[Vision2020] Third party support--Resp. to Donovan A.
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
--0-2110081032-1083271856=:58039
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Donovan,
(Sorry if this is a way-old discussion I'm responding to. But I haven't had time to do any V2020 "stuff" lately.)
I can certainly understand your views on Bush, lots of people share'em.
However, I see Bush as more of a symptom of our current political system's crisis. GW was nominated solely because the leadership of the GOP thought his name identification would be enough to get him into the White House against a weak, unimaginative Democrat campaign. Like it or not they were right.
They were right because the two parties have reduced elections to a dull focus on impressions, personality, and emotional identification rather than issues.
I'm sure you'll agree that third parties have historically been a rich source of ideas and methods for changing fundamental problems with which grassroots Americans are concerned. They have addressed concerns which the elite two party leadership were most often either unwilling or unable to handle.
Agrarian and populist movements forced anti-trust legislation in the early parts of the last century. Left-wing parties forced the two parties to pass labor rights legislation during the Depression. There are many other examples.
As far as the current political crisis is concerned, I don't understand your use of the term "radical" as synonymous with third party efforts.
Opinion polls repeatedly show that a solid majority of Americans favor more choices in elections. Yet, the two parties continue to engage in repressive policies towards these efforts. It seems that the real radicals are those in the two-party leadership positions who use their resources to deny Americans the choices they desire. Political repression is radical. The desire to make democracy work for the citizens is mainstream.
As a political scientist, you no doubt know that the most fundamental danger to a system of government is when that government does not have the consent of the governed. That is exactly the situation that our government finds itself in. Even in presidential elections only around 50% of registered voters see fit to participate in elections. And not only that, but only around half of those eligible to vote bother to register. So, clearly, and for whatever reason, our elections are not accomplishing their function of gaining the consent of the people.
Just laziness you might say. But many give another reason for their non-participation--that their vote will not make any difference or that they don't see any real difference between the choices offered.
Given this situation, it would seem logical that the rational response would be to remove the obstacles to those who would provide more choices. Yet, as mentioned above, the two party bigwigs continue to do everything in their power to repress the possiblity of new voices from being heard. They're good at it too. They fearfully accomplish this through draconian ballot-access requirements, ridiculous requirements for debate participation, and etc.
You mention that "people" do not want candidates "like us." If this is so, why do the elite candidates constantly try and reassure us that (no matter how ridiculous it might seem and appear at times) they are indeed just down-home folks? Witness the countless farcical photo-ops of candidates flipping pancakes, walking through barnyards, reading to school children, gobbling sausages etc. etc.
Clearly, and contrary to your suggestion, the candidates realize that people do want leadership that is in touch with the concerns of the middle and lower class. But since the political party leadership allows only the well-connected to be seen as "serious" candidates, the electorate must settle for voting for whichever false populist is served up.
You state that not voting for one of the two major party candidates shows an "unwillingnes to compromise with the rest of your 300 million Americans."
This is puzzling. Compromise with which Americans? The few who identify and support the two major parties?
As I've mentioned, the participation rate by Americans in the elections as they are currently run is dismal at best. It would appear instead, that the number of Americans who have any faith at all in the election system are the minority. Indeed, a typical presidential election prompts only a 50% turnout of eligible voters and only around half of those eligible bother to register.
Hmmm...you do the math.
I would prefer to "compromise" with the majority of Americans who want more choices and options in political expression.
Your discussion of Idaho's current political system is an excellent argument for allowing third parties to more fairly compete.
If, as I think you correctly contend, the Idaho GOP is too big and out of touch----then wouldn't it be a healthy development if the GOP would split into a couple or three different factions with separate party lines?
Liberalizing third party ballot access laws and requirements could certainly facilitate this.
Idaho is a for all intents and purposes a one party state. The Democrats are so weakened that they are not offering an opponent of any kind to the sitting GOP Senator Mike Crapo. Their challenger to Butch Otter can only be called token. Surely allowing new leadership and new parties couldn't be a bad thing given this sad state of affairs.
You are correct in a sense when you state that "the only thing stable about politics is that politics is anything but stable." In political campaigns themselves it's true that a month can be a political lifetime. However, the fact that the State of Idaho hasn't given its electoral votes to a Democrat since 1964 is indeed a sign of stability.
I'm sure you don't seriously believe that this election will buck the trend do you?
When the Democrats offer an elitist, blue-blooded candidate from Massachussets?
So, in effect, a vote for John Kerry will make no practical difference whatsoever.
In my view then, a vote for Kerry or Bush is indeed wasted.
I will vote for a third party candidate because I want to support those who favor the long term vision of structural change in our election system that is needed to help preserve a democratic system in this country.
TL
Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tim,
I have to mostly agree with Joan. While I don't think Kerry represents me,
he is the only real alternative to Bush. I want Bush gone. He is destroying
this country militarily, economically, diplomatically, and constitutionally.
He is far worse than his father or Reagan. The only way to remove Bush is to
vote for the Democratic Nominee. That nominee happens to be Kerry.
Therefore, I am voting for Kerry.
Radical movements do not start at the top with the Presidency. They start on
the local level with local officials and offices.
There are plenty of radical candidates out there. However, people are not
comfortable with radical people being the chief executive officer of the
country and in charge of the world's largest military.
They want someone, not like us, as you suggest, but someone smarter than us,
someone well educated and well experienced in handling crisis situations and
managing complex issues.
The chance to vote for candidates that represent more radical views is over.
It was called the primaries. I was for Clark, and then Kucinich. They lost,
so now I must choose between Kerry and Bush. I gladly choose Kerry.
Voting for someone other than Kerry or Bush in this election is choosing to
forfeit your vote and helping the candidate that least fits your views.
Anyone can run in the Republican or Democratic Primaries. It is open to all.
Nobody is being shut out other then most people don't have enough money to
run a nation-wide campaign. This is how we narrow the election down to two
final contestants.
I suggest you decide to vote for Kerry or Bush. To not do so is to say that
you are unwilling to compromise with 300 million other Americans and you
will only have it exactly your way. Nonetheless, it is your right to vote
for someone you least want in office.
In terms of Idaho going Republican, I would say that this is most likely
true for 2004. But it was not in Idaho's recent past and most likely will
not be true in the near future. The Idaho Republican Party is attacking and
trying to eliminate its own moderate members while the residents of Idaho
are moving to the center and left. Not to mention the Republicans are not
doing a bang up job with running the state at the moment in case you didnt
notice.
As a Political Scientist I can tell you that the only thing stable about
politics is that politics is anything but stable.
Sincerely,
Donovan J Arnold
_________________________________________________________________
>From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring
Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx
_____________________________________________________
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
--0-2110081032-1083271856=:58039
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>Donovan, </DIV>
<DIV> (Sorry if this is a way-old discussion I'm responding to. But I haven't had time to do any V2020 "stuff" lately.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I can certainly understand your views on Bush, lots of people share'em.</DIV>
<DIV> However, I see Bush as more of a symptom of our current political system's crisis. GW was nominated solely because the leadership of the GOP thought his name identification would be enough to get him into the White House against a weak, unimaginative Democrat campaign. Like it or not they were right. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> They were right because the two parties have reduced elections to a dull focus on impressions, personality, and emotional identification rather than issues.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I'm sure you'll agree that third parties have historically been a rich source of ideas and methods for changing fundamental problems with which grassroots Americans are concerned. They have addressed concerns which the elite two party leadership were most often either unwilling or unable to handle.</DIV>
<DIV> Agrarian and populist movements forced anti-trust legislation in the early parts of the last century. Left-wing parties forced the two parties to pass labor rights legislation during the Depression. There are many other examples. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> As far as the current political crisis is concerned, I don't understand your use of the term "radical" as synonymous with third party efforts. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Opinion polls repeatedly show that a solid majority of Americans favor more choices in elections. Yet, the two parties continue to engage in repressive policies towards these efforts. It seems that the real radicals are those in the two-party leadership positions who use their resources to deny Americans the choices they desire. Political repression is radical. The desire to make democracy work for the citizens is mainstream. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> As a political scientist, you no doubt know that the most fundamental danger to a system of government is when that government does not have the consent of the governed. That is exactly the situation that our government finds itself in. Even in presidential elections only around 50% of registered voters see fit to participate in elections. And not only that, but only around half of those eligible to vote bother to register. So, clearly, and for whatever reason, our elections are not accomplishing their function of gaining the consent of the people.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Just laziness you might say. But many give another reason for their non-participation--that their vote will not make any difference or that they don't see any real difference between the choices offered. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Given this situation, it would seem logical that the rational response would be to remove the obstacles to those who would provide more choices. Yet, as mentioned above, the two party bigwigs continue to do everything in their power to repress the possiblity of new voices from being heard. They're good at it too. They fearfully accomplish this through draconian ballot-access requirements, ridiculous requirements for debate participation, and etc. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> You mention that "people" do not want candidates "like us." If this is so, why do the elite candidates constantly try and reassure us that (no matter how ridiculous it might seem and appear at times) they are indeed just down-home folks? Witness the countless farcical photo-ops of candidates flipping pancakes, walking through barnyards, reading to school children, gobbling sausages etc. etc. </DIV>
<DIV> Clearly, and contrary to your suggestion, the candidates realize that people do want leadership that is in touch with the concerns of the middle and lower class. But since the political party leadership allows only the well-connected to be seen as "serious" candidates, the electorate must settle for voting for whichever false populist is served up. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> You state that not voting for one of the two major party candidates shows an "unwillingnes to compromise with the rest of your 300 million Americans." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> This is puzzling. Compromise with which Americans? The few who identify and support the two major parties?</DIV>
<DIV> As I've mentioned, the participation rate by Americans in the elections as they are currently run is dismal at best. It would appear instead, that the number of Americans who have any faith at all in the election system are the minority. Indeed, a typical presidential election prompts only a 50% turnout of eligible voters and only around half of those eligible bother to register. </DIV>
<DIV> Hmmm...you do the math. </DIV>
<DIV> I would prefer to "compromise" with the majority of Americans who want more choices and options in political expression. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Your discussion of Idaho's current political system is an excellent argument for allowing third parties to more fairly compete. </DIV>
<DIV> If, as I think you correctly contend, the Idaho GOP is too big and out of touch----then wouldn't it be a healthy development if the GOP would split into a couple or three different factions with separate party lines? </DIV>
<DIV> Liberalizing third party ballot access laws and requirements could certainly facilitate this. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Idaho is a for all intents and purposes a one party state. The Democrats are so weakened that they are not offering an opponent of any kind to the sitting GOP Senator Mike Crapo. Their challenger to Butch Otter can only be called token. Surely allowing new leadership and new parties couldn't be a bad thing given this sad state of affairs. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> You are correct in a sense when you state that "the only thing stable about politics is that politics is anything but stable." In political campaigns themselves it's true that a month can be a political lifetime. However, the fact that the State of Idaho hasn't given its electoral votes to a Democrat since 1964 is indeed a sign of stability. </DIV>
<DIV> I'm sure you don't seriously believe that this election will buck the trend do you? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> When the Democrats offer an elitist, blue-blooded candidate from Massachussets?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> So, in effect, a vote for John Kerry will make no practical difference whatsoever. </DIV>
<DIV> In my view then, a vote for Kerry or Bush is indeed wasted. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I will vote for a third party candidate because I want to support those who favor the long term vision of structural change in our election system that is needed to help preserve a democratic system in this country. </DIV>
<DIV> TL</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> <BR><BR><B><I>Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Tim,<BR><BR>I have to mostly agree with Joan. While I don't think Kerry represents me, <BR>he is the only real alternative to Bush. I want Bush gone. He is destroying <BR>this country militarily, economically, diplomatically, and constitutionally.<BR><BR>He is far worse than his father or Reagan. The only way to remove Bush is to <BR>vote for the Democratic Nominee. That nominee happens to be Kerry. <BR>Therefore, I am voting for Kerry.<BR><BR>Radical movements do not start at the top with the Presidency. They start on <BR>the local level with local officials and offices.<BR><BR>There are plenty of radical candidates out there. However, people are not <BR>comfortable with radical people being the chief executive officer of the <BR>country and in charge of the world's largest military.<BR><BR>They want someone, not like us, as you suggest, but someone smarter than us, <BR>some!
one well
educated and well experienced in handling crisis situations and <BR>managing complex issues.<BR><BR>The chance to vote for candidates that represent more radical views is over. <BR>It was called the primaries. I was for Clark, and then Kucinich. They lost, <BR>so now I must choose between Kerry and Bush. I gladly choose Kerry.<BR><BR>Voting for someone other than Kerry or Bush in this election is choosing to <BR>forfeit your vote and helping the candidate that least fits your views.<BR><BR>Anyone can run in the Republican or Democratic Primaries. It is open to all. <BR>Nobody is being shut out other then most people don't have enough money to <BR>run a nation-wide campaign. This is how we narrow the election down to two <BR>final contestants.<BR><BR>I suggest you decide to vote for Kerry or Bush. To not do so is to say that <BR>you are unwilling to compromise with 300 million other Americans and you <BR>will only have it exactly your way. Nonetheless, it is your right to vo!
te
<BR>for someone you least want in office.<BR><BR>In terms of Idaho going Republican, I would say that this is most likely <BR>true for 2004. But it was not in Idaho's recent past and most likely will <BR>not be true in the near future. The Idaho Republican Party is attacking and <BR>trying to eliminate its own moderate members while the residents of Idaho <BR>are moving to the center and left. Not to mention the Republicans are not <BR>doing a bang up job with running the state at the moment in case you didnt <BR>notice.<BR><BR>As a Political Scientist I can tell you that the only thing stable about <BR>politics is that politics is anything but stable.<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR>Donovan J Arnold<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>>From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring <BR>Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx<BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR>L!
ist
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>
--0-2110081032-1083271856=:58039--