Why Elections Are Not a Waste of Progressives' Time

[Hotspring 44]

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.

Clancy, there are a couple of points I would like to make in hopes of prodding you to change your mind to actually vote this election cycle on November 2, 2010 instead of sitting back and letting other people make decisions without your electoral input.

1- I would not go so far as to say that, “they did nothing”. But as a (Democratic) super majority, it is correct to say that the Democrats did not pass any legislation without votes from some Republicans because the simple fact is that some Democrats held out and voted the other way from the majority of Democrats. My point being is that I don't think it's either Sen. Barbara boxer’s, House rep. Nancy Pelosi’s or currently Atty. Gen. of California and gubernatorial candidate for California Jerry Brown’s fault for example, they had no say in regards to other (Democratic) representatives that decide to either create or vote for or against a particular bill that comes up.

2- . Also, I don't think any Democrats that you have a choice in voting for (or against) voted against the Democrat majority in Congress or the house. So by not voting you’re empowering the representatives and bad legislation by one vote.
By voting for somebody that doesn't go absolutely against every single thing that you most likely value, you can at least neutralize one vote that goes against everything that you probably stand for by either voting for any third party candidates that you agree with that are out there or maybe, the so-called “lesser of two evils”; ("Democrat"?).

3- The attitude of not voting at all because things are not going the way you like them to or the way that you felt and believed were promised reminds me of a 2 1/2-year-old child tossing the whole dinner plate of “food” onto the floor in frustration and madness, because there was things on it that the child refused to eat.

Of course in all honesty and consideration of you (others, and myself in some regard for that matter) is that I do realize that some of us feel that within that analogy; the so-called “dinner plate” had nothing but unpalatable, rotten, and/or inedible non-food items on it in the first place.

Personally, because of the fact that we live where we live here in a very special region in northern California, I think that it is more an act of self-preservation to think of voting under the present conditions, which it would be a good idea to consider the following: Rather than voting for something or for somebody, I think you should consider your voting in this election cycle, (as) an act of voting against the thing/s and candidate/s of whom and which goes against the grain of virtually if not every single thing that you believe in.

Sometimes it's a matter of doing something, even though it may seem insignificant at the time in terms of self-preservation rather than idealism.

By being so idealistically rigid with your vote as to be staunchly, all, (or at least most / of), or nothing pretty much assures getting nothing favorable the vast majority of the time instead of something that is better than nothing at least some of the times, and maybe even closer to half of the time something that is at least more favorable rather than something horrendous and unacceptable instead.

4- . I always considered by voting it at least empowers us to have a right to complain about the things that we don't like that our representatives do or don't do, because the comeback argument that (by not voting at all) would be something like:...
...you didn't vote, so you don't (have any real right to) complain about all the things you don't like because you weren't involved and you didn't get involved in all the processes you have access to....
...Therefore, you did not have a substantive stake in it because you didn't even try to change it using one of the primary means that you do have to make a real difference.

5- . I also think it's very self-defeating to assume the worst and simply give up and “let it happen”.

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'.

Well, it is true to say that the Republicans have been thwarting every single thing that they possibly can since Obama has been elected.... ...That most certainly is not a Democratic "charade".

The Republicans continuous thwarting as a status quo is a political arrangement which we don't want to empower any more than it already has been. Would you want to see a Republican super majority in the House of Representatives?... ... I think not! PLEASE.

Also, one way the Democratic Party could change it's “status quo” is that the Democratic Party could employ a tactic within its own ranks, similar to the Republican Party in one way and become more hard-line on the ones that go against what the majority of Democrats vote for.

As an example they could withhold some campaign money for those Democratic candidates that voted against the majority regarding crucial, important, principled issues and in doing so make it difficult for them in the next upcoming primary election cycle to win the primary election against the other Democratic opponents who share the view of the majority of Democrats in the House and Congress.

I'm not sure that's the democratic way, but it does bring up the issue of a Democratic candidate's electability in those particular districts. Remember Kansas, Mississippi and a lot of other states are not like Northern California is; politically.

I used to be very stubborn, and in large part because of that during one election cycle, I didn't vote.
As I grew older and a little wiser, I learned that in the long run; not participating usually works against one's own interests.

[Hotspring 44]

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.

It is ridiculous to blame Ralph Nader on Al Gore's loss in that election.

the "dirty-trick squads'" pretty much had it in the bag on that one!...

...Because of those rigged DeBold voting machines and software , what was really done was that the programs in those machines were made to be "flipped". (The term in electronics is called by some old-school electronic technicians and also a teacher, of which I had at the Mendocino junior-college in Santa Rosa quite a few years ago; a "flip flop switch" where the electronic switching in a binary system inverts the data within a previously programmed area of the electronic or these days it can be programmed into software and encrypted and therefore hidden in an extremely complicated electronic code) remember how some of those Republicans were joking about how Al Gore was such a "flip-flop"?.
I think some of those dirty trickster's new about that software and were so bold as to actually use the term "flip-flop", because they knew nobody would believe anybody actually knew because they didn't think anybody could prove it.

Anyway to get back to to the point I was making, the point is; that to blame Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in that election on anything other than the rigging of that election is incorrect.

The votes that went for Ralph Nader were vastly insignificant.
To try to guilt trip the Green's into believing something like that is wrong. Also, for a Al Gore voting Democrat; hypocritical anyway.... It's Democratic denial of their own issues and also mean-spirited, at least as far as I can tell...
...Also blaming Ralph Nader on what was actually an Al Gore decision and a Democratic Party ploy to obfuscate its own ineffectiveness's to represent itself to the Supreme Court on that particular issue it's a complete and utter cop-out.

Al Gore and the Democratic Party did not fight as hard as they should have to get the unlawfully removed votes counted that should have been counted in Florida!
That as far as I am concerned is the Democratic Party's problem, not a Green Party or Ralph Nader doing by any means!

That election was rigged, plain and simple!... Al Gore and the Democrats failed miserably!... ...which is one of the very big huge main reasons I don't trust Democrats anymore!
If the Democrats want to be trusted by people like me they must earn it with lots of very hard, diligent work!... ...not by making digs and pointing fingers at the Green Party.

The Democratic Party should take a look in the mirror and take note of their own self-destructive actions before they kick the "little guy" in the teeth by way of blaming Ralph Nader and or the Green party on something that is really the Democratic Party's own doings.

The Democratic Party has been bad lately, but it's not irreparable, yet.

sometimes the choice of the lesser of two evils for us little guys is; getting kicked in the teeth by the donkey Democrats or getting trampled and completely flattened by the Republican elephants!

[Valley Oak]

(I have edited this post. Please re-read before replying.)

My dear friend, Miles,

Regarding the 2000 presidential election, the Greens, and voting for 3rd parties, I have trounced on many a Democrat by saying essentially the following:

“Green Party voters are guilty of no wrong other than exercising their constitutional right to vote. If you want to find a guilty party for one of the worst presidents in US history, then look at the two-party system and the Electoral College. These are the real causes, not the Greens. The pigheadedness, arrogance, and accusatory attitude of the Democrats toward Green Party voters is offensive, unconscionable, and grossly unjust. If you want to blame someone, then try blaming yourselves for such a poor exercise in public administration and corporate servitude.”

I said much, much more than this but this was part of it, at least, in a nutshell. I showed my rant to a friend who voted Green in 2000 and he agreed with me 100%.

Just because I voted for Al Gore in 2000 doesn’t mean that I blame the Green’s for 8 years of Baby Bush ruining this country. I don’t. And just because I mention the “spoiler effect” doesn’t mean that I’m reproaching the Greens. I do not. If I meant a slight toward anyone or any group, be rest assured that it would be crystal clear who, how, and why I said it. You know me. I say what’s on my mind and I don’t hold back. As a matter of fact, I have been booted off this list more than once because of my posts and their content.

Furthermore, pointing a finger at a group and blaming them for something that is not their fault is not only egregiously wrong, it is also a monumentally stupid waste of time. It also clearly demonstrates a lack of ownership, and this is especially true of the Democrats.

By the way, I don’t consider myself a Democrat. As a matter of fact, I consider this an insult. I vote for the Green Party often but I trade this off with voting for Dem candidates (if that’s okay with you). I respect who you vote for and why. On the other hand, I seriously question a person’s judgment who votes for an asshole like Baby Bush, Senator McSame, the Alzheimer afflicted Reagan, etc.

For me, the real issue regarding the topics that we have been debating have to do with the way that we elect public leaders to office in the United States, which is very old, inefficient, undemocratic, and obsolete. Our voting system needs to be overhauled significantly. Our electoral process needs to be replaced with Proportional Representation (PR), a multi-party system, and as well as eliminating first-past-the-post (which is what creates the two-party system in the first place).

I in turn would appreciate it if you respected my opinion and voting strategies and not insult me by calling me a Democrat. And of being another jerk who blames the Greens for everything wrong, from 8 years of Baby Bush’s wholesale destruction of just about everything to the common cold.

I fully appreciate the fact that Democrats call Greens names, insult you, and tell lies about you. It’s obvious that would make anyone feel like shit. And yes indeed, the Democratic Party is a lost cause. I couldn’t agree with you more.

But that’s not the real issue, in my opinion. The real issue is systemic and until we fix the broken electoral process in the US, we will continue to fight over bread crumbs and what is worse than this is the fact that progressives/liberals/Greens/Socialists, etc, will continue to fight amongst themselves. Metaphorically speaking, both the Republicans AND the Democrats love this whenever there is a tempest in a teapot and we make them laugh their asses off at us.

Regarding your statement: “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.”

All true! I agree 100%.

“Alienation from the electoral system, and our mainstream politics in general, is endemic.”
How true!

“That's not because of anything the Greens, Libertarians, Natural Rights or whichever third party you want to mention has screwed things up.”

Absolutely!

“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.”

That’s an accurate description of the consequences of our two-party system.

“…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.”

This is one of the solutions, which is why I’m involved with the Neighborhoods Summit project recently launched here in Santa Rosa. I strongly recommend you attend at least one meeting to see it for yourself, even though you live in Forestville.

“But I vote, in spite of the mess and futility…”

This is part of my point. Although you explained yourself very well and I essentially agree with you.

“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 mean structural changes to mitigate "first past the post" and its consequent distortion of democracy in the current system…”

I used to attend Green Party meetings every month in downtown Santa Rosa. I confess that this was only for a period of a few months, maybe a little over a year, but I was directly involved with the Green Party of Sonoma County. My heart is Green (and Red).

“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.”

Very true!

“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.”

Fantastic!

“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.”

Let’s do it, then!

“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’”

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, my friend. That’s why I made reference to Susan B. Anthony. I elaborated quite a bit on that point, as well as others to offer clear examples of what I was trying to say. I’m beginning to get the feeling you didn’t carefully read everything I wrote. But that’s okay.

I would like to ask you a question regarding your statement, "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.”

Which is a better strategy for systemic change, Proportional Representation or 3rd party voting or both?

How do we achieve Proportional Representation (PR)?

Do you feel that implementing PR is less important than voting for the Green Party?

Care to elaborate on a multiple point strategy for systemic change?

I vote for the Green Party whenever I feel I can allow myself to do so. I don’t do it when I feel there is a real danger of a Republican winning office, as is the case now with the Governor’s race, the Senator’s race, the California State’s Attorney General race, etc.

I know and understand our point of disagreement. Although you made it very clear, I understood it for decades. Before I left to go sojourn in Europe for ten years, I voted Green back then, although I often voted a mixed ticket of Green and Dem candidates. My style hasn’t changed in all those years and I don’t see how I would change it. And yes, I did carefully read everything you wrote. It seems to me that we just disagree on form. But you and I do, on the other hand, agree on almost all of the content. Is that okay with you?

Warm Regards,

Edward

Edward/VO,

OK I'm going to now try to address the problem with the "spoiler effect"...

["Mad" Miles]

(I have edited this post. Please re-read before replying.)

...By the way, I don’t consider myself a Democrat. As a matter of fact, I consider this an insult. I vote for the Green Party often but I trade this off with voting for Dem candidates (if that’s okay with you). ... I in turn would appreciate it if you respected my opinion and voting strategies and not insult me by calling me a Democrat. And of being another jerk who blames the Greens for everything wrong, ... Which is a better strategy for systemic change, Proportional Representation or 3rd party voting or both?

How do we achieve Proportional Representation (PR)?

Do you feel that implementing PR is less important than voting for the Green Party?

Care to elaborate on a multiple point strategy for systemic change?

... It seems to me that we just disagree on form. But you and I do, on the other hand, agree on almost all of the content. Is that okay with you?

Warm Regards,

Edward

Edward My Brother, My Friend,

I've never considered you a Democrat, although the position you took in advancing the "spoiler" criticism of the Green Party, and Third Parties in general, is most often presented/projected by Democratic Party partisans. My reply to you was not only addressed to you personally, and to the specifics of your previous posts in this thread, but also to the majority of people who make that argument, who most often are Democrats. Hence the confusion.

As I told Podfish earlier today, when I present here, I'm responding to a general audience and don't always take the time to differentiate between the individual who prompted my response, and the general position to which I am directing my remarks. Maybe that's because I'm a lazy writer, maybe that's because for the sake of brevity, I choose to make general remarks.

I believe (a term I rarely use, for reasons I won't elaborate on here) that we are on the same page here. At least for 99.98% of the substantive issues.

Choosing between third party voting, and Proportional Rep/IRV, I believe I've already answered. Voting for my choice of third party, the Green Party, is available to anyone. If the GP is on the ballot, and even if not, there's the write-in option.

Prop Rep/IRV is not readily available, requires changes in electoral law, and the obstacles to that I've adumbrated in my previous posts. The Republicrats aren't about to let it happen. Hence my call for an end run initiated, demanded and won by NVDA.

To repeat and answer your repetitive questions (which we both know you're really good at asking!) one isn't more important than the other (PR vs. voting Green) but one is more available than the other. See my previous two paragraphs for the details.

"Multiple point strategy for systemic change"? Read my stuff. Educate, Agitate, Organize. Raise the cost of evil policies to the point where they are no longer profitable for those in charge. Read my upcoming book (if I ever get around to writing it) Organize Your Way Out Of A Paper Bag: Or, What I've learned in 35 Years of Activism.

Form vs. Content, just one conceptual trope. It's a matter of interpretation. And it's all good.

Thank you for your vivid defense of us Greens against the slanders that are repeatedly launched by Democrats unwilling to reflect on their own responsibility for the mess we're all in. You put it very well. As did Hotspring44 and Phloem today.

Home from a great birthday party potluck for my friend Bruce. Saw lots of my old AceHole friends that I haven't seen in a couple of years.

Bruce wants to negotiate a barter exchange of survival skills between indigenous cultures in Africa, and we who are facing impending economic, social and psychological crisis (if we're not in the thick of it already).

Sounds good to me!

Tired, must rest.

[Valley Oak]

To all of this, I would like to provide a link to the Sonoma County Green Party's website, which still publishes an article I wrote back in January of 2006. My pen name is "Edward Roble" only because the good people who published my blog mistook my old email address, "...roble@..." for my last name:

https://www.sonomagreenparty.org/pag...s/eronpp.shtml

Enjoy,

Edward

Edward...