My working hypothesis of the Progressive Alliance Strategy (for 2006 and 2008) is to garner all the progressive vote for one candidate on each and every ballot. If we assume that the progressive vote is about 1/3 of the total (there should be some polling/research in this area) and is by and large split by the Green and Libertarian parties, ideally there should be either a Green OR a Libertarian candidate on each and every ballot. The executive ticket should be the Libertarian ticket because it has almost total ballot access. It could be a "normal" ticket endorsed by the Greens or it could be a "hybrid" ticket i.e. one Green, one Libertarian. My candidacy represents this, since I have declared that I identify more with the Greens. However I scored "left libertarian" on the Quick Quiz Libertarian political test. So I claim sufficient identification with the libertarian philosophy to be a bona fide Libertarian party candidate. If we further assume that all leftists and to a large extent liberals are generally "progressive" on the one hand and on the other hand libertarians and some conservatives, the strategy would be to generate a movement such that eventually most of these vote for the one candidate per ballot and the Libertarian executive ticket. I further propose that there be a Progressive Alliance coordinating committee with or without party cooperation to accomplish this. Clearly the left is more numerically progressive. So they contribute the numerical votes and many of the ideas and programs. The Libertarian party contributes their votes and ballot access and the principal of volunteerism and the ideal of self reliance. Programs that would otherwise be leftist could be made progressive by simply being made voluntary. So the leftist revolution can be "mixed" with the libertarian cause to form the "Progressive Movement". I believe this would be acceptable to most Americans to vote for or to be a cooperative "loyal opposition". Just as present progressives are a loyal opposition to the Democrats and Republicans with their regressive policies.