out what your listeners want from the forward party and how we can be better servants.

SPEAKER_02 44:11

Thank you so much. Yeah, definitely go check that out and uh see what it's all about. Now, at this point, I'd like to discuss what can essentially make or break somebody's opinion of a political platform, which is the critiques that people often raise. Uh some critics argue that third parties can act as spoilers in close elections. How do you guys respond to that concern?

SPEAKER_00 44:37

It's one of the reasons we support better voting methods like ranked voting, that so that you don't have vote splitting. Um we also think that uh voters should have choices. Um and you you can speak more. I know that Dave has said uh most elections don't have a spoiler problem because there's only one person running. You know the statistics better than I do.

SPEAKER_04 45:07

Yeah, I mean, a huge percentage of the elections that occur in our state and across the country are uncontested. Obviously, you get to the Senate, you get to congressional races, high-profile legislative races, you'll see contested races. But at whether you talk school boards, city councils, especially in smaller, uh smaller locations, the the uh many of those elections go uncontested. My my own example, years ago I ran for uh state senate in Arizona, and I I I lived in a legislative district which was heavily Republican registered and uh and would vote that way. So Democrats didn't even run. So the election would occur in the primary. I was asked to challenge by by a number of uh Republican legislators to challenge the incumbent. Uh I was not successful. I took a significant amount of the vote. I ended up because of that, ended up being elected the district chair for that that legislative district. But only 25% of, because it's a closed primary, that only 25% of the GOP actually turned out to vote. And when they get to the general election, people think that they're voting. They're not they're not voting, it was already decided. So only about 12% of the voters in that district actually elected the incumbent, and so we see that repeatedly in a number of cases. Um, Marjorie Taylor Green won one with only 8% of the voters in her district back years ago. There's statistics like that that you can spot in congressional races and legislative races across Colorado and across the country, and we've got to do something different than we're doing to get a different result. And so that's why we're we're so behind, you know, working on improving our systems.

SPEAKER_02 47:00

You know, they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

SPEAKER_03 47:06

So I absolutely agree with that. Today, and if if you go back to 2024, much of the narrative coming out of both major parties was fear. If you don't vote for me, there's a fear factor. You're gonna end up electing that other person. If I were to vote third party, oh, you voted for that other person. No, I voted third party. No, you voted for that other person, and this whole idea of a spoiler, all we're doing is spoiling the two-party duopoly that's dysfunctional, that is largely based on fear of the other side. I'm running to give people a hope for the future, a real solution to the problems that we face. And if people want to vote for that sort of ideal, they can vote for me. If they want to vote based on fear of the other side, then they can do what they want to do.

SPEAKER_04 48:15

Yeah, you know, Trick, going back to uh one of the original questions, the foundation of the national forward movement came from leadership from progressive and conservative perspectives. They were trying to change the system from within. The system is really difficult to change from within. We need an outside force to help change the the public dialogue, both at the state level and the national level. So you'll see that uh at at the at at any kind of uh public speaking role for our national leaders, and you'll see that in our discussions too, is it's how do we affect through, even though we're a small group, how do we, through our our words and our actions, change uh how the major parties actually behave? And if they don't change, then something's gotta uh gotta gotta help them change, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 49:10

I want to go back to 1992, Ross Perot, um Bush the first and Bill Clinton. All right. Um, you could argue now Ross Perot got zero electoral votes, he got 19% of the popular vote, and Bill Clinton won with about 43% of the popular vote. Okay, most people would say that Perot spoiled it for Bush the first. I would look at it differently. A few years later, we had a balanced budget for the first time, and it didn't last very long, but we did have it, and that was Perot's main theme was fiscal responsibility. And I voted for Ross Perot in that election because of that focus. I got rewarded a few years later when Clinton and Gingrich basically cut our spending and we had a balanced budget. So what was important to me actually came to fruition, even though my candidate didn't win, and regardless of whether he was a spoiler or not, at the end of the day, I got what I was looking for, even though it didn't last. But that's why I'm running again to this time myself, fiscal responsibility. Perfect, thank you.

SPEAKER_02 50:45

Now, going back to some of the critiques that we have heard people say, others may say that political parties exist in part to help voters understand what candidates believe. Without a policy platform, could voters find it hard to evaluate candidates in your party?

SPEAKER_00 51:07

For assessor, no, shouldn't be a problem. For secretary of state, no, shouldn't be a problem.

SPEAKER_03 51:15

Um in today's media uh and all the different channels that we have, uh, the internet, I've got my policies on my website. It's pretty easy to go there and look. In the old days, all you had was the three major networks and the nightly news and some advertisements that would appear uh on those channels. Today, there's so many different ways that you can evaluate candidates if you're interested. If I won't use the word lazy, but if you're not uh proactive and going to do your research, and all you are looking for is the D or the R, well, I guess that's the way it is. Uh but there's plenty of opportunities to learn about candidate individual positions, and I'll tell you that the R's and the D's don't want to do much more than their party platform, because then it opens them up to criticism. I'm going to give you my detailed solutions, you can evaluate.

SPEAKER_04 52:25

Yeah, Trent, I would I would I would add that the uh the major divisive issues, both at the national and at the state level, uh where the democratic the two major parties are on opposite sides of things, are great fundraisers for them. They're absolutely wonderful um uh you know fundraisers, and those major issues will will never move forward until we address how we elect people because we keep doing the same thing, keep rewarding the same system that sets up the gridlock that we've got today. And we've got to be able to address how how we actually get representatives in place that are looking at what is best for our country rather than what's best for their party.

SPEAKER_03 53:16

I heard a sitting congressman basically say that there is a disincentive to solve problems because if they stay a problem, you can fundraise off of that. Absolutely. Yeah. And that is not serving the interests of this country or our citizens.

SPEAKER_02 53:37

Thank you all for your input on that. Um, we're gonna get into our rapid fire question section of the episode. Uh please answer in one word if you can, or very short, concise answers, and we will be going from Sam across the table to uh Bob. So starting off, what is the biggest problem in American politics today?

SPEAKER_01 54:07

Uh Sam says voter turnout.

SPEAKER_00 54:10

I like trust. I was gonna say polarization.

SPEAKER_02 54:13

Money. What political reform would have the greatest impact? Uh Citizens United.

SPEAKER_04 54:22

Oh. Citizens United. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 54:25

I assume you mean overturning.

SPEAKER_04 54:27

Overturning, yeah, not for turning yet. No. Yeah, getting getting getting anonymous money out of our system. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 54:33

Proportional representation.

SPEAKER_03 54:35

Uh districts that are uh not gerrymandered. What does effective leadership mean to you? Respect. Being trustworthy, teamwork, aligning people around a common vision and then executing uh to make that a reality. Can compromise be a strength? Absolutely. Yes.

SPEAKER_00 54:59

Yes, 100%.

SPEAKER_02 55:02

And last one, what gives you optimism about the future? The next generation.

SPEAKER_04 55:09

Oh, I like that. Increasing uh we see increasing civic engagement across the age spectrum and across politics.

SPEAKER_00 55:18

The increased number of unaffiliated voters.

SPEAKER_03 55:22

When I say I'm running as an independent, people get really excited.

SPEAKER_02 55:28

Thank you all for your answers on that one. Um, I want to thank you guys again, Dave, Celeste, Bob, and Sam, for joining us and sharing information on the Colorado Forward Party. Whether listeners agree or disagree, all of these political conversations that we have help us better understand the changing landscape and the growing debate about how democracy should function in the years ahead. Thank you all for listening to the Birth Beat Podcast. And make sure, June 20th, 2026, you come out to the Cornerstone Cafe from 11:30 to 12.30, doors opening at 11, stay until 1, and speak and have these candidates and these people involved in the party listen to you. This has been Trent Booch signing off, and we'll see you all next time. Thanks, Trent. Thank you.

SPEAKER_04 56:15

Thank you, Trent.