Why Elections Are Not a Waste of Progressives' Time

[Norman Solomon]

A pithy idea -- now going around in some progressive circles -- is that elections are a waste of time.
The idea can be catchy. It all depends on some tacit assumptions.

For instance: elections are a waste of time if you figure the U.S. government is so far gone that it can't get much worse.

Elections are a waste of time if you've given up on grassroots organizing to sway voters before they cast ballots.

Elections are a waste of time if you think there's not much difference on the Supreme Court between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, or Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito.

Elections are a waste of time if you're so disgusted with Speaker Pelosi that you wouldn't lift a finger to prevent Speaker Boehner.

Elections are a waste of time if you don't see much value in reducing -- even slightly -- the extent of injustice and deprivation imposed on vulnerable people.

Or, if you see the organizing of protests, community groups, unions and the like as "either/or" in relation to working for the election of better candidates.

Or, if you think the goal of those who struggled and suffered for the right to vote -- seeing the ballot as an essential component of democracy -- is outdated and rendered moot by present-day frustrations and outrages.

Elections are a waste of time if you think corporate power has grown so immense that state power has become irrelevant.

Or, if you still believe it was smart when some of us progressives figured we had no stake in efforts to defeat Ronald Reagan in 1980 or George W. Bush in 2000.

Or, if you think it doesn't much matter whether Californians elect to make possible Senator Carly Fiorina and Governor Meg Whitman, or whether Wisconsin voters remove Russ Feingold from the Senate.

Or, if you'd just as soon bypass any plausible path for electing more genuine progressives like Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Lee to government positions.

Or, if you see the raising of political awareness as an alternative to -- rather than intertwined with -- the building of progressive electoral power to challenge corporate power.

Elections are a waste of time if you don't realize or care that the powerful forces behind Wall Street and the warfare state are thrilled if progressives retreat from electoral battles.

Elections are a waste of time if you conclude -- due to chronic suppression of electoral democracy -- that the ideal of electoral democracy should be discarded rather than pursued.

Elections are a waste of time if you think progressives should opt out of electoral struggles for government power, leaving it to uncontested dominance by the heartless and the spineless.

__________________________________

Norman Solomon is the author of many books including “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” He is co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign (launched by Progressive Democrats of America), and he also co-chairs the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay. He lives in Marin County

[phloem]

And, in the meantime, this is yet another in the endless string of examples of what Democrats provide for us:
https://www.zcommunications.org/fbi-...by-amy-goodman

Tell me again why I should vote for anyone who belongs to a political party that apparently stands for increased domestic surveillance, increased military spending, an increase in poverty, homelessness, and the income gap between poor and obscenely wealthy? Tell me, Mr. Solomon, do you really believe what you write? You apparently haven't quite gotten to the complete saturation point of American politics that many of us "progressives" have reached. All I see in what you write is acquiescence and facilitation to a political party that is every bit as much to blame for corporatism, imperialism, and totalitarianism as is the other party.

Don't vote, it only encourages them.

[Norman Solomon]

Well, let's consider the alternatives for progressives to gain electoral power. If you think Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are good people for us to have in Congress, then it's significant they were able to get elected while labeled as a "Democrat." If there's a more viable strategy to elect progressives in Congress who are not "Democrats," where are they?

[Clancy]

Kucinich and Lee are irrelevant to national policy, they're token liberals who do nothing but contribute to the illusion that we still have a democracy. Corporate America runs the show, and now that corporations can spend unlimited funds on the puppets of their choice, our democracy is completely dead.

The democrats held a congressional supermajority for the first time in a generation during Obama's first year and they did NOTHING with it except make lame excuses why they couldn't. We will never see that opportunity again in our lifetime.

For those who don't know, a supermajority is a rare opportunity for the party in power to pass legislation virtually at will, the opposing party simply can't oppose. The democrats completely squandered the opportunity after rousing promises of 'change'.

This lifelong democrat will never vote for the democrats again. I'll either make a protest vote for the Green Party or not vote at all.

Well, let's consider the alternatives for progressives to gain electoral power. If you think Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are good people for us to have in Congress, then it's significant they were able to get elected while labeled as a "Democrat." If there's a more viable strategy to elect progressives in Congress who are not "Democrats," where are they?

[Norman Solomon]

If you think Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee as mere "token liberals" without value for progressives in Congress, then you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion.

[Clancy]

If you think Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee as mere "token liberals" without value for progressives in Congress, then you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I do enjoy talking heads that articulate my values, at least as much as the Tea Partiers enjoy Sarah Palin, but they're outliers, and have little influence on the dem/GOP war party's direction.

Obama's policies are virtually the same as Bush's in every meaningful respect, and the so-called 'health care reform' is another massive corporate bailout.

[Norman Solomon]

Yes, the so-called healthcare reform was another massive corporate bailout.

[theindependenteye]

Personal feeling--

I have no problem at all voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't believe a truly "progressive" agenda is possible in this country, and if everything I believed in was fully enacted tomorrow, I'd feel damn lucky if at least 50% of it actually turned out for the good. We stumble and flop forward, if we flop at all, and anyone who's rock-bottom certain that he and his beliefs are God's gift to the Universe is more likely to turn out to be God's tobacco-spit curse upon us.

Sit at home, let Prop. 23 pass so that green tech can die, let the far-right Republicans take over with their trumpeted Contract on America, feel virtuous as hell before committing suicide. I can't refute the proposition that rationalization and compromise threatens to doom us to More-of-the-Same, but I truly fear that ideological purity is the stance of the five-year-old.

Not intended as personal insult, Clancy. I feel, to some degree, as you do. I'm just saddened, stupified, sickened that anyone would remotely consider sitting out this election. Maybe it's only the difference between the Captain of the Titanic saying, "Maybe we should appoint a commission to adjust our course a bit," or braying, "Full steam ahead!" — but I'll cast my drop in the bucket and stick the "I voted" sticker on my hat, even if the leather brim is sagging.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[Clancy]

You just clarified why I will sit this one out. I no longer think the democrats are the lessor of two evils, in fact, because they pretend to oppose the GOP while maintaining virtually EVERY GOP policy, a good argument could be made that they are the greater of two evils.

Next up, the dems will rubber stamp the massive corporate pillaging of the treasury called the 'Bush tax cuts' but, only after the elections, they obviously wouldn't want the people to know what they're getting before the election...

[Barry]

Ya' know, I got to hand it to the Republicans. They've played their limited hand masterfully!

One key thing they got is discipline! They decided to oppose everything Obama tried to do and they held it together except on rare occasions. Why the Dems never made them actually filibuster and show people who's holding up the works and why (and run their own PR campaign) I'll never know....

The Republicans discipline hands absolute veto power to every democratic senator. Not only did it give each enormous clout (ie Was it Kansas that got the bribe?), but also limited the deal to what the most conservative senator was willing to sign on to.

Yes Single Payer (expanded Medicare) is the right answer. Yes, there could have been lots of cost savings in a new plan, that aren't. However it DOES contain a VERY BIG IDEA! So big that it will be settled by the Supreme Court (Oy!).

It's a very Democratic Idea...

We're all in this together! That drives the Right nuts! ("Rugged Individualists", who accept government payouts, that they are). Yet it also contains a thought that they should like (and is why Romney proposed something similar)...

That is, everybody should be responsible for themselves. Everybody pays in. Nobody opts out. Yes, there are some people who won't be able to pay for them selves that we'll have to cover, just like it is now. Only this time it is explicit rather than essentially under the table.

This is a tectonic shift that is by far the most important, and in tact, part of the program. It (almost) literally shifts the landscape of the debate. And all(?) the Republican State Attorney Generals are going berserk!

Again, I've got to hand it to the Republicans. They have demonized from the very beginning, staying on message the whole time, never missing an opportunity to instill fear, whether valid or not... It's been effective.

Even with the Tea Party splintering the Republican base, and given the Republicans proven agenda to defeat the promise and hope of Obama (who I still believe is doing as good a job as possible, if far from perfect, and who's heart is in the right place - while trying to govern in a highly partisan environment and set a higher standard), the Democrats will not only need to vote virtually unanimously plus get however many seats they loose in the senate to overcome the remaining anti-Obama block/filibuster (thanks to the "Great Compromise" of a bi-camarel (sp?) legislature that make a vote from Wyoming resident about 10 times more powerful than a Californian's one, while being about 10 time cheaper to buy! How convenient.... )

Any notion of what actually best for the country has long been jettisoned. The even vote against tax cuts.

And god-forbid if we should loose the House altogether! Even a do-nothing congress with a democratic House is way better than a do-nothing congress with a Republican House.

Yes, complain. Yes, tell them we want more. But don't give up! And don't drink the Republican kool-aid that he hasn't accomplished anything. He has....Lots! And as Clancy has depressingly pointed out, there's lots more needed and too many compromises have been made.

But Vote!

Especially since, for a change, we actually can vote in at least 2 very important toss up elections! Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer both have tough fights this year. It makes a HUGE difference if they win or lose!

VOTE!

[Clancy]

Does no one on this bulletin board understand that during Obama's first year, republican opposition was virtually irrelevant because, for the first time in thirty years, the democrats held a super majority in Congress? The democrats could have passed any legislation at will. They did NOTHING.

Obviously, their will is to maintain the status quo and continue the perpetual charade that no change is possible because 'those mean republicans thwart us at every turn'.

[podfish]

... For those who don't know, a supermajority is a rare opportunity for the party in power to pass legislation virtually at will, the opposing party simply can't oppose....
This lifelong democrat will never vote for the democrats again. I'll either make a protest vote for the Green Party or not vote at all.

as long as you're here anyway, you might as well toss your two cents into the ring. Every action or inaction is a message. You never do know when the butterfly effect will take hold or what the outcome will be in the end (or when the end has come, for that matter). Why not be part of the conversation, if for no other reason than to confront people with the fact that there are indeed opposing viewpoints??
I think it's misleading to think of the Democrats as one party, anyway. The Republicans are so damn respectful of authority that they can and do act in concert. But they let any random clown join the Democrats. My brother-in-law has some funny anecdotes about rubber-chicken-circuit dinners that illustrate it; maybe I'll post them some day. BUT the point is that Pelosi/Reed/Obama never had the ability to command use of their purported supermajority. You can fault them for their lack of vision or excessive willingness to pander but it's tough to blame them for failure to wield power that they never quite had.
By the way, I hope Norman was conceding your point, not being ironic. It's pretty clear that Obama decided that opposing the insurance industry was one step too far.

[Valley Oak]

Excellent point; the Democrats never had a supermajority. That's basic in understanding why change didn't happen at lightening speed, like it did under FDR. One good example that illustrates this clearly was the legislation regarding healthcare reform.

We need to remember that Independent Senator Lieberman significantly stalled final agreements on the health care bill. Nonetheless, Lieberman was mistakenly considered to be part of the "Democratic majority" in the Senate.

Additionally, it is very important to remember Bart Stupak, the conservative Democrat from a northern state in the House of Representatives, who also significantly stalled progress on the health care package because of his staunch anti-abortion stance.

Add to this the lockstep opposition from the Republicans (not a single one bolted from his or her party), then you can see how difficult it was for the Democrats to invoke cloture in the Senate. Hence, there was never a supermajority, and among Democrats, there were "Blue Dogs" and "Yellow Dogs" and other conservative Democrats who further complicated and elongated the process. Stupak was simply the most visible of the conservative Dems.

To this, I would like to add that I have NEVER considered myself a Democrat. The only political parties that come close to representing my personal political philosophy are the Greens and the now defunct "Peace and Freedom Party." This segues to the fact that in the United States we have only a two-party system, which is horribly undemocratic.

How would you like it if every time you went to the supermarket there were only 2 types of any food you needed or wanted? That's the reality that no American ever looks at and that is the reason there is no change. The few people who would like to see a multiparty system think that this kind of political reform is impossible so they don't even bother.

I don't have "faith" in the Democratic Party, or President Obama, and more importantly, I don't have faith in the obsolete American system of "Democracy." The democratic process and the political institutions of the United States are grossly unfair, inefficient, and UNdemocratic.

Unless we implement systemic change, we will very rarely see the kinds of substantive changes we need in our nation.

Edward

as long as you're here anyway, you might as well toss your two cents into the ring. Every action or inaction is a message. You never do know when the butterfly effect will take hold or what the outcome will be in the end (or when the end has come, for that matter). Why not be part of the conversation, if for no other reason than to confront people with the fact that there are indeed opposing viewpoints??
I think it's misleading to think of the Democrats as one party, anyway. The Republicans are so damn respectful of authority that they can and do act in concert. But they let any random clown join the Democrats. My brother-in-law has some funny anecdotes about rubber-chicken-circuit dinners that illustrate it; maybe I'll post them some day. BUT the point is that Pelosi/Reed/Obama never had the ability to command use of their purported supermajority. You can fault them for their lack of vision or excessive willingness to pander but it's tough to blame them for failure to wield power that they never quite had.
By the way, I hope Norman was conceding your point, not being ironic. It's pretty clear that Obama decided that opposing the insurance industry was one step too far.

[phloem]

Well, let's consider the alternatives for progressives to gain electoral power. If you think Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are good people for us to have in Congress, then it's significant they were able to get elected while labeled as a "Democrat." If there's a more viable strategy to elect progressives in Congress who are not "Democrats," where are they?

First: Kucinich and Lee might be "good people," as individuals, but I don't necessarily concur with all their political maneuvering (see Kucinich on health care reform for his abysmal retreat). Secondly, you render the word "significant" meaningless in this context - what's so significant about a very few part-time progressives in Congress, elected because the only practical alternative for whom to vote was a truly loathsome Republican? In the end, you, perhaps unintentionally, make my point, which somehow seems to have evaded your consciousness thus far: where are the "progressives" who aren't Democrats? Well, it seems they've been blackballed and marginalized by a political process and electoral system that won't tolerate anyone who doesn't play the corporate-rules game, including Democrats and the Democratic Party (see Pennsylvania, Florida, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and numerous other states where Dems, not Republicans, have been more active in denying ballot qualification to third-parties and their candidates. Do you really not see that the entire political process in this country has been co-opted, fixed, rigged, and corrupted by corporate influences and the Democrats and Republicans who want nothing else other than to protect their own economic and social interests, that is, the status quo of wars, injustice, corruption, environmental degradation, and numerous other crimes against people and the planet? Voting for Democrats is just one egregious example of "progressives" continuing to flail at "progress" by playing by the rules, the rules that are constructed to preserve the status quo of corporatism, imperialism, and criminal conduct. If the boat you're in is sinking, does it really matter if the captain is a Democrat or Republican?

Furthermore, don't insult me or any other person who chooses not to vote, since voting has nothing to do with preserving democracy, and I suggest you not delude yourself otherwise, in public. And, for those of us who have supported and voted for Green, Peace and Freedom, and other truly progressive party candidates for several decades, please don't patronize us by asking where the progressive candidates are -- the Democrats and Republicans both have made damned sure they're in the closet, under the carpet, and out to sea by election time.

[Norman Solomon]

There's been no "insult" from me toward anyone who chooses not to vote. I'm arguing that elections matter. And I'm asking: As a practical matter, how do you intend to get genuine progressives elected to Congress? Or is the question moot because you think there's no point in trying?

[podfish]

... what's so significant about a very few part-time progressives in Congress, elected because the only practical alternative for whom to vote was a truly loathsome Republican?

uh, because they denied a seat to a particularly loathsome Republican? horseshoes, hand grenades and politics - close sometimes is good enough.

In the end, you, perhaps unintentionally, make my point, which somehow seems to have evaded your consciousness thus far: where are the "progressives" who aren't Democrats? Well, it seems they've been blackballed and marginalized by a political process... the entire political process in this country has been co-opted, fixed, rigged, and corrupted by corporate influences and the Democrats and Republicans who want nothing else other than to protect their own economic and social interests...

that's one way to look at it. I think it's a bit hyperventilated. They do indeed want SOMETHING else besides protection for their interests. Some are even pretty idealistic, though you can't get to where they are unless you've mastered pragmatism too. What you consider co-opting and corruption, others consider making alliances for their legitimate causes. Progressives who aren't Democrats, shockingly, don't get support from an organization that you've correctly noted is strongly entrenched. I know and like (usually) some people who find the goals of the progressives to be a dangerous assault on their values. Much of what they say is valid if you do them the courtesy of allowing them their moral structure. Much is nonsense as well. But it's not clear that you understand the forces that influence them any clearer than they do themselves; they're not unthinking pawns. Thinking pawns maybe, I'll grant you.....

If the boat you're in is sinking, does it really matter if the captain is a Democrat or Republican?

what if it's sinking real slow, and we can maybe control how fast it sinks or who survives or whether it can actually be fixed before it goes all the way under?

voting has nothing to do with preserving democracy

who cares? What's so magic about "preserving democracy" ? I'm more interested in what our future is like. The world is shaped by the people around us, acting in concert informally or through structures like government or corporations or any of a ton of other organizations. Since they will affect me directly I want to do whatever I can to influence their behavior and attitudes. If "democracy" can be preserved (whatever that means) and if that'll help, I'm for it! but it's incidental to my real goals.

[Valley Oak]

I agree with you 100%

People have criticized me, however, by accusing me of merely "voting for the lesser of two evils." My response to them is that I have no other alternative because that is all that our system offers. And I also respond to those who don't vote: "At least I vote." But you can see how that response will fall on the deaf ears of a disgruntled voter, who is in a lot of company, by the way.

If a person chooses to be cynical about how undemocratic our electoral process is then I try to enlighten them to a simple "deficiency motive." If we let the worse possible option enter into public office then things for you and everyone you know will be much worse.

I think it does matter and even though I am more critical of our system of government than most people who abstain from voting, I will always go out and vote to make sure that the worst option does not enter office.

But I believe that real progressives exist. And I will always vote for them because they will help make a difference.

Edward

I'm arguing that elections matter. And I'm asking: As a practical matter, how do you intend to get genuine progressives elected to Congress? Or is the question moot because you think there's no point in trying?

["Mad" Miles]

Jumping in, can't resist.

I vote. I vote Green. I vote strategically. I vote holding my nose and stifling my nausea. Everywhere I voted before, Orange County, Chicago, the choices available did not represent my views. Here in Sonoma County, I relish and love that they sometimes do.

Elections matter. But they're not the only things that matter politically. Without grass roots issue organizations to push parties in unpopular but crucial directions, the parties become rubber stamps for the status quo. And that's the dominant paradigm for the Republicans and Democrats.

I am of the strong opinion that the only thing that will make the necessary social, economic and political changes needed to stave off utter disaster, is a mass non-violent direct action movement. One that is international, made up of experienced and trained affinity groups acting in loose and very large networks. Nothing else will raise the price of current destructive and unjust policies to the point that the powers that be decide to make some compromises and concessions. History shows that, other than accident, all the major positive changes have taken a version of what I'm calling for. Electoral politics, and many other aspects of the political and social are secondary in importance and effect, to active, mass nonviolence.

(Mass violence is also not out of the question. I don't call for it or endorse it. History shows how destructive we can be, are. But I wouldn't discount the possibility, given the forces in play on our planet. "A Hard Rain is gonna Fall" One way or another.)

This thread contains a highly complex and contested set of issues. It's been debated on this board, extensively. Just do a search for "Green Party vs. Democrats" to dig up most of it. It is an interesting archive, I highly recommend it to anyone who has not already read it. And that's not just because I wrote large parts of it, others ably participated, especially SonomaMark (Mark Green). Also Clancy and Dixon, and others whose name don't leap from memory at this moment.

Norm (Norman?) as I told you almost a year ago when we first, finally met, and I'd been reading your work (not your books, your articles) for almost a decade, I agree with you 100% when it comes to your critique of our political and economic system. I disagree with your take on the value of the Green Party and the threat you perceive it has for the Democratic Party. I'm not going to rehash that argument here, it's in the archive. I do mention some key points below. But it's not the full argument. I have no illusion that I'm going to convince you and yours that you were wrong and we Greens were right all along. Not gonna happen. Waste of air, digits and time.

Except to say; even within the winner take all, duopoly system that we have, voting is not only about winning and losing. It also can be about sending a message and being true to ones values.

I vote strategically. That means that in a presidential election as a California voter, I have the luxury of voting for my party's candidate, knowing that the Democratic nominee is going to get all of California's electoral college votes. That is, as long as the current state of voter registration holds relatively the same.

Barring utter economic and environmental catastrophe, which could or could not be just around the corner, that looks to be a stable situation for now. So I can vote for Nader, Cobb, McKinney and know that, in spite of the vituperation from Democratic (Party) partisans, the "spoiler" argument is hype, a pack of lies. For other states, it's not so simple, but I don't live there.

That lack of situational nuance in the arguments about why "we" have to vote Democratic, undercuts the effectiveness of your arguments. There's always a crisis, the crazed conservative, or whoever, forces are about to take over!! That's been the case all of my conscious life, and from what I hear, it's always been true. There will never be a good time for real change.

Those of us who see the pressing need for it, are not going to be convinced by arguments based solely in pragmatism and compromise. As much as I find the Tea Party movement idiotic, menacing, hilarious that's what motivates them, a sense of extreme frustration with the Republican Party, along with their visceral hatred and fear of Liberal programs and the Democratic Party. We shouldn't discount repressed fears by Whites over the demographic shifts happening in the American (U.S.) population as a root influence over conservative politics as well.

For the right, they're the corollary of the Green Party. Except they have extremely wealthy backers, a major cable news network and the gleeful, but covert, support of those with a lock on the status quo. That's a huge difference.

The primary strategic reason for Nader's run as a Green in 2000 was simply to qualify for Federal matching campaign funds for the next time.

(Goddamn Socialists, they're going to bring us all down!!! Norm, see debates here last Spring with Tea Party, Limbaugh, Beck, Jones dittoheads for the context of that inside the "Wacoon bubble" joke.)

Getting matching funds to build my party, and Nader's warnings about corporate hegemony, were pretty much it for me. I worked long and hard volunteer hours on that campaign out of the GP Santa Rosa office. Gore and his supporters lost that election (or won it and didn't fight to keep it actually) no one else. See the waccobb archive and the article I've attached below.

In this coming election I'll be voting for several Democrats. Woolsey, Evans and Allen. I've met them all, I know the latter two as friendly acquaintances, Michael more than Noreen. I admire their commitment to the same values I have. I know they'll do the best job they can within the limits of practical political possibility, even though I think they belong to a sellout, corrupt and mendacious political party.

If a local Green I respected was running for Congress, the State Senate, or the Assembly, which at this point I don't believe is happening, I would check the opinion polls before voting, and make a strategic decision. If the Dem had a lock, I'd vote Green. If not, I'd weigh the issues and candidates, and maybe sometimes make the difficult decision to vote for the Democrat. But only if I thought my vote was crucial in a contested election. Most often, that isn't the case.

The Democratic mantra is: Yeah, we're not perfect, but we're the best there is if you want to win. You have no other choice.

I came of age in the mid-seventies. I read the news during the sixties and early seventies. I'm a reader in general and love history. I never bought that argument. I never will. And if the Democrats aren't sure why there is voter apathy in their camp, maybe they need to take a closer and longer look in the mirror.

Just read two articles on today's Slate.com feed about this exact issue. One about who will celebrate Rahm Emmanuel's imminent departure. One about Obama's recent campaign "cheerleading." Also one about Woodward's book and President Obama's Afghan war strategy. I highly recommend all three.

Finally, for a still relevant and more historically detailed take, mine, on why I reject supporting the Democratic Party, see the attached file. It was written seven years ago, but is still relevant.

[Valley Oak]

Miles, I support the mass non-violent direct action movement, that is international and made up of experienced and trained affinity groups acting in loose and very large networks. And I very much like the fact you stated that even though elections matter, they are not the only things that do. And that one example of this are grass roots organizations that push the two lame parties along that, by default, would be exclusively rubber stamps.

The popular perception that elections are almost the only thing that can bring significant social change leaves very little for the millions of Americans who are dispossessed and have practically no access to political power. I won’t go into who the majority of those dispossessed are. But I will say that this belief that the only time a person has a say in what happens is merely once every 1500 days when the next presidential election takes place is truly pathetic.

People can and do become active locally or in nonprofit organizations that make a difference. Some examples include Greenpeace, Amnesty International, the local watershed project, etc, etc, etc. Heck, you can even become active in your local Green Party or Democratic Party (if you swing that far right) if you’re that concerned at the formal, political level.

People can become involved in the recently initiated Santa Rosa Neighbors Summit (https://santarosaneighborsummit.weeb...community.html). They will be having another meeting soon and you can participate in a form of local and cooperative government in your neighborhood, partnering with your local city hall, nonprofits, and even businesses.

There are many examples of how people can empower themselves without having to rely on a “democratic system” that is essentially owned and operated by the rich and reactionaries.

This said, I will repeat what I have stated in the recent past (actually, earlier today as well as on other occasions). I usually vote Green or Democratic. It just depends on the context of the contest that I decide to vote for one or the other. I would never vote for a Green Party candidate in a presidential election because my vote will only succeed in having what French political theorist, Maurice Duverger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger), called a “spoiler effect.” This usually leads, ironically, to the worst possible party or candidate winning public office.

Furthermore, I am not “faithful” to any political party, whether Green or Democrat, simply because they participate in an undemocratic system that is deeply flawed. It is not so much that they are corrupted by the system, but that the electoral process and the political institutions need profound change. In order to achieve the impressive public policy changes that our country needs, then we must first change the system. It is only through systemic change that we can have a watershed of all of the other policy changes that we need. In the meantime, I will do what I can and that includes voting for whom is less bad or even possibly a good choice.

I don’t have faith in Obama, not because I think he is a bad man but he doesn’t really represent everything that I would like in a president. It is foolhardy to believe that he we bring all of the changes we want simply because I know that he is not as progressive as I am. This doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for him. If Obama had not won, then that old jackass McCain would be occupying the White House.

Progressives who voted for Obama and are now “deeply disappointed” in him are very foolish people indeed. They should have known better. Obama is not nearly as progressive as many of us here on the Wacco List. And even if he was, the government system that surrounds him will not allow him to be the Great Liberal president that FDR was. Reasons for this are obvious when you look at what happened when Obama tried to get the healthcare package moving through Congress. He would have had more luck doing an elephant drive in India (which come to think of it, if you look at the metaphor that Republicans are symbolized by elephants, he just might have had a tiny bit of success after all).

One of the things that drives me up the wall is when a self-declared “liberal” or “progressive” or “Socialist” or “etc,” says that they are disappointed in some Joe blow that they voted for, is now in the Oval Office and is in tears because that person, now president, doesn’t do all of the things that the progressive voter wanted (in their dreams). Such a person forgets that there can be no such person ever to occupy the White House until fundamental institutional change takes place. And some good folks never learn their lesson. They keep forgetting that no matter how “sexy” a candidate for public office might be, that the real problem is systemic and that our political system will never allow our “sexy” and “progressive” officeholder to do the things we want them to do.

Edward

Jumping in, can't resist.

I vote. I vote Green. I vote strategically. I vote holding my nose and stifling my nausea.

[Barry]

...They keep forgetting that no matter how “sexy” a candidate for public office might be, that the real problem is systemic and that our political system will never allow our “sexy” and “progressive” officeholder to do the things we want them to do.

Something to remember is that there really are people, and quite a few I'm told, in the "fly-over" states before you get to the other civilized coast. The president does need to represent the whole country and that is enforced by the (rather undemocratic) congress, that essentially gives a 40% minority of senators veto power, and its a cruel joke that most all the states with below average populations (save Delaware and Rhode Island? Fact check, anybody?) are Red states. Ever so convenient when it comes time to buy votes, whether it's by saying they will lower their taxes, spending tons on advertising, or direct corruption.

["Mad" Miles]

Edward/VO,

Agreed on everything except the presidential election "spoiler effect". That argument is specious. Have argued why here over the years. If I need to do it again, or dig up the references, I will. Just not tonight. Maybe tomorrow, although I have other projects that are a higher priority for me.

You started out speaking to my post, very nicely by the way with the exception noted above, and then shifted to general observations. I know in the second half you weren't addressing my positions, but just to be clear.

I did not vote for President Obama.

(Wanna know why I almost always write "President Obama" instead of Obama, or Barack? Ever watch "West Wing"? Recall when the Martin Sheen character hired the Lily Tomlin character as is secretary / assistant, and his reason why? That's why.)

I have voted for my party's candidate in every presidential election since I joined in 1987.

President Obama doesn't disappoint me. (I know in that part of your post you're not really addressing me or my position. But I like pointing the following out whenever the opportunity comes up. It's important.)

He's doing exactly what I expected when I watched his campaign unfold. Nobody is nominated for President by either wing of the duopoly, unless they've been thoroughly vetted and have shown that they will be willing employees who will do the bidding of those who hire them through massive campaign contributions.

Their employers are the major corporations that are the true rulers of this headquarters country of the global Capitalist Empire. Once you understand that, their actions, the Presidents and Senators, become very easy to understand. And it's clear who's calling the shots.

Doesn't mean there aren't fights between different corporate power blocks and interest group alliances. Those are the issues that the Dems and Repubs are really fighting over, and making deals about.

That's part of the reason it's so infuriating whenever someone brings up the spurious "third parties are spoilers" accusation/claim. Spoiling what? It's hard to spoil what is already rotten to the core.

Missing good TV, been on this box too much, as usual, today. Ate at Sazon again. Fantastique!!! A La Manana...

[sharingwisdom]

Actually, I do agree with you. Months back on this forum, I wrote an article about Obama's first year as I've kept a collection of articles in my computer on it....continuation of rendition, war, continuation of infringement of constitutional rights, continuation of Patriot Act, advisors in the cabinet who work for Monsanto, GMO'd food supported and on and on. I didn't see any change from the Bush administration other than the appearance and no towers exploded.


A good friend of mine, in telling me the attributes of thinking the democrats could make a change, wrote, "The republicans will tear up the Constitution on the spot; Cheney and company came within inches of pulling it off. The democrats will do it slowly, which gives us a little time and room for some better things to happen." He then quoted Molly Ivins, "The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Democrats will hang you from a lower limb."


In the past, I have felt tied upside down to two distanced trees just waiting for either party to cut the rope and tear me in half. I've gotten to find a place of peace more recently and just know deep inside that something is going to change for the better. And what that looks like is in the mystery... but I'm a traveled explorer in that territory. And so I exhale and let go.

Does no one on this bulletin board understand that during Obama's first year, republican opposition was virtually irrelevant because, for the first time in thirty years, the democrats held a super majority in Congress? The democrats could have passed any legislation at will. They did NOTHING.

Obviously, their will is to maintain the status quo and continue the perpetual charade that no change is possible because 'those mean republicans thwart us at every turn'.

[Valley Oak]

(I have edited this post so please re-read before replying to it)

Hello Miles,

You are arguing that the spoiler effect cannot exist because the system is already rotten to the core, right? Okay, that is is plausible argument.

So you and I are defining our positions (we were already clear many years ago but we are elaborating here on this forum).

There are quite a few ideas that come up for me so I will write them out as I remember them.

Which possibility is more likely:

ONE:
Vote for the Green Party and elect a Green POTUS.

OR...

TWO:

• Institute proportional representation and a multi-party system.
• Eliminate first-past-the-post and single member districts.
• Impose a 5% threshold for a party to be able to enter a legislature.
• Abolish the Electoral College system.

Regarding a Green POTUS, I see that as extremely unlikely. The only way I can envision something like that happening is if there is some kind of a political and national debacle (certainly not outside the realm of possibility) and the Democratic Party dies like the Whig Party did (which was consequently replaced by the Republican Party, Lincoln being their first POTUS in 1861).

Remember that the electoral system in the US doesn't allow for strong 3rd parties. That is why our system is widely referred to as a "two-party system." The Green Party, or any other 3rd party in the US, cannot gradually inch up to 20% of the vote, then 30%, then conquer political power. It doesn't work that way; it can't because the system won't allow it. There has to be great social or economic stress of some kind or a war or political upheaval taking place and prolonged over many years for one party to die and be replaced by a new one. It is necessarily messy and convulsive and it doesn't happen overnight. The Whig Party was under great pressures for different reasons for many years before it disintegrated. (In this vein, the US has had 3 defining moments in history, 1776 (independence), 1861 (civil war), and 1929 (Great Depression)).

In the US, the 2 dominant political parties have to come and go like monarchs, "The King is dead! Long live the King!" (The old King passed away, now the crown prince is betrothed. Hence, "Long live the new King"). There cannot be a strong 3rd party. There can only be 2 parties here and in order for that to change substantially, one of the 2 parties has to die and only then can a new one take its place. US democracy is clearly obsolete.

Another thought is that maybe, just maybe, in the US we can see a 3rd party gain some limited but substantial presence in the federal legislature (US Congress), such as how the "Liberal Democratic Party" in the United Kingdom, now in a coalition government with the Tories (David Cameron, a Tory, is the UK PM and Nick Clegg is the Liberal Deputy PM). And, naturally, what was the number one issue that the Liberal Democrats negotiated with the Tories in order to form a coalition? Electoral reform! Gee, what a surprise.

You see, even in the UK they are struggling for systemic change because that is essential in bringing the major reforms that their country needs. Without those profound systemic changes, the UK will continue to see the tenants at Number 10 Downing Street switch only between Labour and the Tories. Only two parties, therefore, no substantial change is possible in public policy because there are only two administrative approaches available. Very boring and inefficient.

But even my dream is far from becoming a reality. So what to do? Vote for a 3rd party or vote for the lesser evil between the 2 major parties, Republicans and Democrats. I prefer the "Lesser of 2 Evils" strategy. We amicably part ways here, at least in strategies.

Another observation is that I can't accept that by voting Green, the American people would have been served by seeing John McCain elected POTUS over Barak Obama. The only logic that I can see behind doing something like that is to force systemic change on the 2 major parties under the threat that the worst possible alternative will continue to be elected into power, repeatedly.

The problem with that strategy is that by consistently voting Green, we would consistently elect into power a Republican POTUS and things could easily stay this way for decades until 3rd party voting subsided enough for the Democrats to come back to power. This is what happened with the Social Democratic Party of Germany from 1945 (end of WWII) until Willy Brandt became the first post-war, Social Democratic Chancellor in 1969. The long 24 year period of seemingly eternal opposition is referred to as the electoral "ghetto" of the German Social Democrats.

It is obvious that President Obama cannot disappoint you. You did not vote for him because you knew in advance what he is all about. I also know what Obama is all about but I voted for him anyway because the Green Party presidential candidate was not going to win. And I don't want to send another Republican asshole to the White House by voting for a losing party and siphoning votes away from Obama and the Democrats in 2008 or 2012.

Our strategies are different but their likelihood of success is the same; they are both nearly impossible.

So what to do?

Here is yet another consideration, let's say we succeed in electing a Green POTUS in the existing system. Once that person is sworn into office, he or she will not be able to do all of the things they were elected to do because the political institutions surrounding the office of the president are too stifling, as we have seen for the past two years with President Obama. Many people blame Obama for not doing his job but if Obama had been allowed to implement his preferred public policies then many of those same critics would instead be elated with "one of the best presidents in US history!" That helps illustrate one of the cruxes.

A Green POTUS cannot solve the fundamental problems because it is not so much a matter of the person who is in the Oval Office nearly as much as it is a matter of the whole system itself. If we want substantive change then we need to change the political institutions of the country. One man or one woman in the White House cannot do it.

Trying to elect a Green POTUS implies "faith" in a system that you have stated is "rotten to the core." So why do you bother voting for a Green candidate for president? Do you honestly believe that this will begin to make everything okay? Bring the systemic changes we need?

You see, if you participate in the system then you are implicitly stating that the system works, which you have already clearly stated that it does not.

When I vote on election day I am practicing damage control. I don't believe in the system because this system, as it is now, cannot produce the kind of public policy this country needs and this is due in large part because our government is locked into a sclerotic, institutional straightjacket, unable to budge.

If we are serious about change then voting for the "ideal" candidate (a Green or a Socialist) is not the way to go. We need to reform the political institutions in the US, such as when the Progressive Movement made substantial institutional reforms.

One last observation, Obama isn't perfect but he's all we've got and in this stage of history, he's the best we can get. President Obama is infinitely better than President McCain would have been, had we voted for the Green Party.

Finally, my strategy is not only to vote the lesser of two evils (and avoid another tyrant like Baby Bush) but to be active in a group to change the system. That's why I'm a member of Californians for Electoral Reform; that is the second component of my strategy for change. Getting involved and coordinated with other people is essential in accomplishing the changes we yearn for. But it will take generations, much like the women's suffrage movement. Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) spent her entire life (died age 86) struggling for the right to vote and had died of old age when American women finally got it in 1920. So our dream change is long in the coming and you and I won't see it. But we can do something now in the meantime, like Anthony did. And you can't make those kinds of changes alone.

One question I would like to put to you is, if you believe that the system is rotten to the core then why do you put enough faith in it to elect a Green Party candidate to the presidency?

Respectfully Yours,

Edward

Edward/VO,

Agreed on everything except the presidential election "spoiler effect". That argument is specious. Have argued why here over the years. If I need to do it again, or dig up the references, I will. Just not tonight. Maybe tomorrow, although I have other projects that are a higher priority for me.

You started out speaking to my post, very nicely by the way with the exception noted above, and then shifted to general observations. I know in the second half you weren't addressing my positions, but just to be clear.

I did not vote for President Obama.

["Mad" Miles]

Edward/VO wrote: ...I would never vote for a Green Party candidate in a presidential election because my vote will only succeed in having what French political theorist, Maurice Duverger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger), called a “spoiler effect.” This usually leads, ironically, to the worst possible party or candidate winning public office...

Edward/VO,

OK I'm going to now try to address the problem with the "spoiler effect" argument against Third Party electoral efforts and especially the accusations regularly trotted out against Green Party presidential campaigns in this last decade. I'm going to try and be brief (Epic Fail! Read on...) since the basis of this argument has been spelled out in excruciating detail here on waccobb.net and many other places over the years.

By the way, I read your wikipedia reference for Maurice Duverger, and I did not see the "spoiler effect" mentioned in the bio of him, nor on the page for his "law". I did see a discussion of the limits of a "winner take all" electoral system. A discussion I agree with.

Here is the argument for the "spoiler effect" claim, as I see it.

1. If people have a third party choice, voting for that choice, "takes votes away", from one of the mainstream party candidates.

2. If the candidate, who has supposedly lost votes, loses, it is because the third party candidate, "stole" (or if I'm being charitable, let's say "redirected"), those votes from the mainstream candidate.

3. Therefore, the third party candidate, "spoiled" the election for the mainstream candidate. Without that third party candidate on the ballot, the candidate with "similar" political views, would have won.

Seems like simple math, doesn't it?

If the third party candidate had not run against the mainstream party candidates, the mainstream party candidate would have won, because they would have gotten the votes given to the third party candidate. (Yes, I'm repeating myself. I'm trying to be clear.)

If one wanted the mainstream party candidate to win, because they were the "lesser of two evils" one resents the third party and third party candidate, for having "spoiled" the election, and allowing the "greater of two evils" to win.

I have many problems with this argument. First of all, it's a lie. Even if someone argues it and believes it to be true, it's a lie. An unconscious, or unacknowledged lie, but a lie all the same. What do I mean by "lie"? Stating something that is demonstrably untrue. Stating that untruth even when well publicized refutations of it are easily available to anyone curious about the issue.

Secondly, nobody "owns" anybody else's vote. When such claims are made, not overtly but with that assumption, usually by Democratic Party loyalists, it is an insult to those who have chosen, consciously, after sifting all of the available information, rationally, to vote for an alternative candidate who represents their values and interests more than the Democratic candidate. For two good, tight and detailed overviews of this see my article, attached to a previous post of mine in this thread, called, "Why I won't vote Democratic in 2004", along with the article by Chris Hedges, "March To Nowhere", that I shared today in WaccoReader.

When anyone asserts that a candidate "owns" your vote, (or it is due them, necessary because of the "reality" we face, you "have no choice" but to vote for candidate A, etc.) they are denying a cornerstone of our democratic system. The right to vote for the candidate of your choice. Based on your understanding of who represents who, and what the results will be if your candidate, as opposed to another, wins.

Or more apropos of this discussion: What will happen if one of the two mainstream candidates wins, and you do not want to endorse or support either of those candidates, you want to affirm a politics guaranteed not to win, but which represents your views and interests? In other words, sometimes it is more important to send a message, than to endorse the unacceptable. Democrats reject this option, but that doesn't mean it isn't an option, in spite of all their vituperation and hyperventilation to the contrary.

I treat people as adults, capable of making informed and rational decisions for themselves. (In spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary!?) Saying to us that we "have to" vote for someone, because of reasons A, B, or C, is patronizing, and it's ultimately self-defeating for those making that argument. Insulting ones audience is usually not a good way to convince them of your reasons and view.

(And yes, I see the contradiction in that claim, and my claim that the spoiler argument is a lie. And/or those who make that argument are deluded, mistaken, wrong. Things are sometimes contradictory. Especially in matters political and social.)

Thirdly and most devastating to the "spoiler" claim, it's never happened. When has a third party candidate caused a mainstream candidate to lose? (With the exception of Perot, in the early nineties, and if that was "spoiling", I'm all for it!) So I'll rephrase the question. When has a third party on the Left caused a left of center mainstream candidate to lose?

I'm referring to the United States of America here. Leftist splinter elements in Europe, in particular I'm thinking of the breakup of the French "Popular Front" in the thirties, are another matter entirely. American (U.S.) and European electoral politics are so dissimilar structurally as to make such a comparison invalid.

It didn't happen with Gore in 2000. But Democratic partisans keep beating that dead horse. He won that election, by the numbers, but didn't fight for it with the Supreme Court. It's pretty well acknowledged that the Republicans stole that election. Plus Gore ran a terrible campaign. ("Lock box for the future"! Who bought that one?)

The newspaper consortium hired experts, who did a thorough recount in Florida and proved that Gore won, if an entire recount for the state had been done. As everyone knows, unfortunately it was months after the election was stolen by, I mean certified for, Bush II. Voter discouragement, using specious felony conviction lists to decertify legal registrations in poor minority (i.e. Black) communities in Dade and other urbanized counties, etc. The litany of crimes by Katherine Harris et al are well known. Gore didn't even win in his own state of Tennessee!!

Who spoiled that election? Gore and the corporate run Democratic Party, along with the Republican Party and the crimes committed by Bush's campaign team.

Here's the major flawed assumption behind the "spoiler" insult. That everyone who voted for Nader in 2000 would have voted for Gore, if Nader had not been on the ballot. OK, not even everyone, just those Left of Center.

The problem with this assumption is that it has no foundation, cannot be proven, it's pure speculation and an example of wishful thinking.

What it leaves out is that third parties are organized by and attract disaffected voters who would otherwise not vote. Or, if they did vote, they'd give their vote to another alternative candidate, or just write in Mickey Mouse or Bozo The Clown.

For all the registered Democrats who voted for Nader in 2000, there were also significant numbers of registered Republicans and many registered Independents who also voted for Nader, not to mention the registered Greens. Would those people have voted without Nader in the race? Or would they have stayed home.

The polling has not been done to research this. But the evidence, such as we have, supports non-voting as much as party line voting by registration.

The goal in 2000 for us Greens was to win 15% of the national plurality so we could qualify for Federal Matching Campaign Funds in the next election cycle and build from there.

We didn't come close. (5%? 8%?)

Anybody in the Nader 2000 campaign who actually thought he had a chance of winning the presidency, and there were many, was deluded, tripping and totally ignorant of the reality of electoral politics in this country.

We still welcomed their volunteer efforts. I did my best not to burst their delusional bubble. But when the subject came up, I tried to gently point them towards the practical reality that we were dealing with.

Sometimes that made me the "toxic asshole" who wasn't a true believer in the cause. Whatever. I don't believe in supporting naive fantasies, even if that makes me unpopular.

The nature of our presidential election laws, the Electoral College, means that the battle for the presidency is not a national one, it's fought state by state. So as a Green in California, I'm very comfortable rejecting the "spoiler" calumny. When have all of California's electoral college votes not gone to the Democratic candidate? At least in recent history. (Reagan may have been the exception. Refresh our memory, someone?)

That's why voting strategically is relative to which state you're voting in. Suppose there was a state where it was a tossup between the Republican and the Democratic candidates. And a significant percentage of likely registered voters, were registered Green. Then the choice to vote Green would be a difficult one.

But that has never been the case for me. When I voted for Nader in '96 in Chicago, when I voted for him in 2000, when I voted for Cobb in '04, or McKinney in '08. During those last three elections I was registered Green in Sonoma County. In no instance did I have any fear that my vote would swing the election towards the Republicans and against the Democrats. That's why my symbolic vote was easy to make, given my values, ideals and political goals. In another place, at another time, I might have my doubts, but I certainly didn't in each of those choices.

We Greens dream of the day when we have enough votes to actually present a threat to the Democrats and Republicans. We've never come close, we're further away than we were in 2000 for lots of reasons I won't go into here. People buying the specious "spoiler" charge, that was quickly deployed by Democrats after their 2000 debacle, is no small part of that decline. It's so easy to blame the messenger when looking into a mirror in the cold light of day is too painful to handle.

So, having deluded, wishful thinking and nostalgic Democrats call us names, insult us, and telling lies about us? How do you think that makes us feel, those of us who have decided the Democratic Party is a lost cause? After 2000 it persuaded some unreflective and uninformed people to re-register Democratic before the 2004 presidential election. And some of those people are once again disillusioned, this time with the Obama administration.

The other big lie, aside from "spoiler" claim, is "Republicans fund the Greens to undercut the Democrats." Research it, it's bullshit. But it gets told and retold, until it now is "common knowledge" in Democratic partisan circles. More self-delusion. And a convenient way to dismiss the Green Party. Slander has always been a useful tool in politics.

Well, it's long past time for Democrats to closely examine your own party and figure out what the rest of us have known for decades. The Democratic party has not been the party of working people, minorities (some of whom who are becoming majorities), women, Unions, and other notions of the majority of average people , since it started nursing off the corporate tit in the seventies. Since then it's paid lip service to its traditional values and constituencies, but look at the actions and decisions of its leaders. Those actions tell the truth, not the rhetoric.

That's why the Rainbow Coalition, People's Party, Peace & Freedom, Green Party and other Third Party efforts were launched. If I'm going to lose, if my interests, values and needs are going to be ignored, often crushed, at least I'm going to lose holding my head up, calling for what is right and just.

I'm not going to go down pretending my enemies are my friends. That politicians who say one thing and do another, are going to some day see the light and do the right thing. I'm not naive and I won't get fooled again!

(And given my reading and understanding of history, I only voted for one Democratic candidate for president. And he won. Carter the first time around. What can I say, I was young and naive. I quickly got schooled.)

I don't have the stats in my memory, but I'm familiar with them. Someone who wants to research this can back me up or correct my vague memory. But what I recall is that only twenty percent of registered voters vote in this country. And the percentage of those eligible to register, but who don't, is huge.

Alienation from the electoral system, and our mainstream politics in general, is endemic. That's not because of anything the Greens, Libertarians, Natural Rights or whichever third party you want to mention has screwed things up. That's because people know from direct experience, what choices for candidates are presented by the mainstream parties, and what policies and decisions follow. They see clearly that the shots are being called by corporate capitalism (whether they call it that, or just "Big Money", "Wall Street", etc.) not by the majority of American (U.S.) people exercising their democratic franchise.

My answer to the young Anarchist Punks, many of whom are not so young any more, who reject electoral politics altogether is, yes, the real organizing has to happen in our communities and on the streets using self-empowerment and organizational decision making that honors and includes everyone.

But I vote, in spite of the mess and futility (I rarely actively engage in lobbying, except to local councils and boards. As for electoral campaign organizing, 2000 was a huge exception for me, and many of the painful aspects of that experience confirmed my suspicions and criticisms of that political modality) because:

If I'm going to discuss and argue about politics in this country. If I'm going to advocate for real social change and for my alternative party and our candidates. I have to be able to honestly answer, Yes, when someone asks me if I voted.

If the answer is, No, I've lost all credibility in the minds of those not yet radicalized by their understanding of the nature of our society and its institutionalized politics. And I want to be heard and not automatically dismissed as a crank, a nutcase and a marginal irrelevancy. By voting, I maintain, in spite of my radical political views, a semblance of political legitimacy.

Also the Right to Vote by every adult citizen, is something that has been fought for after centuries of murder, torture and exploitation of most adults who demanded it. It's not a right I'm willing to abandon just because I think it's abused by the powers that be.

So, I vote strategically, but my take on strategy isn't just about the numbers, winning or losing elected government positions.

That's a part, but another part is what message am I promoting?

What values am I affirming?

What example am I setting for others?

If my political calculus was only about settling for the possible, given what constitutes possibility in our time, I would simply walk away in disgust, like so many others already have.

But I'm a stubborn idealist, a skeptical optimist, so I keep coming back for more punishment and humiliation. At least I've fought for what I think matters, rather than acquiescing to those who will do exactly what I expect and I know I cannot abide.

Edward,

I agree that our electoral system needs reform to include IRV and proportional representation. Those are active campaigns within and outside of the Green Party. How many active Democrats are on board with electoral reform? (I don't mean campaign finance reform, although I support it. I mean structural changes to mitigate "first past the post" and its consequent distortion of democracy in the current system.)

But I'm also realistic. The Republicans and Democrats who run our country, working for the same bosses and playing a rigged shell game on most of the rest of us, are not about to allow changes in electoral law which would threaten their lock on power.

Some kind of end run is going to have to happen, before real electoral reform is a viable item on the public agenda. That's why, while I write about and discuss electoral politics, I mostly advocate a movement for fundamental social change and try to organize the only social mechanism I see that has any chance at all for making that change.

Mass non-violent direct action carried out consistently, by tens of thousands of affinity groups world wide. Affinity groups which are well coordinated, experienced and in it for the long haul.

This is a tall order, I know. But it's the only one that makes sense to me. The rest, especially electoral politics in this country, is mostly "smoke and mirrors".

Oh well, so much for "brief". But y'all know me! Gotta "drive it into the ground".

Perhaps that's a new definition of "radical".

(And by Radical I do not mean "extremist", or "zealous", and certainly not "crazy". I mean, "addressing the root causes of a problem in order to seek and carry out real solutions, rather than just applying superficial bandaids and rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down into the abyss to oblivion.")

[podfish]

...
OK I'm going to now try to address the problem with the "spoiler effect" argument against Third Party electoral efforts and especially the accusations regularly trotted out against Green Party presidential campaigns in this last decade.......
Thirdly and most devastating to the "spoiler" claim, it's never happened. When has a third party candidate caused a mainstream candidate to lose? ...
It didn't happen with Gore in 2000.

yes it did. I agree with pretty much all the individual arguments you're making, but they're mostly about the merits of voting for third parties or about the flaws in the Democrat's reasoning about the obligations of their "natural allies". But the terms in your three-step math aren't necessarily valid. In any contest, the spoiler is one who, while not competitive for the win himself, competes effectively enough with a potential winner so as to prevent that opponent's victory (think Cubs vs. Padres). I think it's fair to say that it's only victory if you're the one moving into the White House for the following four years; having more votes is technically required but clearly not sufficient on its own. And I think it's equally clear that if Nader had not run for president, Gore's margin would have been higher; very probably high enough to nullify the dirty-trick squads' efforts. It's not a lie to say so; don't you agree that if Nader hadn't run it's quite likely Gore would have taken office?
But that doesn't make Nader responsible for Bush. Or make a case that you can't vote how you choose, for well-thought-out or even capricious reasons. Any assignment of blame with failing to vote Democratic seems out of line. The bulk of your post seems about that, and is hard to disagree with.

["Mad" Miles]

...don't you agree that if Nader hadn't run it's quite likely Gore would have taken office?...

Podfishy,

No I don't agree. And I've tried to explain why here and in previous writing on wacco over the years. There is no evidence to prove that without Nader in the race, Gore would have won. It can be effectively argued that Nader brought people to vote in that (and other) presidential elections, who would have otherwise sat it out.. There are even stats to prove that, which I'm not going to take the time to dredge up. Google is your friend.

The only way your claim holds water is if every one who voted for Nader, or at least a significant number, would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot.

Since Nader and the Greens were effectively an anti-Democratic Party vote from the left of the Democratic Party (for the egregious betrayals of trust, promises and values over many decades, as I tried to indicate in my previous post and in my "Why I won't vote Democratic in 2004" article and which many other commentators have also argued over the years, nothing I've said is particularly original.) why would those who voted against Gore when they had a chance, suddenly vote for him if they'd had no appealing choice? That defies logic, what we know about psychology, and at least my version of common sense.

For your claim to make sense, people would have to be confused somehow. Not aware of the possible result should Gore lose. I give them credit for knowing what they were doing and choosing what they thought was the best choice, given the circumstances. That was my thinking and I credit others with being at least as conscious as I think I am.

Clinton was unpopular for many reasons, mostly having to do with his proven hypocrisy and lying about the Lewinsky affair. Plus almost a decade of rightwing hue and cry to paint him as Satan incarnate.

Gore was tied with Clinton, in that he was his Vice President and represented a continuation of Clinton's geopolitical Free Trade corporate globalization policies (the fruits of which became ripe in the fall of '08, and for which we are still paying economically and socially).

Gore totally, awesomely sucked as a candidate, he was stiff, awkward, off-putting and goofy.

Kerry got Swift-Boated and also came off as if he had a stick up his ass and a golden spoon in his mouth. How the hell a party supposedly dedicated to the interests and needs of working people comes up with candidates who look like patrician snobs (and arguably are just that) astounds me.

Nader, Cobb and the Greens are at fault for them losing? Try selling that somewhere where people aren't paying attention. And good luck finding wherever that is!

The pro-Democratic Party / "Spoiler" argument treats Green and Nader voters (and there is a difference, too complex to describe here) as ignorant fools, children, that aren't aware or responsible for the consequences of their actions. That patronizing attitude, among many other reasons I've tried to raise, is why the Dems are in such trouble. It's not working Folks!

I've come to accept that this argument will never be resolved. The Democratic Party activists I respect are those who leave it aside, quit casting aspersions on the Green Party and Ralph Nader, and stick to their own knitting by trying to reform their own party.

That's a project I consider futile, that's why, in spite of all our own problems, I stick with the Green Party.

But I wish groups like the Progressive Democrats luck. They've got a tough row to hoe. I think they're mistaken, engaging in self delusion and desperate wishful thinking. (See Chris Hedges today for an able discussion of just that.) And eventually, when the savvy ones realize they're wasting their time, like at least two generations of Liberal/Left activists before them, I hope they'll defect to my party.

That is, if the oil hasn't run out, the stored food isn't used up, and the mobs of urban cannibals, loaded for bear with sophisticated heat and veteran combat experience, aren't headed our way and looking for fresh protein. Then this little argument will seem quite silly and we'll wonder what the hell we were thinking.

You think I'm kidding? Throw another activist on the barbie!! Who tastes better, Red, Blue or Green? I hope we don't find out, but I fear someday somebody will.

[Sciguy]

Miles:

That was beautiful writing. When you reminded me what sacrifices had to be made by my ancestors so that I could go into a voting booth, corrupt as it all might be, you affirmed my resolve to vote once again. I have never missed voting in an election in my life for fifty years now but the descent of Obama into bipartisan blather bid fair to make me so disgusted that I thought of staying home. But you have stiffened my spine with your argument.

I want to bring forward with emphasis one feature that you touched on lightly but that provides the basic reason why I never vote for one of the Demopubs. I only vote third party (recently Nader) and those who make that absurd spoiler argument can go to hell, for the reasons you so convincingly laid out.

No election is only about choosing a single candidate. An election is merely one small instance of a lifetime of making choices about the entire system. Here in the US, with one of the most corrupt of all democratic governmental systems, with managed choices, the dominant need is not for one or the other of corporate puppets to be chosen, the need is for changing the system of choice so that the corporate brown nosers cannot continue to put us into a box like a rat and tell us to just press the lever. We need to burst the box open. I realize that is empty rhetoric in practice but we do have at least one small goal that is reachable. We can give a third party enough votes that they cannot easily be dismissed in the debates. If the Greens, for example, had a 20% vote in this election, they would "have to" be invited into the debates as a third party. I put "have to" in quotes since those in power would do everything possible to change the rules to still exclude any competition but it would be a challenge to them. It would be a good first step. And what would be the immediate loss. One corporate puppet instead of another? Far overwhelmed by finally bringing a third party into opposition.

In my opinion we need to stop listening to the campaign rhetoric that wants us to always think we are facing the one vote of the century, the one that stands alone, that must be decided between two candidates. We need to take a long term view and change that corrupt circus which keeps us impotent, desperately searching for a difference between the only two candidates presented to us. Remember those ancestors who got us the vote - they only started a long process that goes on and on. It won't end with this election.

[podfish]

Podfishy,

No I don't agree. ...There is no evidence to prove that without Nader in the race, Gore would have won. It can be effectively argued that Nader brought people to vote in that (and other) presidential elections, who would have otherwise sat it out.....
The only way your claim holds water is if every one who voted for Nader, or at least a significant number, would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot.
....
For your claim to make sense, people would have to be confused somehow. Not aware of the possible result should Gore lose.

I'm not sure of any lessons to be taken from this tack, but since we've started down it - the first part is debatable, I think; without Nader as an interesting alternative, I do think more voters would have chosen Gore. Although as you say, many would have just not voted, and others would have voted for some other candidate. I doubt you're suggesting they'd have voted for Bush in any significant number. So I'm not convinced that Gore would have seen no benefit if there were only two high-profile candidates - it seems quite likely that he would have. Apparently you don't agree. My friend google seems ambivalent on the issue, though.
I'm most explicitly not saying anything about the kinds of tradeoffs people thought they were making; I don't make any claim that Nader voters are sorry about it and would have voted Gore "if only they knew". So I don't understand what confusion on their part you think I'm implying. Frankly, to stick with the baseball analogy, I think it's on a par with trying to tell what would have happened if Bartman hadn't interfered with Alou.
and really, it's a narrow point. It isn't in opposition to what I think your thesis is: that blame cast on candidates or voters who are deemed to deprive the Democratic standard bearer is misplaced.

["Mad" Miles]

Pod Poisson,

There were some people who expressed regret that they'd voted for Nader after the 2000 stolen election debacle. Green Party registration has dropped significantly in the last ten years. After major (for a third party) growth in the late nineties lead up to 2000. Just like the Greens who thought Nader had a shot at actually winning the presidency, I think they're "confused".

Baseball analogies are lost on me. I don't follow any professional sports. Treating electoral politics as a simple numbers game, as appealing and seemingly basic common sense as that may be, isn't sufficient for me. If elections are only about winning or losing office, then given the current setup, we've all already lost.

The forcefulness of my rhetoric is not solely directed at you. When I write here, about matters such as this that have general import, I'm addressing a general readership. In this case particularly, partisan Democrats. That I didn't differentiate clearly between my reply to your reply and my general remarks on the issue, is my fault. A function of not enough time in the day to spell everything out. Although I do try!

In Florida, in 2000, there were registered Republicans who voted for Nader. Without him on the ballot, would those Republicans have voted Bush? Or Buchanan? Or Gore? Someone should ask them. What we do know is there is no way to prove that a significant number of Nader voters, in swing states, would have voted for Gore, without the choice of Nader. Some would have, some wouldn't have. We have no definitive numbers to prove how many would have voted one way or another.

Isn't it interesting that those who have the resources to do such polling didn't ask those questions? Maybe they have something at stake and proving that the Green Party didn't swing the election for either side isn't really in their interest. That might require them to look at their own contributions to the problem. Who wants to spend money on that?

Also you can't divorce the existence of the Green Party from the flaws of the Democratic Party. If the Dems walked their talk, there would be no demand for an alternative to the left of them. Since they don't, the electoral map, and its cartographers, have to take the GP into account. Instead of wishing it and other efforts like it would just go away and quit bothering the real, serious and adult electoral strategists.

It's that kind of arrogance (not yours Pod, theirs!) that loses elections and keeps the public enraged because they're being ignored.

Aside from the big money behind it, the Tea Party is an epiphenomenon of this contradiction between rhetoric and reality. I suppose it could be argued that the GP is as well. Except that we won't take corporate financial donations, and the TP'ers are pretty much feeding from the corporate trough, along with the Republicans and Democrats. So much for their, "Revolution".

Part of my focus is on the flaws in our electoral system, that's a general area where you, Edward, Sciguy and I agree. And I try to focus my electoral efforts, such as they are, on solutions that make sense to me. As a result I've been a registered Green since 1987, and was very active in the Chicago Greens and since 1997, The Green Party of Sonoma County. Until the Spring of '02, when I had a falling out with the local group.

Plus I needed to focus on creating some kind of career to support myself, at a time late in my life, especially when compared to the normal path most people take in such matters. That's been my primary focus since then, rather than the intensive political organizing I'd done off and on over the previous two and a half decades.

I still maintain contact and monitor local, State and National (even international) GP activities via email, internet news, newsletters and websites. With occasional direct personal contact.

I do this because it's what makes the most sense to me. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. We're talking politics! But I advocate and argue for the Green Party, and defend it against spurious attacks, because it's the best approach I can see, to what is actually happening in the "real" world and not just in the heads of political junkies, to address the pressing problems our country and our world faces. At least it's the best approach I see in the electoral arena.

The GP almost split in '04 over Nader vs. Cobb. Aside from the fallout from 2000, the infighting afterward has done as much damage as the external criticisms I've been addressing here. Debates over compromises with the "spoiler" argument, the idea of "safe states" where Greens wouldn't challenge beleaguered Democrats, and more, have torn the party apart.

We're only just starting a new process to rebuild it to the point we reached ten years ago, and hopefully to expand from there. The jury is still out as to whether that is feasible. Obama stole a lot of Green thunder with the "Hope and Change" campaign. Plus the near universal disgust with Bush II made Democrats look like angels in contrast.

And people quickly forget who did what, if they ever remembered in the first place. Most people ignore politics, of any kind, because it's just too hopeless, everyone's on the take, you can't win, it's a fixed game, etc., etc.. They're just too busy putting food on the table and roofs over their heads. Until now, when more and more are finding that increasingly difficult, even impossible. People respond in a crisis. They just don't always respond intelligently, in spite of what I've written today about everybody knowing what's going on.

The current results of President Obama's administrative decisions give us Greens some new room. But it remains to be seen if we can take advantage of that reopening space, or if we're too damaged to recover.

My big beef with my party is that in the last two presidential elections, our national organization couldn't produce a bumper sticker that clearly showed our candidate was from our party. The "Green Party" aspect was buried in the graphic, with the candidates name being emphasized.

That works if everybody knows who you are, but in the case of my party, we're still building our "brand". Simple things like that matter. So I sometimes despair at the amateur hour that makes up my alternative, third party.

Read our Ten Key Values and new revised platform, and decide for yourself if the Green Party represents you and your interests. Contrast it with what the Democrats say, vs. what they do. If you still think that sticking with the Dems is the only viable choice, hey, you can't say you weren't warned!?

Luckily this stuff is not the only thing I spend my time on. Otherwise I really would be, "Mad", as in incensed, outraged, furious Miles, instead of just passionately engaged.

G'Night!

[phloem]

I just want to say thank you to all who've contributed to this thread. Your thoughts and arguments, in addition to discussion with friends elsewhere, convinced me to re-register to vote. I agree that we need to be heard, even if the system is totally corrupted by corporate influences and the political hucksters who run the game. This election forthcoming we have too many truly despicable candidates and too many critically important issues for even cynical me to ignore.

Nevertheless, as Miles and others have pointed out, voting is just a very small part of being engaged in democracy, and I believe the Green Party (along with groups like the Alliance for Democracy) still offers us the best opportunity to oppose corporatism and to support actual democracy, not just the to kowtow to the glib use of the word to justify American imperialism, economic crimes, and injustice. I also won't throw all Democrats to my personal wolves, although very few merit anything better than a swift kick to their underbellies. And, I still wish professional writers like Norman Solomon would address the fundamental dysfunction of our electoral system instead of diverting attention to the superficial issue of choosing to vote or not. Democrats remain every bit as responsible for political dysfunction as are Republicans, and voting isn't going to correct the massive injustices inherent within the system and deliberately sustained by the very few who benefit from the injustice. Even very good candidates like Russ Feingold still play the game according to the rules, and those rules need to be obliterated.

Thanks again for everyone's contributions to the discussion.