[Vision2020] Third party support (resp. to Auntie E.)
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
--0-274458492-1083271771=:3931
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Joan,
( Sorry if this is an ancient discussion I'm responding to--but I haven't had time to do V2020 stuff lately.)
You mention that you'll will vote for Kerry because he's the best of your limited options. That makes sense. You identify as a Democrat and seem to be fairly happy with the two party system generally. Cool.
Supporting 3rd parties makes a lot of sense to me though. Mainly because supporting either of the official two party options--especially this year-- makes makes little or none.
The American election system and therefore democratic participation itself is in danger in the US. The largest party is not the GOP or Democrat but those who don't see any choice worth supporting at all. Only around half of the registered voters vote in presidential elections and only around half of those eligible bother to register. The numbers in off-year elections are often much worse. It's easy to dismiss this phenomenon as the result of sheer laziness--a part of it certainly is. But what of the many would-be voters who simply observe, with good reason in many cases, that their vote won't make any difference anyway?
These participation numbers should be warning signs that the US government is and has been lacking something a democracy had gotta have---the consent of the governed. It would be logical, given these circumstances (and if the leaders were really concerned with a healthy democracy) for the two official major parties to welcome 3rd parties as a source of new ideas from the grassroots and vehicles for disaffected voters to find a voice.
But of course nothing is as important as maintaining even a very unhealthy/dysfunctional status quo for the two majors.
Upwards of 60% of the American people would like strong third or fourth choices in elections. Yet the two major parties continue their repressive policies and efforts to quash 3rd party efforts.
In many states the ballot access laws are carefully laid traps for smaller parties. The party spends much of its limited money and time just getting on the ballot. Then, even if successful in gaining access, it is left with few or no resources for a campaign.
Likewise, the two official parties continue their repressive collusion in refusing to allow open political debate. For example, the corporately funded "Debate Commission" that governed the rules for the debate in 2000 did not even attempt to be even-handed. It laid down restrictions specifically designed to leave third parties out. Draconian restrictions requiring certain poll numbers for participants ensured that only the big two candidates would be allowed. Certain poll levels were required for candidate participation, yet the other candidates were unable to get their views known in order to influence those same polls.
Joseph Heller would be thrilled.
No one wants or is calling for a presidential debate requiring a cattle call of 200 candidates---most from one-person political parties. There has to be some measure to narrow the field.
But why not allow the American people to hear the views of all candidates who are on enough state ballots so that they have a mathematical chance of being elected?
A three, four or five way debate?
Sure, why not?
What are we afraid of guys?
Ideas?
As far as Ralph Nader is concerned, one of his major concerns is for the long term political health of our country. He wants to address this situation by helping to break the two party monopoly. That's one of the main reasons that as soon as Nader announced, the Terry McAuliffe Democrats were ready and waiting with with their pre-prepared and curiously psychoanalytical "vain and egotistical" criticism echoed in your post.
The Demos apparently look upon certain voters as property instead of people who can exercise free will in casting a ballot for whoever best reflects their views.
Ralph threatens their private property.
Vain and egotistical?
Hmm...remember the old saying about how when we point our fingers three more are pointing back at us? It applies triple to McAuliffe and his Democratic Leadership Council buddies.
(Also, Nader wasn't able to run as a Green because the Greens will not nominate until this summer---much to late for him to gain ballot access in many states---but he will accept any nomination as a candidate by the Green Party.)
As far as voting for Kerry in Idaho is concerned. If voting for him makes you feel good personally then cool.
But it's not BS to state that it won't make a bit of practical difference.
You mentioned that Idaho voters have elected statewide Democrat officeholders. (Although the Demos do seem to have hit a new low this year by failing to even nominate a token Senatorial challenge to Mike Crapo) But state offices weren't what was being discussed.
You're correct that trends change over time, but the State of Idaho's trend of voting for every GOP candidate since 1964 isn't going to in '04. Not when the Democrats nominate a Mass.Teddy Kennedy buddy. We both know that.
So voting for a third party candidate makes sense. It makes sense to support those who share the goal of expanding political debate and preserving truly free elections.
TL
Joan Opyr <auntiestablishment@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tim says:
>
>Planet Reality?
>Reality is that GW is going to take Idaho by a 10-18% margin.
>
>So, if you believe that we need more choices, why waste your vote on Kerry
>when he has no chance here?
>Picking the strongest third party candidate and voting for him/her will at
>least encourage the folks who actually may succeed in giving us more
>choices in the future.
>Voting for a candidate you don't particularly like and who's sure to lose
>the state doesn't improve anything.
Well, Tim, I suppose I'll be voting for Kerry because he represents the best
of my limited options. I don't support Lyndon LaRouche, or the
Libertarians, or the Reform Party, or the American Taxpayers' Party, and I
certainly can't envision ever voting for anyone the Natural Law Party
vomited up. Kerry is not my dream candidate, but we agree on enough that I
would feel comfortable with him in the Oval Office. I supported Howard Dean
in the primaries, and then John Edwards, but Kerry won fair and square, and
I am, first and foremost, a Democrat. Come November, I will unite with the
rest of the party. You might call this lock-step toadyism; I call it party
politics. As The Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want,
but if you try sometime, you might just find, you get what you need."
Kerry served his country honorably in Vietnam, an important factor for me,
and despite the Bush campaign's misleading multi-million dollar smear ads,
Kerry's Senate record shows that he is strong on defense. We disagree on
NAFTA and on the gay marriage issue, but I can live with his positions on
both. I wholeheartedly support Kerry's call for a return to fiscal
responsibility. He's already begun to assemble the remnants of the Clinton
economic team, and they are sketching out plans for balancing the federal
budget, reducing our untenable trade deficit, and stemming the hemmorhage of
high tech and manufacturing jobs. So, though Kerry is not charismatic or
especially visionary, I do think he's bright and competent, and those
qualities alone would make for a marked improvement over our current
governance.
About third party possibilities: there are a variety of reasons why I'm not
voting for Ralph Nader, though his views on many issues are much closer to
my own than Kerry's. For one thing, this year Ralph is running for himself.
He's not representing the Green Party, and the Green Party, at present, is
the only third party I'd care to support. (And I only support them insofar
as I think the Democrats have strayed too far from progressivism.) Ralph
is, I think, vainly and egotistically running the risk of a 2000
repeat--drawing off just enough progressives in battleground states to give
Bush the electoral edge. That, in my opinion, is the nightmare scenario.
As for my Democratic vote not counting in Idaho, to put it impolitely,
bullsh*t. Democrats have been elected to statewide office within living
memory. When I moved to Idaho, Democrat Cecil Andrus was governor and
Democrat Larry LaRocco was our District 1 Congressman. No single party in
any state has a lock on the electorate forever. (When I was growing up in
the South, the Democrats had a stranglehold on the region. No Republican
could even get a look in. My, how unpleasantly times have changed.) The
pendulum swings, and I will continue to do my one-person, one-vote part to
give it a push in the right direction. George W. Bush will probably carry
this state, though perhaps not by the margin you suggest. I won't help him,
however, and I'll use my vote this year, just as in 2000, to give the
Democratic candidate the popular majority. As one of the half million
voters who gave Al Gore the popular if not the electoral mandate, my
conscience is clear. That might not count for you, Tim, but it counts for
me.
Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
_________________________________________________________________
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
--0-274458492-1083271771=:3931
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>Joan,</DIV>
<DIV> ( Sorry if this is an ancient discussion I'm responding to--but I haven't had time to do V2020 stuff lately.) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> You mention that you'll will vote for Kerry because he's the best of your limited options. That makes sense. You identify as a Democrat and seem to be fairly happy with the two party system generally. Cool.</DIV>
<DIV> <BR> Supporting 3rd parties makes a lot of sense to me though. Mainly because supporting either of the official two party options--especially this year-- makes makes little or none.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The American election system and therefore democratic participation itself is in danger in the US. The largest party is not the GOP or Democrat but those who don't see any choice worth supporting at all. Only around half of the registered voters vote in presidential elections and only around half of those eligible bother to register. The numbers in off-year elections are often much worse. It's easy to dismiss this phenomenon as the result of sheer laziness--a part of it certainly is. But what of the many would-be voters who simply observe, with good reason in many cases, that their vote won't make any difference anyway? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> These participation numbers should be warning signs that the US government is and has been lacking something a democracy had gotta have---the consent of the governed. It would be logical, given these circumstances (and if the leaders were really concerned with a healthy democracy) for the two official major parties to welcome 3rd parties as a source of new ideas from the grassroots and vehicles for disaffected voters to find a voice. </DIV>
<DIV> But of course nothing is as important as maintaining even a very unhealthy/dysfunctional status quo for the two majors.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Upwards of 60% of the American people would like strong third or fourth choices in elections. Yet the two major parties continue their repressive policies and efforts to quash 3rd party efforts. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In many states the ballot access laws are carefully laid traps for smaller parties. The party spends much of its limited money and time just getting on the ballot. Then, even if successful in gaining access, it is left with few or no resources for a campaign. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Likewise, the two official parties continue their repressive collusion in refusing to allow open political debate. For example, the corporately funded "Debate Commission" that governed the rules for the debate in 2000 did not even attempt to be even-handed. It laid down restrictions specifically designed to leave third parties out. Draconian restrictions requiring certain poll numbers for participants ensured that only the big two candidates would be allowed. Certain poll levels were required for candidate participation, yet the other candidates were unable to get their views known in order to influence those same polls. </DIV>
<DIV> Joseph Heller would be thrilled. <BR> </DIV>
<DIV> No one wants or is calling for a presidential debate requiring a cattle call of 200 candidates---most from one-person political parties. There has to be some measure to narrow the field. </DIV>
<DIV> But why not allow the American people to hear the views of all candidates who are on enough state ballots so that they have a mathematical chance of being elected?</DIV>
<DIV> A three, four or five way debate? </DIV>
<DIV> Sure, why not? </DIV>
<DIV> What are we afraid of guys? </DIV>
<DIV> Ideas? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As far as Ralph Nader is concerned, one of his major concerns is for the long term political health of our country. He wants to address this situation by helping to break the two party monopoly. That's one of the main reasons that as soon as Nader announced, the Terry McAuliffe Democrats were ready and waiting with with their pre-prepared and curiously psychoanalytical "vain and egotistical" criticism echoed in your post. </DIV>
<DIV>The Demos apparently look upon certain voters as property instead of people who can exercise free will in casting a ballot for whoever best reflects their views. </DIV>
<DIV>Ralph threatens their private property. </DIV>
<DIV>Vain and egotistical? </DIV>
<DIV>Hmm...remember the old saying about how when we point our fingers three more are pointing back at us? It applies triple to McAuliffe and his Democratic Leadership Council buddies.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(Also, Nader wasn't able to run as a Green because the Greens will not nominate until this summer---much to late for him to gain ballot access in many states---but he will accept any nomination as a candidate by the Green Party.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As far as voting for Kerry in Idaho is concerned. If voting for him makes you feel good personally then cool.</DIV>
<DIV>But it's not BS to state that it won't make a bit of practical difference. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You mentioned that Idaho voters have elected statewide Democrat officeholders. (Although the Demos do seem to have hit a new low this year by failing to even nominate a token Senatorial challenge to Mike Crapo) But state offices weren't what was being discussed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You're correct that trends change over time, but the State of Idaho's trend of voting for every GOP candidate since 1964 isn't going to in '04. Not when the Democrats nominate a Mass.Teddy Kennedy buddy. We both know that.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So voting for a third party candidate makes sense. It makes sense to support those who share the goal of expanding political debate and preserving truly free elections. </DIV>
<DIV> TL</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><B><I></I></B>
<DIV><B><I></I></B> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><B><I></I></B> </DIV>
<DIV><B><I>Joan Opyr <auntiestablishment@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Tim says:<BR>><BR>>Planet Reality?<BR>>Reality is that GW is going to take Idaho by a 10-18% margin.<BR>><BR>>So, if you believe that we need more choices, why waste your vote on Kerry <BR>>when he has no chance here?<BR>>Picking the strongest third party candidate and voting for him/her will at <BR>>least encourage the folks who actually may succeed in giving us more <BR>>choices in the future.<BR>>Voting for a candidate you don't particularly like and who's sure to lose <BR>>the state doesn't improve anything.<BR><BR><BR>Well, Tim, I suppose I'll be voting for Kerry because he represents the best <BR>of my limited options. I don't support Lyndon LaRouche, or the <BR>Libertarians, or the Reform Party, or the American Taxpayers' Party, and I <BR>certainly can't envision ever voting for anyone the Natural Law Party <BR>vomited up. Kerry is not !
my dream
candidate, but we agree on enough that I <BR>would feel comfortable with him in the Oval Office. I supported Howard Dean <BR>in the primaries, and then John Edwards, but Kerry won fair and square, and <BR>I am, first and foremost, a Democrat. Come November, I will unite with the <BR>rest of the party. You might call this lock-step toadyism; I call it party <BR>politics. As The Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want, <BR>but if you try sometime, you might just find, you get what you need."<BR><BR>Kerry served his country honorably in Vietnam, an important factor for me, <BR>and despite the Bush campaign's misleading multi-million dollar smear ads, <BR>Kerry's Senate record shows that he is strong on defense. We disagree on <BR>NAFTA and on the gay marriage issue, but I can live with his positions on <BR>both. I wholeheartedly support Kerry's call for a return to fiscal <BR>responsibility. He's already begun to assemble the remnants of the Clinton <BR>econom!
ic team,
and they are sketching out plans for balancing the federal <BR>budget, reducing our untenable trade deficit, and stemming the hemmorhage of <BR>high tech and manufacturing jobs. So, though Kerry is not charismatic or <BR>especially visionary, I do think he's bright and competent, and those <BR>qualities alone would make for a marked improvement over our current <BR>governance.<BR><BR>About third party possibilities: there are a variety of reasons why I'm not <BR>voting for Ralph Nader, though his views on many issues are much closer to <BR>my own than Kerry's. For one thing, this year Ralph is running for himself. <BR>He's not representing the Green Party, and the Green Party, at present, is <BR>the only third party I'd care to support. (And I only support them insofar <BR>as I think the Democrats have strayed too far from progressivism.) Ralph <BR>is, I think, vainly and egotistically running the risk of a 2000 <BR>repeat--drawing off just enough progressives in battlegrou!
nd states
to give <BR>Bush the electoral edge. That, in my opinion, is the nightmare scenario.<BR><BR>As for my Democratic vote not counting in Idaho, to put it impolitely, <BR>bullsh*t. Democrats have been elected to statewide office within living <BR>memory. When I moved to Idaho, Democrat Cecil Andrus was governor and <BR>Democrat Larry LaRocco was our District 1 Congressman. No single party in <BR>any state has a lock on the electorate forever. (When I was growing up in <BR>the South, the Democrats had a stranglehold on the region. No Republican <BR>could even get a look in. My, how unpleasantly times have changed.) The <BR>pendulum swings, and I will continue to do my one-person, one-vote part to <BR>give it a push in the right direction. George W. Bush will probably carry <BR>this state, though perhaps not by the margin you suggest. I won't help him, <BR>however, and I'll use my vote this year, just as in 2000, to give the <BR>Democratic candidate the popular majority. As one o!
f the
half million <BR>voters who gave Al Gore the popular if not the electoral mandate, my <BR>conscience is clear. That might not count for you, Tim, but it counts for <BR>me.<BR><BR>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE! <BR>http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/<BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p>
<hr size=1><font face=arial size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br><a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/hotjobs/hotjobs_mail_signature_footer_textlink/evt=23983/*http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover">Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs </a>
--0-274458492-1083271771=:3931--