Curious for Mike's opinion on the news about PA's Green Party Senate Candidate [Archive]

Mike Smash!

08-02-2006, 04:06 PM

Also, the money given to Romanelli's campaign was spent entirely on paid signature gatherers because of the shitty ballot access laws in PA, which require people like the Greens to gather tens of thousands within weeks to even get your name printed on the ballot when the big two get on for free.

From Ballot Access News:

Daily Kos Mis-Informs its Readers
August 2nd, 2006

On August 2, Daily Kos reported that conservatives are responsible for paying “all but $30″ of the costs for getting the Pennsylvania Green Party statewide candidates on the ballot. The truth is that Pennsylvania Green volunteers got 30,000 signatures (just as they did in 2004, when the party got on with an all-volunteer effort), and the remaining 65,000 signatures were paid circulators.

Daily Kos should consider that the real motivation of the conservative donors who contributed to the paid petition effort was not so much to get the Green Party on the ballot, as to trick the Democrats into acting like a bully. The Democratic Party of Pennsylvania has fallen into this trap, with the announcement today that the party will challenge the Green petitions. In 2002, the Pennsylvania Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Ed Rendell, actually signed the statewide Green Party petition, to show that the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania was confident, open-minded, and not afraid of competition. Rendell was elected. The face of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party in 2006 has changed.

And it's amazing that they will challenge the Greens' right to be on the ballot, not based on problems with their legitimacy, but out of the arrogance to assume that no one but them has the right to run for office.

The same shit is being pulled currently in Illinois as we speak. The Greens in an all-volunteer effort gathered 39,000 signatures to put their slate of candidates on the ballot (more than the 25,000 required within 90 days) and within an hour of them filing the signatures with the Board of Elections, the Democratic Party's lawyer filed an objection and demanded copies of the signatures so that they could attempt to toss them either off the ballot, or bankrupt them with legal challenges.

It's disgusting and amazingly, when the Republican fail to live up to their own meager obligations for ballot access, they give them a slide. In 2004, the Bush campaign in FL failed to turn in the appropriate paperwork for Bush's ballot access for more than a week past the deadline, but the Democrats didn't challenge his right to be on the ballot? Who DID they challenge on a technicality? Ralph Nader.

Such utter bullshit and yet, we're the bad guys...

Mike Smash!

08-02-2006, 04:25 PM

More from Ballot Access News (http://www.ballot-access.org/):

Pennsylvania Democrats Will Challenge Green Petition
August 2nd, 2006

On August 2, the state chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party said that the Democrats will challenge the Green statewide petition. This is only the second time in the last 60 years that any minor party or statewide petition has been challenged in Pennsylvania; the first time was in 2004, when Democrats challenged Nader’s independent petition.

How is this anything other than disgustingly undemocratic, acting like you own peoples' votes by taking any other options away?

Sam

08-02-2006, 05:19 PM

It's not the Greens' fault for that and it's amazing how nobody screams at Democrats who receive funds from many of the same Republicans. I can guarantee that Casey has gotten Republican money and support as well.

I think it's also fairly safe to say that no Democrat has ever had every single dollar of his campaign, minus $30 from the candidate himself, financed by Republicans. Or directly paid for by the Republican candidate he's running against.

That's what makes this so blatantly cheap -- it's not just that Republicans are donating. It's that the Rick Santorum campaign fund has donated to the Green candidate.

I know people that know Carl Romanelli and they say he's a good, principled, progressive guy without the vast resources of the major parties.

Oh, that's part of what makes this so interesting. I'd bet dollars to donuts Carl Romanelli is quite principled and really believes in his platform. And what is he gonna do, turn down campaign money?

Yet, Romanelli is the bad guy for giving people another choice on the ballot.

I don't think he's the bad guy. His presence on the ballot is a naked attempt at creating a spoiler for the election, though -- the entire process of getting him the signatures to get onto the ballot was directly funded by the Santorum campaign.

moebius

08-02-2006, 05:40 PM

If this was Germany, the Greens would get my vote about 50% of the time.

This isn't Germany.

If the Greens want to change the system, start at the state and local level where you have pockets of strength (much like the German Greens did in the early 1980s) and concentrate your resources there. Do good work once you get elected, and overcome the image that you're "out of touch" with mainstream voters. Push for electoral change at those levels, which will grow your organization and add to your legitimacy as you do better in subsequent elections.

Running for high state or federal office is a terrible idea. It's no secret that strategic voting means you won't win. Moreover, you're wasting resources that could go to viable candidates. Not to mention the possibility that you might peel off enough voters to swing the election.

Say what you want about 2000, but it's no secret that Nader was dead wrong when he said there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore. There's a pretty strong case to be made for the counterfactual: we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, we wouldn't be getting screwed on energy prices and we wouldn't be running historic deficits.

Gingold

08-02-2006, 05:48 PM

Geez, Santorum's people must be scared. I've nothing against Romanelli, and if the system worked differently, I'd probably vote for him. But I'm voting for Casey.

Mike Smash!

08-02-2006, 06:53 PM

I think it's also fairly safe to say that no Democrat has ever had every single dollar of his campaign, minus $30 from the candidate himself, financed by Republicans. Or directly paid for by the Republican candidate he's running against.

The $30 remark is inaccurate. The Republican money was donated fto the ballot access drive, not his entire campaign. 30,000 of his signatures were done with volunteers, the last 65,000 with paid petitioners.

Of course, he wouldn't have to gather so many goddamn signatures in the first place if the Ds and Rs didn't get the barriers so high for third parties.

That's what makes this so blatantly cheap -- it's not just that Republicans are donating. It's that the Rick Santorum campaign fund has donated to the Green candidate.

So how is Romanelli the bad guy in this and not Santorum? How about instead of demonizing the Green and trying to toss him off the ballot, they change the election laws to institute things like IRV and PR?

Oh wait, that would mean they could wield an arrogant monopoly on power.

Oh, that's part of what makes this so interesting. I'd bet dollars to donuts Carl Romanelli is quite principled and really believes in his platform. And what is he gonna do, turn down campaign money?

Especially when you're running a grassroots campaign that many times operates hand to mouth, do you really think we have time to walk away from gathering tens of thousands of signatures and fighting to even get mentioned in the media to do complete background checks on everyone that donates?

I don't think he's the bad guy. His presence on the ballot is a naked attempt at creating a spoiler for the election, though -- the entire process of getting him the signatures to get onto the ballot was directly funded by the Santorum campaign.

The spoiler argument is bullshit. Voters deserve a choice on the ballot that isn't pro-war and pro-life. Only in the U.S. are third party candidates treated this war where we're at fault and not say, the two parties that write the elections laws that allow the "spoiler" shit to even be an issue.

spoon_jenkins

08-02-2006, 06:55 PM

See, I'm suspicious of some of the support for Greens. Sometimes you see some folks (I believe even on CBR) who voted for Bush and Republicans, and now they're like, supporting Greens is a good idea. Seems to me that there's a significant group of folks who just want to find any way to keep Democrats from taking back Congress. When you see people who are strongly conservative and take the substantive agree with Republican positions and despise Democratic position trying to stir support for a party that's consider further Left than the Democrats, it looks awfully Machiavellian.

Tons of conservative see that the country is at a tipping point. The election could swing many seats to more liberal folks. Their problem is that the motivation to support Republicans is so low. They can't muster the votes to beat certain Democrats one on one, so the only viable strategy is to siphon Democrats off to Greens so that the Right Wing candidate ends up on top.

If the Greens want to change the system, start at the state and local level where you have pockets of strength (much like the German Greens did in the early 1980s) and concentrate your resources there. Do good work once you get elected, and overcome the image that you're "out of touch" with mainstream voters. Push for electoral change at those levels, which will grow your organization and add to your legitimacy as you do better in subsequent elections.

Running for high state or federal office is a terrible idea. It's no secret that strategic voting means you won't win. Moreover, you're wasting resources that could go to viable candidates. Not to mention the possibility that you might peel off enough voters to swing the election.
I agree with those so much. The Greens strategy isn't conducive to actual political change. They ought to focus on winning key races to build a party (and start to have folks with a track record of governing) rather than being spoilers who end up moving Congress to the Right.

It really bugs me that Greens are willing to use the Adrian Veidt strategy of electoral politics. It seems like they could love their country that much if willing to pull votes in unwinnable races and drives Congress dramatically Rightward. The Right has too much damage already. Why entrench them even more? The smart thing to do would be to focus their efforts so they could win rarely rather than never winning an spoiling a lot. A smart strategy would be to focus on change ballot access, fundraising laws, etc. to build for the future.

It doesn't make people think that the Green Party is serious about real change when they do stuff like pick a VP candidate (Winona LaDuke in 2000) who doesn't even bother to campaign. It makes it look like they think politics is a game rather than something with real, important consequences.

Mike Smash!

08-02-2006, 07:08 PM

If the Greens want to change the system, start at the state and local level where you have pockets of strength (much like the German Greens did in the early 1980s) and concentrate your resources there. Do good work once you get elected, and overcome the image that you're "out of touch" with mainstream voters. Push for electoral change at those levels, which will grow your organization and add to your legitimacy as you do better in subsequent elections.

Running for high state or federal office is a terrible idea. It's no secret that strategic voting means you won't win. Moreover, you're wasting resources that could go to viable candidates. Not to mention the possibility that you might peel off enough voters to swing the election.

Say what you want about 2000, but it's no secret that Nader was dead wrong when he said there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore. There's a pretty strong case to be made for the counterfactual: we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, we wouldn't be getting screwed on energy prices and we wouldn't be running historic deficits.

You have no idea how sick of this bullshit remark I am.

We do run for and win local offices. Over 250 across the country including mayors, city councilmen, county council, school board members, state legislators...etc. And when we win, we're almost always re-elected.

But we run at all levels of offices because people deserve a choice on the ballot at every level to affirm their beliefs, especially when there are as many stark policy differences between us and both major parties.

In running for President in 2000, Ralph Nader helped countless local Greens get elected and let people know that our party even existed. A big name partisan candidate will draw a helluva lot more people to an event or fundraiser than any city council or mayoral candidate will. And many who like Ralph but may not vote for him will usually vote for our lower ticket candidates, but will only join the Greens if they know we exist and see how we stand on the issues that they vote on (war, abortion, civil rights, gay rights...etc. things we can't talk about if we only run locally).

And many times because the current ballot access laws require us to run at the statewide level so that we can keep the ballot line to run local candidates. We have to run and score at least 5% in statewide races in my state so that we can get local Greens on the ballot without a massive petitioning drive.

Voting reform won't happen unless we run. Romanelli, especially post-election, will have a lot of power to force through things like IRV that Democrats go into overdrive to prevent most of the year.

Believe me, I've worked to lobby for voting reform and it's the Democrats that fight it tooth and nail, but after a tight race with a popular third party candidate, they're willing to at least vote for it. Only in cities with strong third parties that don't back down do we get voting reform...San Francisco, Burlington...etc.

And please drop the bullshit about how we should have voted for Gore. Gore was a shitty candidate that would have been a shitty president, no matter the rosy colored lenses you look at him through with Bush in office and Nader is not responsible for it.

Gore could have run a stronger campaign. He could have won his own home state of Tennesee or Clinton's home state of Arkansas. He could have asked for a full state recount, which multiple studies show he would have won. He could have stood up for illegally disenfranchised African American voters in FL, when NOT ONE Senate Democrat would call for an investigation into voter fraud. He could have chosen a better VP nominee that Joe fucking Lieberman. He could have run a more progressive campaign, because every time Nader's numbers went up, Gore poured on the populist rhetoric and his numbers went up and then Nader's numbers dropped and he went back to the status quo.

Or the fact that 25% of Nader's votes came from registered Republicans, or that compared to Nader 97,000 votes in Florida, 250,000 registered Florida DEMOCRATS voted for Bush (compared to the 8 million Democrats nationwide that voted Bush, compared to Nader's 3 million votes total).

So please, drop the bullshit about local candidates (we already run them and run them hard) and spoilers (it's a myth) and do something about your own damn party which is pathetic instead of looking for a scapegoat for why shitty candidates lose.

Drew Van T.

08-02-2006, 07:09 PM

It really bugs me that Greens are willing to use the Adrian Veidt strategy of electoral politics.

Heh, gotta love that metaphor.

I wonder what it takes to break the two-party system, though...will it take a giant tentacled cloned monster teleported in from Antarctica? :D

That's what it looks like.

Mike Smash!

08-02-2006, 07:16 PM

It really bugs me that Greens are willing to use the Adrian Veidt strategy of electoral politics.

That's a lie. We don't destroy or spoil anything. And we certainly aren;t the ones who wrote and put into place the elections laws that allow for a "spoiler effect".

We run because the Democrats that win office these days would have been called Republicans 30 years ago and are only getting worse and that there is no way to pull the debate back into a more progressive direction by continuing to give them support without conditions or by apologizing for them.

Because that's worked so well so far.

Sanagi

08-02-2006, 07:39 PM

I prefer to focus on the good news here, which is that Santorum may be on his way out.

moebius

08-02-2006, 08:45 PM

You're a Green Party activist, so I won't hold it personally that you're taking this personally. I will, however, take your comments with a grain of salt.

We do run for and win local offices. Over 250 across the country including mayors, city councilmen, county council, school board members, state legislators...etc. And when we win, we're almost always re-elected.

There are over 500,000 elected positions in the United States. If only 10% of them were partisan, that leaves 50,000.

300 Green offices/50,000 partisan offices = 0.6%, maximum.

Or the fact that 25% of Nader's votes came from registered Republicans, or that compared to Nader 97,000 votes in Florida, 250,000 registered Florida DEMOCRATS voted for Bush (compared to the 8 million Democrats nationwide that voted Bush, compared to Nader's 3 million votes total).

You haven't disputed my point.

Yes, Gore was not a particularly good candidate.
Yes, the Butterfly Ballot in Palm Beach cost Gore the election (this has been statistically proven; see Wand et al. in the American Political Science Review).
Yes, the Supreme Court possibly have cost Gore the election depending on the outcome of a recount (mixed evidence, with some support for Gore's case).

That does not disconfirm the following hypothesis: If Ralph Nader had not run for President, Al Gore would have won the election.

None of the statistics you cite disconfirm this hypothesis. 250,000 Democrats voting for Bush does not change the the number of Democrats who voted for Nader. By your own admission, "25% of Nader voters were registered Republicans."

What were the other 75%, and how would they have voted?

If you believe the commonly accepted exit polls published after the election, the breakdown of Nader voters is as follows:
-47% would have voted for Gore.
-32% would not have voted.
-21% would have voted for Bush (this is very close to the 25% number you cited).

97,000*47% = 45,590 votes to Gore
97,000*47% = 20,370 votes to Bush

Bush won by 537 votes.

I will let you do the math, then decide the likeliest outcome if Nader had stayed out. I'd be interested in seeing if you can find a single major paper or political scientist who believe the outcome would have been any different than I described. Even if all the voters who said they would have voted for Bush actually voted for Bush, and less than 1 in 2 who said they would vote for Gore actually voted for Gore, Gore still would have won.

All the other numbers you cite are spurious. That Pat Buchanan (indirectly) cost Al Gore the election does not change the fact that Ralph Nader also cost Al Gore the election. That's just the way the world works sometimes. I'm not particularly angry with Pat Buchanan for something he had no control over, but Ralph Nader entered the election knowing he would take significantly more votes from Gore than Bush.

Finally, I find it interesting that you've called the Democarats "my" party.

My first loyalty is to progressive principles; I'm economically communitarian and socially liberal. In Germany, that puts me between the SPD and the Greens.

I'm also a political scientist (in training, to be fair) writing on party system change and the emergence of new parties in advanced industrial democracies, so I know a thing or two about "new," "small," or "third" parties, when they succeed and when they fail.

In America I'm a Democrat, because I recognize that the only engine of progressive change in this country at this time comes from the Democratic Party. Based on the theory of party system change I subscribe to (which could either be described as a "punctuated equilibrium" or an "issue shock" model), in addition to a basic understanding of strategic voting, I understand that the best the Green Party can hope to do is force the Democrats to steal their voters.

Party systems generally don't change endogenously...they change because some large event comes along and punches voters cognitively, forcing them to alter their preferences and the established parties don't have the answers. Keeping a functioning Green Party apparatus is a good thing, because it allows the party to bide its time. Running for offices you can't win, however, only drains resources. The best thing to do would be to work to increase the social factors that make people amenable to changes in electoral rules (which I would imagine to be education, based on the areas that have STV or AV). Yelling about how unfair it all is will do exactly jack and shit.

The conditions are absolutely wrong for the Green Party to significantly improve its position today or in the near future. There is no one issue position the Green Party that fulfills the minimal requirements a small party needs to build its base:

1) There have to be issues where they are significantly different from the major parties. Iraq might be such an issue if Americans weren't convinced that significant numbers of Democrats weren't also anti-war.
2) On the issues where they are significantly different than both the major parties, the public has to support their position.
3) The issues where the Greens have a "comparative advantage" in respect to the other parties must also be salient in the public discourse.

Environmentalism, while important in the 1980s and the domain of the Greens, never motivated the public the way it did in Europe (one possible reason is population density, which has influenced Europeans for decades). Combined with the mechanical and psychological effects of strategic voting, it's no surprise that the Greens never got off the ground (though that doesn't rule out future success).

Mike Smash!

08-02-2006, 09:38 PM

There are over 500,000 elected positions in the United States. If only 10% of them were partisan, that leaves 50,000.

300 Green offices/50,000 partisan offices = 0.6%, maximum.

And we run for plenty of them, usually with an average of 400-500 candidates running each year. Considering that in most races, we're running against people plugged into a major party apparatus, 250 is quite good.

Nonpartisan is not truly nonpartisan. Parties are still quite involved in such races and usually work their asses off to prevent a third party victory (such as Matt Gonzalez nearly winning Mayor of San Fransisco in 2003) and even when we do win, many people don't realize it.

The President of the Seattle School Board is a Green and I didn't realize it for a long time, but my last Mayor was a Libertarian.

You haven't disputed my point.

Yes, Gore was not a particularly good candidate.
Yes, the Butterfly Ballot in Palm Beach cost Gore the election (this has been statistically proven; see Wand et al. in the American Political Science Review).
Yes, the Supreme Court possibly have cost Gore the election depending on the outcome of a recount (mixed evidence, with some support for Gore's case).

That does not disconfirm the following hypothesis: If Ralph Nader had not run for President, Al Gore would have won the election.

None of the statistics you cite disconfirm this hypothesis. 250,000 Democrats voting for Bush does not change the the number of Democrats who voted for Nader. By your own admission, "25% of Nader voters were registered Republicans."

What were the other 75%, and how would they have voted?

You haven't proved your point. Given that exit polls revealed that only 34% of his votes came from registered Democrats and 25% came from Republicans, the other votes all came from voters who said that had Nader not run, they would not have voted for any candidate. That's nearly half of his votes.

And there's the Butterfly ballot which truly cost Gore voters their votes. That is, people who intended to vote for Gore but had that vote taken away from a bad ballot.

The Butterfly ballots should be the blame or the 50,000 African Americans that Democrats didn't stop the GOP from striking from the voter rolls.

What cost Gore the election was Gore refusing to fight for it.

Nader didn't take a single vote from Gore. Because votes do not belong to any one candidate.

And you didn't answer my challenge. When 8 million registered Democrats vote for Bush, aren't they to blame for him taking office, rather than the 3 million Nader voters, 25% of which would have voted for Bush had he not been in the race.

Nader voters did not elect Bush. Democratic Bush voters did. Gore's weak campaign did. The antiquated Electoral College did. The Supreme Court did. The Butterfly ballot did. Republican voter fraud did. The silence of the Democratic Senate in the face of voter fraud did. The Democratic Party refusing to fight for an election that they had actually won did.

The bottom line is that Gore didn't lose. But he sure as hell didn't fight for what he won. Instead of pissing and moaning over 2000, why not either fight for voting reform or run better candidates?

That they didn't just steamroll Bush in 2000, with Gore refusing to even call Bush out on his record, is to blame. Not Ralph Nader.

And the Democratic Party has done what since 2000 to remedy the voting system? What to abolish the Electoral College? What to eliminate the so-called "spoiler effect".

Nada.

And they don't plan on doing anything, either.

At the heart of the notion, though, is that the Democrats are not entitled to votes that they do not earn and they're perfectly able to compete for them, but not by only being marginally better than the Republicans or refusing to fight them.

I own my vote and I only give it to candidates that earn it. Some Democrats pass that test, so do a small minority of Republicans. But I will not give away the only leverage I have in a democracy and allow my country to go down the shitter with worse and worse Democrats who will take my vote more and more for granted and give me less and less in return.

I mean, after the last 5 years of Bush, why are the midterm elections even a toss-up? I gather its because the Democrats aren't offering the public much of a contrast with the Republicans aside from "we're not them".

That's why they lose and that's why Gore isn't President right now.

moebius

08-02-2006, 10:30 PM

You haven't proved your point. Given that exit polls revealed that only 34% of his votes came from registered Democrats and 25% came from Republicans, the other votes all came from voters who said that had Nader not run, they would not have voted for any candidate. That's nearly half of his votes.

First of all, that's not "nearly half," it's 41%. 100-34-25 = 41.

Second, by your logic apparently Nader voters who were Registerd Dems (34%) go to Gore, Registered Reps (25%) go to Bush and "nearly half his votes" (41%) go nowhere:

97,000*34% = 32,980 to Gore
97,000*25% = 24,250 to Bush

Net gain for Gore = 8,730 votes. Wow, even using the statistics you provide, Gore wins the election by more than 8,000 votes..

What you don't realize is how far in my favor the statistics are. If only 0.6% more Nader would have voted for Gore than would have voted for Bush in that election, Gore would have won. For Nader's candidacy to not hurt Gore worse than Bush would violate everything we know about Green voting behavior and political attitudes.

For example, if the numbers you presented were "25% were Reps, 26% were Dems, and 49% wouldn't have voted", numerically Gore still wins.

Nader didn't take a single vote from Gore. Because votes do not belong to any one candidate.

Prove it. And not through bullshit semantics on the definition of "take" or "belong". Prove that if Nader had not run in Florida, Gore would not have gotten at least 538 more votes from Nader supporters than Bush. Find any evidence that suggests your hypothesis is more likely to be true than mine, then present it. Or at least provide sources (for example, the exit polls I cited came from the Washington Post, which they got from the pollers on election night).

Nader voters did not elect Bush. Democratic Bush voters did. Gore's weak campaign did. The antiquated Electoral College did. The Supreme Court did. The Butterfly ballot did. Republican voter fraud did. The silence of the Democratic Senate in the face of voter fraud did. The Democratic Party refusing to fight for an election that they had actually won did.

All of those statements are true, except the first.

If any one of those things had happend, Gore would be president. Saying the Butterfly Ballot "elected" Bush is no less true than saying Nader "elected" Bush is no less true than saying the "Electoral College" did; all of those events denied Al Gore enough votes to become President. All are equally "true." Some are unfortunate accidents. Some are institutional failures. Some are personal weakness. That doesn't make some of them "untrue".

Tell me with a "straight face" that you don't believe that in the 2000 presidential election more voters who voted for Nader would have voted Democratic than Republican.

Tell me with a "straight face" that if Gore were president (at least from 2000-2004) we'd be in Iraq right now, or running hundreds of billions in deficits after giving massive tax cuts to the rich, or stripping EPA, FEMA and OSHA of their authority.

To bring us full circle, tell me with a "straight face" that you don't believe that in the Pennsylvania Senate race that more Democrats will switch to the Green candidate than Republicans.

Your "the Greens are not spoilers" assertion might be philosophically true, but it is objectively false.

ragnarok_2012

08-02-2006, 11:46 PM

See, I'm suspicious of some of the support for Greens. Sometimes you see some folks (I believe even on CBR) who voted for Bush and Republicans, and now they're like, supporting Greens is a good idea.

Such as?

It seems like they could love their country that much if willing to pull votes in unwinnable races and drives Congress dramatically Rightward.

The Democrats and Republicans only hit you because they love you, America. :D

Adam Crocker

08-02-2006, 11:51 PM

Prove it. And not through bullshit semantics on the definition of "take" or "belong". Prove that if Nader had not run in Florida, Gore would not have gotten at least 538 more votes from Nader supporters than Bush.

That's not even the point he was making with that statement. The point he was making is that people have relentlessly villified the Greens for the Democratic Party's own failures as a party. Yes Gore might have won had Nader not run, but also might have won had he actually contested the results of Palm Beach, or if the Senate Democrats had stood up over the issue of voter fraud. They didn't bother to fight those matters though and they lost. It strikes me as pretty pointless, not to mention petty, to hammer the Nader issue when the fact was the party was presented other opportunities to win this election that they didn't bother to take.

Mike's point is that it is not the responsibility of the Greens to make sure that the Democrats win elections. It's the responsibility of the Democrats. If they are losing votes to the Greens it is probably because they aren't doing a very good job projecting themselves as a party, especially since in 2004 the party selected an even crappier candidate, who had even less difference between him and Bush. And Bush had already proven his incompetence at that point.

Tell me with a "straight face" that if Gore were president (at least from 2000-2004) we'd be in Iraq right now, or running hundreds of billions in deficits after giving massive tax cuts to the rich, or stripping EPA, FEMA and OSHA of their authority.

No the U.S. wouldn't, but really, what is your point? What I'm getting off this statement is that it is the Greens fault that he got into office when the Democrats wouldn't even fight the 2000 election that their crappy candidate nearly won.

And even then Bush might not have gotten as far as he did had both the legislative organs of the American government, the press, and her people actually subjected him to proper scrutiny. Yet the American press did a lacklustre job of questioning his "evidence" for Iraq in the lead up to the Iraq war, and in fact Ahmed Chalabi's propaganda was reprinted uncritically by the New York Times. The so-called party of small government let him get away with spending like a drunken whore. He got re-elected because the main selling point of Kerry was "I'm not Bush!" even after it was clear he was an incompetent fuck-up. But the party that backed Bush still has a good chance of taking the mid term elections because the Democrats haven't put forth anything to sell themselves to the populace over the Republicans, who have proven themselves to be even more corrupt and incompetent than major parties generally are.

That Bush has run amuck is a failure of American democracy to keep the abuse of authority in check and provide sufficient oversite of the President. That he got into office and got re-elected is the failure of the Democrats to be an effective political party and an opposition. These are matters that should be addressed before anyone starts looking at third parties to scapegoat.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 12:04 AM

Prove it. And not through bullshit semantics on the definition of "take" or "belong". Prove that if Nader had not run in Florida, Gore would not have gotten at least 538 more votes from Nader supporters than Bush. Find any evidence that suggests your hypothesis is more likely to be true than mine, then present it. Or at least provide sources (for example, the exit polls I cited came from the Washington Post, which they got from the pollers on election night).

Prove what? That I own my own vote? That the only vote Gore owns is his own? That I'm not entitled to vote for one major party candidate over the other because I fall on one side or another of an imaginary line?

I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit, moebius.

I showed you have Gore screwed up or refused to fight that stopped him from being elected. Things that cost him a helluva lot more than 538 votes. Yet, instead of insisting that Gore and the Democrats take responsibility for that, you blame a man who is not obligated and never stated that it was his job to elect one major party candidate over another.

3 million Nader voters did not vote for Bush. 8 million registered Dems did. That's nearly triple Nader's votes from all voters, whether Democrat, Republican, independent, Green...etc.

Nearly triple. Yet, apparently a Democrat who voted for Bush is less culpable than a registered Democrat voting for Nader.

If any one of those things had happend, Gore would be president. Saying the Butterfly Ballot "elected" Bush is no less true than saying Nader "elected" Bush is no less true than saying the "Electoral College" did; all of those events denied Al Gore enough votes to become President. All are equally "true." Some are unfortunate accidents. Some are institutional failures. Some are personal weakness. That doesn't make some of them "untrue".

The Butterfly ballot according to the Palm Beach Post, cost Gore 6,607 votes, either having punched the wrong candidate's bubble or having punched more than one, with their vote going to either Pat Buchanan or David McReynolds, who were next to him on the ballot.

Pat Buchanan himself has admitted that most of his votes in Palm Beach County were meant for Al Gore, saying he "did not campaign and bought no advertising there"

A Washington Post review (2001) found that Gore would have had a net gain of 662 votes, enough to win, if there had been a hand recount of "over-votes," mostly from double bubbles.

Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.

Yet, beyond Florida, if Gore had simply won Tennesse, his home state, Florida would have been irrelevant. And Gore lost TN by a much larger margin than Nader's earned vote total.

Tell me with a "straight face" that you don't believe that in the 2000 presidential election more voters who voted for Nader would have voted Democratic than Republican.

No one can say what would have happened had Nader not run, many might have voted for another third party candidate, like the Socialist Party's David McReynolds or the Libertarians' Harry Browne, many may not have voted at all, many voters, according to Al From, the former head of the Democratic Leadership Council, voted because of Nader being in the race: some came out for Nader, but got cold feet and many came out for Gore out of fear of the so-called "spoiler effect". According to From in a post election report put out by the DLC, had Nader not been in the race, Gore would have lost the popular vote by 1%. (http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2919&kaid=86&subid=84)

"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."

And no, he has refused to explain that finding in the years since. You'd have to ask him.

Tell me with a "straight face" that if Gore were president (at least from 2000-2004) we'd be in Iraq right now, or running hundreds of billions in deficits after giving massive tax cuts to the rich, or stripping EPA, FEMA and OSHA of their authority.

That's a loaded question. First of all, we would probably be engaged in Iraq, just not the degree that Bush has us. Remember that the Clinton/Gore administration is still responsible for more Iraqi civilian deaths because of his air strikes and sanctions than Bush has. To be fair, Bush is killing people at a much faster rate, but to say that we wouldn't be killing Iraqis is humorous, espoecially considering the Clinton was the one who signed "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998", which really began the process that we have now. Of course, Clinton is much more competent and subtle than Bush (which is like saying that you're a better gymnast than Stephen Hawking), but the bottom line is that the difference between a Gore and Bush Iraq policy is one of degree, not type.

But the real question is not what the Democrats would have been like, because that's speculative and impossible to prove. Let's talk about what the Democrats have been.

After all their scaremongering in 2000 about how we cannot let Bush pick Supreme Court Justices, he's appointed two reactionary thugs. One that the Democrats refused to filibuster at all, the second that a handful made a good attempt and were stopped by the rest, who as always chose political expediency over principle. That's two votes on the nation's highest court that Democrats refused to fight with anything other than empty gestures and rhetoric.

And the appointment that was recalled, Harriet Myers? Stopped by Republicans.

Count in that Democratic votes had the power to stop both Scalia (99-0, with both Gore and Kerry voted for him) and Thomas (passed with Democratic support that put him over the top), everyone's favorite conservative judges, who cast those famous votes in Bush v. Gore.

And the war in Iraq, the Democrats sure did call Bush out on those fabrications and lies and stood against the invasion with a united front. Oh, wait. They didn't. Most Senate Dems voted to invade Iraq and Kerry even cheerled the invasion in late 2002. During his campaign, Kerry's stance on the war wasn't that it was wrong to invade, just that he could do a bad thing more competently than Bush did.

Ah, the PATRIOT Act, passed without debate when the Dems had a Senate majority. Only one Dem in the Senate voted against a 500 page police powers bill dropped in front of their lap without reading it and endorsed by John Ashcroft and that lone Dem was Russ Feingold. The rest were afraid to look like unpatriotic pussies and sold us out. That's one big attack on our civil liberties than the Democrats refused to fight and could have defeated with their votes alone.

And CAFTA, passed by only two Democratic votes, with even a handful of Senate Republicans realizing that huge corporate agreements to outsource American jobs and destroy the economies of foreign countries and turn them into our sweatshops was not a good thing. If two more Democratic Senators had listened to the unions that fought CAFTA for years and voted loyally Democrat without fail, they could have shot it down.

But yeah, a Democratic Presidency would have been all puppy dogs and daffodils, especially with progressives making it clear that we will vote for them and not make demands.

Again, it's a difference of degree, not type. They don't criticize what Bush does. They criticize how he does it.

To bring us full circle, tell me with a "straight face" that you don't believe that in the Pennsylvania Senate race that more Democrats will switch to the Green candidate than Republicans.

That depends on Pennsylvania votersand who's on the ballot. Even many Republicans are likely to vote against Santorum if they feel he's betrayed their values by being a nut, but under your logic, they should be "obligated" to vote for him out of selfless and counterproductive party loyalty.

With no other candidates on the ballot and a three way race, Romanelli will get alot of conservative protest votes, cast not for him but against the two parties. The same thing happened in our County Executive race last year in my county. After the election, I spoke to members of the Libertarians and the uber-right Constitution Parties who cast a "pox on both your houses" votes for our Green, out of protest.

Hell, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that "common wisdom" is rarely so. There's the reality viewed by political nerds and there's the reality for the average voter.

Most conservatives whose doors I've knocked on have always been very receptive to progressive ideas when it's not coming out of a Democrat. That's the bias pumped into us from childhood. "Democrats/Republicans" are the bad guys, as a way to avoid thinking about issues. You have no idea how many pro-marriage equality, anti-war and pro-universal healthcare Republicans I meet. I've also met a handful of right-wing Nader voters who "liked his style". Plenty of Greens I know were former Republicans. The Seattle Greens' last Facillitator basically said how he'd moved farther and farther Left as he got older and that the only thing that stayed the same from his old Republican days was that he "still couldn't stand the Democrats".

And I'm sure that I'd get a door in the face without the opportunity to talk about those issues if I'd introduced myself as a Democrat.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 12:04 AM

(cont'd)

Your "the Greens are not spoilers" assertion might be philosophically true, but it is objectively false.

A vote for a Green is not a vote for a Republican, it's the symptom of a shitty election system that the Dems have made it clear that they're dead set against reforming. And believe me, I've tried to lobby them.

We have tossed them a life preserver with IRV, PR and other voting reforms and they refuse to grab it. That's on them, not us. If they want to continue to use a voting system that allows someone with only a minority of the vote to win when there are alternatives offered, that's their problem, not the Greens'.

My state is all but owned by the Democratic Party and they could institute these changes overnight if they had the political will or even desire to enact them. They don't, because they know the real truth:

They're the spoilers, not us. I don't know a single pro-war, pro-PATRIOT Act voter that is aching to vote for Bob Casey or John Kerry or Maria Cantwell or Hillary Clinton, but don't because they feel forced to vote for the Green candidate and hold their nose.

They take advantage of a shitty electoral system that they have the power to change to take our votes for granted.

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 12:13 AM

*stands and applauds Mike*

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 12:24 AM

Arguments that "It isn't the right time" or "You can only effect change by working within the system" are rationalizations for doing nothing. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

By that rationale, Rosa Parks should have just quietly voted Democrat until they saw fit to end segregation for her.

Gore has a moment of popularity right now thanks to his documentary (which I haven't seen yet). I hope it's wonderful and helps people realize that there are some problems that need to be fixed. But it won't make me forget that Gore didn't really do much for the environment as vice president. It also won't make me forget that he chose Joe Lieberman as his vice presidential candidate. And it won't make me forget that he's married to Tipper Gore, who pushed a censorship campaign against musicians in the 80's (among other things).

I really hate presidential elections where the two main choices look like "good cop" and "bad cop."

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 02:48 AM

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 03:19 AM

I am actually a registered green voter, and luckily in the bay area in caliifornia, so i can actually vote for them and not worry about the republicans winning. However, the status and future of the green party is a fight I get in with my family constantly. All of us are liberal, but I would say ideologically I am the farthest left. My brother and mother constantly spew hate towards the dems, say they run bad candidates, are pussies, flop on the issues, etc. All of this may be true. And certianly, on the surface, voting for dems appears to support this behavior of pandering. But, isn't it better than the alternative. I personally, would rather have the moderate, pro choice dem in charge, than f*cking rick santorum, who is one of, if not the, last person i want running the government. To me, voting green, at least now, is a symbolic victory, but a real world loss. And if you look at demographics, twice as many people self-identify as conservative than self-identify as liberal, so it seems to me we would be lucky to have moderates like clinton or gore, as opposed to yahoo likes bush, brownback or santorum.

Full Disclosure: I half believe this, and half am playing devils advocate

Actually, Casey is fairly conservative pro-life Dem. I don't consider voting Green a "real life loss" at all. I think it's a necessary action and the only pragmatic response to politicians that will always cash the blank check we give them in elections and give us nothing in return.

I loathe Santorum, but basically they're running a mainstream Republican against a batshit one. Is Casey better? Yes. Is Casey good? Not at all. And voting for these sorts of candidates encourages them to run alot more of them.

Yahoos like Santorum, Bush and Brownback get the power they have because the Democrats like Clinton and Gore never really oppose them head on for fear to piss off people that will never vote for them anyways.

When Dems slide to the Right, the Republican move even further and then redefine the middle.

As for self-indentification, I think it's because the Republican Party really markets an "identity" for their supporters and the Democrats do not. It's not that the Republicans are pulling people to the Right, it's that compared to the Dems, who don't really take any hard stances or define themselves very well, they look a lot cooler by comparison. And it doesn't help that the Democrats retreat and flinch while the Republicans are very good and turning "liberal" into a pejorative.

If you believe in the Greens, vote for them because we're building in the long term rather than these sad, powerless "holding actions" in the short term.

Like the Greenback Party, Socialist Party, Liberty Party, Populist Party and the Progressive Party of the past, we're running to win the races we can and raising issues in the races that we are underdogs. Like women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, the minimum wage, the end of child labor, the social security administration and the 8 hour work day before them, the changes we're calling for are fought tooth and nail by the major parties. The major parties never want change and only give it when a third party or independent people's movement build up enough support that the major parties will either adopt them or be made irrelevant.

These third party activists refused to vote for two pro-slavery candidates or anti-labor candidates or candidates that opposed women's rights and demanded change and got it by refusing to back down, and were called self-righteous spoilers and extremists for backing issues that all of us call the bare minimum for a decent society.

That's why I favor a long term plan where we fight to change minds, win votes, grow the party and push our agenda while getting local Greens into office and affect change there while we use the big races to increase visibility and grow the party.

It's not an easy thing to jump into an election system with two parties that set up barriers to prevent your existance. It's like starting a fast food chain in a world where the laws for starting such businesses are decided by Burger King and McDonald's. And if I like the chain better and want to see it grow, I'm going to eat there and not worry about the big twos' market share.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 03:26 AM

Oh, and welcome to CBR, Sebastian.

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 03:43 AM

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 03:48 AM

Good points Mike re: working for the long-term and liberals having no real "identity" inside the Democrat Party.

Liberals need a mascot. Like Crackers the Corporate Crime Chicken only edgier. :D

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 03:55 AM

But anyway, my main problem with the green party is that they (we) seem to be advocating letting the republicans take over for the next 20 years until we get enough support to do something.

Do you have an alternative suggestion?

In general, i hate advocating "working within the system", especially when our system is a ridiculous, out-of-date 200 and some year old cock-up, but I kinda think the greens should establish a base WITHIN the dems to shift them left.

I like our Constitution. I just wish it were adhered to by the people in power.

As for working within the Democratic Party, that's problematic. The Democrat & Republican Parties are designed to co-opt and marginalize viewpoints at odds with that of their upper level leadership (whether it be libertarian, green, antiwar, etc.).

I'm not saying that it's impossible. Just very, very difficult. So best have a good plan.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 03:59 AM

Yeah, I have never understood how republicans are able to cultivate a kinda macho/family values image and promote it under the banner "conservative", while the dems are unable to really define themselves too well other than as the opposition. And if you really look at the parties, i think that the republicans have many seemingly non-overlapping factions like big business and evangelicals, or crazy gun nut rednecks who fear any outside control of their lives.

I was shocked when i ventured out into the world and heard all hippie and liberal used as invective. I always thought that conservative was the more obvious dirty word.

But anyway, my main problem with the green party is that they (we) seem to be advocating letting the republicans take over for the next 20 years until we get enough support to do something.

Oh, not at all. We're just people that realize that backing Dems, who have refused to fight the Right in any meaningful way is a losing strategy. And the Dems get worse and worse, especially when we give them our vote and demand nothing in return.

In general, i hate advocating "working within the system", especially when our system is a ridiculous, out-of-date 200 and some year old cock-up, but I kinda think the greens should establish a base WITHIN the dems to shift them left.

By running for office, we're working within the system. There are some on the Left that consider that selling out.

But establishing a base within another party is a waste of time, especially when you look at the attempts by progressives to "save the Democrats from themselves". How many failed Democratic primary attempts have their been? Jesse Jackson, Eugene McCarthy, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Shirley Chisholm....the list goes on.

Then there is Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy for America, MoveOn.org and countless other progressive groups that swear allegiance to Dems, and make demands that they aren't willing to back up with action. And because they basically say "we want you to change, but even if you don't, we'll still vote for you", the Dems realize that all they need to do is wait them out through the primaries, ignore them if they can, destroy them if they must and then win all of their supporters without making a single concession. All in all, they wield great influence over their own members and absolutely none on the Democratic Party.

Kucinich said near the end of his campaign that his goal was to affect the Democratic platform and help influence Kerry's positions? How much influence did he end up having? Absolutely none, yet he cheerled for Kerry anyways.

Democratic primary fights are a waste of time and Greens shouldn't involve themselves in them, certainly not as a party. Because for one, we're not Democrats. You don't see the Dems trying to build a caucus within the GOP to help more tolerable Republicans win primaries.

We're a separate party and what the Democrats do isn't our concern if we're to be something different. Also, people join us because we're not the other two parties and so much money and effort is wasted on progressive Democrats that will never see a general election ballot or manage to change their party at all.

And then there's the fact that the Dems don't want to be changed. As we saw with McGovern's '72 campaign, the party bosses would rather see a populist Democrat lose to a Republican than shake the boat and lose their psotion of power in the party. Both major parties go to great lengths to frogstomp any challenge to the parties' status quo by a primary candidate that talks about "taking back the party" and either absorbing them into their number if they can with a taste of power or just destroying them utterly.

Howard Dean '04 and John McCain '00 are probably the best examples of this. Stomped and destroyed by their own party leadership in the primaries until they eventually kneeled and kissed the rings of the very people they used to rightfully condemn and eventually shilling for them, without shame.

A good way to see the respect that the Democratic leadership has for progressive is to look at the way they treat their own progressive elected officials. Where is the party when a lone Dems or small group of Dems calls the GOP out on lies about war, voter fraud, civil liberties violations...etc. Whether it's Russ Feingold, John Conyers or Dennis Kucinich, they will be treated like they're crazy, ignored, laughed at, marginalized, mocked and even condemned by the party leaders.

In more than one televised debate, Kucinich challenged Kerry and Edwards to support something like universal healthcare and said, "promise me right now that you will support this policy or plan" and they wouldn't answer or even look at him.

On a greater scale, that's what the party thinks of us.

As someone who has honestly tried to change the Democrats from within, it's not worth it. They don't want to be progressive and their talk of a "big tent" is disengenuous at best. A inclusive party would make concessions. A Kerry would make a platform concession to the party progressives, perhaps on the war, but they don't. It is the progressives that are asked to make all of the compromises while the vanilla nominee makes all sorts of comments that imply while he'd be happy to have the progressive vote, he'd rather not be seen in public with them.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 04:12 AM

As for working within the Democratic Party, that's problematic. The Democrat & Republican Parties are designed to co-opt and marginalize viewpoints at odds with that of their upper level leadership (whether it be libertarian, green, antiwar, etc.).

Exactly, they will ignore any movement until it is too big to ignore then they'll suddenly champion it when it becomes popular and then once they have that constituency in the bag, they can ignore it and take it for granted and give it nothing but empty rhetoric and not really take on any of its issues. The gay rights movement is probably they're most recent acquisition.

The Democratic Party doesn't support same sex marriage (and I'm unsure if it even mentions civil unions) but acts entitled to the votes of gay voters and it's party chair, Howard Dean was even recently shilling for the party as a guest of Pat Robertson's 700 Club and was bragging about how the national party platform defines marriage as "one man, one woman".

The same with anti-war activists. They unrepentently support the war with few exceptions and then they act like they own the anti-war vote without giving it anything in return.

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 04:21 AM

I honestly thought dean was gonna win the nomination, thanks to moveon.com, since kerry was so wooden, maybe the dems will nominate someone else more radical. Although, i'm pretty sure it will be hillary, who i will vote for just to have a women president, if for no other reason., I may reconsider if she continues on her whole censorship trip, plus, its hard not to dislike mccain, even though I think our political sensibilities are too far apart and so i will never vote for him. He does seem to be honest, though, and he seems to vote for what he believes in more than most people in congress ( although he has, on occasion, toed the party line)

As regards the constitution, I regard it as an outdate novelty (well, maybe an outdated step in the right direction). People constantly make MORAL decisions based on the constitution, as if it is a supernatural document. In my opinion, people shouldn't argue for free speech or religion because of the bill of rights, but rather because it is the rational and right thing to do.

I prefer a system without an offical constitution, which i believe offers much more flexibility, like in britain.

Also, i think the whole state rights thing is bullshit. Wyoming with like 500,00o people, has the same represenation as my home state california, with like 30million. 250,000 wyominites(?) have as much power as 15 million of us in the senate. its ridiculous.

Finally, although I fit most neatly into the green party, i do have some concerns. I am fairly environmentally conscious, but I still believe in business and the economy, and eventually, free trade. Free trade makes sense to me, as far as i have studied it, and my impression is that some in the green party would do away with all business

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 04:24 AM

shit, i didn't know dean was anti gay marriage. what a fucker. i feel betrayed.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 04:34 AM

I honestly thought dean was gonna win the nomination, thanks to moveon.com, since kerry was so wooden, maybe the dems will nominate someone else more radical.

Not likely, given that when Dean was the frontrunner, the name of the game was "dogpile Dean!" and when Kerry was the frontrunner the tune changed to "protect Kerry!"

Although, i'm pretty sure it will be hillary, who i will vote for just to have a women president, if for no other reason., I may reconsider if she continues on her whole censorship trip,

I could not be paid to vote for Hillary. From her hawkish stance on Iraq, support for the PATRIOT Act and her statements that the Democratic Party needed to be more religious, pro-life and calls for more "welfare reform" and a ban on flag burning, she's a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

I'd love to elect a woman President. I just want it to be a good woman. By that logic, you'd vote for Condi Rice or Margaret Thatcher too.

plus, its hard not to dislike mccain, even though I think our political sensibilities are too far apart and so i will never vote for him. He does seem to be honest, though, and he seems to vote for what he believes in more than most people in congress ( although he has, on occasion, toed the party line)

He's not that very much different from Hillary politically, save that he's more willing to criticize his own party...to a point. They market themselves differently, but they both support many of the same major issues.

As regards the constitution, I regard it as an outdate novelty (well, maybe an outdated step in the right direction). People constantly make MORAL decisions based on the constitution, as if it is a supernatural document. In my opinion, people shouldn't argue for free speech or religion because of the bill of rights, but rather because it is the rational and right thing to do.

But that right is legally protected by the Bill of Rights, that's why it's argued. And I can't fathom the idea of the Constitution, the basis for all of our laws and the set of limits upon our government from becoming a dictatorship, being a "novelty" or as Bush once called it, "a piece of goddamn paper".

It's not a supernatural document, but its as close to sacred as any document can be for me. It legally ensures my right to free speech, association, religion, self defense and that I will be treated in a just and humane way by the authorities.

I prefer a system without an offical constitution, which i believe offers much more flexibility, like in britain.

But that "flexibility" is usually exercised more by the state than by the general populace and believe me, they will take advantage of it.

Also, i think the whole state rights thing is bullshit. Wyoming with like 500,00o people, has the same represenation as my home state california, with like 30million. 250,000 wyominites(?) have as much power as 15 million of us in the senate. its ridiculous.

It depends on the issue. When it comes to taxation and infrastructure, I believe in states rights. When it comes to civil rights and liberties, we need a strong federal standard.

Finally, although I fit most neatly into the green party, i do have some concerns. I am fairly environmentally conscious, but I still believe in business and the economy, and eventually, free trade. Free trade makes sense to me, as far as i have studied it, and my impression is that some in the green party would do away with all business

On that, we disagree again. I've found that free trade means "free for the corporations, but the burden shifts to the rest of us" while our environmental, workers rights and human rights standards shift and we lose good paying jobs to sweatshops overseas.

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 04:36 AM

As regards the constitution, I regard it as an outdate novelty (well, maybe an outdated step in the right direction).

You and the President both :D

I prefer a system without an offical constitution, which i believe offers much more flexibility, like in britain.

Yes. That's precisely what Bush needs. Less accountability!

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 04:36 AM

shit, i didn't know dean was anti gay marriage. what a fucker. i feel betrayed.He never support same sex marriage, nor do most of the Democrats in federal office. If they have their arm twisted, they'll mostly give a "states rights" or "civil unions" answer, but only if they're asked. They'll never trumpet it.

As far as I can tell, the only Democratic Senator that's publically come out in favor of marriage equality is Russ Feingold.

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 04:45 AM

I'd totally vote for a guy who wore an eyepatch.

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 04:49 AM

first off, i don't see the constitution stopping bush right now too much anyway. if worse comes to worse, he can just do whatever he wants, on then count on the supreme court to agree with him, seeing as he just got 2 of his guys on, after its been in court for 6 months.

Certianly other countries, like britain, are able to maintain civil liberties as well as a fairly consistent interpretation and execution of law from regime to regime, certianly comparable to anything we have.

Although i appreciate it as a groundbreaking document, i think its time has passed. This was written and voted in by people who overwhelmingly owned slaves. surely our nation's collective ethics have changed since 1787?

Personally, among other things, i don't see the need for anyone short of a police officer to carry a gun. I don't believe in hunting, and i Do believe there are better and less drastic self protection measures than guns (mace, say, or a taser).

see, to me, the constitution is frozen in time, forcing the values of people who lived 200 years ago into a future they never could have imagined. Its not nimble enough to deal with modern politics.

Finally, i disagree with the presidential system. there is some quote about our governmant being our worst export, but i too lazy to find it.

Also, on free trade. I do believe that right now it leads to abuses such as sweat shops. but I'm not wholly concerned with the whole losing jobs argument. Why should i prefer for an american to have a job over a mexican or honduran? Not that i want americans to lose their jobs, but people in other countries welfare should be just as important.

Don't get me wrong, i'm no fan of big business. I'm a socialist, really. But i do think that some level of competition is good for business, as has been stated by smith and ricardo and every other person who followed them.

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 04:50 AM

also, thank god for feingold. are you sure about boxer? not that i don't believe you, i just thought she had come out in support for it.

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 04:52 AM

The pro-business.....socialist?

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 04:54 AM

not pro business. I'm a fan of nationalization, when done right.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 04:57 AM

first off, i don't see the constitution stopping bush right now too much anyway. if worse comes to worse, he can just do whatever he wants, on then count on the supreme court to agree with him, seeing as he just got 2 of his guys on, after its been in court for 6 months. That's no reason to chuck it out.

That would be waving the white flag and taking the stops off of Bush and his people giving them the freedom to establish a national religion, gut what rights we have left and lock up dissidents.

The Constitution has stopped Bush. The Supreme Court decision that shot down the way he ran Gitmo being a good example.

Certianly other countries, like britain, are able to maintain civil liberties as well as a fairly consistent interpretation and execution of law from regime to regime, certianly comparable to anything we have.

Although i appreciate it as a groundbreaking document, i think its time has passed. This was written and voted in by people who overwhelmingly owned slaves. surely our nation's collective ethics have changed since 1787?

And it's been amended since then, but the process of amending it was made difficult specifically to protect us from abusive government and demogogues.

Personally, among other things, i don't see the need for anyone short of a police officer to carry a gun. I don't believe in hunting, and i Do believe there are better and less drastic self protection measures than guns (mace, say, or a taser).

The Second Amendment is about government abuse as well. It's essentially a doomsday provision to give us the ability to overthrow our government if it were to become tyrannical. Also, I believe that the "well regulated militias" mentioned in the Constitution are a direct rebuttal of the standing armies we've had since World War II, which Washington and others rightly and strongly opposed.

see, to me, the constitution is frozen in time, forcing the values of people who lived 200 years ago into a future they never could have imagined. Its not nimble enough to deal with modern politics.

Its not nimble, but there are rights, like those in the Bill of Rights that are timeless and protected us from people who thought that limiting those rights was an act of "flexibility".

Free speech being the big one. There hasn't been a generation where the government hasn't tried to fuck with the First Amendment using pragmatism and security as their rationale.

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 04:57 AM

off topic, but i just looked at your livejournal ragnararok, and I love the ice and fire series, even though the 4th one was a bit of a letdown. Also, and i kid you not, steve wozniak's kids went to my public elementary and middle schools, and he gave every class their own laptops (this was in like 96), as well as holding classes for every kid. many of these kids never could have afforded one otherwise. he is like the nicest, most genuinie guy ever. although he is really spacey

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 04:59 AM

also, thank god for feingold. are you sure about boxer? not that i don't believe you, i just thought she had come out in support for it.

Not that I can tell. Though Boxer commendably stood up for an investigation of alleged voter fraud in Ohio, she was silent on Florida in 2000. She's also campaigning for pro-war hawk Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primaries this year. She voted for the USA PATRIOT Act too, which is a crime that will forever cost them my vote.

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 05:00 AM

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 05:01 AM

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 05:03 AM

yeah, but despite free speech in the bill of rights, we still have been been screwed with in the past. I think it was called the sedition act in ww1 trampled over free speech. i realize that was some time ago, but it was the same constitutionYes, that act was tossed out as Unconstitutional.

It wasn't the first such act, nor will it likely be the last, sadly. Just an example of what happens when we let fear overtake our basic rights and give politicians the power to silence or jail people for unpopular ideas.

But it's the Constitution that eventually slays these dragons, as they never hold up under a real judicial challenge.

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 05:09 AM

ahh. well, i would like competion between different nations nationalized industries. although (and keep in ming, i'm still a 21 year old college student, so i'm idealistic) my true dream is to have robots run all industry while we devote ourselves to the arts and leisure. I beleive that as the world stands right now, the theory of comparative advatage holds true. Some countries can make some products or provide some services cheaper than others. it would be nice for every country to someday have an equally well-educated population base, but right now, that's not the case. So while i would like to see america nationalize the energy industry, among other, i think that it is best for america not to waste time and money competine with mexico or china for manufacturing jobs. we're not ever going to be cheaper than them, and thus our products will lose to theirs on the world market.

Keep in mind this a a half-cooked theory forged over political discussions with my swedish roomate, who is a semi-socialist

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 05:14 AM

see, even though the constitution eventually, i think it was like 4 years later, prevailed over the sedition act (and hopefully, at some point, the patriot act), I don't think it would have been any different if we had had no constitution. We would have dealt with it for a little while until enough people disagreed with it, and then it would have been gone. If anything, i think that without a constitution, it would have gone away faster. all this is speculation, of course.

Tages

08-03-2006, 05:45 AM

At times like these I wish that 2004 would have seen Kerry win the electoral vote and Bush win the popular vote. My sense of humor is like that.

No, I don't get out much.

Drew Van T.

08-03-2006, 06:54 AM

You know I agree with you on many points, Mike.

But Moebius is right, IMO, that if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won (then again, that's just one of many "ifs" that would have caused a different outcome, as you point out, and all those other "ifs" have nothing to do with Nader. The main responsibility for the loss lies with the Democrats themselves). Moebius is also right that the general conditions for the Green party to really take off are very far from being ideal.

But you know: neither would ever have stopped me from voting for the Greens (hypothetically - if I were American), for all the other arguments you make. The philosophical reasons are paramount here, even if they are trumped by objective reasons sometimes. Also because...

Tell me with a "straight face" that if Gore were president (at least from 2000-2004) we'd be in Iraq right now, or running hundreds of billions in deficits after giving massive tax cuts to the rich, or stripping EPA, FEMA and OSHA of their authority.

In that case, I think the US would have taken a different, longer path to arrive at more or less the same destination.

First of all, Gore would have continued to contribute to the general right-ward shift, just as Clinton had. Karl Rove would still have developed his strategy of getting the Christian Right to the voting booths with social hot-button issues, and Gore would have been defenseless before it. In the end, Gore would have lost the 2004 elections by a large margin, leading to a presidency very similar to the one you have now.

The major economic, social and political trends are remorseless, and it's naive to think that a Gore presidency - the legacy of an era that itself bears some responsibility for those trends - would have been able to ward them off.

But those same trends will eventually, indubitably, lead to major crises. The whole right-ward shift contains so many self-destructive elements. In numerous ways, George W. Bush has accelerated the pace with which those elements are coming to the fore.

And once they have led to a real crisis, there will be many openings for the Greens, if you ask me. Not to mention a chance for a radically different Democratic party.

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

08-03-2006, 07:11 AM

It's not the Greens' fault for that and it's amazing how nobody screams at Democrats who receive funds from many of the same Republicans. I can guarantee that Casey has gotten Republican money and support as well.

Mike, I don't think the issue is that the Green candidate received Republican money. I think the issue is that his candidancy was funded solely (at least, that's what I understand. It may be just a substantial majority) by Republicans.

not[/I] vote Green, but will overlook just about anything, no matter how horrible or opposed to their values a Democratic candidate might be. And that's certainly the case with Bob Casey who is little more than a Republican in all but name taking on a crazier Republican.

It's not nitpicking to point out that Romanelli is a candidate only as part of a Republican effort to split the liberal vote, and not as a result of any grassroots support for the Green party.

It's Santorum's people who are the assholes in this, not Romanelli.

No, it's both. Santorum is a sleazy as they come. Accepting this kind of support from Republicans who are using him as a pawn may make Romanelli less of an asshole than Santorum, but he's still an asshole.

And it also buys into the bullshit notion that third party candidates "steal votes" especially when people like Casey have no right to lay claim to a progressive or pro-choice voter's support in the first place. Yet, Romanelli is the bad guy for giving people another choice on the ballot.

The underlying point is that there is no support for Romanelli. If there was, then he'd be on the ballot for reasons other than Republican shenanigans. There is no reason for Romanelli's candidancy other than to steal votes from Casey. That much should be obvious.

moebius

08-03-2006, 07:28 AM

In that case, I think the US would have taken a different, longer path to arrive at more or less the same destination.
...

The major economic, social and political trends are remorseless, and it's naive to think that a Gore presidency - the legacy of an era that itself bears some responsibility for those trends - would have been able to ward them off.

I disagree, though we can say at least some things for sure: No tax cuts for the rich. No repeal on the Estate Tax. An effective EPA. An effective FEMA. No torture camps in Eastern Europe and Cuba. No illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

Maybe the Dems would have lost in 04. Who knows? My guess would be they would, but they would have kept us out of Iraq long enough (and a Gore presidency would have potentially made the right move to capture Bin Laden) to shortcut the necessity of a "War on Terror". That, combined with lower deficits and (possibly higher) growth might have been enough to wash the "Clinton smell" off the Dems.

And once they have led to a real crisis, there will be many openings for the Greens, if you ask me. Not to mention a chance for a radically different Democratic party.

There doesn't just have to be a crisis, there has to be a crisis where all the established partiess are inadequate to the task. Defaulting on the national debt would possibly do it. The current situation will not.

That's not "defeatism". I study minor parties and party system change for a living. My main subject is anti-immigrant parties in Western Europe. Believe me, they think the time is ripe for them to succeed. None of them can understand why their votes aren't increasing when people are so turned off from the federal government (in some state elections in 2006, voter turnout dropped below 50%). It's easy: voters don't vote for small parties because they don't like major parties, they vote for them when there's been some massive systemic failure or some issue they aren't dealing with.

The conditions for a Green movement are not there, and the entire voting behavior literature in political science tells us they're not.

You can also look at the history of Communist or Green parties in Europe; the Communists basically said for 80 years that victory was right around the corner, and the Greens have generated all the voter growth they can off environmentalism and social justice.

Where's the winning issue for the Greens? They don't have one. I understand that Green partisans wouldn't want to believe that. But Green partisans shouldn't be taken as the "last word" on the Green party's fortunes, considering how much of their cognitive well-being depends on positive self-evaluations.

If there's ar a new party in America right now, it will be nativist: heavily anti-immigrant, probably economically protectionist and socially conservative, a marriage of out-sourced blue-collar Dems and the racist/socially conservative Right. That's the major issue where a party could cleave itself off from Dems and Reps.

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

08-03-2006, 07:38 AM

Just to show that I'm not solely dumping on the Green Party stalking horse, I think that clown Leiberman's embrace of the Republicans is no less disgusting. Hell, he's got the toads from the College Republicans campaigning for him:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/2/14247/70377

Ed Cunard

08-03-2006, 07:42 AM

That's linked to in the first post, Doc.

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

08-03-2006, 07:43 AM

That's linked to in the first post, Doc.

Oops. I'll edit.

Mac Danny

08-03-2006, 07:48 AM

Joe Rice

08-03-2006, 07:57 AM

Ewww! The Green Party has Republicooties!

moebius

08-03-2006, 07:58 AM

That's not even the point he was making with that statement.

Actually, that's exactly what he's saying.

No one can say what would have happened had Nader not run, many might have voted for another third party candidate, like the Socialist Party's David McReynolds or the Libertarians' Harry Browne, many may not have voted at all, many voters, according to Al From, the former head of the Democratic Leadership Council, voted because of Nader being in the race: some came out for Nader, but got cold feet and many came out for Gore out of fear of the so-called "spoiler effect".

Mike's contention is that if Nader had not run, all things being equal, Gore still would have lost. That's simply not true.

Mac Danny

08-03-2006, 07:58 AM

Joe Rice

08-03-2006, 08:01 AM

Hey mike,

As a grossly unaware PA voter, do you know anyplace I can go to get an idea of what these jokers stand for?

Gotta keep the man out of my private life, off the internet, from controling my wife's body, and stop hatiing people who dig the same sex.

Oh and if anyone wants to kill the teachers union so we can get some quality educators working, or at the very least, repeal tenor, that would be awsome.

Thanks Politico Hulk Guy!

You're not gonna find an anti-union person who believes all the rest of that stuff, even the teacher's union. Liberals have to suck up to unions because they're pretty much all they've got left these days.

I was such a die-hard unionist . . .until I joined one.

Adam Crocker

08-03-2006, 08:19 AM

Actually, that's exactly what he's saying.

Let's look at his statements on the matter in the original post you were responding to when you claimed "bullshit semantics."

At the heart of the notion, though, is that the Democrats are not entitled to votes that they do not earn and they're perfectly able to compete for them, but not by only being marginally better than the Republicans or refusing to fight them.

I own my vote and I only give it to candidates that earn it. Some Democrats pass that test, so do a small minority of Republicans. But I will not give away the only leverage I have in a democracy and allow my country to go down the shitter with worse and worse Democrats who will take my vote more and more for granted and give me less and less in return.

Which is really his main point with his "votes don't belong to a single candidate" statement. If you want to argue that Nader diverted votes that might have gone to Gore, fine. But you went and accused Mike of playing semantic games when he was actually making an argument of principle in this regards to whom votes "belong" to.

Mike's contention is that if Nader had not run, all things being equal, Gore still would have lost. That's simply not true.

And what about the point that when exit pollers were asked how they would vote in a two way race, Bush actually would have won by a percentage point?

moebius

08-03-2006, 08:35 AM

And what about the point that when exit pollers were asked how they would vote in a two way race, Bush actually would have won by a percentage point?

What about the WaPo's exit polls, that show that half of Nader's voters would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run?

Which is really his main point with his "votes don't belong to a single candidate" statement. If you want to argue that Nader diverted votes that might have gone to Gore, fine. But you went and accused Mike of playing semantic games when he was actually making an argument of principle in this regards to whom votes "belong" to.

Let's look at a statement.

"Candidate C took votes from Candidate B."

You can interprate this in two ways:
1. Parties do not have a "right" to a voter's votes. No argument there.
2. If a voter's preference set is C>B>A, and the vote was A=49, B=48, C=3, and would have been B=51, A=49 if Candidate C had not run, it is "true" that had Candidate C not run, Candidate B would have won. Candidate C "cost" Candidate B the election by "taking" votes that under other circumstances would have been his.

Drew Van T.

08-03-2006, 08:36 AM

I disagree, though we can say at least some things for sure: No tax cuts for the rich. No repeal on the Estate Tax. An effective EPA. An effective FEMA. No torture camps in Eastern Europe and Cuba. No illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

True. Nevertheless, the Republican appeals for such things would have found much resonance, among the public and even among Democrat politicians (with their tendency of wanting to beat the enemy by joining him).

If 911 had happened on Gore's watch (that's "if"...but let's ignore the possibility he would have prevented it), he would have gone to war and yes, he might have captured OBL. But the temporary boost to Gore's ratings would quickly have been turned around by the Republicans' relentless blaming of Gore for the attack, their questioning of his patriotism at every opportunity, describing every one of his responses and solutions to the terrorism problem as "weak". They would have run Gore into the ground...ironically, for doing the same things that Dubya would have done (only less radically, and arguably without the torture camps).

My guess would be they would, but they would have kept us out of Iraq long enough (and a Gore presidency would have potentially made the right move to capture Bin Laden) to shortcut the necessity of a "War on Terror". That, combined with lower deficits and (possibly higher) growth might have been enough to wash the "Clinton smell" off the Dems.

You could be right...I am only speculating, after all.

But in all this, I don't see any incentive for the Democrats to abandon the Clinton way of doing things. At this point it has given them three presidencies, after all. For instance: you think Gore would ever, for the remainder of his life, have made a speech that might possibly be termed "anti-war", if he had won in 2000?

There doesn't just have to be a crisis, there has to be a crisis where all the established partiess are inadequate to the task. Defaulting on the national debt would possibly do it. The current situation will not.

It won't. There are lots of minor crises at this time, but we haven't seen a real recession yet (not like during the Bush Sr. years), or a real currency crisis, or a real healthcare crisis, or a real debt crisis, as mentioned. Globalization has led to a budding employment crisis, but the full effect is yet to come. There are the beginnings of an energy shortage, but not quite. The gap between rich and poor in the US has room to grow much further still. There have been wars but not with major countries (Afghanistan and Iraq, while very important, do not count. Iran does.) There is a counter-insurgency war that is being lost, but in a relatively small country. None of these wars have spilled over into true region-wide conflicts yet. All of these things could be around the corner...the logic of history dictates that at least some of these will come to pass.

911 was a crisis, to be sure, but it's easy to overestimate its historical importance because the psychological impact was so great...greater than the real, material or political impact.

...
The conditions for a Green movement are not there, and the entire voting behavior literature in political science tells us they're not.

You can also look at the history of Communist or Green parties in Europe; the Communists basically said for 80 years that victory was right around the corner, and the Greens have generated all the voter growth they can off environmentalism and social justice.

I agree, yet I still believe it could change quickly in the US. Not out of sentimental attachment or a belief in manifest destiny, just by looking at the major negative trends.

If there's ar a new party in America right now, it will be nativist: heavily anti-immigrant, probably economically protectionist and socially conservative, a marriage of out-sourced blue-collar Dems and the racist/socially conservative Right. That's the major issue where a party could cleave itself off from Dems and Reps.

Such a party is going to get a major opening, too, yes. But in this case it does require a split from the Republican party, first.

moebius

08-03-2006, 08:58 AM

If 911 had happened on Gore's watch (that's "if"...but let's ignore the possibility he would have prevented it), he would have gone to war and yes, he might have captured OBL. But the temporary boost to Gore's ratings would quickly have been turned around by the Republicans' relentless blaming of Gore for the attack, their questioning of his patriotism at every opportunity, describing every one of his responses and solutions to the terrorism problem as "weak". They would have run Gore into the ground...ironically, for doing the same things that Dubya would have done (only less radically, and arguably without the torture camps).

Don't underestimate the power of the president to create the narrative. We're in Iraq because the President used his political capital after 9/11 to tie Iraq to the War on Terror, using premises proven to be false and evidence proven to be manipulated.

Gore would have had a the same capital to push his own narrative, which hopefully he would have done to usher in a Manhattan Project for energy independence. Which would have made the country safer: $500 billion to fund the Iraq war or $500 billion to end our oil addiction? Everything we've seen about Gore in and out of office leads me to believe his heart would be in it.

Sam

08-03-2006, 09:00 AM

In that case, I think the US would have taken a different, longer path to arrive at more or less the same destination.

First of all, Gore would have continued to contribute to the general right-ward shift, just as Clinton had. Karl Rove would still have developed his strategy of getting the Christian Right to the voting booths with social hot-button issues, and Gore would have been defenseless before it. In the end, Gore would have lost the 2004 elections by a large margin, leading to a presidency very similar to the one you have now.

The major economic, social and political trends are remorseless, and it's naive to think that a Gore presidency - the legacy of an era that itself bears some responsibility for those trends - would have been able to ward them off.

I think this largely neglects the effect 9-11 had on the right's ability to ramrod any crazy thing they want into law and get the public to go along with them -- for a while, at least. Saying the current state of affairs was inevitable seems ludicrous on the face of it.

Would Gore have been a great candidate? Who knows; I personally think he's have been a bit better than most people grant him, but we'll never know that.

What I do know is that if Al Gore were President, we would not have invaded Iraq for no reason. We would not have instituted the catastrophic economic policies of the last six years, or anything like them. We would not have dismantled every environmental protection we possess. We would not have instituted the torture of civilians as military policy. We would not have begun widespread surveillance of American citizens. We would not have a White House seriously putting forward legislation that strips away American citizens' right to the due process of law, as is currently underway.

The Democrats leave a lot to be desired as a party, but saying they're identical to the Republicans is not just naive, it's patently ridiculous.

I wish we had a reasonable electoral system that made more than two parties feasible. In the long term, I would love to see it happen. I would do somersaults of joy if we had a real, progressive political party with a chance of winning elections.

In the short term, however, we are looking at the real possibility of the destruction of some of our most basic freedoms at the hands of the Republican party, to a degree not seen since Dupont & company tried to have a secret coup against FDR and institute a Mussolini-style fascist government in the US. This isn't just a choice between Conservative and Moderate Conservative. It's a choice between Shockingly, Dangerously Fascist and Moderate Conservative.

And as much as I agree with the Greens' philosophical points, the practical, immediate results here are the increased likelihood of the fascists staying in power. Which I find genuinely terrifying.

Drew Van T.

08-03-2006, 09:43 AM

Gore would have had a the same capital to push his own narrative, which hopefully he would have done to usher in a Manhattan Project for energy independence. Which would have made the country safer: $500 billion to fund the Iraq war or $500 billion to end our oil addiction? Everything we've seen about Gore in and out of office leads me to believe his heart would be in it.

That is such long-term thinking, though, requiring an enormous investment of political capital, with no immediate economic or political benefits, with economic repercussions ("anti-market", "anti-oil-industry") that are easy for the Right to sink its teeth into. I am hesitant to ascribe the capacity for pulling this off to any mainstream politician, even the environmentally-conscious and genuinely enthusiastic Gore.

More likely, I think Gore's capital would have been needed to fend off Karl Rove's strategies for three years...ultimately failing.

In the short term, however, we are looking at the real possibility of the destruction of some of our most basic freedoms at the hands of the Republican party, to a degree not seen since Dupont & company tried to have a secret coup against FDR and institute a Mussolini-style fascist government in the US. This isn't just a choice between Conservative and Moderate Conservative. It's a choice between Shockingly, Dangerously Fascist and Moderate Conservative.

And as much as I agree with the Greens' philosophical points, the practical, immediate results here are the increased likelihood of the fascists staying in power. Which I find genuinely terrifying.

I completely understand this POV. I sympathize with it. However I also think that the loss of freedom and the quasi-fascist directions taken (and I really hate to say this, because it sounds so callous: ) is not going to be the most important challenge in the future. Personally, I would not base short-term priorities on this.

Adam Crocker

08-03-2006, 12:01 PM

What about the WaPo's exit polls, that show that half of Nader's voters would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run?

WaPo? What's that? (And no, that one wasn't mentioned earlier.)

Let's look at a statement.

"Candidate C took votes from Candidate B."

You can interprate this in two ways:
1. Parties do not have a "right" to a voter's votes. No argument there.
2. If a voter's preference set is C>B>A, and the vote was A=49, B=48, C=3, and would have been B=51, A=49 if Candidate C had not run, it is "true" that had Candidate C not run, Candidate B would have won. Candidate C "cost" Candidate B the election by "taking" votes that under other circumstances would have been his.

Possibly, but it I think it was pretty clear that Mike was making a statement regarding principle as opposed the numbers of the case. This is especially in the context of various Democratic partisans having repeatedly attacked Nader and the Greens for being spoilers when there are very clear short comings in the party's approach to campaigning, handling problems with vote enumeration, and standing up to the Republicans. And in most of these attacks there is a pervasive sense of entitlement coming off the party that seems more focused on shutting out competitors than becoming more effective in luring support at the polls.

Gore would have had a the same capital to push his own narrative, which hopefully he would have done to usher in a Manhattan Project for energy independence. Which would have made the country safer: $500 billion to fund the Iraq war or $500 billion to end our oil addiction? Everything we've seen about Gore in and out of office leads me to believe his heart would be in it.

I'm not completely up on Gore's careerr and record, but I am curious. Can you provide more elaboration on this?

moebius

08-03-2006, 12:58 PM

WaPo? What's that? (And no, that one wasn't mentioned earlier.)

WaPo = Washington Post. Conservative for my tastes, but they were using exit polls conducted by the polling agencies in their analysis right after the election.

I'm not completely up on Gore's careerr and record, but I am curious. Can you provide more elaboration on this?

Wikipedia is always a decent source.

In my opinion, Gore has been the most progressive national politician on the environment in our time, authoring Earth in the Balance in 1990 and more recently putting together An Inconvenient Truth. His environmental views were so strong and he was so tied to them in the public eye that one of the big mistakes he may of made in 2000 was downplaying them to not look like the "tree-hugging candidate" in an era when the environment wasn't considered important by the electorate. Made him seem less genuine.

He's technolgoically progressive and fiscally smart; he did not "Invent the Internet, but he was a strong poponent for bills in the late 70s and early 80s that made it possible, and he led the Clinton White House's efforts to streamline the government (ironically, the federal government shrank under Clinton and grew under Bush).

I would call him a little too dovish/wafflish on foreign policy for my taste; he and Clinton never developed a coherent foreign policy.

Drew Van T.

08-03-2006, 01:12 PM

Wikipedia is always a decent source.

Lacking in that entry, though, are his views on employment (besides taking credit for the low employment figures in the 90's), anti-trust, welfare, healthcare, the minimum wage, and other issues that can be considered important for a progressive, besides the environment.

moebius

08-03-2006, 01:25 PM

Lacking in that entry, though, are his views on employment (besides taking credit for the low employment figures in the 90's), anti-trust, welfare, healthcare, the minimum wage, and other issues that can be considered important for a progressive, besides the environment.

Do you have any sources you'd like to add that answer those questions?

His campaign promises are easy enough to find, but I would think that voting reports and policy reports from progressive orgs. from his 20 years in office would be a good bet.

Drew Van T.

08-03-2006, 01:30 PM

Do you have any sources you'd like to add that answer those questions?

Not yet, sorry.

I was thinking that this particular entry - while competent in many ways - must have been written by a typical Clintonite democrat: trying to minimize the ways in which Gore resembled his Republican opponents.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 01:34 PM

Mike, I don't think the issue is that the Green candidate received Republican money. I think the issue is that his candidancy was funded solely (at least, that's what I understand. It may be just a substantial majority) by Republicans.

Not soley. That's inaccurate. It was the petitioning drive, 30,000 signatures of which were done entirely by volunteers.

It's not nitpicking to point out that Romanelli is a candidate only as part of a Republican effort to split the liberal vote, and not as a result of any grassroots support for the Green party.

Also not true. There is a deal of backlash to Casey and many liberals do not support him. He was running long before this Santorum thing. If anything Santorum supporters are stupid to fund a Green. One because we add a voice of criticism to their politics and have been able to hurt Republicans in the past and two, it's money that they cannot spend on Santorum.

No, it's both. Santorum is a sleazy as they come. Accepting this kind of support from Republicans who are using him as a pawn may make Romanelli less of an asshole than Santorum, but he's still an asshole.

So, the fact that the laws passed by the major parties that requires Romanellia to collect nearly 100,000 signatures isn't a factor when Casey and Santorum get on the ballot for free? And Greens have to do background checks on all of our funders while the Democrats can take money from the worst people, including many of the same types that gave to Santorum?

The underlying point is that there is no support for Romanelli. If there was, then he'd be on the ballot for reasons other than Republican shenanigans. There is no reason for Romanelli's candidancy other than to steal votes from Casey. That much should be obvious.

That's horseshit. The reason for his candidacy is to give voters a choice, becuase one between Casey and Santorum is unpalatable. They deserve an pro-choice option. An anti-war option. An option that says they wouldn't have voted for Alito.

And he does have support, but yes, it's small and grassroots. With all volunteers they managed to get 30,000 signatures before they got money for paid petitioners. That's not "no support".

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 01:43 PM

Mike's contention is that if Nader had not run, all things being equal, Gore still would have lost. That's simply not true.

I'm not the psychic that you are. But yes, it's likely he would have still "lost". I've had detailed where Gore had fucked himself over on several things and refused to fight for others. Then I linked you to a report from the Lieberman-esque DLC where they even say that according to their exit polls that Nader didn't cost Gore the election.

The bottom line is that Gore didn't lose and he didn't fight. The Republicans did and he wasn't elected. He was screwed by voter fraud, illegal disenfranchisement, horribly designed ballots and a partisan Supreme Court decision along with his refusal to call for a full state recount. He also lost his own homestate by a large margin, which would have made Florida irrelevant.

Those are things that were specifically aimed at him or were huge administrative cock ups that he had the option of fighting or not fighting. He chose not to and instead of accepting responsibility for that, people have chosen to blame Ralph Nader, who never had the responsibility to electing Gore, didn't work for Gore and isn't responsible for Gore inability to inspire voters.

And the arrogance of people acting like Gore is "entitled" to my vote is just disgusting and for the Democrats to do it again in 2004 after doing nothing to change the voting system, even when they had a Senate majority, doesn't excuse them.

We have a shitty voting system that the major parties refuse to reform, the blame is their's not Nader's.

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 01:49 PM

Don't underestimate the power of the president to create the narrative. We're in Iraq because the President used his political capital after 9/11 to tie Iraq to the War on Terror, using premises proven to be false and evidence proven to be manipulated.

Gore would have had a the same capital to push his own narrative, which hopefully he would have done to usher in a Manhattan Project for energy independence. Which would have made the country safer: $500 billion to fund the Iraq war or $500 billion to end our oil addiction? Everything we've seen about Gore in and out of office leads me to believe his heart would be in it.

And your wishes for President remain entirely speculative and rosey lensed. Did anything during his time as vice president imply such a thing? No.

The bottom line is that Gore's record is terrible when he runs for or holds elected office and that he's actually very good on the environment when he doesn't have much to do with the DNC. His movie as a good example. I think he's doing far more good as a private citizen that he would have as a politician.

I truly doubt that he would have used the capital to go very liberal. They almost never do, certainly without people pushing him in that direction and post-911, the only voices who jumped at the chance were miliotary contractors.

moebius

08-03-2006, 03:02 PM

I'm not the psychic that you are. But yes, it's likely he would have still "lost". I've had detailed where Gore had fucked himself over on several things and refused to fight for others. Then I linked you to a report from the Lieberman-esque DLC where they even say that according to their exit polls that Nader didn't cost Gore the election.

It doesn't take a psychic to understand basic voting behavior.

Your also wrong, and I've tracked down the data you're using, so now I can tell you why.

Al From (the DLC man who made the claim) looked at MSNBC national and Florida polling data and found this question in the Florida data:

If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for?
Bush 49
Gore 47
No one 2

What's wrong with the question? Clearly, Bush would win, right? Wrong.

The question assumes that there are only two candidates in the race. It not only removes Nader, whose voters were split but favored Gore, it removes Buchanan, whose voters would (likely) have heavily favored Bush.

The same thing happens by taking both Buchanan and Nader out of the race at the national level.

In short, the survey instrument is flawed, because it's not asking the relevant question: If Ralph Nader were not running for President, how would you vote?

Here's the analysis:

http://www.mikehersh.com/printer_Did_Nader_Help_or_Hurt_Al_Gore.shtml

And here's what national exit polls said, which is the closest thing we actually have to the question as it should have been asked:

The % of Nader voters that would have voted for Bush/Gore in a a two-way race:
Gore Bush
47% 21% VNS, largest sample
47% 24% CBS, sample = 85
30% 15% NES, sample = 33.
38% 25% Democratic exit poll
Dem Rep
45% 21% Nader voters / House candidates (NES)
52% 12% Nader voters / Senate candidates (NES)

The Florida sample of Nader voters is too small to get an actual sample, but the national exit polls clearly show that Nader voters would have gone to Gore 2 to 1 over Bush. Unless the Florida Nader voters are somehow wildly different in their political views than Nader voters elsewhere, Nader siphoned enough votes to cost him the election.

This still isn't a perfect question, becaue we don' t know how they would have voted if it were everybody but Ralph in the race, just Bush/Gore. But I am strongly confident that not many Nader voters would go to a racist like Buchanan. In fact, even if 1/3rd of Gore's voters would to to other Progressive candidates in 2000 (like who?), and none of the Nader voters who would have gone to Bush would have gone to Buchanan or other Progressive minor party candidates, Gore still would have won.

http://2act.org/p/663.html

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

08-03-2006, 03:08 PM

Not soley. That's inaccurate. It was the petitioning drive, 30,000 signatures of which were done entirely by volunteers.
No, you're saying "signatures." I'm saying "money." I read somewhere that Romanelli contributed to his own campaign, but other than that, it's all Republicans' money. So, to that extent, yes, "solely" is inaccurate. But not by much.

Also not true. There is a deal of backlash to Casey and many liberals do not support him. He was running long before this Santorum thing. If anything Santorum supporters are stupid to fund a Green. One because we add a voice of criticism to their politics and have been able to hurt Republicans in the past and two, it's money that they cannot spend on Santorum.
That's not responsive to my point. Why, then, aren't the "many liberals" who don't support Casey funding Romanelli's candidacy rather than Santorum's stooges?

So, the fact that the laws passed by the major parties that requires Romanellia to collect nearly 100,000 signatures isn't a factor when Casey and Santorum get on the ballot for free? And Greens have to do background checks on all of our funders while the Democrats can take money from the worst people, including many of the same types that gave to Santorum?
Ah, so the end justifies the means argument. So much for the Greens adding something new to politics.

I'm not saying the ballot access laws are fair or not. But they are what they are and the fact is that Romanelli prostituted his candidacy for Republican "green" to get on the ballot.

And "background" checks is a little strong, since there are a number of websites that can tell you in a second if a guy who writes you a $5000 check has made any other substantial political contributions, like, say, to Santorum.

And, as I said before, I'm not saying a guy like Joe Lieberman is any better. Accepting help from Republicans is a sleazy move, whether you're Democrat or Green.

That's horseshit. The reason for his candidacy is to give voters a choice, becuase one between Casey and Santorum is unpalatable. They deserve an pro-choice option. An anti-war option. An option that says they wouldn't have voted for Alito.
Oh, step off, for God's sakes. You've been getting way to hot under the collar throughout this thread. You spend a lot of time preaching to the rest of us about the supposed purity and nobility of the Greens and when some of us, justifiably in my opinion, put some hard questions to you based on what your party is doing, you're losing your shit about it.

The reason for Romanelli's candidacy is not to give voters a choice. It's a Republican-led effort to split the liberal vote.

I'm not saying that Romanelli or any Green party candidate doesn't deserve to be on the ballot. You're right. Both he and it should. But this ain't the way to go about it. And look who agrees with me:

Newsweek reported that one in 10 of Nader's biggest donors — those who have given more than $1,000 — are longtime Republican donors.
The donors include several of Bush's so-called Rangers and Pioneers, the nickname given to contributors who have lassoed $200,000 and $100,000, respectively, for the president's campaign.
To his credit, Peter Camejo, Nader's running mate, seems to recognize the game the GOP is playing [back in the 2004 Presidential election] — and he doesn't like it (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL).

"If there has been a wave of these (Republican donations), then that's something Ralph and I will have to talk about — and about returning their money,'' he said Thursday in an interview with The Chronicle. "If you oppose the war, if you're against the Patriot Act, your money is welcome.
"But if your purpose is because you think this is going to have an electoral effect, we don't want that money. I take no money from people who disagree with us,'' Camejo said. "We're not interested in that." And he does have support, but yes, it's small and grassroots. With all volunteers they managed to get 30,000 signatures before they got money for paid petitioners. That's not "no support".[/quote]

So, let's put it to you, Mike: do voters deserve to vote for a guy who wouldn't support Alito if that vote's sole purpose is to retain the guy who voted for Alito?

Mike Smash!

08-03-2006, 06:31 PM

No, you're saying "signatures." I'm saying "money." I read somewhere that Romanelli contributed to his own campaign, but other than that, it's all Republicans' money. So, to that extent, yes, "solely" is inaccurate. But not by much.

Again, inaccurate.

From Ballot Access News:

On August 2, Daily Kos reported that conservatives are responsible for paying “all but $30″ of the costs for getting the Pennsylvania Green Party statewide candidates on the ballot. The truth is that Pennsylvania Green volunteers got 30,000 signatures (just as they did in 2004, when the party got on with an all-volunteer effort), and the remaining 65,000 signatures were paid circulators.

The $30 relates to the bank account of the Luzerne County Greens. There have been plenty of monetary contributions from Pennsylvania Greens themselves to their own ballot drive, but it went into the state party’s bank account.

Daily Kos should consider that the real motivation of the conservative donors who contributed to the paid petition effort was not so much to get the Green Party on the ballot, as to trick the Democrats into acting like a bully. The Democratic Party of Pennsylvania has fallen into this trap, with the announcement today that the party will challenge the Green petitions. In 2002, the Pennsylvania Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Ed Rendell, actually signed the statewide Green Party petition, to show that the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania was confident, open-minded, and not afraid of competition. Rendell was elected. The face of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party in 2006 has changed.

That's not responsive to my point. Why, then, aren't the "many liberals" who don't support Casey funding Romanelli's candidacy rather than Santorum's stooges?

Plenty have, as noted above.

Ah, so the end justifies the means argument. So much for the Greens adding something new to politics.

That is not what I said. What I said is it's the fault of the Greens or Romanelli that created this bullshit situation or the ballot access laws. Would I have taken the money? No. I think had he known its source prior to accepting the money, he likely wouldn't have cashed them and if he did it was a boneheaded move probably motivated by desperation.

And "background" checks is a little strong, since there are a number of websites that can tell you in a second if a guy who writes you a $5000 check has made any other substantial political contributions, like, say, to Santorum.

And there are people who made large donations to both Bush and Kerry (and I imagine Santorum and Casey, as well.) And no, "background checks" is about right.

I'm sorry we didn't wave our "purity wand" over the checks while we were gathering tens of thousands of signatures before paying a company to do it and asking for donations to fund it.

Oh, step off, for God's sakes. You've been getting way to hot under the collar throughout this thread. You spend a lot of time preaching to the rest of us about the supposed purity and nobility of the Greens and when some of us, justifiably in my opinion, put some hard questions to you based on what your party is doing, you're losing your shit about it.

Well, I'm sorry if having the same old bullshit argument about spoilers slung my way over and over and over tends to get to me after a while. The blame for another party's shortcoming, refusal to fight for itself and betrayal of its own voters is not something I will take responsibility for, especially when I have pointed out that far more registered Dems voted for Bush (8 million) or didn't vote at all (God only knows) than voted for Nader.

People should try yelling at them for a while.

The reason for Romanelli's candidacy is not to give voters a choice. It's a Republican-led effort to split the liberal vote.

That's bullshit, Dr. H. As I have said countless times, we do not "take" anyone's votes. Those votes do not and never have belonged to Bob Casey or any candidate and if Santorum loses because the Democrats put up a shitty candidate and defended a broken election system, that is on them, not us.

This wasn't a tactic to split the vote, it was the GOP baiting the Democrats into acting like un-democratic thugs and bullies and they've walked right into it. They're already challenging Romanelli's legal right to be on the ballot. Whatever the funding for the petition drive, the people who signed it are no less valid.

As for the notion of him as a "pawn", according to the PA Greens, Romanelli has been planning this run since 2001.

I'm not saying that Romanelli or any Green party candidate doesn't deserve to be on the ballot. You're right. Both he and it should. But this ain't the way to go about it. And look who agrees with me:

I happen to agree with Camejo on this. Romanelli should return the money, but the fact that he didn't do background checks on individual donations before cashing and spending them before the media blitz hit does not make him an asshole. I'm sorry if Santorum's goons didn't put them out on their "Republican Thug" company checks.

But I'm not going to demonize Romanelli's campaign for cashing those checks. Is he making a political mistake? I think so. But is he a patsy for Santorum and "helping the GOP"? Not at all.

So, let's put it to you, Mike: do voters deserve to vote for a guy who wouldn't support Alito if that vote's sole purpose is to retain the guy who voted for Alito?

Again, a loaded question. To answer this, I have to confirm the false notion that we "take" votes. We don't. We earn them the same way as anyone else. My vote for a Greens' "sole purpose" is not to retain Republicans. It's to take a stand for my principles and values because no other party will do that. Both Bob Casey and Rick Santorum suck. As I've said before, Santorum sucks more, but that doesn't change that Bob Casey is little more than a less scary Republican who has said that he would have voted for Alito and is a Republican in all but name. I will never vote for that ever again.

Spike-X

08-03-2006, 06:39 PM

I'm still struggling to wrap my head around the idea that the Democrats are automatically entitled, as if by divine fiat, to any votes that aren't cast for the Republicans. Perhaps, if the Democrats are so worried about these votes that are being 'stolen' from them, they could start, I dunno, maybe earning them? It seems they'd rather kneecap the competition, Tonia Harding style, than actually, y'know, compete against them.

Perhaps the Democrats need to alter their policies to appeal more to the people who are voting Green, rather than trying to become ever more conservative in a lame attempt to try and win the votes of people who aren't going to vote for them anyway. In case they haven't noticed, conservatives already have a party to vote for.

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 06:54 PM

If you're running in an election, you should try to win. I wouldn't fault the Greens for trying to win. I'd fault the Democrats for not presenting any sort of alternative to the Republican Party platform.

Gore didn't try in 2000. He seemed pretty apathetic, actually. His book and documentary are presumably quite good. But when he was vice president he didn't do much of anything for the environment. As a Presidential candidate, he chose Joe Lieberman of all people as his running mate.

And as for Santorum, he seems like a scumbag. Trying to take away potential democratic votes by funding a Green is rather clever. But if you're going to be angry at anyone, be angry at Santorum for Pete's sake. What people have been doing is a bit like a girl who gets angry at the girl her boyfriend cheated with instead of directing that anger at her boyfriend.

Course, I think this analogy works especially well since IMHO the Republicans and Democrats are wings of the same party.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v374/Ragnarok_2012/KissingCousins3b.jpg

I've been working on some political pictures. Here's one I thought applied :D

Spike-X

08-03-2006, 06:58 PM

if you're going to be angry at anyone, be angry at Santorum for Pete's sake. What people have been doing is a bit like a girl who gets angry at the girl her boyfriend cheated with instead of directing that anger at her boyfriend.

I call it the "He Stole Muh Girl!" school of political thought. The Dems are like the dumbass boyfriend/husband who never take their girlfriends/wives (the voters) anywhere, always forget their birthday, etc. They take them for granted, but still expect them to put out every four years. Then they get mad when somebody else 'steals' them away.

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 07:12 PM

I call it the "He Stole Muh Girl!" school of political thought. The Dems are like the dumbass boyfriend/husband who never take their girlfriends/wives (the voters) anywhere, always forget their birthday, etc. They take them for granted, but still expect them to put out every four years. Then they get mad when somebody else 'steals' them away.

A variation on a really bad joke.

What does a Democrat tell a voter after voting for the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act?

Answer: Nothing. He's told 'em twice already. :D

Remember folks. They only hit you because they love you.

Sam

08-03-2006, 07:54 PM

Not soley. That's inaccurate. It was the petitioning drive, 30,000 signatures of which were done entirely by volunteers.

Which, by definition, is free.

The money in the Green candidate's campaign coffers came entirely from Republican donors, lobbyists, and the Santorum campaign itself. The fact that they also had volunteers doesn't change that.

Which, by the way, I still don't think makes him a bad guy in this. It makes Santorum a sleazy, Machiavellian fuck.

But it does say something interesting about electoral politics in our system.

Drew Van T.

08-03-2006, 08:34 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v374/Ragnarok_2012/KissingCousins3b.jpg

Bush is the one trying to French! Is there irony in that?

You can tell that Lieberman is the real social conservative by the way he's resisting the French. :D

Adam Crocker

08-03-2006, 08:41 PM

The money in the Green candidate's campaign coffers came entirely from Republican donors, lobbyists, and the Santorum campaign itself. The fact that they also had volunteers doesn't change that.

Agreed, but it's also inaccurate to say that the money is in Romanelli's coffers when it has already been spent on the signature drive.

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 08:50 PM

Bush is the one trying to French! Is there irony in that?

You can tell that Lieberman is the real social conservative by the way he's resisting the French. :D

When Bush kisses another man on the lips, he doesn't call it frenching.

He calls it freedom.

Sebastian22

08-03-2006, 10:17 PM

damn. I was about to say Bush actually wants to change it to freedoming or freedom kissing. too slow

ragnarok_2012

08-03-2006, 10:59 PM

damn. I was about to say Bush actually wants to change it to freedoming or freedom kissing. too slow

My secret?

I've learned to tap into Joementum.

Brian Cronin

08-04-2006, 02:03 AM

Let's tone down the use of pejorative words.

Frustration doesn't have to lead to, "That's bullshit!" "No, THAt's bullshit!" "No, that's horseshit!" etc. etc. etc.

Otherwise, carry on.

-Brian

Justin D.

08-04-2006, 02:17 AM

Tages

08-04-2006, 02:43 AM

I don't see why it matters that the money came from Republicans. Shouldn't it be enough that a Green Party candidate was funded by another party? Or even simpler, that one party had a great amount of funding given to it by an opposing party? Isn't that what this is about? Forget all the hypotheticals about the 2000 election and what ifs about Gore being president, how do you reasonably defend that?
What's getting me is why people are making such a big deal out of it when it's fairly clear that, absent a miracle, Santorum is going to lose anyway, making this strategy a complete failure.

Justin D.

08-04-2006, 02:53 AM

What's getting me is why people are making such a big deal out of it when it's fairly clear that, absent a miracle, Santorum is going to lose anyway, making this strategy a complete failure.

We can only hope so.

Tom

08-04-2006, 05:27 AM

I don't see why it matters that the money came from Republicans. Shouldn't it be enough that a Green Party candidate was funded by another party? Or even simpler, that one party had a great amount of funding given to it by an opposing party? Isn't that what this is about? Forget all the hypotheticals about the 2000 election and what ifs about Gore being president, how do you reasonably defend that?
As far as I'm concerned, that's the whole point. It's not about Democrats being "entitled" to anyone's votes (and did anyone in this thread say anything like that anyway?). It's about The Green Party apparently not standing on its own principles.

Drew Van T.

08-04-2006, 06:54 AM

Shouldn't it be enough that a Green Party candidate was funded by another party? Or even simpler, that one party had a great amount of funding given to it by an opposing party? Isn't that what this is about?

Initially, I was just surprised that this sort of thing is not illegal (it's not, right?)

Maybe spoiler funding could be fought by...I dunno...outlawing it? You could even introduce a rule that the election has to be done over, if practices like this come to light.

Those wacky, wacky donation laws.

Joe Rice

08-04-2006, 06:56 AM

As far as I'm concerned, that's the whole point. It's not about Democrats being "entitled" to anyone's votes (and did anyone in this thread say anything like that anyway?). It's about The Green Party apparently not standing on its own principles.

Yeah, they definitely lost what little chance they had ever getting my vote in ANY race.

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

08-04-2006, 08:18 AM

Again, inaccurate.

Plenty have, as noted above.

But apparently not enough to actually fund their campaign.

That is not what I said. What I said is it's the fault of the Greens or Romanelli that created this bullshit situation or the ballot access laws. Would I have taken the money? No. I think had he known its source prior to accepting the money, he likely wouldn't have cashed them and if he did it was a boneheaded move probably motivated by desperation.

No, that's exactly what you said. You're attempting to justify Romanelli taking what amounts to a Republican payoff because the ballot access laws are, in your opinion, unfair. And, please, let's not be naive about this. Romanelli had to know where the money was coming from, unless he's a complete idiot. I can't imagine he had a lot of thousand dollar plus checks dropped into his campaign coffers and, believe me, politicians are pretty quick to notice those.

And there are people who made large donations to both Bush and Kerry (and I imagine Santorum and Casey, as well.) And no, "background checks" is about right.

I'm sorry we didn't wave our "purity wand" over the checks while we were gathering tens of thousands of signatures before paying a company to do it and asking for donations to fund it.

Again, you're speaking in a theoretical vaccuum. No politician I know gets thousand dollar plus donations in a such a short span of time without knowing exactly where they come from (in order to try to weasel more out of the source). Moreover, every political operation in which I've been involved does a quick check on large donations to ensure they're not being set up with a mystery donation that later turns out to be from, say, the John Birch Society.

Well, I'm sorry if having the same old bullshit argument about spoilers slung my way over and over and over tends to get to me after a while. The blame for another party's shortcoming, refusal to fight for itself and betrayal of its own voters is not something I will take responsibility for, especially when I have pointed out that far more registered Dems voted for Bush (8 million) or didn't vote at all (God only knows) than voted for Nader.

People should try yelling at them for a while.

Except that I did not make such an argument. I don't care if he's on the ballot or not; I believe Casey will win regardless. What I am saying is that the purpose of the donations, and this shouldn't even be subject to debate, is a cynical ploy on the part of Republicans to split the liberal vote. That much should be obvious.

If it works, then, yes, by all means, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. But that doesn't mean that the Green party is in the right for letting themselves be used by Republicans for their own purposes in the first place.

That's bullshit, Dr. H. As I have said countless times, we do not "take" anyone's votes. Those votes do not and never have belonged to Bob Casey or any candidate and if Santorum loses because the Democrats put up a shitty candidate and defended a broken election system, that is on them, not us.

You know, I've been talking policy and I've been rather restrained in responding to you, but I'm getting a little tired of your use of the phrase "bullshit" in response to my questions/responses. I do not denigrate your points in that manner and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

And I never made the argument that liberal votes "belong" to Democrats, as I have explained above.

This wasn't a tactic to split the vote, it was the GOP baiting the Democrats into acting like un-democratic thugs and bullies and they've walked right into it. They're already challenging Romanelli's legal right to be on the ballot. Whatever the funding for the petition drive, the people who signed it are no less valid.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not credible. You think the GOP are that subtle? You think the GOP are simply trying to portray the Democrats in a bad light and not concerned at all with trying to split the liberal vote and get Santorum elected?

As for the notion of him as a "pawn", according to the PA Greens, Romanelli has been planning this run since 2001.

Just not planning on funding it, apparently.

I happen to agree with Camejo on this. Romanelli should return the money, but the fact that he didn't do background checks on individual donations before cashing and spending them before the media blitz hit does not make him an asshole. I'm sorry if Santorum's goons didn't put them out on their "Republican Thug" company checks.

I'm sorry. I'll amend my statement: if Romanelli knew where the money was coming from, as I suspect, then, yes, he is an asshole. If he didn't, then he has no business running a political campaign for a national office.

But I'm not going to demonize Romanelli's campaign for cashing those checks. Is he making a political mistake? I think so. But is he a patsy for Santorum and "helping the GOP"? Not at all.

No, "patsy" is the right word. C'mon, Mike, be honest and answer the question: is it the right thing for a politician of whatever political stripe to take money from a source that is diametrically opposed to your policies and principles in order to get on the ballot, yes or no?

Again, a loaded question. To answer this, I have to confirm the false notion that we "take" votes. We don't. We earn them the same way as anyone else. My vote for a Greens' "sole purpose" is not to retain Republicans. It's to take a stand for my principles and values because no other party will do that. Both Bob Casey and Rick Santorum suck. As I've said before, Santorum sucks more, but that doesn't change that Bob Casey is little more than a less scary Republican who has said that he would have voted for Alito and is a Republican in all but name. I will never vote for that ever again.

No, it's not a loaded question. It's a political question. You continue to state that you are "standing on your principles," but in politics, one usually does not have the luxury of "standing on principle" without considering the ultimate effect.

It's the same question that Ralph Nader faced in 2000 when he was asked by many of his own supporters to drop out and endorse Gore. Nader chose not to and the result, like it or not, was George Bush. You can argue that Gore should have won Arkansas or Tennessee or that Democratic voters should not have crossed over and voted for Bush all you want, but the fact remains that had Green Party voters voted for Gore, we would not have George W. Bush for President. That's an unarguable fact.

You can say that the flaws in Gore as a candidate or the flaws in the Democratic Party were more responsible for his loss, and I might agree. You can also say the Republican machinations in Florida were more responsible that either the Greens or the flaws in the Democrats and I definitely would agree. But, when the chips were down, the Greens had a choice to make: compromise their principles and vote for the imperfect Gore or stand on principle and enable Bush's election. You made your choice. Own it.

And a similar choice confronts the Greens in PA. And, once again, you are missing the larger picture. A vote for Casey may be unpleasant in your view. He may be the lesser of two evils. But the larger implications are unavoidable: every Republican defeat bring Democratic control of the Senate that much closer. It's a long shot for the Democrats to regain control of Congress, but can we as a country really stand two more years of a government controlled by Republicans? Are you not convinced that two more years of President Bush unfettered by Congressional oversight would be horrendous for all those causes in which the Greens so fervently believe? Would it not be better for the Greens to subvert their immediate political desires to defeat the Republicans now and, as part of a political alliance, gain policy concessions from the Democrats, such as the very ballot access laws of which you so stridently complain?

The choice seems pretty simple to me.

Calybos

08-04-2006, 10:52 AM

Would it not be better for the Greens to subvert their immediate political desires to defeat the Republicans now...?

The problem for me is the number of times that argument gets used, i.e., every time.

"Just this once, let's put electoral reform on the back burner. There's too much at stake to stick to principle this time!" Every single election season, the Greens are told this... at every level, in every state. By an astounding coincidence, every single election just HAPPENS to be too important to let the spoiler effect ruin the Democrats' chances of saving us from an evil Republican oligarchy.

Look at it this way: In Civil War, how many times do you think the public is going to fall for the U.S. government saying, "Trust us... We won't abuse our unprecedented police powers THIS time, we promise. Honest. We just need you to step back for the duration of the current emergency...."

The Dems, needless to say, have zero interest in electoral reform or opening up the system to increased competition from third parties. All such arguments from the Dem side are, in essence, negotiating in bad faith and should be treated as such.

moebius

08-04-2006, 11:14 AM

The Dems, needless to say, have zero interest in electoral reform or opening up the system to increased competition from third parties. All such arguments from the Dem side are, in essence, negotiating in bad faith and should be treated as such.

Why should they? Obviously they aren't going to be interested in ceding 1/10th of their membership to other parties.

Would Instant Runoff or STV be an appropriate normative compromise? In that case, the Greens get more votes, but it's unlikely they'd get more seats. Is that just the illusion of change?

Sam

08-04-2006, 11:38 AM

And, please, let's not be naive about this. Romanelli had to know where the money was coming from, unless he's a complete idiot. I can't imagine he had a lot of thousand dollar plus checks dropped into his campaign coffers and, believe me, politicians are pretty quick to notice those.

For the record, he's already ackowledged to the press that he knew.

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

08-04-2006, 11:42 AM

All such arguments from the Dem side are, in essence, negotiating in bad faith and should be treated as such.

Well, that's such an intelligent, well thought out response, I don't see how one could possibly argue with you. It's always effective in arguing for your particular cause to demonize everyone who disagrees with you or, in this case, people who might have otherwise agreed with you, at least on certain points.

Give me a break. Perhaps you Greens are just to green at politics, if you'll pardon the pun.

I contended during the 2000 election that what Gore should have done (and I have no idea what deals were floated) was gone to Nader and offered him something, say, head of the EPA or Secretary of the Interior, had Gore won. Have the Greens attempted in the past to ally themselves with the Democrats along these lines? It seems to me that the strategy of the Greens, if one can call it that, has been to criticize the Democrats for what they are not, rather than to criticize Republicans for what they are.

Ray R.

08-04-2006, 12:17 PM

Well, that's such an intelligent, well thought out response, I don't see how one could possibly argue with you. It's always effective in arguing for your particular cause to demonize everyone who disagrees with you or, in this case, people who might have otherwise agreed with you, at least on certain points.

Give me a break. Perhaps you Greens are just to green at politics, if you'll pardon the pun.

I contended during the 2000 election that what Gore should have done (and I have no idea what deals were floated) was gone to Nader and offered him something, say, head of the EPA or Secretary of the Interior, had Gore won. Have the Greens attempted in the past to ally themselves with the Democrats along these lines? It seems to me that the strategy of the Greens, if one can call it that, has been to criticize the Democrats for what they are not, rather than to criticize Republicans for what they are.

I'm more of the mind that Gore didn't work hard enough to win, and played it way too safe in 2000, but the Greens just have it wrong here.

One's reminded of Nader taking lots of Republican checks in 2004 as well. "As long as the money is green."

But wait a minute, here's what the Green Party Vice-Presidential nominee had to say (courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle):

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

The donations from wealthy Republicans -- combined with increasingly vocal Democratic charges that they represent a stealth GOP effort to wound Democrat John Kerry -- prompted Nader's vice presidential running mate, Green Party member Peter Camejo, to suggest the consumer advocate reject the money that doesn't come from loyal Nader voters.

"If there has been a wave of these (donations), then that's something Ralph and I will have to talk about -- and about returning their money,'' he said Thursday in an interview with The Chronicle. "If you oppose the war, if you're against the Patriot Act, your money is welcome.

"But if your purpose is because you think this is going to have an electoral effect, we don't want that money. I take no money from people who disagree with us,'' Camejo said. "We're not interested in that.''

I guess Romanelli doesn't have the same scruples. Because that's what it comes down to, not electoral structural issues, but scruples regarding betraying your principles for a check. And if that's the case, Romanelli, if not the Green Party, needs to step down from the pedestal of the moral high ground on being above petty political paybacks for personal gain (pardon the alliteration), because it doesn't wash.

EDIT: Oh, and if you're wondering, Nader kept the Republican money. Camejo should have kept his mouth shut.

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 12:51 PM

Yeah, they definitely lost what little chance they had ever getting my vote in ANY race.

Isn't that kinda a strong statement?

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 01:10 PM

Initially, I was just surprised that this sort of thing is not illegal (it's not, right?)

Maybe spoiler funding could be fought by...I dunno...outlawing it? You could even introduce a rule that the election has to be done over, if practices like this come to light.

Those wacky, wacky donation laws.

Or better yet, how about changing the election system, which precipitated this whole thing?

Why should anyone have to have a $60,000 price tag to get your name on the ballot or have to gather 90,000 signatures?

No, I don't think they should have taken the money. I don't think it's morally wrong, though either. Just politically stupid.

Essentially the Republicans are helping do the right thing for selfish and stupid reasons. If only the Democrats had done the same thing for a right wing third party challenger, we'd have a better election. Moreso if they tried to spite one another by allowing the two challengers to debate on TV.

This whole thing happened because of a shitty election system and had this be different, it apparently wouldn't have happened. IRV and PR are systems that are used to great effect in other countries and the Greens have tried putting them on the table for years and the ones who fight us the hardest are the Democrats, who refuse to negotiate on it.

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 01:19 PM

It'd be nice if people got this upset when Democrats and Republicans took money from questionable sources. :D

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 01:21 PM

Why should they? Obviously they aren't going to be interested in ceding 1/10th of their membership to other parties.

Something like a respect for democracy would be a good enough answer for me.

Would Instant Runoff or STV be an appropriate normative compromise? In that case, the Greens get more votes, but it's unlikely they'd get more seats. Is that just the illusion of change?[/QUOTE]

We would get seats. Maybe not in the first or second elections, but we would once people got it in their heads finally that the so-called "spoiler effect" is gone.

We do have some very impressive candidates every year, a few of which could win if we didn't always have the speed bump of confusing people who already agreed with us to vote for us.

The bottom line is that IRV and STV are compromises we want to make and ones that would give us a much better election system, but speaking as someone that has fought for such systems, the Democrats refuse to entertain them. Usually they talk about a "pilot" program to test them, and then pass a bill giving a few cities permission to vote on whether they want to use IRV. In my state, they said those four cities -- none of which currently had an IRV movement in them -- could use the initiative process within two years to institute it and use it. Which is far more time that you need to launch an effective education and petitioning drive for a voting system for IRV, especially when your group isn't IN the cities they named.

Either that or they kill it in committee, the usual tactic.

They don't want to compromise with us. As Calybos says, letting us be treated fairly kills the Democratic Party's number one sales pitch "Ok, people we have to vote for the lesser of two evils, just this one time. It's more important that anything that we take back the White House/Congress/State Legislature/Senate seat/Mayor's race, so we need unity!"

The problem is that this is always the argument in any election, no matter the scale, no matter the candidates.

When we run for those local offices we're told to run for, we're still called spoilers and told that the race is too important.

Yet we're not the ones that hold the lever on election reform. The major parties do. And they do not want to negotiate. Only by entering tight and important races have we ever gotten the leverage to force such reform.

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 01:32 PM

I'm more of the mind that Gore didn't work hard enough to win, and played it way too safe in 2000, but the Greens just have it wrong here.

One's reminded of Nader taking lots of Republican checks in 2004 as well. "As long as the money is green."

Not as many checks as you think and there were many more big Bush donors that also gave to Kerry and other Democrats.

Yet nobody gets nearly as mad at Kerry and others for taking such money, but will get in line to scream at us for taking far less of it and not taking on the agenda of the people who donate.

Would I have taken the money? No. Not for moral reasons, but political ones. Getting another choice on the ballot is always a good thing. Republicans did a good thing for shitty manipulative reasons.

However, if they'd done this for different motivations and had raised money for right wing third parties as well and we'd accepted help along with them, they'd be viewed as magnanimous and friendly.

Romanelli isn't running to help Santorum. He's not being bought into Santorum's political school of thought. He's not a patsy for Republicans.

Santorum is the bad guy here in my opinion, not Romanelli.

I guess Romanelli doesn't have the same scruples. Because that's what it comes down to, not electoral structural issues, but scruples regarding betraying your principles for a check. And if that's the case, Romanelli, if not the Green Party, needs to step down from the pedestal of the moral high ground on being above petty political paybacks for personal gain (pardon the alliteration), because it doesn't wash.

This whole situation was brought on electoral structural issues. If we had IRV, this wouldn't be an issue. If we had publically funded elections or fair ballot access laws that didn't require 90,000 signatures for third party candidates, this wouldn't be an issue.

We haven't betrayed anything of our principles. Politicially it's a dumb move because it opens up for attacks like the ones in this thread about us "selling out and being Republican pawns", but Romanelli hasn't changed his politics for money, his positions for money and isn't changing anything about his own campaign for money.

But Romanelli put a target on his head by cashing the checks. I think it's a boneheaded move politically, but I'm not morally enraged with the guy, especially given the stupid hurdles he had in front of him.

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 01:34 PM

Yeah, they definitely lost what little chance they had ever getting my vote in ANY race.

Which is a bit strong. A Democrat/Republican does something you don't like and it's a lone Democrat/Republican. A Green does it and the whole party is morally corrupt.

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 01:49 PM

I contended during the 2000 election that what Gore should have done (and I have no idea what deals were floated) was gone to Nader and offered him something, say, head of the EPA or Secretary of the Interior, had Gore won. Have the Greens attempted in the past to ally themselves with the Democrats along these lines? It seems to me that the strategy of the Greens, if one can call it that, has been to criticize the Democrats for what they are not, rather than to criticize Republicans for what they are.

The reasons are two fold. One is that the Democrats would have never offered it. What they should have done is given us voting reform prior to the election, but the Democrats in all my experience never want to compromise anything.

They will give us nothing except for horror stories of what will happen if we don't withdraw from the race, none of which would be our fault given the myth of the spoiler effect.

The other party is that in 2000, Nader was on 44 state ballots. The sort of work necessary to do that is tremendous and the people who gather those signatures, some of them in states that require 30-70,000 signatures in a 90 days window put a lot of work into volunteers and staffers that subjected them to a lot of verbal abuse, sunburns, rejection and people telling them that they're "wasting their vote"...etc.

Add that to everyone that organized his super rallies, his speaking events, the 7 million dollars that people donated to his campaign..etc.

For him to drop out would be a betrayal to all of those people who worked their asses off for him.

One of the reasons I was angry at Gore in 2000 was that he didn't fight until the very end for every vote and for every vote to be counted correctly in Florida, because of all the people who gave to his campaign, whether through donations or work.

I guess, Dr. H, that the bottom line is that the Greens have learned over the past 10 years that we can't treat the Democrats the way that the Democrats treat the Republicans (ie, bargaining in good faith as if they're reasonable.)

Every time we've tried to work with the Dems on some reform issues, they've stabbed us in the back, put up a token effort and then had the reform killed. There are only a handful of Ds and Rs in my own state legislature that I would trust to follow through on a deal. The rest will try to get the credit for being a reformer publically, kill the bill privately and then later act like it was never going to work in the first place.

They are never going to share power with us. The power we have we have to take.

I do want to apologize for swearing at you, but we are not responsible for Bush. We're not responsible for any Republican winning an election. It's a symptom of a broken election system that the major parties do not want to fix because it favors them using "lowest common denominator" tactics to win votes.

The only such places where reforms have been won are places where third parties ran and ran hard and the major parties needed to reform the system to protect themselves. Asking nicely has never gotten us anything.

Grazzt

08-04-2006, 01:56 PM

Which is a bit strong. A Democrat/Republican does something you don't like and it's a lone Democrat/Republican. A Green does it and the whole party is morally corrupt.

Or maybe a lot of people do that. Given the sheer number of douchebags in both the Democrat and the Republican parties, it would explain low voter turnouts.

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 02:04 PM

Or maybe a lot of people do that. Given the sheer number of douchebags in both the Democrat and the Republican parties, it would explain low voter turnouts.

The phrase that springs to mind is "learned helplessness."

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 02:12 PM

Or maybe a lot of people do that. Given the sheer number of douchebags in both the Democrat and the Republican parties, it would explain low voter turnouts.

I guess what my point was isthat in my personal experience, people look for any excuse to write off a third party and any excuse to retain a major party.

"Yeah, the Democrat/Republican is bad on everything, but they're good on one issue."

Whereas, we get someone who thinks we're great on everything and then the minute we disagree on one issue, we're horrible.

Again for the record, I'm not morally offended by what Romanelli did. He hasn't changed his positions or anything about his race. Had he immediately gone pro-war or pro-PATRIOT Act after taking a check, I would written an angry email to the PA Greens and demanded his nomination be revoked.

Given the insane (90,000 signatures to get a safe margin) barriers put up in front of him, I can understand why Romanelli did what he did. PA is among one of the worst states for ballot access.

The fact that Republicans funded a petition drive does not invalidate the 100,000 Pennsylvanians that do want an extra choice on the ballot. They're not all Republicans.

In fact, I've always found it hard to get Republicans to sign a petition for a Green. "Sorry, I support Bush, but good luck to you guys".

However, I think what Romanelli did was incredibly POLITICALLY stupid, because it will bait Democrats into raising ballot access barriers, bullying us around the country and reinforce the false "spoiler" argument that we're working for the GOP.

He should give the money back. And the Democrats should cease their attempt to have him thrown from the ballot.

[OFF-TOPIC: Seriously, Dr. H. I apologize for attacking you. Truce?]

MatthewC

08-04-2006, 02:25 PM

You know why the Republicans win elections?

Because the United States is a largely conservative country that believes in conservative values. Because about 50% of the country, roughly, believes Saddam was a menace, believes that gays shouldn't get married, and believes that an honest man need not fear surrendering his freedom to the government.

The Democrats and Republicans aren't "tricking" people. This is what people believe. I do not agree with it, but these values gain political currency because that is what the American people want.

You know why the Democratic party keeps shifting to the right? It's because that's where the voters are. You know what would be the result of a serious Green party that was fielding a significant number of candidates and winning national seats?

The result of a strong Green Party would be the Democrats moving even further right, in an attempt to grab moderate Republican voters. They would not move left, because the population of the United States holding liberal beliefs is a minority. A dwindling minority. That's the terrible thing. It's not that the mean ole' Democratic party is stopping voters from getting the chance to vote their liberal beliefs. It's that the majority of Americans have examined those liberal beliefs and decided they want no part of it.

Hey, the Green Party wants to pick up more voters? Maybe the Green party should move to the right. Pick out a few key conservative platforms and adopt those, but with an otherwise liberal policy. Maybe you could be the environmental, anti-war party that believes homosexuality should be a crime. Or you could be the universal health care, strong social support network parties that believes anyone who smokes pot should go to prison for life.

(Takes a swig of whiskey.) God, it's all so depressing. Why are people so conservative anyway?

Ray R.

08-04-2006, 02:36 PM

However, I think what Romanelli did was incredibly POLITICALLY stupid, because it will bait Democrats into raising ballot access barriers, bullying us around the country and reinforce the false "spoiler" argument that we're working for the GOP.

He should give the money back. And the Democrats should cease their attempt to have him thrown from the ballot.

If it's any consolation, Mike, I agree with you completely.

I think I speak for most of us when I say I'd love to shitcan this two-party system and start over, I mean really love to do so.

Thanks to you, Valmore and some others in the real world, I formally changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Independent, primarily because I felt like the Democrats were not representative of my core values, particularly center-right carpetbaggers like Hillary Clinton. It's made my skin crawl to see the entrenched partisan spoils system of 98% incumbency rates and legislation being written by industry lobbyists.

But I also agree with moebius (who's impressed me with his knowledgeable posting) that I really truly feel the best way for the Greens or any other party to become a viable option is to build from the local level up, grassroots style. Yes, you state you are doing that, and I would be happy to support the Greens financially at the local level. But at the high state office, federal level, personally, I just think that because of the electoral inequities you mention, I HAVE to go with the lesser of two evils, and go with whatever I feel has the best chance to provide both accountability and oversight on the train wreck in power right now.

The deck is stacked, no doubt. But if enough Greens get in at the local level, then perhaps, they can build to the point where substantive electoral change is possible at the state level first, then eventually to the federal level. No quick fix here.

But until then, I think it's unrealistic to expect entrenched Democratic and Republican interests to do anything BUT manipulate the Greens for their own benefits (tangible or intangible). It's a power and money game, and since the Greens have neither, then of course they'll be susceptible to the machinations of those that do, whether they wear a donkey or an elephant.

I think it's a problem to think that those of us voting Democratic in this upcoming election wouldn't LIKE to vote Green or Libertarian or Constitutional, etc. But I honestly think that until the Greens or Libertarians have become entrenched themselves, and I'm willing to contribute on the local level in the hope that it builds that foundation piece by piece, then for high state and federal elections I need to make the effort to make my individual vote mean the most for meaningful change NOW. And that means at least getting some accountability and oversight for the incompetent, dangerous and corrupt boob sitting in the Oval Office through hearings and resolutions, even if the ones overseeing the fox in the chicken house aren't that much better looking in comparison.

It's a Faustian contract, but one with a more immediate payoff than voting Green and hoping millions of others buck the system.

I know you probably don't agree, but can you at least understand where I'm coming from?

Ray R.

08-04-2006, 02:42 PM

It'd be nice if people got this upset when Democrats and Republicans took money from questionable sources. :D

Jack Abramoff, white courtesy phone. Mr. Abramoff, white courtesy phone.

Tom DeLay might choose to disagree with you.

And talk to Al Gore about his Buddhist Temple campaign financing sometime.

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 03:00 PM

If it's any consolation, Mike, I agree with you completely.

I think I speak for most of us when I say I'd love to shitcan this two-party system and start over, I mean really love to do so.

Thanks to you, Valmore and some others in the real world, I formally changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Independent, primarily because I felt like the Democrats were not representative of my core values, particularly center-right carpetbaggers like Hillary Clinton. It's made my skin crawl to see the entrenched partisan spoils system of 98% incumbency rates and legislation being written by industry lobbyists.

But I also agree with moebius (who's impressed me with his knowledgeable posting) that I really truly feel the best way for the Greens or any other party to become a viable option is to build from the local level up, grassroots style. Yes, you state you are doing that, and I would be happy to support the Greens financially at the local level. But at the high state office, federal level, personally, I just think that because of the electoral inequities you mention, I HAVE to go with the lesser of two evils, and go with whatever I feel has the best chance to provide both accountability and oversight on the train wreck in power right now.

The deck is stacked, no doubt. But if enough Greens get in at the local level, then perhaps, they can build to the point where substantive electoral change is possible at the state level first, then eventually to the federal level. No quick fix here.

But almost every year, a majority of our races are run locally. And nobody ever seems to hear about it, because they're all non-partisan and never get any real press. Even in the races we win.

And for the local partisan races like State Legislature, many of which we have a real chance of winning, we need to run statewide candidates to keep our ballot line. Some states even require you to run a Presidential candidate to keep your ballot line.

As I said before, we need the big partisan races to speak on the issues that people really care about and base their votes on (war, gay rights, abortion..etc) and only by running at that level can we speak to those issues and give people another option on the ballot that matches their values. Also, we get the press attention that lets us get the crowds and trickle down that support to our local races. Only in third party politics does "Reaganomics" work. :)

I can tell you for a fact that every time we run a high profile race with a good candidate, we grow tremendously. Every time we run a local race, no matter how good, we stay the same size unless we win.

In 2000, we ran a Green for Congress in Seattle that got 20% of the vote and forced the incumbent Dem to be more progressive. That race along with Nader's gave us a huge boost for the next couples years. In 2003, we ran and won two School Board seats in Seattle and nobody knows that the people who won were Green, since they're very liberal, people just assume that they're Dems and we didn't get any sort of a boost in strength or membership at all.

In fact there are Greens that advocate running locally only and if you really look at the results, they're usually leaders in states with tiny state parties. California, which always runs aggressively at all levels has the most elected Greens of any state and more mayors, city councilmen and others than any other and they regularly run strong races for Governor, Senate and others.

We run big to grow the structure to run those smaller races, to get the press to let people know that we even exist. The Greens have been around since 1984, running only local races, but it wasn't until 2000 that we had a state party in a majority of states. Nader's run ballooned the size of the party and skyrocketed the number of local candidates we ran and the even the number of local candidates that won.

Also, running big is the only way to leverage election reform.

As for moebius, talking about it theoretically and studying is a much different thing that actually doing it. Especially when I can look at concrete examples of the states that always run strong high profile statewide races being much stronger and winning more local races than states that try to "play it safe".

Believe me, this is a huge issue among Greens internally and one that we scream and fight with one another much worse than anything on this thread. There are Greens that advocate that strategy despite the fact that it's consistently failed us and that our greatest and fastest growth in both registration, votes and winning campaigns has been from 2000 onward.

We've run a local race last year and a statewide race this year. One of them grew our party, the other one didn't. Its not hard to guess which one has fired people's imaginations and will likely net us with two new local parties ready to run candidates in the local races next year. And should we get 5% in this year's U.S. Senate race, those local candidates will not have to petition for ballot access and will be in a much better position to win.

It's a Faustian contract, but one with a more immediate payoff than voting Green and hoping millions of others buck the system.

I know you probably don't agree, but can you at least understand where I'm coming from?

I do disagree and understand where you're coming from, because I used to feel the same way. But I realized that voting Democrat all the time isn't a solution for the long term. It's a constant short term solution that will only hurt and get worse in the long term, like just putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.

Alot of people believe that if the Democrats win the Senate, they'll start the process of impeaching or punishing Bush, repealing his laws and taking the country in a more progressive direction, but if you listen to the Democratic candidates, none of them are saying this. Most say that they'll continue Bush's agenda, but will do it in a more competent way.

Only the pundits and bloggers seem to be pushing this wishful thinking version of a Democratic victory.

They don't disagree with what Bush does, only how he does it. And the Democrats that do courageously stand up and demand that Bush be called out are treated like kooks and ignored and marginalized.

And hey, even if you are afraid of "spoiling", it's largely irrelevant in most big races, which have, like you say, a 98% incumbency rate. In my state alone, there is only one contested Congressional election. The rest are 80-20 and 70-30 and 60-40. It's the same for most states. In 2002 alone, out of 435 seats, only 5 changed hands -- and one of them was Gary Condit's, to give you an idea of what it takes to lose nowadays.

From my experience, voting Democrat to hold back the Dems and then continuing to vote for them when they betray you gives away all of our political power. The Democrats know that if they slide left, they lose corporate money and get some voters, but the know from experience that if they slide right they gain corporate money and don't lose many voters at all.

So, that's exactly what they're going to do. And believe me when I say that I'm going to hold you to supporting us at the local level and I'm gonna get hitting you up for votes at all levels.

Ray R.

08-04-2006, 03:23 PM

From my experience, voting Democrat to hold back the Dems and then continuing to vote for them when they betray you gives away all of our political power. The Democrats know that if they slide left, they lose corporate money and get some voters, but the know from experience that if they slide right they gain corporate money and don't lose many voters at all.

So, that's exactly what they're going to do. And believe me when I say that I'm going to hold you to supporting us at the local level and I'm gonna get hitting you up for votes at all levels.

Well, at the risk of sounding like I'm waving the white flag, l appreciate your insights. I do have hope, I just need to more convinced in the brain over the heart. And just one minor point, I'm not holding out too much hope for the Senate, but I do have, I think, legitimate hopes for the House, where true patriots like Rep. Conyers can hold hearings in places other than the basement.

And while I can't put up checks like Republican donors do ;), you can count on my support financially. I support the cause, even if I've yet to show it at the ballot box so far.

I'm happy to consider my political thinking and leanings a work in progress, although others might call it a piece of junk.....

Calybos

08-04-2006, 03:29 PM

Well, that's such an intelligent, well thought out response, I don't see how one could possibly argue with you.... Perhaps you Greens are just to green at politics, if you'll pardon the pun.

Hey, I never claimed to be reasonable in the face of electoral abuse and blatant self-serving lies.

I also never claimed to be a Green. Appropriately enough, since I'm not.

Grazzt

08-04-2006, 03:40 PM

Jack Abramoff, white courtesy phone. Mr. Abramoff, white courtesy phone.

Tom DeLay might choose to disagree with you.

And talk to Al Gore about his Buddhist Temple campaign financing sometime.

Yes, but there are very few people swearing off the entire Republican or Democratic parties because of those scandals, except for the people who weren't likely to vote in either of those directions anyway.

You know, like those people who say "Give me a reason to vote *insert party here*", and when you do they just scoff your reasons in various ways.

Ray R.

08-04-2006, 03:59 PM

Yes, but there are very few people swearing off the entire Republican or Democratic parties because of those scandals, except for the people who weren't likely to vote in either of those directions anyway.

You know, like those people who say "Give me a reason to vote *insert party here*", and when you do they just scoff your reasons in various ways.

I'd agree with your logic if people said they were swearing off the entire Green Party because of the actions of Romanelli. That's the comparison you're making.

I think most of us have decided and stated our reasons for either voting Green or not voting Green and none that I've have seen have been affected by a guy running Green in Pennsylvania. I live in Virginia, so I can't vote there and affect the outcome in any way.

Santorum is the bad guy, no doubt. But as Mike agreed, it was not smart politically (and I would argue ethically) for Romanelli to be completely funded by Republican donors looking to dilute the Democratic vote for Casey.

Noone's writing off the Greens for the actions of one person. You can separate the incident from the Party, much as Republicans and Democrats do, as you suggest.

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 04:07 PM

I'd agree with your logic if people said they were swearing off the entire Green Party because of the actions of Romanelli. That's the comparison you're making.

Joe Rice did say that. He said we'd lost his vote forever. Fair enough, but I hope he holds the Dems and Reps to the same hardline standards.

Santorum is the bad guy, no doubt. But as Mike agreed, it was not smart politically (and I would argue ethically) for Romanelli to be completely funded by Republican donors looking to dilute the Democratic vote for Casey.

The point I was making before was that Casey has no entitlement to that vote and more options is only better and could only force Casey to be a better candidate, since he'd have to be more than "better than Santorum", which is a hurdle one could trip over.

Casey is more conservative than the Republican in our Senate race, to give you an idea of what I think a Green in the race is necessary.

Noone's writing off the Greens for the actions of one person. You can separate the incident from the Party, much as Republicans and Democrats do, as you suggest.

Well, alot of the statements are pretty general and are blasting not Romanelli, but the Greens. Sadly, though people don't separate individuals from the party as easily when it comes to us.

A Republican makes a political mistake or acts like a kook and people say, "wow, what a kook". When Greens do the same, it's "wow, the Greens are kooks".

And again, many, many Greens donated to the petition drive, but did it by giving to the state party's effort which was the organization spearheading the petitioning drive and fundraising for it. In this, Daily Kos misrepresenting the issue. The Romanelli campaign's site got the Republican donors. The $30 figure is from

Grazzt

08-04-2006, 04:09 PM

Noone's writing off the Greens for the actions of one person.

Yeah, they definitely lost what little chance they had ever getting my vote in ANY race.

You were saying?

To be perfectly fair, from Joe's tone it didn't sound like he was big on voting for the Greens anyway, so he probably falls into the second category of people I listed.

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 04:12 PM

I was looking up Bob Casey's (the Democrat who seems poised to curb stomp Santorm) positions on issues.

*He's pro-life
*He's for the death penalty
*He says he would have voted for the invasion of Iraq
*He's against gay marriage
*He's against any laws that would force pharmacists to fill prescriptions that are against their moral beliefs.
*He is for overturning Roe vs. Wade
*He publicly supported the confirmations of Roberts & Alito to the Supreme Court

He is, however, in favor of contraception (Casey is a Catholic), and is against drilling in ANWR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Patrick_Casey%2C_Jr.

Isn't Lieberman at least pro-choice?

People should get the opportunity to vote for people who represent their interests.

MatthewC

08-04-2006, 04:14 PM

Ray R.

08-04-2006, 04:18 PM

Joe Rice did say that. He said we'd lost his vote forever. Fair enough, but I hope he holds the Dems and Reps to the same hardline standards.

Well, I stand corrected. However, all things being equal, I doubt Joe is that adamant about it, but even if he is, that's hardly been the case on this thread.

The point I was making before was that Casey has no entitlement to that vote and more options is only better and could only force Casey to be a better candidate, since he'd have to be more than "better than Santorum", which is a hurdle one could trip over.

Casey is more conservative than the Republican in our Senate race, to give you an idea of what I think a Green in the race is necessary.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I'm not particularly enamored with Casey. But considering Santorum, I'd vote for a dead horse over that hypocritical dickhead, IF I thought the dead horse had a good shot of winning. If I were in Pennsylvania and thought the Green Party candidate was polling well, was able to get their message out, and had a shot of beating Santorum, I'd vote for them in a second. As it is, ridding the Senate of a fag-hating demagogue ranks higher to me than a pro-life conservative Democrat. Again, Faustian contract.

Well, alot of the statements are pretty general and are blasting not Romanelli, but the Greens. Sadly, though people don't separate individuals from the party as easily when it comes to us.

A Republican makes a political mistake or acts like a kook and people say, "wow, what a kook". When Greens do the same, it's "wow, the Greens are kooks".

Well, I feel your pain. When the liberal face is equated to that jackass Ward Churchill OVER and OVER and OVER again, it's not exactly fair. I don't know too many conservatives who are exactly proud of Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson either. You tend to get painted with a broad brush by your least favorable fringe element. The best you can do as a Green, and which I do as a liberal, is stand up for your principles, and not cower from the label. Sounds like you're doing just that. Good on you.

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 04:19 PM

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 04:22 PM

Question. (I'm feeling a bit better now.)

If the choice is between:

1. Having one moderate to right party and one right to extreme right party with approximately equal representation in government.

or

2. Having one minority liberal party and having one right wing party and one extreme right wing party.

Which, as a liberal, are you better off supporting?

The latter because the former is what we have now and with that formula, progressives lose and lose and lose. Even when, like right now, many of our issues are shared by a majority of people in the country. What am I gaining? Nothing.

The only major social justice victories came when independent citizen movements and third parties took hard stances, grew, and forced the major party to take on their issues or be left in the dust.

Because option 1 is one where I have no voice and is a big part of the reason people don't even vote. Option 2 is an uphill climb, but its the only way to make any progress.

Grazzt

08-04-2006, 04:25 PM

I'd vote for a dead horse over that hypocritical dickhead

Perhaps the Democrats should have run a dead horse instead. I mean, the dead horse wouldn't be opposed to either abortion or gay marriage, and he wouldn't support conservative Supreme Court justices. And he could feed the hungry too (at least if its a recently deceased horse, and only as long as he still has flesh).

Then again, the last Republican that got beaten by one of the deceased got a cabinet position for his troubles, and the last thing in the world I want to see is Santorum as Secretary of State.

Ray R.

08-04-2006, 04:26 PM

The latter because the former is what we have now and with that formula, progressives lose and lose and lose. Even when, like right now, many of our issues are shared by a majority of people in the country. What am I gaining? Nothing.

The only major social justice victories came when independent citizen movements and third parties took hard stances, grew, and forced the major party to take on their issues or be left in the dust.

Because option 1 is one where I have no voice and is a big part of the reason people don't even vote. Option 2 is an uphill climb, but its the only way to make any progress.

I agree completely, although I'm a little more optimistic of forcing the party to change from within by ridding elements (see Lieberman, Joe) that don't reflect the party's core values, and supporting progressive candidates within the party, but again, if a third party was a viable option to me, be it local, state or federal, I'd support it.

moebius

08-04-2006, 04:29 PM

As for moebius, talking about it theoretically and studying is a much different thing that actually doing it. Especially when I can look at concrete examples of the states that always run strong high profile statewide races being much stronger and winning more local races than states that try to "play it safe".

...

We've run a local race last year and a statewide race this year. One of them grew our party, the other one didn't. Its not hard to guess which one has fired people's imaginations and will likely net us with two new local parties ready to run candidates in the local races next year. And should we get 5% in this year's U.S. Senate race, those local candidates will not have to petition for ballot access and will be in a much better position to win.

If I were to compare real political science and political consultancy or political activists, I think the nearest analogy is sabremetrics vs. scouting in baseball. Scouts "go with their gut" and years personal experience. Sabremetricians and statisticians use the entire body of baseball statistics to discern trends.

Political scientists work the same way (ideally). They don't look at anecdotal evidence, though they might use such evidence to inform their theories. They look at every instance of their phenomenon within certain parameters (for me: small or 3rd parties in Western democracies), then they start eliminating factors until they think they can tell some causal story. Ideally, there is some ability to take all that data and apply some statistical rigor to it.

Especially when I can look at concrete examples of the states that always run strong high profile statewide races being much stronger and winning more local races than states that try to "play it safe"."

I would worry about the selection bias in this statement. The states that run high state profile races might also be the ones with the most support for the party in the first place, and therefore the most likely to see Greens elected.

We've run a local race last year and a statewide race this year. One of them grew our party, the other one didn't. Its not hard to guess which one has fired people's imaginations and will likely net us with two new local parties ready to run candidates in the local races next year.

Have you considered alternative arguments? The race this year is a general election year, when people have been primed to think about domestic politics more generally. In addition, you're probably spending much more on outreach, because it's a "big race." How many new members have you gotten per dollar spent on recruitment last year vs. this year?

Wesley Dodds

08-04-2006, 04:32 PM

Isn't Lieberman at least pro-choice?

Kind of. He's likes to have it both ways. So, he doesn't vote for it (and he's in the minority so it doesn't matter) but he does vote for cloture, where it could make a difference (because there are Republicans in the same position -- they don't want to take a stand on it).

The main problem with DLC thinking is that it takes the base for granted. You think the Democrats have got the support of liberals no matter what? Think again, guys. The Republicans don't pull this kind of shit on their base.

But Lieberman's not unique. He wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for "We undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril"?

In other words, if you attack Bush, you're hurting the country. No wonder Sean Hannity loves him! But, then again, everyone who would be happy if the Democrats just vanished loves Lieberman.

And then he says that he might run as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination. Now, Joe, I'm no expert, but didn't you just tell your own party to fuck off? Wasn't smart.

If Lieberman isn't a Dalek, he's a human who thinks he can collaborate with them.

Ray R.

08-04-2006, 04:34 PM

Perhaps the Democrats should have run a dead horse instead. I mean, the dead horse wouldn't be opposed to either abortion or gay marriage, and he wouldn't support conservative Supreme Court justices. And he could feed the hungry too (at least if its a recently deceased horse, and only as long as he still has flesh).

Then again, the last Republican that got beaten by one of the deceased got a cabinet position for his troubles, and the last thing in the world I want to see is Santorum as Secretary of State.

No argument here. Like I said, my dislike for Casey is only outweighed by complete abhorrence of Santorum. If Dan Savage can justify giving money to Casey (later returned -- dick move) and then to a Pro-Casey group to rid the Senate of the "family values" cancer of Santorum, then it's good enough justifcation for me. Again, dead possum, zombie zookeeper, blind orangutan -- all would get their vote from me over Rick "frothy mix" Santorum, depending on whether they had a chance to win.

And Rick Santorum would be perfect as the Secretary of Health & Human Services. He could make abstinence a national standard, teach children that homosexuality and bestiality are completely equatable, and cut all AIDs funding to children both here in the States and abroad. And back-alley abortions will have a major comeback, raising sales of coathangers considerably. Oh, joy.

moebius

08-04-2006, 04:39 PM

The main problem with DLC thinking is that it takes the base for granted. You think the Democrats have got the support of liberals no matter what? Think again, guys. The Republicans don't pull this kind of shit on their base.

They don't? There's a growing concern within the Republican party that their base is going to stay home in November, for a variety of reasons:

1. They've sold out the small government crowd.
2. The Christian Right doesn't think they're going far enough.
3. The anti-immigration wing of the party is pissed at the President (for holding the right policy, IMO).

They might "kiss and make up" before the election, deciding an unhappy House is better than no house, but it's something to keep in mind.

Spike-X

08-04-2006, 04:41 PM

I was looking up Bob Casey's (the Democrat who seems poised to curb stomp Santorm) positions on issues.

*He's pro-life
*He's for the death penalty
*He says he would have voted for the invasion of Iraq
*He's against gay marriage
*He's against any laws that would force pharmacists to fill prescriptions that are against their moral beliefs.
*He is for overturning Roe vs. Wade
*He publicly supported the confirmations of Roberts & Alito to the Supreme Court

Yeah, huge difference in policies there. You'd hate to "spoil" that race by offering an actual choice.

Tages

08-04-2006, 04:42 PM

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 04:42 PM

If Lieberman isn't a Dalek, he's a human who thinks he can collaborate with them.

http://img499.imageshack.us/img499/1631/southparkcursemaster25um.jpg

Lieberman has been enhanced by Dalek technology!

And a shiny gold star to whomever gets that joke!

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 04:49 PM

Wesley Dodds

08-04-2006, 04:53 PM

They don't? There's a growing concern within the Republican party that their base is going to stay home in November, for a variety of reasons:

1. They've sold out the small government crowd.
2. The Christian Right doesn't think they're going far enough.
3. The anti-immigration wing of the party is pissed at the President (for holding the right policy, IMO).

They might "kiss and make up" before the election, deciding an unhappy House is better than no house, but it's something to keep in mind.

No, they don't. There's a competence issue, not an ideology issue.

They haven't sold out the small government crowd. Small government doesn't mean the size of the government or how much power it has, it has more to do with what the government does.

Basically, if the feds do something conservatives don't agree with, it's big government. Spending a huge amount on the military (for example) wouldn't be considered big government. They're not talking about the size, they're talking about intrusion that's not legitimate because it's not conservative.

Some conservatives are unhappy with him because of the competence issue. Others are unhappy because they think he's too conservative.

There's another group, the Daleks. They're not happy because he's not conservative enough, it's true. The thing is, they're batshit crazy. Bush'd have to wall off Mexico and then declare that we had to prepare for the Rapture to keep them happy.

He's been as conservative as he could -- that's different from Democrats trashing the left to win points with the right. Imagine if Bush started his day by talking about how terrible the right is. You can't, he'd never do it.

Wesley Dodds

08-04-2006, 04:55 PM

Lieberman has been enhanced by Dalek technology!

And a shiny gold star to whomever gets that joke!

I do, but I don't count.

Basically, Lieberman hasn't been through the conversion arch, he just thinks the Daleks will reward him if he helps them. But, fuck, they're Daleks, they're going to dispose of him the moment he's no longer useful.

Lieberman = moron.

Grazzt

08-04-2006, 04:57 PM

Again, dead possum, zombie zookeeper, blind orangutan -- all would get their vote from me over Rick "frothy mix" Santorum, depending on whether they had a chance to win.

What is it with you and electing dead/maimed animals? If I ever run for president, I'll make sure my running mate is a stuffed bear. That'll win me the Rivard vote for sure. :p

And for the record, a zombie zookeeper would make an awesome politician:

ZOMBIE ZOOKEEPER: I see my opponent doesn't care enough about this race to even bother showing up for the debates. No wonder, because I'm the only one with a smart vision for the future of this state.

*Elsewhere, a limo is parked by the side of the road, being rammed repeatedly by a zombie rhinocerous, while a man in a smart suit is hiding up a tree while zombie lions lie in wait at the base.*

moebius

08-04-2006, 05:02 PM

They haven't sold out the small government crowd. Small government doesn't mean the size of the government or how much power it has, it has more to do with what the government does.

Prescription drugs, increased deficits and increased government spending are all ways the "small government" Grover Norquist/William Buckley crowd feel they've been screwed over.

Also, throw in the "true libertarians," who see the incursion into the social sphere as an additional slap to the face.

Wesley Dodds

08-04-2006, 05:03 PM

The GOP regularly sells out every group of supporters it has. Every election season is a new chance to watch them come up with some original way to trick the small government Reps, the religious Reps, and the nationalist/protectionist Reps into voting for them when they never plan on following through with their promises except the minimum amount as it will take to trick voters into electing them again.

See, I think there's some truth to this -- it's that Thomas Frank idea, that the Republicans use moral issues to get the base angry and then drop them just after the election. Gay marriage? Meh, wait until it's an election year again.

But I don't think it's because they're just for business and are manipulating moral values types, I think it's because they're conservative activists and don't want to jeopardise their gains by going too fast. They still need enough of that 20% of the country that could vote either way to govern.

If the federal government made it illegal for husbands to unplug their wives the entire country would freak out. The group that thinks it would be a good idea are too conservative for the rest of the country. Doesn't mean that the people in charge aren't, in fact, conservatives.

Molly Ivins' book Bushwhacked is worth reading because it shows just how total their war against liberal values has been. Seriously, these guys are conservatives. They're trying to make America over in the image of conservative values. If part of the base feels betrayed, it's only because they want everything now.

It's not enough for Bush to destroy liberalism in America, he has to stick it to them and rant about it while he does it. Only then would they be happy.

Drew Van T.

08-04-2006, 05:03 PM

Wesley Dodds

08-04-2006, 05:07 PM

Prescription drugs, increased deficits and increased government spending are all ways the "small government" Grover Norquist/William Buckley crowd feel they've been screwed over.

Also, throw in the "true libertarians," who see the incursion into the social sphere as an additional slap to the face.

Buckley's volte-face was a rat leaving a sinking ship. So's Grover's -- he affects to hate policies he wanted put into place. Massive tax cuts every year were his idea -- force cuts through deficits.

Libertarians are more of a special case of conservatives -- they've only be able to be tight with mainstream conservatives because there was more danger from the left than the right. With the right ascendent, that's changed.

Wesley Dodds

08-04-2006, 05:18 PM

Basically, I think there is a split between Libertarians and the morals crowd. Yep, it's there.

But I think the bigger split is between Republicans who are free to be as conservative as their hearts desire and Republicans who are terrified of being kicked out of office.

Because Bush's administration has lost the moderates he needs to govern. Partly because he's been too conservative for some moderates and partly because he's been so incompetent that the pragmatists have walked away.

It's not the end of the right -- it's the end of the right's ability to hold power (for now). We've also learnt that there's a limit to how far right you can go in America and still win elections.

Justin D.

08-04-2006, 06:40 PM

It'd be nice if people got this upset when Democrats and Republicans took money from questionable sources.

Jack Abramoff, white courtesy phone. Mr. Abramoff, white courtesy phone.

Tom DeLay might choose to disagree with you.

And talk to Al Gore about his Buddhist Temple campaign financing sometime.

And I was just going to say, "They don't?" but your way is much better said.

Justin D.

08-04-2006, 06:42 PM

Yeah, they definitely lost what little chance they had ever getting my vote in ANY race.

Would they have a chance of getting your vote back if they separated themselves from Romanelli, or at least, suggested he didn't run for office due to his actions?

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 07:06 PM

Fair enough, Justin & Ray. Tom Delay, at least, is facing criminal prosecution.

As for Al Gore's Buddhist Temple money: Did it stop you guys from voting for Al Gore in 2000? If you had it to do over again, would you have voted for Al Gore?

What specifically are the Democrats on this thread wanting out of their party, anyway?

Are you wanting to protect abortion rights? Get military forces out of Iraq? Are you wanting to keep corporations from outsourcing jobs? Are you wanting a stronger EPA? Are you wanting rid of the Patriot Act or Homeland Security?

Do you think having someone like Bob Casey in office will accomplish any of this?

moebius

08-04-2006, 07:41 PM

Are you wanting to protect abortion rights? Get military forces out of Iraq? Are you wanting to keep corporations from outsourcing jobs? Are you wanting a stronger EPA? Are you wanting rid of the Patriot Act or Homeland Security?

Do you think having someone like Bob Casey in office will accomplish any of this?

You've set up a payoff structure, and I'll use this election to show you why:

Let's say I'm a 20 on the Left-Right scale, Romanelli is a 20, Bob Casey is a 65 and Santorum is an 85. I know that Romanelli has a low probability of winning, and Casey and Santorum are about equal, but that Romanelli's support is within the margin of error for a Casey victory.

Using modified Downsian logic under these electoral rules, I vote for Casey (he gives me the best expected payoff), or if they're both so far away that I'm indifferent between them, I vote for Romanelli or Abstain. Under STV or IR, I vote Romanelli, then Casey, or maybe just Romanelli, Abstain. There are models of rationality that support both decisions.

Now, add the fact that Casey is not necessarily representative of his party, and electing Casey doesn't mean national policy is set at 65. Let's say the Democrats have a median position of 55 and the Republicans 75. So if Casey wins and this election decides the Senate leadership, I'm actually setting national policy at 55. Maybe I was indifferent when my best possible payoff was 65, but not when it's 55. So now it's really worth my while to vote Casey, even if I don't like him personally.

Conclusion:

If I were to vote for Casey, I'm not actually voting for Casey's policies, I'm voting for the Democratic Party's policies, of which Casey is on the fringe. I don't have to agree with the man, I just have to agree with his party. When the Democrats have a sufficient lead that I can start throwing out members on the right-wing without affecting the overall government policy (I would like to see Byrd, Casey and Lieberman all gone, for ex.), it will be in my interest to do so.

The calculus on something like Lieberman-Lamont is different. If both of them have an equal chance of winning against the Republican candidate in November, and Lieberman is at 60 while Lamont is at 35, I vote for Lamont, because now I'm moving the median for my party closer to my ideal point without actually hurting the chances of getting a better policy outocome in November.

If Lieberman has a significant advantage over Lamont when going against the Rep in the General, my calculus becomes more complicated, because again Lieberman is still a member of the party (and one with high loyalty on everything but the WoT) and can still guarantee me my payoff of 55 if the Dems win.

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 08:30 PM

If I were to compare real political science and political consultancy or political activists, I think the nearest analogy is sabremetrics vs. scouting in baseball. Scouts "go with their gut" and years personal experience. Sabremetricians and statisticians use the entire body of baseball statistics to discern trends.

Political scientists work the same way (ideally). They don't look at anecdotal evidence, though they might use such evidence to inform their theories. They look at every instance of their phenomenon within certain parameters (for me: small or 3rd parties in Western democracies), then they start eliminating factors until they think they can tell some causal story. Ideally, there is some ability to take all that data and apply some statistical rigor to it.

But life doesn't work as a set of statistics. It's people and convincing people to get excited about this race or another. And people dont easily fit in little boxes and fall under easily defined voting patterns.

For instance, when we ran for a countywide office last year, I heard a lot of liberals talk about voting Republican so that they could kick the longtime incumbent Democrat out of office and then nominate someone more progressive in four years.

We had to try to convince those people to instead vote for us, saying that giving a big victory to the Republican will only embolden him to be more conservative when he wins and give any future challengers the impression they need to run Right to win.

People vote on federal issues 90% of the time and it trickles down the ballot. When we only run in local races on small environmental concerns and potholes, we can do alot of good, but it's good on issues that don't drive people to the polls and its good in election years that a majority of people do not vote in.

By running in the big races, we build the structure and plug them into the party on the big races and then stick around for the smaller races because of an affection and affiliation with the party.

I've talked to countless people from all ends of the political spectrum and if one thing is clear to me it's that they see the Presidential ticket up and down the ballot and vote largely based on it. When they see a Republican running for State Representive and they hate Bush, they think Bush and vote accordingly. The same with Greens. When they see the Greens running hard against the war and for civil liberties and universal healthcare in a Senate race and then see a Green further down the ballot running for a smaller race, they're more likely to know what that Green is likely about, whether they pay any attention to that race at all -- and they usually don't. Until I became a political junkie, I couldn't tell you who my State Reps were, but I could think shorthand based on party affiliation.

So running in the big races is not only about educating people about the party and our issues, its about building a connection between those big races and the little ones.

And like I said before, in most states to hold on to your ballot line that you give to smaller candidates, you need to run in the big races.

I would worry about the selection bias in this statement. The states that run high state profile races might also be the ones with the most support for the party in the first place, and therefore the most likely to see Greens elected.

And you can watch the numbers jump in registration and election of Green candidates to local offices after 1996 and 2000, when we ran Nader for President. Only in 2004 was there a dip, due to the Bush/Kerry race and anti-third part sentiment. But in 2005 it climbed again.

I'm a delegate to the Green National Committee (and a third party history junkie), so I'm plugged into this stuff and I know the people who run many state parties through national conventions and through email. The states where people play it safe and vote accordingly on the GNC are much smaller than the ones who run prominent candidates at all levels of office.

Have you considered alternative arguments? The race this year is a general election year, when people have been primed to think about domestic politics more generally. In addition, you're probably spending much more on outreach, because it's a "big race." How many new members have you gotten per dollar spent on recruitment last year vs. this year?

It's not the arguments, it's people. People get less excited about some issues than others. A good look at the topics discussed on the Comm board is a good example. What do we see? War, Religion, Moral issues, Civil Liberties..etc. Not issues that come up in a serious run for city council.

You build the party and hold on to your ballot access with the big races. You get people elected with the smaller ones and you use the strengthened party that you grew from the big races to elect those local Greens.

As for outreach, the national party always makes a big deal out of the right local races and so do the states. Aimee Alison for Oakland City Council is a BIG race this year, for instance. There's a State Senate seat we're favorited to win in another state as well. And in 2003, we nearly won Mayor of San Francisco with Matt Gonzalez. We won a race for mayor in Marfa, Texas last year too.

But the coalitions that helped get those Greens elected were built with the structure we got from Nader, Camejo and others who've run for national and state office and grew the party so that we could win those races.

I agree that local races are critical, but to grow we need to run at all levels.

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 08:41 PM

Also, I would like to apologize to people that I have snapped at in this thread. Admittedly, this is a topic that I am very passionate about and I hold to the points that I have made. However, there is no excuse for the hostile way that I made those points.

I'm sorry for my behavior and would like to pull this debate to a better and more civil level.

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 09:52 PM

You've set up a payoff structure, and I'll use this election to show you why:

You call it a payoff.

I call them principles.

Let's say I'm a 20 on the Left-Right scale, Romanelli is a 20, Bob Casey is a 65 and Santorum is an 85. I know that Romanelli has a low probability of winning, and Casey and Santorum are about equal, but that Romanelli's support is within the margin of error for a Casey victory.

Using modified Downsian logic under these electoral rules, I vote for Casey (he gives me the best expected payoff), or if they're both so far away that I'm indifferent between them, I vote for Romanelli or Abstain. Under STV or IR, I vote Romanelli, then Casey, or maybe just Romanelli, Abstain. There are models of rationality that support both decisions.

Now, add the fact that Casey is not necessarily representative of his party, and electing Casey doesn't mean national policy is set at 65. Let's say the Democrats have a median position of 55 and the Republicans 75. So if Casey wins and this election decides the Senate leadership, I'm actually setting national policy at 55. Maybe I was indifferent when my best possible payoff was 65, but not when it's 55. So now it's really worth my while to vote Casey, even if I don't like him personally.

Conclusion:

If I were to vote for Casey, I'm not actually voting for Casey's policies, I'm voting for the Democratic Party's policies, of which Casey is on the fringe. I don't have to agree with the man, I just have to agree with his party. When the Democrats have a sufficient lead that I can start throwing out members on the right-wing without affecting the overall government policy (I would like to see Byrd, Casey and Lieberman all gone, for ex.), it will be in my interest to do so.

And by voting for such a conservative candidate, you move the median value of the Democratic Party to a number higher than 55. By electing Casey, you tell them that to win they have to move towards the right on issues.

Lieberman has been in office for 18 years, and I don't see the Democratic Party softening his positions. If you elect conservative Democrats, they'll simply side with the Republicans on issues.

Casey is a young man. Imagine Casey in office for 18 years.

I'm still wondering what Democrats on this thread specifically want out of the Democratic Party.

moebius

08-04-2006, 10:18 PM

You call it a payoff.

I call them principles.

The Voting Behavior literature calls it a payoff.

Parties can be office-seeking, vote-seeking or policy-seeking. Voters can vote for now or vote for future elections. They have differing indifference curves on policy outcomes and different discounting factors for future elections. It all determines how your payoffs are structured.

And by voting for such a conservative candidate, you move the median value of the Democratic Party to a number higher than 55. By electing Casey, you tell them that to win they have to move towards the right on issues.

Lieberman has been in office for 18 years, and I don't see the Democratic Party softening his positions. If you elect conservative Democrats, they'll simply side with the Republicans on issues.

Sure, but not as much as I would by getting rid of someone like Lieberman. Lieberman is a nationally recognized Democrat. Casey will be the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. Who do you think has more influence?

I'm still wondering what Democrats on this thread specifically want out of the Democratic Party.

I want the US out of Iraq, energy independence and energy conservation, a reinvestment in American schools and American infrastructure, a party with a rational answer to the outsourcing and immigration debates, a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, meaningful campaign finance reform, an end to corporate welfare, and something resembling national healthcare.

Who's going to get me there? The Green Party that cannot be elected under the current system (and shows no prospect of their fortunes changing) and will give me nothing, or the Democratic Party that can and will give me half of what I want?

What do you want? And how are you going to get it from the Greens, either tomorrow or in 10 years?

Mike Smash!

08-04-2006, 10:44 PM

I want the US out of Iraq, energy independence and energy conservation, a reinvestment in American schools and American infrastructure, a party with a rational answer to the outsourcing and immigration debates, a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, meaningful campaign finance reform, an end to corporate welfare, and something resembling national healthcare.

...

or the Democratic Party that can and will give me half of what I want?

Which half of those issues do the Democratic Party support? I see nuanced versions of Republican positions coming from their national party on all of those issues, if not outright opposition.

Nobody but the Democratic bloggers and pundits are teasing that they would do any of this if the won the House or Senate.

Nobody who isn't willing to take a stand during an election isn't likely to take that stand when they're in office for six years before they have to run again.

What do you want? And how are you going to get it from the Greens, either tomorrow or in 10 years?

I want to build a new party and change the structure of politics in the U.S., something that from actual tangible experience and from paying attention to history isn't going to happen working within the two party system. I've worked in third parties and tried to build them. And I've tried to be a progressive Democrat. I can tell you which one has been more fulfilling and more productive and effective.

I'm sorry moebius, what what I'm seeing from your explanations is armchair quaterbacking. I've worked extensively in trying to build a third party for a few years now and I have experience trying to influence the Democratic Party from within.

The hypothetical reality of your statistics works when talking about computers or insects, but it falls short when you apply it to actual people, who are not so predictable and don't always fit into boxes easily.

Rags is right. By rewarding Casey with your vote, you're sending a message to the DNC that the way to beat Republicans is to act like them. The lesson they learn is that by moving to the Left, they lose corporate money and potentially gain some progressive voters. If they move Right, the lesson is that they can keep the money and the progressives, who will stick around out of fear or "pragmatic" rationalizations.

So with Casey in office, how would he have voted differently than Santorum on abortion issues, gay rights, the war, the PATRIOT Act and others?

In voting Casey, you give away the only leverage you have over him. By voting Green, you can either pull Casey and the debate to the Left or build an alternative to him if he doesn't (and I don't imagine he will). If your goal is to give politics a better "median" number, you're going about it the wrong way.

After all, if you vote for Casey as a 65, why wouldn't you vote for him as a 70 or 75? And if he wins, he can keep moving that that number and the rest of the party can follow suit because the 20s and 30s are applying no pressure.

And when Casey moves Right, it frees up the GOP to move Right and redefine the middle, calling Casey a radical leftist. I mean, when they call Hillary a "socialist", where the hell is the middle? 55? 65? 70?

The Dems have two option, either change the voting system, which would be good for democracy as a whole or they can run better candidates.

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 11:50 PM

The Voting Behavior literature calls it a payoff.

That's nice.

I want the US out of Iraq, energy independence and energy conservation, a reinvestment in American schools and American infrastructure, a party with a rational answer to the outsourcing and immigration debates, a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, meaningful campaign finance reform, an end to corporate welfare, and something resembling national healthcare.

So, in your opinion, Bob Casey Jr. is the man to get you there?

What do you want? And how are you going to get it from the Greens, either tomorrow or in 10 years?

Honestly? My two biggest concerns are the Patriot Act and Iraq. I will not vote for any politician who support staying in Iraq or the Patriot Act.

And in 10 years, hopefully the Libertarian Party will have gotten a goodly chunk of elected offices and bring some sense to the US political scene :D

I'm still curious what the other Democrats on this thread specifically want out of the Democratic Party.

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

08-04-2006, 11:52 PM

I guess what my point was isthat in my personal experience, people look for any excuse to write off a third party and any excuse to retain a major party.

"Yeah, the Democrat/Republican is bad on everything, but they're good on one issue."

Whereas, we get someone who thinks we're great on everything and then the minute we disagree on one issue, we're horrible.

Again for the record, I'm not morally offended by what Romanelli did. He hasn't changed his positions or anything about his race. Had he immediately gone pro-war or pro-PATRIOT Act after taking a check, I would written an angry email to the PA Greens and demanded his nomination be revoked.

Given the insane (90,000 signatures to get a safe margin) barriers put up in front of him, I can understand why Romanelli did what he did. PA is among one of the worst states for ballot access.

The fact that Republicans funded a petition drive does not invalidate the 100,000 Pennsylvanians that do want an extra choice on the ballot. They're not all Republicans.

In fact, I've always found it hard to get Republicans to sign a petition for a Green. "Sorry, I support Bush, but good luck to you guys".

However, I think what Romanelli did was incredibly POLITICALLY stupid, because it will bait Democrats into raising ballot access barriers, bullying us around the country and reinforce the false "spoiler" argument that we're working for the GOP.

He should give the money back. And the Democrats should cease their attempt to have him thrown from the ballot.

[OFF-TOPIC: Seriously, Dr. H. I apologize for attacking you. Truce?]

Oh, absolutely, truce. I'll confess, I know little about the Green Party, but as a Democrat, I probably take more offense than I should at your criticisms of the Democrats, so if I've been out of line, I, too, apologize.

I will concede that you know more than I about the dealings between Democrats and Greens, but I do caution you, as I have cautioned others in this thread, that not all Democrats are the DLC and I think it's a mistake to ascribe to all Democrats the disdain you have for the hardball tactics of the DLC to keep Greens off the ballot. Ultimately, there are no friends in politics, only alliances. While I understand why the Democrats try to keep Greens off the ballot for tactical reasons, I don't endorse them. Personally, I would prefer a world in which Dems and Greens operated together, or at least cooperated, rather than antagonistically.

I don't think, as you do, that Nader would have been selling out to cooperate with Gore in 2000. Rather, I would see it as an achievement for the Greens to have one or more cabinet positions in the Gore administration. And that achievement, translating into recognition and, for lack of a better term, credibility, I think would result in more votes and more political power for the Greens in the long run. Certainly, I think the Greens would advance their cause more by using the "vote-splitting" argument as a tool to force policy concessions from the Dems than does cooperation with and/or assistance from the Republicans.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of vote-splitting. I agree with you that no liberal votes "belong" to one or the other, but where votes are scarce, to me, it really does come down to the horse-trading.

ragnarok_2012

08-04-2006, 11:56 PM

Who's going to get me there? The Green Party that cannot be elected under the current system (and shows no prospect of their fortunes changing) and will give me nothing, or the Democratic Party that can and will give me half of what I want?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. How do you figure that they'll meet you halfway on your agenda?

Spike-X

08-05-2006, 12:00 AM

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. How do you figure that they'll meet you halfway on your agenda?
"Sure, he's a beer-drinking slob, and he always forgets my birthday, and he puts me down...and sometimes he hits me (only when it's my fault, though)...but I'm sure he'll change once we get married!"

ragnarok_2012

08-05-2006, 12:02 AM

"Sure, he's a beer-drinking slob, and he always forgets my birthday, and he puts me down...and sometimes he hits me (only when it's my fault, though)...but I'm sure he'll change once we get married!"

"B-b-b-but!

The Democrats only hit me because they love me!"

Mike Smash!

08-05-2006, 12:26 AM

Oh, absolutely, truce. I'll confess, I know little about the Green Party, but as a Democrat, I probably take more offense than I should at your criticisms of the Democrats, so if I've been out of line, I, too, apologize.

Accepted and reciprocated.

I will concede that you know more than I about the dealings between Democrats and Greens, but I do caution you, as I have cautioned others in this thread, that not all Democrats are the DLC and I think it's a mistake to ascribe to all Democrats the disdain you have for the hardball tactics of the DLC to keep Greens off the ballot. Ultimately, there are no friends in politics, only alliances. While I understand why the Democrats try to keep Greens off the ballot for tactical reasons, I don't endorse them. Personally, I would prefer a world in which Dems and Greens operated together, or at least cooperated, rather than antagonistically.

I know that not all Dems are DLC types, but most Dems that have real power in the party are. I mean, the Dems that aren't marginalized, laughed at or condemned when they take real stances on issues. The good guys in the party -- Kucinich, Conyers, Feingold..etc -- are treated by the party bosses with only slightly more respect than us.

They're truly a party that doesn't deserve the rank and file that they have, which is much more progressive than most of them in office.

I honestly had no idea what the relationship between the Dems and the Greens was until I became a Green and...oh holy fuck...

It's very much the relationship between the Dems and the Reps. We honestly try to work and coexist with the progressive Dems -- many of which are our friends and fellow activists. We try to make deals in good faith and we get slapped down over and over and over. And sadly, many times we see our friends and fellow progressives apologize or stay silent when their party slaps us.

We're told we have no right to run in any race, no matter how small and that incidentally enough, whatever race we want to run in is far too critical and we MUST beat the Republican. It doesn't matter if its a race for governor or dog catcher. We're told the opposite of Voltaire's famous statement, "I agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death against your right to say it".

But the really nasty stuff that the Democrats regularly pull on us -- using lawsuits to throw us off of ballots or bankrupt us in court, threatening our petitioners with jailtime for bad signatures, tearing up petition pages, following petitioners around and verbally attacking us so that we can get signatures, raising ballot access laws to keep us out of politics...etc.

We regularly have to lobby these people for the reforms we want so that we could just coexist and fight over the issues honestly, but it's clear that all but a few Dems in places of power don't want to share and coexist. And us trying to play nice with Dems like that is like the Dems playing nice with the GOP and getting constantly slapped down for it.

There are plenty of good Dems out there, but I have been constantly shocked by the sorts of people that have blown me away with anti-democratic attitudes toward third parties and then similarly shocked by conservatives with a sense of fair play.

One of the biggest proponents of IRV in my state is a libertarian leaning Republican state legislator named Toby Nixon, who I would vote for over most of the Democrats in office, simply because he believes in basic fairness and doesn't look down his nose at third parties.

I don't think, as you do, that Nader would have been selling out to cooperate with Gore in 2000. Rather, I would see it as an achievement for the Greens to have one or more cabinet positions in the Gore administration. And that achievement, translating into recognition and, for lack of a better term, credibility, I think would result in more votes and more political power for the Greens in the long run. Certainly, I think the Greens would advance their cause more by using the "vote-splitting" argument as a tool to force policy concessions from the Dems than does cooperation with and/or assistance from the Republicans.

I see it differently because Nader's goals aren't Gore's and yours. He wasn't trying to make Gore better -- though it could have been a nice side effect. He was trying to help build something new because he couldn't believe in the Democratic Party. By dropping out of the race, he would have kneecapped that entire effort to build an alternative party and get the 5% that he was aiming for to get the Greens matching funds for 2004. Also, it would have been a betrayal of the people who fought to put him on the ballot, who took verbal abuse from people for supporting him, who stuck up for him, who organized events for him and fought their asses off for his candidacy.

When you run for office, you have to go all the way. It's the least you can do for the people who've given alot to get you there.

I don't believe that people without experience in it really understand the supreme effort it takes to get a candidate on the ballot in 44 states, especially when the big two get on for free everywhere. In many states it means turning in as high as 100,000 signatures in a small window of time and sense of commitment just to make a candidate an option on a piece of paper.

In Illinois, you need to get 25,000 good signatures in 90 days. In Texas, you need 35,000 signatures in 75 days. In North Carolina, you need 70,000 signatures. And that doesn't count all of the extra signatures you need to give yourself a health margin of error.

Now multiply that by 51 and remember that some of the state parties are only just being born and have to build themselves while trying to get that candidate on the ballot.

The last candidate to get on all 50 state ballots plus D.C. was Ross Perot, who could afford to plop down a million bucks a state for a petition drive. And since Perot ran, the major parties raised the barriers to make it harder. He was the last Presidential candidate who wasn't a Democrat or Republican to get on the Oklaholma state ballot.

Now factor in all of the super rallies that Nader put on (he packed Madison Square Garden) and the people that he got out to vote for the first time ever and then factor in the verbal abuse they all took for supporting him.

Now imagine him telling them all, enough of that! It's all over, you've been wasting your time. Forget all the days off you gave me and hours of work you gave up. Vote Gore. Forget what I said about his record.

That's a betrayal. Having been someone whose taken verbal abuse from strangers, gotten badly sunburnt and screamed at for petitioning for a Green and having given up the opportunity to sleep in so that I got do a 4,000 piece mailing all by myself, I would be pissed if my candidate pussed out on me.

Not just for political reasons, which would be a factor, but for personal ones. I'd feel used and given that part of my goal is not just this Green race, but the next one... it's hard to tell Green supporters to back you the next time after you've dropped out once. Are you for real this time? Are you just pissing around or are you going to see this through?

Like I said of Gore, what angers me most about Gore was that he didn't fight to the end for the people who fought for him. He owed it to them as well as Nader owed it to his supporters.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of vote-splitting. I agree with you that no liberal votes "belong" to one or the other, but where votes are scarce, to me, it really does come down to the horse-trading.

But a trade should benefit both parties and as we've seen the Democratic leadership doesn't want to give progressives anything in return for their vote. Support us, sit down and shut up is the message. For all the talk of a big tent, it's the progressive that's asked to compromise while the DLC types never toss them a bone. What concessions did Kerry make to Dean and Kucinich supporters after he got the nomination? What compromises were they expected to make to support him?

I'm someone that truly tried to work within the Democratic Party as a progressive and more and more I saw that the only place I'd ever be allowed to sit was at the kids' table.

moebius

08-05-2006, 07:02 AM

I'm sorry moebius, what what I'm seeing from your explanations is armchair quaterbacking. I've worked extensively in trying to build a third party for a few years now and I have experience trying to influence the Democratic Party from within.

Be careful about assumptions. I was in politics before I was in graduate school (from the legislative, campaign, and consultancy sides), and what I saw of politics made me sick enough to be glad I'm doing something else.

I also like the anti-intellectualism inherent your statements, because political scientists (especially political scientists where I am) were told the same thing by the military when they cautioned them against going into Iraq: "Who are you to tell us how to fight a war? What do you know that we don't?" It's all very Colbert, "who are you to come in here with your facts and tell me my gut is wrong?"

Well, we knew the US was creating a "security dilemma" be forcibly removing Saddam Hussein, and the significant economic and social grievances between Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds could only lead to retribution and conflict similar to Yugoslavia.

So: Based on the American Politics literature, the Voting Behavior literature or the European politics literature, under what conditions will 3rd parties succeed in America, and why do the Greens fulfill these conditions?

moebius

08-05-2006, 07:26 AM

The hypothetical reality of your statistics works when talking about computers or insects, but it falls short when you apply it to actual people, who are not so predictable and don't always fit into boxes easily.

This is an intersting distinction between us. You assume that statistics or laws can't be used to predict human behavior, and I believe that humans aren't unique enough to be unpredictable (on the large scale; if my model can predict how someone will act 95% of the time, for social science that's incredibly accurate).

In this case, a mechanical stimulus (electoral rules) are enough to induce a psychological effect in voters (only the top two candidates in every race get many votes, because all the others are "sure losers"). For a 3rd party to jump across that mechanical "hurdle" they have to be running at something like 15-20% in opinion polls to induce enough uncertainty in voters to make them worth thinking about.

ragnarok_2012

08-05-2006, 09:10 AM

Moebius,

Personally, I think group behavior can be modeled effectively.

I don't think you modeled group behavior very well. Ignore enough important factors and you can justify anything.

And I'm still curious how you support your statement about voting for Bob Casey leads to a strong Democratic Party "that can and will give me half of what I want?"

And, as always, I'm curious what other Demorats who have posted on this thread are wanting specifically from the Democratic Party.

moebius

08-05-2006, 09:22 AM

I don't think you modeled group behavior very well. Ignore enough important factors and you can justify anything.

And I'm still curious how you support your statement about voting for Bob Casey leads to a strong Democratic Party "that can and will give me half of what I want?"

And, as always, I'm curious what other Demorats who have posted on this thread are wanting specifically from the Democratic Party.

"It will be different this time...really!"

I would like you to support your statement that voting for the Green Party (or any other third party) will have any tangible effect on the current political situation. How have the Greens actually made things better, after 20 years in politics? Have they even had the same impact on the political system as the Know-Nothings or Progressives? To say nothing of the Republicans, the only third party in American history to succeed "politically" (in moving policy) and electorally?

moebius

08-05-2006, 09:24 AM

I don't think you modeled group behavior very well. Ignore enough important factors and you can justify anything.

Then give me a model that does so better than mine, which is actually just the basic Strategic Voting model...which has held up across political contexts and across time.

moebius

08-05-2006, 09:39 AM

And I'm still curious how you support your statement about voting for Bob Casey leads to a strong Democratic Party "that can and will give me half of what I want?"

With the Democrats in power:

-The US is out of Iraq. The Anti-War position is now the majority position in the electorate, and a Democratic victory in Congress should be enough to pull the troops.
-Warrentless wiretapping and the Patriot Act are gone, and just maybe we get impeachment proceedings.
-The Bush tax cuts are gone.

-Energy Independence and National Health Care: These will take significant crises to be able to shift the public debate. Just as the Republican response to terrorist attacks got us into a massive nation-building exercise we wouldn't have otherwise agreed with, a Democrat with that same opportunity should have been able to move the debate on those issues. For reference, see: Social Security, Welfare, Medicare.

So let's call it 25%, with another 25% depending on the circumstances. The other 50% I doubt the Dems could give me under these conditions, but I know voting for the Greens won't.

For example:

You have no money. I'll give you a $25 right now, or I can roll a D6 and on a 6 you get $100. Which should you take? You take the $25, until the expected value from that guaranteed money is less than taking the risk.

So, how are the Greens more effective than the Democrats on any of these positions? How have they actually shifted the political debate, instead of taking advantage of wealthier, better educated electorates and their natural affinity for these positions?

Mike Smash!

08-05-2006, 12:28 PM

With the Democrats in power:

-The US is out of Iraq. The Anti-War position is now the majority position in the electorate, and a Democratic victory in Congress should be enough to pull the troops.

But the Democratic leadership is pro-war and very few infdluential Dems talk about pulling out. Hillary and others are saying "stay the course". Only a minority in office, but a majority of the rank and file wants out. It's clear that the Democratic Party as an entity, even those that now admit that the vote for war was a mistake, are saying we're stuck there.

Hillary Clinton, Maria Cantwell and I imagine Bob Casey, still trot out the rhetoric of "its irresponsible to leave/stay the course...etc" Most won't even take the "leave by the end of 2007" stance.

-Warrentless wiretapping and the Patriot Act are gone, and just maybe we get impeachment proceedings.

The Democrats are pro-PATRIOT Act, save a minority of them. All but one Senate Dem voted for it. A majority still voted for it when it came up for renewal. The best you'll get from the DNC leadership is "changing the way we enforce the PATRIOT Act". No Democrat aside from the progressive wing talks about repealing it. No Democratic leader is talking about impeachment, not even censuring Bush could get most of the party off of their ass. The Dem leadership mocked, marginalized and even condemned Feingold for taking that stance. If they planned on fighting for this, they'd be doing it now and at least talking about it as part of their campaigns.

-The Bush tax cuts are gone.

Good luck with that too. Few Dems are saying this, just talking about redirecting the tax cuts and nothing about cutting the tax cuts for corporations. Many prominent Dems are even conceding cuts in the estate tax (aka the Paris Hilton tax), the most progressive tax we have.

-Energy Independence and National Health Care: These will take significant crises to be able to shift the public debate. Just as the Republican response to terrorist attacks got us into a massive nation-building exercise we wouldn't have otherwise agreed with, a Democrat with that same opportunity should have been able to move the debate on those issues. For reference, see: Social Security, Welfare, Medicare.

The Democrats are not for national healthcare, not with the money they get from pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies who want to keep healthcare very for-profit. Even the botched Clinton plan was not true universal healthcare as it tried to make sure that the HMOs got their cut and the whole thing collapsed under all its corporate loopholes. And the Democrats will not do and have never talked about doing the one thing absolutely necessary for energy independence and that's ending all government subsidies to oil and gas companies. None of them save the people who have no power in the direction of the party are saying this. Wishful thinking.

So let's call it 25%, with another 25% depending on the circumstances. The other 50% I doubt the Dems could give me under these conditions, but I know voting for the Greens won't.

The things you're talking about are wishful thinking and no one is wasn't calling for these things under Republican majority will fight for them now.

Which Democrats in prominent leadership roles are even talking about these things, because the only people I see hinting at it are the same Democratic bloggers and pundits that always say, "yeah, they suck now, but once they get a majority, they'll be REALLY liberal. You just wait for it to be safe!"

The problem is that they had a majority when they passed the PATRIOT Act.

For example:

You have no money. I'll give you a $25 right now, or I can roll a D6 and on a 6 you get $100. Which should you take? You take the $25, until the expected value from that guaranteed money is less than taking the risk.

No, it's more like giving me $10 and then taking 25-50 cents every so often. Yeah, I get instant gratification, but it gets worse and worse and worse the more I accept it without demands.

I also find it a bad analogy because there isn't principle involved.

More accurate would be "would you take $25 from NAMBLA or would you roll a D6".

And yes, there are times that principle is worth far more than personal gain.

So, how are the Greens more effective than the Democrats on any of these positions? How have they actually shifted the political debate, instead of taking advantage of wealthier, better educated electorates and their natural affinity for these positions?

Well, for one, Green Matt Gonzalez nearly winning the San Francisco mayor's race in 2003, forced Gavin Newson to go from pro-civil unions to pro-equal marriage and led to his brave stance on marriage in that city.

The Green mayor of New Paltz, NY also forced a national debate on the issue when he married 24 same sex couples in his town.

This forced a debate on marriage that forced many Dems to take sides. Russ Feingold is someone whose come out for marriage since then and alot of the actions taken by elected officials -- many of them Greens, made it "safer" for him to take that position.

Seattle's popular progressive Congressman Jim McDermott used to be pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO. In fact, it was he who invited the WTO to Seattle. A Green, Joe Szwaja, ran against him on that issue, got 20% and when it came time to vote for CAFTA, Jim voted against it. Many labor leaders credit this change of heart to Joe's campaign.

There are alot of stories like that. All you have is wishful thinking and speculation.

Tages

08-06-2006, 04:01 AM

You assume that statistics or laws can't be used to predict human behavior, and I believe that humans aren't unique enough to be unpredictable
No, humans aren't unique enough, since uniqueness isn't a matter of degree, it's a characteristic. Something is unique, or it isn't. This is one of my pet peeves.

And isn't it funny how you've chastized people for not basing their beliefs on enough numbers and graphs when here you state that human predictability is a "belief" of yours without any proof to back that assertion up? Beg for that question any harder and you'll chap your knees.

moebius

08-06-2006, 07:09 AM

And isn't it funny how you've chastized people for not basing their beliefs on enough numbers and graphs when here you state that human predictability is a "belief" of yours without any proof to back that assertion up? Beg for that question any harder and you'll chap your knees.

You don't think I have?

-When you change the electoral system to make it more restrictive, the fractionalization of the vote decreases. When you change the electoral system to make it more permissive, the fractionalization in the party system increases.
-Every country that has industrialized has developed some form of "leftist" party. With a high degree of predictability, countries with any ethnic heterogeneity develop ethnic parties.

I'll take my research as an example. My thesis is simple:

-when your demography increases in a rapid, unexpected way (say, more than 1% per year), you get negative reactions from within the native population. In Europe, this sort of change was responsible for increasing support for explicitly anti-immigrant parties in the late 1980s.

If the same thing were to happen in anywhere with a party system (Asia, Africa, North America, etc.), you'd get the same result. That's predictability.

I mean, what sort of proof do you need? My contention is that you can predict with 90-95% certainty how someone will behave based on their sociological characteristics and the situation. I think enough evidence has accumulated in psychology, political science and sociology to back this theory. It is a hypothesis that I feel has strong support, which I suppose makes it a "belief".

Since you've gone after my "belief", feel free to cite some evidence that an alternative hypothesis is more likely.

Mike's contention is that what we know about the contemporary or historical success of third parties somehow doesn't apply to the Greens. Fine, point to some statistics or trends. He gives anecdotes, and that's all well and good, but they're rife with selection bias (he's an activist for the Greens, so yeah he's more attracted to stories of Green success).

Mike Smash!

08-06-2006, 11:59 AM

You don't think I have?

-When you change the electoral system to make it more restrictive, the fractionalization of the vote decreases. When you change the electoral system to make it more permissive, the fractionalization in the party system increases.

And you get something that looks a little bit more like democracy. Only in America do people defend the idea of a duopoly that polls horribly with most voters controlling all political power in the country, narrowing debate and excluding real choice.

Stalin would be proud. You wonder why half of people don't bother to vote.

-Every country that has industrialized has developed some form of "leftist" party. With a high degree of predictability, countries with any ethnic heterogeneity develop ethnic parties.

And in most countries, people are not demonized for voting for such parties or those parties having nearly the barriers to ballot and debate access as in this country.

Since you've gone after my "belief", feel free to cite some evidence that an alternative hypothesis is more likely.

I do like the deafening silence to your contention that once the Democratic Party wins the House and Senate (I don't think they will), they will magically become progressive, in stark contrast to what the actual Democratic Party is saying.

Democratic leadership has been quite clear that they wouldn't even support 25% of your list, as you advocate -- and continually shrink. Remember, not a page ago, your claim was that they'd give you 50% of that list.

Mike's contention is that what we know about the contemporary or historical success of third parties somehow doesn't apply to the Greens. Fine, point to some statistics or trends. He gives anecdotes, and that's all well and good, but they're rife with selection bias (he's an activist for the Greens, so yeah he's more attracted to stories of Green success).

And I'd love to see some examples of the DNC's stealth progressivism. Remember when they said the same about Clinton in '96. Oh, he's just running to the Right now, once he's in office....he'll be really liberal, right? Right?

If they're not saying it now, they won't say it once they win. And once they're in office, you'll have the least amount of leverage to change their minds.

The bottom line is that they won't take those positions. They will take nuanced versions of the Republican stance and talk about doing the job more competently and compassionately.

They don't disagree with what Bush does, only how he does it.

And having a majority of people now opposed to the war hasn't changed the minds of Clinton, Cantwell, Casey or Lieberman or countless others. Considering how poorly the GOP is polling and how politically safe this would be to take that position, you'd think they would.

Even when Greens do not win, we create pressure for change. Pressure that has a historical precedent. Remember that women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, ending child labor, social security, the minimum wage, the 8 hour work day, unemployment insurance and countless other reforms were fought tooth and nail by the two party establishment, but did appear in the platforms of third party and independent candidates who appealed to growing peoples' movements that grew to the point that major parties had to start adopting their issues.

The latest examples are the GOP swiping several planks of Ross Perot's platform like term limits and repackaging it as their "Contract with America" back in 1994. And Clinton making a huge deal about budget deficits throughout his presidency, which was Perot's big issue in '92.

I seriously doubt that either would have done the same had Perot not been in the race, treated fairly by the media and been given the opportunity to debate them both on television.

If you're waiting for the Democratic Party to become magically progressive, then I have a bridge to sell you.

That's not selectional bias. That's self deception.

Phrozen

08-06-2006, 12:30 PM

.
The Democrats are not for national healthcare, not with the money they get from pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies who want to keep healthcare very for-profit. Even the botched Clinton plan was not true universal healthcare as it tried to make sure that the HMOs got their cut and the whole thing collapsed under all its corporate loopholes.

Mike, how much experince do you actually have in the insurance industry? It is not just the insurance industries or pharmaceuticals which have an interest in for profit healthcare, it is everybody in the industry. For example, Medicare Part D, for advice on picking up Medicare Part D it is specified that you should talk to your doctor. Your doctor has little or no experince in the industry and probably wouldn't be able to explain that policy to you, just like I as a insurance agent wouldn't even no where to begin to diagnose you on anything. A government bearucrat would probably do even worse then a doctor.

Now, you think HMOs are bad. Just wait until the entire country in under the federal governments HMO.

moebius

08-06-2006, 01:08 PM

And you get something that looks a little bit more like democracy. Only in America do people defend the idea of a duopoly that polls horribly with most voters controlling all political power in the country, narrowing debate and excluding real choice.

I was sort of willing to let this thread go unless I was gone after again, but I find it amazing that you continue to misrepresent my positions and display an incredible ignorance in party system theory or very basic voting behavior.

Invoking Stalin is a great way to forward your argument. Violations of Godwin's Law can't be far behind.

In this case, you are confusing something that has been objectively proven with something you would like to be normatively true, which is a very basic mistake.

When you increase the restrictiveness of the party system, you decrease the number of parties that are competitive in any one district, likely decreasing the number of parties in the system as a whole. That's not a normative statement about whether it is "okay" or "right" to do so; it is an objective statement supported by six decades of social science research.

For examples see: Germany, 1918-1933 vs. 1945-present; French 4th Republic vs. 5th Republic; Italy, 1945-1992 vs. 1992-present.

I do like the deafening silence to your contention that once the Democratic Party wins the House and Senate (I don't think they will), they will magically become progressive, in stark contrast to what the actual Democratic Party is saying.

Since we're talking about silence, you haven't refuted my...refutation, if you will, of the bad survey numbers you used to justify the non-sensical conclusion that Nader didn't cost Gore the election. I guess you concede the point?

Nor have you provided any evidence to support your hypothesis that your vision of the Green Party will result in party system change or changes in the electoral rules, either through trends present today or historical examples.

For your beneift, I offer some Recommended Reading:
-Geinapp, William. The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856 (a great example of how a 3rd party succeeds in a two-party system).
-Brady, David. Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making.
-Mayhew, David. Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre.
-Sundquist, James. Dynamics of the Party System.
-Schattschneider, E.E. The Semisovereign People.
-Tarrow, Sidney. Power in Movement (not really parties, more social movements.
-Piven and Coward. Poor People's Movements (again, social movements).
-Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy.

The latest examples are the GOP swiping several planks of Ross Perot's platform like term limits and repackaging it as their "Contract with America" back in 1994. And Clinton making a huge deal about budget deficits throughout his presidency, which was Perot's big issue in '92.

This is actually a good point: American 3rd parties are good at getting issues onto the table that the other parties are not pushing.

However, what they aren't very good at is institutionalizing themselves or pushing electoral change. That will come from within the major parties or from changing attitudes within the population that minor parties can then latch onto, if it ever comes at all.

That's not selectional bias. That's self deception.

You've additionally shown that you don't understand what selection bias is.

For example, I want to believe the Greens are making a difference and/or are on the rise. So I go look for three examples of Greens succeeding, thus proving my point.

What I haven't done is looked for overall trends to show that Greens are improving their electoral fortunes (if they are), that Greens that spend more money on their races do better in recruitment or results, nor do I look at their effect on candidates on policy across races or test alternative hypotheses (that Greens do better in statewide races or after Presidential elections because there is more political interest in those races, not because they're running in statewide races; that the Greens only push candidates to the Left in areas that are already fairly progressive).

ragnarok_2012

08-06-2006, 06:52 PM

I was sort of willing to let this thread go unless I was gone after again, but I find it amazing that you continue to misrepresent my positions and display an incredible ignorance in party system theory or very basic voting behavior.

Invoking Stalin is a great way to forward your argument. Violations of Godwin's Law can't be far behind.

In this case, you are confusing something that has been objectively proven with something you would like to be normatively true, which is a very basic mistake.

When you increase the restrictiveness of the party system, you decrease the number of parties that are competitive in any one district, likely decreasing the number of parties in the system as a whole. That's not a normative statement about whether it is "okay" or "right" to do so; it is an objective statement supported by six decades of social science research.

For examples see: Germany, 1918-1933 vs. 1945-present; French 4th Republic vs. 5th Republic; Italy, 1945-1992 vs. 1992-present.

Since we're talking about silence, you haven't refuted my...refutation, if you will, of the bad survey numbers you used to justify the non-sensical conclusion that Nader didn't cost Gore the election. I guess you concede the point?

Nor have you provided any evidence to support your hypothesis that your vision of the Green Party will result in party system change or changes in the electoral rules, either through trends present today or historical examples.

For your beneift, I offer some Recommended Reading:
-Geinapp, William. The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856 (a great example of how a 3rd party succeeds in a two-party system).
-Brady, David. Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making.
-Mayhew, David. Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre.
-Sundquist, James. Dynamics of the Party System.
-Schattschneider, E.E. The Semisovereign People.
-Tarrow, Sidney. Power in Movement (not really parties, more social movements.
-Piven and Coward. Poor People's Movements (again, social movements).
-Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy.

This is actually a good point: American 3rd parties are good at getting issues onto the table that the other parties are not pushing.

However, what they aren't very good at is institutionalizing themselves or pushing electoral change. That will come from within the major parties or from changing attitudes within the population that minor parties can then latch onto, if it ever comes at all.

You've additionally shown that you don't understand what selection bias is.

For example, I want to believe the Greens are making a difference and/or are on the rise. So I go look for three examples of Greens succeeding, thus proving my point.

What I haven't done is looked for overall trends to show that Greens are improving their electoral fortunes (if they are), that Greens that spend more money on their races do better in recruitment or results, nor do I look at their effect on candidates on policy across races or test alternative hypotheses (that Greens do better in statewide races or after Presidential elections because there is more political interest in those races, not because they're running in statewide races; that the Greens only push candidates to the Left in areas that are already fairly progressive).

This just made me smile :D

And for the record, I think Godwin's Law is crap.

moebius

08-06-2006, 07:14 PM

This just made me smile :D

And for the record, I think Godwin's Law is crap.

If you have to rely on ad homenim attacks or appeals to emotion, you aren't making much of an argument. Godwin's Law was developed because it's easier for people to demonize their opponents than beat them through Reason, especially when you have the anonymity of a BBS.

And I appreciate the irony, but I wasn't trying to invoke the Nazis in my example.

The example was to show that when you increase the restrictiveness of a state's electoral laws, you get fewer parties because the mechanical effects of electoral rules make voters unlikely to voter for parties that "can't win". It's an excellent example of the universality of human behavior, because it's been observed across historical and cultural contexts.

In some cases of pure proportionality (Germany, France, and Italy are all good examples), you end up geting governmental paralysis because you can't build stable governnig majorities. In other cases, purely majoritarian systems (like the US or UK) might give you inefficiencies in the other direction, by not making the system responsive enough to its citizens.

The Weimar Republic used a more or less purely proportional system; if you got enough votes to win a seat, you get a seat. They still use this system today in the Netherlands and Israel. The reason you see Weimar sited so much is it's the perfect example of a poorly constructed electoral system and what happens when you get it wrong.

The Bonn Republic (1945-1999), and the Berlin Republic after it (same system; renamed because they changed capital cities) are excellent examples both of how changing the electoral system reduces the number of parties (from something like 6-8 to 2.5 for 40 years, and 4.5 for the last 15) and creates a more stable government. There were also a lot of "broken eggs" during this period (the Communist and Nazi successor parties were banned by the German Supreme Court), but it's hard to argue with the results.

Italy is another good example. Since moving from a Weimar model to essentially German model, Italian governments are actually lasting more than a year...something long thought impossible. Additionally, the party system has been pared down into two large-ish parties and a number of smaller potential coalition partners by the mechanical effects of the change.

ragnarok_2012

08-06-2006, 07:58 PM

moebius

08-06-2006, 08:23 PM

Re: your model. When liberals vote for conservatives they make it clear that they're willing to support conservative candidates & place party loyalty over anything else. So unless you have some sort of concrete ability to influence which candidates get the nomination you make it easier for the Democratic Party to become more conservative.

When I vote in individual races, I am voting for two things:

1. The overall policy of the government; individual races can impact this in a big way (I get my 51st Senator, and Senate policy immediately shifts from 70 to 55 or what have you).
2. The median position of their party; individual races don't move this very much (I add a 51st junior Senator to my party who is more conservative than the median; let's say I shift the median from 55 to 57, but that's still better than 75).

Obviously, the payoffs change the larger the majority of my party, and I can start to do things like targeting the most conservative Senators. But it all starts with getting control of Congress.

Now, I can also do things like get rid of a Lieberman in the primary, which not only shifts the party median in my favor, it might serve as a signal to the rest of my party to move THEIR positions on the war, especially if it looks like Lamont can still win the race.

moebius

08-06-2006, 09:22 PM

As for your wish list, I think it's generally commendable. However, I'm still waiting for you to either concede or refute Mike's point (your "stealth progressivism" idea). The Democratic leadership have platforms at odds with your goals. Simply voting for conservative candidates of a party that promises you none of the things you want doesn't make much sense to me. Simply saying "Well you didn't answer my question, so I won't answer yours" is a bit childish.

I would differentiate between where the Dems stand now and where they stand if they can win Congress. I would also point out that Mike is using a platform written in 2004, a very different public opinion environment.

Second, you have to recognize that this is a democracy. It would be great to institute national health care or outlawing SUVs, but these things have to be done within the framework of what the majority of the country supports. You can use your power over the narrative to change some minds, but the best way to get real change in a system is:

1. wait for a crisis moment to give you the political capital to institute wide-scale changes: see the Republican government of 1861-1864 or the Democratic government of 1932-1940 and 1961-1968.
2. change the underlying structure of preferences. If progressives want the country to become more liberal, the best thing they can do is create incentives for a more educated population, which is guarnteed to move people to the left.
3. You can also try a Goldwater strategy and build from the base at the expense of election victories in the short-term. This is the closest to what the Greens are suggesting. It would be nice if the Democratic Party learned from the Reps and did more of this.

-The War in Iraq: The Democrats made an obvious mistake in trying to be foreign policy hawks in the War in Iraq. They allowed themselves to be cowed by the "rally round the flag" effect, which has given the Reps a lot of rope since 2001. Since 2004, the public has turned against the war, which makes campaigns openly opposing it possible.

-Bush Tax Cuts and the Patriot Act: Both are termed to sunseet. They aren't getting repealed without a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. They also won't be made permanent under a Democratic Congress or with a Democratic President.

-Energy Independence: The Democratic party does not go as far as I would like, but their program offers more oversight and more options than the Reps. Current energy prices combined with the international situation suggest that partial reform is possible. Unfortunately, the opportunity for real energy independence came and went in 2001, when we gave a blank check to Bush instead of Gore.

-Health Care: Health care reform, including a partial nationalization, has been a Democratic priority since the mid-1990s and was a key point in the Kerry campaign (poorly sold), when they blew their first chance (Boomerang by Theda Skocpol is a great overview of what went wrong).

-Corporate Welfare and Agricultural Subsidies: The later will inevitably be cut to meet international tariff standards. The former isn't going anywhere without electoral reform, even though corporations have held America hostage with globalization and outsourcing.

-Election Reform: Not going to happen. Even though a 1-2 billion dollar general fund for elections would get money out of politics and make cutting tens or hundreds of billions in corporate subsidies vulnerable, good luck getting that through Congress. That sort of reform would likely take a Constitutional Amendment.

You get into office, you implement your reforms in a big way with a big mandate, or you make incremental reforms if you get in on a slim margin. You show that your way is better for pocketbooks and growth, and you get to move your policies a little more. Eventually you go to far for the electorate or you have a bad period, and you get thrown out of office.

A good example is Social Security. 70 years ago it was revolutionary, and FDR was accused of being Socialist. Today?

The Green Party is in the enviable position of not having a chance of winning, which allows them to essentially promise the moon without regard to the compromises that have to be made to get things done in government.

The empirical experience with small parties that make it into government is that they pull their governing partners in their direction, but they don't get everything they want. Look at the German Greens, who went from "progressive" to "establishment" in the eyes of voters in less than two years in office, when they voted to go into Kosovo. Or, on the other side, the Austrian Freedom Party.

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 12:43 AM

I would differentiate between where the Dems stand now and where they stand if they can win Congress. I would also point out that Mike is using a platform written in 2004, a very different public opinion environment.

And despite the change in public opinion, the Democratic leadership has not changed much in their positions.

For a guy who likes statistics, I can't see what you're basing your "stealth progressivism" theory on.

Where is the national Democratic Party or one of its leaders calling for national healthcare or ending the war in Iraq or impeaching Bush? What leaders are advocating these positions other than those that already were?

I'm not talking about platforms, though they do say alot. I'm talking about the words and promises and plans that come out of Democratic politicians mouths prior to this "taking back Congress" plan.

Again, where do you get the impression that these Dems who are still adamantly pro-war, pro-PATRIOT Act (they just voted to renew it), anti-impeachment (this year, they condemned Feingold for even fighting for censure) will change their minds?

Certainly not from them. Hillary, Joe, Bob and the gang do not want to give you your wish list. Don't you think they'd at least talk about it now that public opinion would be on their side?

And Casey and other conservative Dems are never going to take these progressive positions, no matter how popular. They've made that clear.

So, please. Answer the question. Where is the national Democratic Party or any of its national leadership even suggesting that they want to adopt your wish list?

Simple. They're not.

Second, you have to recognize that this is a democracy. It would be great to institute national health care or outlawing SUVs, but these things have to be done within the framework of what the majority of the country supports. You can use your power over the narrative to change some minds, but the best way to get real change in a system is:

And how will the majority ever take these positions if nobody ever advocates them? This is the primary reason that Democrats lose elections -- by not taking stands. If we should have learned anything in the last 6 years, it's that public opinion isn't always right. Remember how many people believed for the longest time that Saddam was behind 9/11? Remember how long people believed that Saddam had WMD?

Imagine if the Dems actually pushed for issues before they were popular and made a case for them instead of just sitting on their asses and just reacting to the Republicans?

Big ideas win you votes, so does proposing something when you're making the pitch for your party to take power. The Republicans had the "Contract with America" in '94. Democrats in '06 have "We're not them".

There's a lot to be gotten from being proven right. Had the Democrats taken hard stances and asked hard questions, they'd be in a much better position to take advantage of the issue of the war, instead of having aided and abetted it and only giving him vague and toothless criticisms over his execution of the war.

1. wait for a crisis moment to give you the political capital to institute wide-scale changes: see the Republican government of 1861-1864 or the Democratic government of 1932-1940 and 1961-1968.

This would be a good time and as always, the Dems are sitting it out. If they lose in this climate, they don't deserve to win. How arrogant is playing dead, hoping to win by default and still feeling entitled to my vote?

2. change the underlying structure of preferences. If progressives want the country to become more liberal, the best thing they can do is create incentives for a more educated population, which is guarnteed to move people to the left.

That may give you a more liberal voting block, but if those liberals prove over and over to politicians that they're willing to vote for conservatives out of blind party loyalty, want incentive is there to move the Democrats to the Left. After all, why buy the cow if you get the vote for free?

3. You can also try a Goldwater strategy and build from the base at the expense of election victories in the short-term. This is the closest to what the Greens are suggesting. It would be nice if the Democratic Party learned from the Reps and did more of this.

But doing this means taking risks and the Democrats seem more adverse to that than anything. Look at the current election season. Support for Bush and the war is at an all-time low. Why are the Dems still running pro-war campaigns? Maybe because they're actually pro-war.

-The War in Iraq: The Democrats made an obvious mistake in trying to be foreign policy hawks in the War in Iraq. They allowed themselves to be cowed by the "rally round the flag" effect, which has given the Reps a lot of rope since 2001. Since 2004, the public has turned against the war, which makes campaigns openly opposing it possible.

Case it point. Perhaps it's not because they're spineless on the issue. Perhaps its because their position is a pro-war one.

-Bush Tax Cuts and the Patriot Act: Both are termed to sunseet. They aren't getting repealed without a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. They also won't be made permanent under a Democratic Congress or with a Democratic President.

Based on what? The Democrats just voted to renew the Act. Few of them actively oppose it or talk of even "reforming" it. Remember that Kerry openly supported the PATRIOT Act during his campaign and still does so. The only Democratic Senator that has been vocal on the issue is Russ Feingold, the man they treated like shit when he tried to stand up the GOP.

-Energy Independence: The Democratic party does not go as far as I would like, but their program offers more oversight and more options than the Reps. Current energy prices combined with the international situation suggest that partial reform is possible. Unfortunately, the opportunity for real energy independence came and went in 2001, when we gave a blank check to Bush instead of Gore.

Ah. What Democratic leaders are talking about cutting all subsidies to oil and fossil fuel companies? It seems like that would be a serious step in the direction of energy independence.

-Health Care: Health care reform, including a partial nationalization, has been a Democratic priority since the mid-1990s and was a key point in the Kerry campaign (poorly sold), when they blew their first chance (Boomerang by Theda Skocpol is a great overview of what went wrong).

Kerry never talked about nationalized healthcare. In fact, during a televised debate, Kucinich challenged Kerry to his face to support such a system. Kerry wouldn't even look at him. The Democrats make promises for "affordable healthcare", they say nothing of nationalizing it.

-Corporate Welfare and Agricultural Subsidies: The later will inevitably be cut to meet international tariff standards. The former isn't going anywhere without electoral reform, even though corporations have held America hostage with globalization and outsourcing.

And Democratic politicians voted for many of the trade agreements that got us there like NAFTA (passed under a Dem majority and signed by a Dem president), the WTO (Clinton again) and CAFTA (passed only because of Democratic votes, failed by two voted and both of my Dem Senators voted for it, even when many Republicans voted no.) No Democrat that doesn't already do so and is part of the mocked and marginalized progressive wing talks about corporate welfare as an issue.

-Election Reform: Not going to happen. Even though a 1-2 billion dollar general fund for elections would get money out of politics and make cutting tens or hundreds of billions in corporate subsidies vulnerable, good luck getting that through Congress. That sort of reform would likely take a Constitutional Amendment.

And who is even talking about the issue? Not the Dems. And how can you change public opinion when you refuse to even talk about something? They like a shitty election system that makes people feel forced to vote for candidates they do not like. It's clear to me that Dems would rather have a Republican win than have to share the ballot with other candidates.

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 12:44 AM

(cont'd)

You get into office, you implement your reforms in a big way with a big mandate, or you make incremental reforms if you get in on a slim margin. You show that your way is better for pocketbooks and growth, and you get to move your policies a little more. Eventually you go to far for the electorate or you have a bad period, and you get thrown out of office.

Now is such a great time for reform, particularly when it's so clear that Bush's policies are failures. But where are the Dems' reforms? Remember that FDR got a lot done with the New Deal because he was willing to fight for it and because the political will was there to make a case to the voters. It also helps that the voters back then were willing to put pressure on candidates rather than subjugate themselves to a political party's whims rather than vice versa.

A good example is Social Security. 70 years ago it was revolutionary, and FDR was accused of being Socialist. Today?

The Dems of today wouldn't have the political will to push for Social Security if it were new. And it is a socialist program. Who's platform do you think it first appeared in?

Norman Thomas, Socialist candidate for president. It and the New Deal were not a party of FDR's original platform, but the pressure applied from Thomas, labor groups and a citizen movement forced FDR to adopt it as his own. I applaud him for doing so.

The Democrats of today take credit for the achievments of Democrats from 60 years ago, while they fight the modern equivalent of such reforms.

The Green Party is in the enviable position of not having a chance of winning, which allows them to essentially promise the moon without regard to the compromises that have to be made to get things done in government.

We do win. We can't promise instant gratification, but we do get candidates in office and we have forced bad politicians to be less bad by running against them. The Greens in office do make compromises, but the compromises they make are those of scale and size, not of principle.

A prominent Seattle Green is a former five-term Madison, WI city councilman and I've always been impressed with his ability to convince people of his positions and compromise without compromising his principles. He regularly convinced the council Republicans to vote for protecting social issues by reframing the issue and talking them as people.

We don't promise the moon. We just promise to fight for it. The Democrats don't even promise to go high enough to make your ears pop.

The empirical experience with small parties that make it into government is that they pull their governing partners in their direction, but they don't get everything they want. Look at the German Greens, who went from "progressive" to "establishment" in the eyes of voters in less than two years in office, when they voted to go into Kosovo. Or, on the other side, the Austrian Freedom Party.

I don't expect to get everything all at once. No realistic Green does. But we do want a voice in the process and we'll continue to fight for the moon, even if we only get it piece by piece.

We fight for the moon, while the Democrats don't even look up.

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 12:46 AM

This just made me smile :D

And for the record, I think Godwin's Law is crap.

I agree. I think it was a valid comparison. You have on more than one occasion spoken approvingly of the Democrat's refusal to support voting reform that would open up for a more democratic system and let more voices and choices into the process.

Drew Van T.

08-07-2006, 04:51 AM

but the best way to get real change in a system is:
1. wait for a crisis moment to give you the political capital to institute wide-scale changes: see the Republican government of 1861-1864 or the Democratic government of 1932-1940 and 1961-1968.

As I've said, I think this is on the cards. And in order to prepare for such a moment, it is pointless IMO to keep supporting useless Democrats just to keep the "very, very bad ones" like Rick Santorum at bay during the short-term (in fact you can make a case that it is better to have Santorum there, if one focuses on the crisis moment). On the contrary: the best way for the Greens to prepare for a watershed moment is by raising their visibility as much as possible in advance...i.e. by running in every single race they can.

moebius

08-07-2006, 08:33 AM

I agree. I think it was a valid comparison. You have on more than one occasion spoken approvingly of the Democrat's refusal to support voting reform that would open up for a more democratic system and let more voices and choices into the process.

This is a gross misrepresentation, but whatever (I initially called it a lie, but I mostly believe you don't understand the concepts in question). And comparing the Democratic Party to Stalin? What are you, Ann Coulter?

Here are the points I've repeatedly made on elections and electoral reform, to prevent them from being further misrepresented:

1. I have spoken approvingly of Greens dropping out of races they could potentially "spoil." Unlike many Greens, I don't believe in "making things worse to make things better" by letting Republicans win. See also: Bush, George W.

2. It certainly isn't in the Democrat's best interest to support reforms that will hurt their party. That's called logic, and I'm not going to get all surprised when Democrats kill electoral reform or help water down campaign finance reform. Whether this is "right" or not in a deeper normative sense is neither here nor there.

3. I have also spoken at length about the tradeoffs inherent in electoral systems. In very proportional systems (Italy post-1945), you trade stability for responsiveness. In very majoritarian systems (the US), you trade responsiveness for stability. The Pareto frontier for "Effectiveness" is somewhere in-between.

I would be perfectly happy with the German electoral system. 5% threshold, half the members elected through PR, half through SMD, maximum government duration 4-5 years (but no fixed election dates), a ceremonoial presidency, no term limits. Unfortunately, I also think that based on American social characteristics you will get a much stronger Far Right party than Far Left (true in most European states...especially true here).

Would you support electoral reform if you expected the country would get more, not less, authoritarian as a result? Would you support the same means if you knew you risked ends you wouldn't like? Questions like this are what make political theory interesting.

I would also be fine with IR or STV...both of them are better expressions of democratic will than the current FPTP system we have. However, I don't believe that the Greens attempting to "force the issue" will get electoral reform, and meanwhile every close race that gets "spoiled" makes ANY change that much harder. If you've noticed something from your examples, Mike, it's that all of your Green politicians "forcing" the issue are doing so in fairly progressive parts of the country (this was the selection bias). What happens when Greens enter races in fairly conservative parts of the country, like Pennsylvania?

Electoral reform will come from intense popular anger, massive system failure (this is a bad government, but it is not a "massively failed" system like Italy 1990-1994, where essentially everyone from both major parties went up on corruption charges) or not at all.

Drew Van T.

08-07-2006, 09:55 AM

Unfortunately, I also think that based on American social characteristics you will get a much stronger Far Right party than Far Left (true in most European states...especially true here).

That would mean that either a new party emerges to the right of the Republicans, or (much more likely) the Christian Right tears away from the Republicans.

Either way, it would be a major improvement, forcing the religious fundamentalists to go out there on their own with their own unique platform, not having easy access to Power through the Republican establishment as it does now.

If the Christian Right still wins major elections and gets into government after that (and it would be much more of an uphill struggle for them than it is now) then at least you can plainly say that America deserves to be ruled by the Christian Right, and that the latter is fully entitled to do so.

moebius

08-07-2006, 10:04 AM

If the Christian Right still wins major elections and gets into government after that (and it would be much more of an uphill struggle for them than it is now) then at least you can plainly say that America deserves to be ruled by the Christian Right, and that the latter is fully entitled to do so.

Most research in my field shows that in an era of globalization and immigration there is a great deal of support for a party that is anti-immigrant and protectionist. In Europe in the 1980s and 1990s you had major issues (immigration and environmentalism) that cleaved voters from both left and right. In most cases you got a stronger Far Right than Far Left.

America's interesting wrinkle is that we're so much more religious than anywhere in Western Europe. Would the Christians join the anti-immigrant Right or the pro-business, mildly libertarian Right or form an Evangelicals form their own party Will the Democrats even survive, or will the New Democrats defect to the now socially-moderate Republicans, the Progressives defect to the Greens and ethnic parties form out of the Black and Latino caucases?

I don't have the answers, but America's social and economic conservatism suggests that in a multi-party system, you will see few progressive coalitions and many moderate or conservative coalitions.

Sam

08-07-2006, 11:10 AM

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 11:31 AM

This is a gross misrepresentation, but whatever (I initially called it a lie, but I mostly believe you don't understand the concepts in question). And comparing the Democratic Party to Stalin? What are you, Ann Coulter?

When the subject of them fighting electoral reform came up, you said "what do you expect them to do? Share?", as if it'd be the crziest thing in the world for someone to value fairness over personal power.

1. I have spoken approvingly of Greens dropping out of races they could potentially "spoil." Unlike many Greens, I don't believe in "making things worse to make things better" by letting Republicans win. See also: Bush, George W.

Again, as I've said countless times, we do not make Republicans win. Mediocre Democrats and voter fraud does. And dropping out of races kills our party and makes it impossible for us to retain ballot access and volunteers for another run. We don't hold the philosophy of "making things worse to make it better". What we reject is "voting for Diet Coke to stop Coke".

We're not dropping out of those races. So perhaps you should start talking to the Democrats about IRV. We have for years and they won't give it to us when we scrape and bow and beg.

2. It certainly isn't in the Democrat's best interest to support reforms that will hurt their party. That's called logic, and I'm not going to get all surprised when Democrats kill electoral reform or help water down campaign finance reform. Whether this is "right" or not in a deeper normative sense is neither here nor there.

But IRV would save them from the horrible "spoilers". And it isn't "neither here nor there". It's wrong. When they basically show voters that they think they "own their vote" by taking their options away by legally trying to bankrupt us or eject us from the ballot in courts, intimidating our petitioners, tearing up our petition sheets all instead of standing up honestly and debating us on the issues -- and between us there are many differences worth talking about.

3. I have also spoken at length about the tradeoffs inherent in electoral systems. In very proportional systems (Italy post-1945), you trade stability for responsiveness. In very majoritarian systems (the US), you trade responsiveness for stability. The Pareto frontier for "Effectiveness" is somewhere in-between.

Yes, the stability that enjoy right now. The responsiveness of the current system? Parties with approval ratings in the 30% area getting 95% of the vote.

I would be perfectly happy with the German electoral system. 5% threshold, half the members elected through PR, half through SMD, maximum government duration 4-5 years (but no fixed election dates), a ceremonoial presidency, no term limits. Unfortunately, I also think that based on American social characteristics you will get a much stronger Far Right party than Far Left (true in most European states...especially true here).

I'm perfectly happy with threshholds of victory for PR elections, but no one is talking of making this a parliamentary system. The Constitution has nothing in it barring PR elections. It says nothing of districts, only of the number of people to each legislator. These elections could be done proportionately. Statewide for Congressmen and Broken down into Congressional districts to use PR for State legislators.

We would still have the same three branch government, the same separation of powers, the same checks and balances.

Would you support electoral reform if you expected the country would get more, not less, authoritarian as a result? Would you support the same means if you knew you risked ends you wouldn't like? Questions like this are what make political theory interesting.

Nothing shows that it would be more authoritarian and as I said, I'm not for changing the system of government, only the voting system. And I don't base my will for one particular system or another. What we would likely see in a PR system is the breakdown of the two major parties' supporters into a multiparty system over time.

The Democrats and Republicans would likely hold a majority of the seats for a long time, but Greens, Libertarians, independents and Constitutionalists would pop up in Congressional seats. I know several areas where any of their candidates could have won had their not been "spoiler fear".

And instead of the same "us vs. them" breakdown on every issue, we'd see separate and distinct coalitions.

For instance, the PATRIOT Act. If there'd been a multiparty Congress for that vote, you would have seen some liberal Dems, Greens, Libertarians and even right-wing Constitutionalists against it and Democratic leaders and most Republicans for it.

It would have been a helluva lot harder to marginalize that coalition.

On same sex marriage, you'd have progressive Dems, Greens and Libertarians on one side and mainstream Dems, Republicans and Constitutionalists on the other.

Instead of the tired old "black and white" politics where even issues that have nothing to do with the "left-right" dynamic are labeled as liberal or conservative and people are hopelessly polarized, you'd see a surprisingly shifting number of coalitions forming over specific issues, not over partisanship.

I would also be fine with IR or STV...both of them are better expressions of democratic will than the current FPTP system we have. However, I don't believe that the Greens attempting to "force the issue" will get electoral reform, and meanwhile every close race that gets "spoiled" makes ANY change that much harder. If you've noticed something from your examples, Mike, it's that all of your Green politicians "forcing" the issue are doing so in fairly progressive parts of the country (this was the selection bias). What happens when Greens enter races in fairly conservative parts of the country, like Pennsylvania?

Actually we've won in many conservative areas, moebius. We won School Boards seats in Nebraska in 2003 and a mayor's race in Marfa, TX last year. And growing third parties that run hard and don't flinch are the ONLY things that "force the issue" of voting reform. The Democrats will never give it to us by being nice.

We have IRV on the ballot in Pierce County in my state this year. It's only on the ballot because of the lobbying of Greens and Libertarians to that County Council. The Democrats were adamantly against it and wouldn't even talk to us. The Republicans were initially against it until the Libertarian lobbyist told them privately that they either support it or they'd all have a Libertarian runnning against them in the next election. They all folded. The Democrats stood firm.

As for "forcing the issue" apparently, you're not familiar with the Republican Moderate Party of Alaska. They split off from the GOP when they felt they had gone too far to the Right. They started running in races, being accused on "spoiling" some and even winning a state Senate seat. The GOP snapped into action.

It was they that fought to get IRV on the ballot as a statewide initiative and got John McCain to do a radio ad for them.

And the only places in the country that do have such voting systems are the places with a strong third party that doesn't drop out of races -- after all, why should they give us voting reform if we go out of our way to avoid challenging them? Burlington, VT (with a strong Progressive Party) and San Francisco (with a strong Greens) have IRV in their elections.

PA Democrats can give us IRV. It's that simple. The alternative is that they would rather see a Republican win than share the ballot with a Green. If we were in their place, we'd fight for it

Electoral reform will come from intense popular anger, massive system failure (this is a bad government, but it is not a "massively failed" system like Italy 1990-1994, where essentially everyone from both major parties went up on corruption charges) or not at all.

And the Democrats are part of that bad government. A massive swing to third party and independent candidates of any kind will be better for change than a bunch of mediocre Dems who will scoff at your wishlist getting elected.

Fighting for voting reform before we run hard is putting the cart before the horse. To fight for voting reform, you have to make the case for its necessity, both with voters and with elected officials.

A politician who realizes that he cannot take voters for granted is one more likely to play ball with us. If every time we run, we bluff by dropping out, it kills our ability to keep supporters, puts our ballot line at risk and splits our party in two.

If voting reform is an issue that you support, I implore you to start lobbying the Democrats about it. Perhaps then you'll see how antidemocratic they are about it.

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 11:39 AM

I know the conversation has moved on more toward abstract questions of electoral policy, and quite an interesting conversation it is. But more specific news has come out about the Romanelli campaign, so I thought I'd throw that in here.

You know those volunteers who helped gather signatures for Romanelli?

They were Santorum campaign staffers. At least, some of them were.

The Philadelphia Enquirer (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15203194.htm):

A minority of them. 30,000 of the signatures came from Green volunteers. And if there was a Santorum supporter in there, so what?

It'd be nice if Democrats had helped the right-wing independent get on the ballot too.

PA's ballot access is currently one of the worst in the country and that's the real bad guy in this, not Romanelli.

More choices on the ballot is a good thing, ultimately. There isn't a wand to magically determine someone's motivations for doing something, especially when there are a handful of Republicans that actually do support us and vote for us. Just as the Democrats regularly get money from and aid from registered Republicans who regularly give to Republican candidates as well.

And even so, how does this invalidate the nearly 100,000 Pennsylvanians that want more than two choices on a ballot?

Here's the press release that the Greens have put out on the issue:

Greens Defend PA Candidate for US Senate Against Democrat Slurs
Green Party of the United States
www.gp.org

Friday, August 4, 2006

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@greens.org

Greens respond to Democrats' slurs against Pennsylvania candidate

Allegations come from Democrats trying to discredit Carl Romanelli, Green for U.S. Senate, and limit choice on the ballot for Pennsylvania voters; Greens note that Rick Santorum (R) and Bob Casey (D) both support the Iraq War and oppose women's reproductive rights

Greens running for Governor and Lt. Governor also on Pennsylvania ballot

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders across the U.S. responded to misinformation and panicky accusations by Democrats against Carl Romanelli, a Green candidate running in Pennsylvania for the U.S. Senate <http://www.romanelli2006.com>.

Mr. Romanelli, competing for imcumbent Rick Santorum's (R) seat, will be placed on the ballot after his supporters submitted over 95,000 petition signatures (67,070 were required) to the state's Bureau of Elections on August 1.

Supporters of Mr. Romanelli's Democratic opponent in the race, Bob Casey, have objected to Mr. Romanelli's acceptance of campaign contributions from registered Republicans, and have falsely accused Mr. Romanelli of accepting money from the Pennsylvania Green Party in violation of contribution limits.

"This is a craven and dishonest ploy by Democrats who seem to believe that the field should be limited to two parties," said Marakay Rogers, Green candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania <http://www.geocities.com/mjr91/RogersforAG.html>.

"The Democratic Party apparently needs a lesson in civics and democracy."

Carl Romanelli joins two other Greens seeking statewide office in Pennsylvania, Ms. Rogers for Governor and Christina Valente for Lieutenant Governor. Pennsylvania Greens are awaiting a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Constitutionality of Pennsylvania's ballot access law filed by Ms. Rogers, a lawyer, earlier this year.

Greens responded point by point to Democrats' allegations:

Greens accept campaign contributions from Greens, Democrats, Republicans, and others all the time, just as Democrats and Republicans accept contributions from registered members of each others' parties. There is nothing illegal or improper about such contributions. Greens, however, refuse money from corporations -- unlike Democrats and Republicans -- and have called for corporate contributions to be outlawed.

Contrary to the Casey campaign's accusations that the Luzerne County Green Party violated contribution limits in contributing to Mr. Romanelli's petition drive, the contribution was completely legal, under the coordinated expenditure limits between party committees and federal candidates, according to rules written by Democrats and Republicans. Furthermore, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has spent $80,000 in in-kind "coordinated expenditures" to benefit the Casey Campaign, and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party has spent $25,000 in in-kind "coordinated expenditures" to benefit the Casey campaign.

The Green Party provides voters with an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. If Mr. Romanelli were not in the race, voters would be limited to Mr. Casey and Mr. Santorum, both of whom support the war on Iraq, oppose women's reproductive rights and equality for gay Americans, and accept contributions from powerful corporations seeking to influence their votes in the U.S. Senate.
"Voters in Pennsylvania who want to bring our troops home from Iraq and support a woman's right to choose deserve a choice on Election Day. With Carl Romanelli on the ballot, Pennsylvanians have that choice," said Nan Garrett, spokesperson for the Green Party's National Women's Caucus.

Despite accusations repeated in an August 1 Associated Press story <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/....>, a Green candidate cannot "steal" or "siphon" votes away from a Democratic candidate, because a Democratic candidate doesn't own anyone's votes (except his or her own). Voters in Pennsylvania and everywhere else in the U.S. are free to vote for whomever represents their interests and ideals.

Greens urge Democrats and Republicans to stop distracting the electorate with insinuations that only Democrats and Republicans are entitled to be on the ballot and receive votes, and instead to enact reforms like Instant Run Off Voting (IRV). IRV allows voters to rank their choices in the order of their preference, ensures that winners have majority support, and eliminates accusations like 'vote-splitting' and 'spoiling' from our political lexicon.

"Until Democrats take steps to bring IRV to Pennsylvania, we can only assume they'd rather see a Republican victory than tolerate Greens and other parties on the ballot," said Paul Teese, chair of the Green Party of Pennsylvania.

For more information about IRV, visit <http://www.fairvote.org>.

"Our electoral system has been corrupted -- not by the participation of third parties and third party candidates, but by two-party rule," said Liz Arnone, New Jersey Green and co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. "Elections have been ruined by the influence of corporate money on Democratic and Republican politicians; by tampering with computer voting machines, obstruction of votes, and other irregularities, all of which were evident in the 2000 and 2004 national elections; and by Democratic and Republic attempts to hinder other parties through restrictive ballot access laws."

For more on 2004 election irregularities and the Green response, visit <http://www.iwantmyvote.com>. For Green campaign listings, news, photos, and web sites, visit the Green Party's candidate spotlight page <http://www.gp.org/2006elections> and the Green elections database <http://www.greens.org/elections>, which lists all 2006 candidates.

MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org
1700 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 404
Washington, DC 20009.
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193

Green Party of Pennsylvania http://www.gpofpa.org/

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 11:51 AM

America's interesting wrinkle is that we're so much more religious than anywhere in Western Europe. Would the Christians join the anti-immigrant Right or the pro-business, mildly libertarian Right or form an Evangelicals form their own party Will the Democrats even survive, or will the New Democrats defect to the now socially-moderate Republicans, the Progressives defect to the Greens and ethnic parties form out of the Black and Latino caucases?

Why should the Democrats survive? They only exist now because of the Republicans and being propped up by the bogus two party system, who under a new system would see a mass exodus of their libertarian members.

If the DLC Dems broke off and merged with a moderate Republican Party and the Left and Right got parties of their own and the Libertarians grew, I think we'd have a more honest, open and representative democracy, rather than Casey/Santorum match ups.

I don't have the answers, but America's social and economic conservatism suggests that in a multi-party system, you will see few progressive coalitions and many moderate or conservative coalitions.

I see no massive conservative majority, save in Republican propoganda. Based on the fact that a majority of people polled neutrally support some form of universal healthcare, a growing number support marriage equality or gay rights, I'd say that the pendulum is swinging the other way right now.

And as I illustrated above, some of the issue coalitions will be "authoritarian center-right" vs. "populist left/right/libertarian".

Actually, if you knew a little about the Constitution Party, which got 25% in a special Congressional election in CA last year, they are the largest conservative religious third party.

They're Buchananites, if anything. In a multiparty system, more and more Republicans and conservatives would stop voting for Republicans and support them.

They take a hardline stance on abortion, they openly deride church/state separation, they're anti-NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO, anti-immigration, opposed to the war in Iraq, totally opposed to the PATRIOT Act, support massive voting system reform, and are extremely economically libertarian. They're morality police and religious zealots, but they are not the blatant authoritarians that the Bush regime are. They're populist righties and they can be worked with.

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 12:03 PM

moebius, you still haven't answered.

Opinion polls have never swayed the Democrats yet, not since support for the war has plummeted last year onward.

None of the Democratic Party leaders, it's prominent candidates or its Congressional Campaign Committees are even talking about ending the war, punishing Bush for illegal action, national healthcare or nearly anything on your list.

Aside from bloggers and pundits, no one is even implying that they will be "stealth progressives".

Most Democratic candidates have consistently reaffirmed statements from the 2004 platform in the past two years. Hillary, Casey, Lieberman, Cantwell and others are saying we need to "stay the course" in Iraq. All of them either ignored or condemned Feingold when he called for censure of the President for warrantless wiretapping. Hell, just a few months ago, even Howard Dean went on Pat Robertson's 700 Club and was bragging that the Democratic platform says marriage is "one man and one woman" and trying to appeal to and market the Dems to the sorts that listen to zealots like Robertson.

Find me even the slightest hint that the Democrats will magically start caring what their rank and file think and become progressive once they "take back" the Senate?

When have the candidates themselves or the party ever said, claimed, implied, promised or even hinted at any of your wishlist?

I'm sorry, moebius, but I think that the Democratic Party has a better chance of all merging to form Voltron than they do of inexplicably turning into progressives, despite the fact that none of them advocate what you'd (and I) would like right now that they're candidates.

FBHthelizardmage

08-07-2006, 12:10 PM

Wait...

you need to get almost 100,000 signitures from people in order to get a third party name on the ballet?

That's insane... how the hell can you have a fair democracy with crap like that?

Why aren't you guys rioting in the streets (which would be my responce if someone attempted to pass such a law in the UK) over this issue? :eek:

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 12:20 PM

Wait...

you need to get almost 100,000 signitures from people in order to get a third party name on the ballet?

Yup. These are the laws written by Democrats and Republicans to protect themselves from competition.

That's insane... how the hell can you have a fair democracy with crap like that?

You can't. And sadly, most voters never realize that these laws even exist. When I petition for ballot access, the question I'm asked more than any other is, "That seems really unfair, why can't you just be on the ballot?"

Why aren't you guys rioting in the streets (which would be my responce if someone attempted to pass such a law in the UK) over this issue? :eek:

Well, as the saying goes, the grass has been brown so long that it looks green.

Valmore

08-07-2006, 12:22 PM

The Two-Party System? The secret of the two-party system is it's ingrained into a large part of the collective American psyche that it's the only system available. It exists because we allow it to exist, and the Republicans and Democrats know this. The funny thing about 2000 and the Democrats crying foul about Ralph Nader running is they certainly didn't say much in 1992 when Ross Perot ran. And what's funny is that both Nader and Perot appealed to many different voters looking for a change, despite the paintings of them being a "lite" version (or any other term you'd prefer) the person they were "stealing" votes from. Perot was painted as a "lite" Republican stealing Bush's votes; Nader a "lite" Democrat stealing votes from Gore.

Nothing can be further from the truth. The two-party system isn't a Constitutional system, it's a thought system perpetuated by its two main proponents - the Democrats and Republicans. Neither group wants the American public to have an ideology shift that takes a mass group to a third party, because that depletes their power in the system. Hence, propaganda of "stealing" votes swell from within the group that thinks it's losing votes they thought they were entitled to. In 2000, that was the Democrats.

The secret is realizing that no one is entitled to your vote - your vote is something a person should EARN. Not by party loyalty, but by agreeing with you on positions. This will differ from person to person, and no, you're generally not going to get a perfect candidate, but you canusually find the guy you agree with more often than the others.

And THAT'S the person you should vote for. If you TRULY believe that the Democrat and Republican deserves your vote on that basis, then by all means, vote for them. But that does't mean a third party is stealing votes - they're appealing to those who want something different.

My belief, of course, is that both major parties are corrupt and only serve to keep themselves in power. So much so that their own messages are generally corrupted to whatever they think they can get away with. While I can find local candidates of those parties to vote for, on a National level I don't find them all that appealing. At that level, they're indoctrinated into the system.

Strong third parties are the most viable way to defeat the two-party system. A Green or Libertarian candidate should NEVER drop out of a race, especially not for the false reason of "stealing" votes from a likely winner.

Sam

08-07-2006, 12:36 PM

A minority of them. 30,000 of the signatures came from Green volunteers. And if there was a Santorum supporter in there, so what?

It wasn't "a" Santorum supporter, it was six of them, working full time under orders from the Santorum campaign, in some cases singlehandedly managing signature collections for entire counties for Romanelli.

It'd be nice if Democrats had helped the right-wing independent get on the ballot too.

And if they did, said right-wing independants would seem just as hollow and unprincipled. "This year's Libertarian candidate has been brought to you by the Democratic Party!"

PA's ballot access is currently one of the worst in the country and that's the real bad guy in this, not Romanelli.

Sure. That doesn't change the fact that Romanelli's campaign would not exist if not for the Santorum campaign's desire for a spoiler.

More choices on the ballot is a good thing, ultimately. There isn't a wand to magically determine someone's motivations for doing something, especially when there are a handful of Republicans that actually do support us and vote for us. Just as the Democrats regularly get money from and aid from registered Republicans who regularly give to Republican candidates as well.

Oh, come on. I know you don't want to believe there's a Green candidate on the ballot purely due to the Republican desire to split the vote, but this is about as clear-cut as you can get. With the exception of thirty bucks, every cent given to Romanelli has come from Republicans -- much of it from professional Republican lobbyists. His signature-gathering didn't gather any kind of momentum until the Santorum campaign began publically and vocally telling its supporters to support a Green candidate.

These are not Republicans disaffected with their own party and supporting the Green party out of the goodness of their heart. These are Republicans very openly manipulating the system, and the Green party, for no purpose other than Santorum's reelection.

And even so, how does this invalidate the nearly 100,000 Pennsylvanians that want more than two choices on a ballot?

Many of them, no doubt, it doesn't. Although given the Santorum campaign's stated and open calls for Republicans to sign, I'd be interested in seeing a party breakdown of the signatures.

Even given that, though, I'm sure the great bulk of the signatures are sincere. Which just makes it more disgusting the way they are being openly and flagrantly manipulated to secure the election of someone whose views are diametrically opposed to what they support.

Here's the press release that the Greens have put out on the issue:

"Greens accept campaign contributions from Greens, Democrats, Republicans, and others all the time, just as Democrats and Republicans accept contributions from registered members of each others' parties. There is nothing illegal or improper about such contributions."

This is obviously missing the point, presumably intentionally. The problem is not that they've "accepted campaign contributions from Republicans." The problem is that you're dealing with a candidate whose whole campaign has been funded and supported by another candidate's campaign -- the Romanelli campaign, as an entity, effectively exists only as a strategy of the Rick Santorum campaign. Whether intentionally on Romanelli's part or not, he is a sock puppet for the Santorum campaign.

Mike Smash!

08-07-2006, 12:53 PM

It wasn't "a" Santorum supporter, it was six of them, working full time under orders from the Santorum campaign, in some cases singlehandedly managing signature collections for entire counties for Romanelli.

As I said, they're a minority. The majority of the signatures gathered were gathered by the statewide Green Party, who has all of their statewide candidates' ballot access on the line, not just Romanelli's.

And if they did, said right-wing independants would seem just as hollow and unprincipled. "This year's Libertarian candidate has been brought to you by the Democratic Party!"

Good results from bad motivations. I would imagine that far more registered Republicans gave to Casey than to Romanelli.

Sure. That doesn't change the fact that Romanelli's campaign would not exist if not for the Santorum campaign's desire for a spoiler.

Again, not true. He has been gearing up for this campaign since 2001. Republicans had nothing to do with that.

Whether the Republicans are stupid enough to believe the spoiler garbage or not, we do not siphon votes from anyone. Their wicked plan is irrellevant.

Oh, come on. I know you don't want to believe there's a Green candidate on the ballot purely due to the Republican desire to split the vote, but this is about as clear-cut as you can get. With the exception of thirty bucks, every cent given to Romanelli has come from Republicans -- much of it from professional Republican lobbyists. His signature-gathering didn't gather any kind of momentum until the Santorum campaign began publically and vocally telling its supporters to support a Green candidate.

Again, not true. How many times will you repeat the $30 dollar lie. The funding for Green ballot access measure, tens of thousands of dollars, was in the fund of the state party, not Romanelli's fund where the Republicans donated.

These are not Republicans disaffected with their own party and supporting the Green party out of the goodness of their heart. These are Republicans very openly manipulating the system, and the Green party, for no purpose other than Santorum's reelection.

Who cares what their motivation is. We don't write letters to people that donate to us and ask "do you really support us or do you want to help the Republican?"

For instance, if you ran a charity for homeless children and a local Republican candidate gave that charity a big donation because he thought it would help his campaign and you found him repulsive, would you give him his check back or would you accept that he did a good thing for selfish reasons?

Many of them, no doubt, it doesn't. Although given the Santorum campaign's stated and open calls for Republicans to sign, I'd be interested in seeing a party breakdown of the signatures.

Then you've obviously never gathered signatures for a third party candidate before. Republicans and conservatives are among the least likely to sign my petitions. I get alot of "sorry, I support Bush and the war, but good luck" responses or people who don't want antiwar candidates on the ballot. Only among political nerds do people even mention the spoiler issue when signing.

Even given that, though, I'm sure the great bulk of the signatures are sincere. Which just makes it more disgusting the way they are being openly and flagrantly manipulated to secure the election of someone whose views are diametrically opposed to what they support.

I've talked to petitioners that have learned the hardway that the cynical spoiler attitude is just not relevant to average voters. I know people who've purposely gone to heavily Republican areas for a Green candidate and had terrible trouble getting anyone to sign for a liberal candidate.

"Greens accept campaign contributions from Greens, Democrats, Republicans, and others all the time, just as Democrats and Republicans accept contributions from registered members of each others' parties. There is nothing illegal or improper about such contributions."

This is obviously missing the point, presumably intentionally. The problem is not that they've "accepted campaign contributions from Republicans." The problem is that you're dealing with a candidate whose whole campaign has been funded and supported by another candidate's campaign -- the Romanelli campaign, as an entity, effectively exists only as a strategy of the Rick Santorum campaign. Whether intentionally on Romanelli's part or not, he is a sock puppet for the Santorum campaign.

Well, do you think that Casey should refund all of the checks he's gotten from Republican lobbyists and former Bush donors? It's funny that we're the immoral people, yet no one is angry at the Democrat support ballot access laws or voting system that created the situation or the fact that Democrats take far more Republican money than any Green.

Also, our platform isn't for sale. The Democrats' is. Casey's platform and performance in office will be affected by the corporate and PAC donors he's gotten. Our won't be and if Republicans mistakenly believe that we cause them to win, they're wrong and they're stupid to donate to us thinking otherwise.

Tages

08-07-2006, 01:16 PM

extremely economically libertarian.
Except for the whole tariff thing.

Those wacky Buchananites and their tariffs!

Sam

08-07-2006, 01:28 PM

Again, not true. He has been gearing up for this campaign since 2001. Republicans had nothing to do with that.

Sure -- but it was Santorum who got him onto the ballot. Without the Rick Santorum campaign, Romanelli didn't have anything close to the resources necessary to get onto the ballot. Is that messed up? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that his name is on the ballot because the Rick Santorum campaign wants it there.

Again, not true. How many times will you repeat the $30 dollar lie. The funding for Green ballot access measure, tens of thousands of dollars, was in the fund of the state party, not Romanelli's fund where the Republicans donated.

This is the first I've heard of this -- you had previously just been saying that there were lots of Green Party volunteers collecting signatures too. Where can I read about these independant funds? Because none of the news stories have mentioned any source of funding other than the Santorum campaign. And I can't help but notice that even the Green Party press release you posted earlier doesn't make any mention of it.

For instance, if you ran a charity for homeless children and a local Republican candidate gave that charity a big donation because he thought it would help his campaign and you found him repulsive, would you give him his check back or would you accept that he did a good thing for selfish reasons?

If the first thing that candidate was going to do upon reelection was do everything in his power to make things far worse for homeless children, I might think twice about it.

Then you've obviously never gathered signatures for a third party candidate before. Republicans and conservatives are among the least likely to sign my petitions. I get alot of "sorry, I support Bush and the war, but good luck" responses or people who don't want antiwar candidates on the ballot. Only among political nerds do people even mention the spoiler issue when signing.

That's before the Republican candidate started openly getting out the word specifically asking his supporters to help get a Green candidate on the ballot, though. (That said, I have no idea how well that may or may not have worked.)

Well, do you think that Casey should refund all of the checks he's gotten from Republican lobbyists and former Bush donors?

Are you actually trying to miss the point?

Romanelli wasn't taking money from former Santorum donors. He was taking money from current Santorum donors. He was taking money from Santorum himself. This isn't just innocently taking Republican money, same as anyone else. This is taking money very explicitly from the Republican campaign to reelect Rick Santorum.

This is not the same as some Republicans supporting Casey. If Casey had his whole campaign funded by the RNC, there'd be a comparison to talk about.

It's funny that we're the immoral people, yet no one is angry at the Democrat support ballot access laws or voting system that created the situation

Hey, I never said the Democrats are blameless. Just that the Greens -- or at the very least, Romanelli -- have sort of lost any high ground with this.

or the fact that Democrats take far more Republican money than any Green.

Show me a Democrat whose name is on the ballot solely due to the efforts of Republicans -- and not just any Republicans, but Republicans currently lobbying for the election of a Republican competitor to said Democrat -- and I'll make all the same complaints.

Our won't be and if Republicans mistakenly believe that we cause them to win, they're wrong and they're stupid to donate to us thinking otherwise.

I find your outright refusal to believe that a Green candidate on the ballot makes a Republican victory more likely to be, frankly, hilarious. There are arguments to be made that Democrats *should* lose if enough people are willing to cross over and vote for a Green candidate -- fair enough. But saying that and then denying that it makes the Republican more likely to win makes about as much sense as saying that the sky is down.

If a Green candidate has no chance of winning, and convinces enough people to vote for him instead of a Democrat that the Democrat also loses, then they've just won the election for the Republican. Whether that was intended or not. If you think the growth of a third party is worth Republican victories, again, fair enough -- I don't agree, but it's at least a position which accepts pragmatic reality.

But saying that the growth of the Green Party doesn't make Republican victories more likely is going beyond idealism into something that's right around the electoral equivalent of suggesting that unicorns and fairies will be sprinkling moonbeams upon your voters' brows while they sleep.

FBHthelizardmage

08-07-2006, 01:52 PM

I can't believe anyone is seriously contending that the green candidate should NOT be on the ballet.

How the hell can you have a democratic system if the electorate are forced to pick from only 2 parties when they might not really support either?

In the UK, there's conscern about to many people voting for a party to keep another party out, we can it tactical voting. A lot of people think this is a bad idea because it means you're not really voting for a set of policies you like, just for ones you don't like not as much.

This undermines the argument of a party in power to have a mandate from the electorate.

This instutitionalizes it. That's utterly insane.

Drew Van T.

08-07-2006, 02:20 PM

How the hell can you have a democratic system if the electorate are forced to pick from only 2 parties when they might not really support either?

Don't forget, though, that Britain could have evolved the same way. Because you have 'First Past the Post' voting too.

The important difference is that when the Liberals and Conservatives had already been firmly established as parties (albeit under different guises), just like everywhere else in Europe there came the ascendency of democratic socialism. Which in the end produced a formally tri-partite system (emphasis on formal). America had different social, cultural and economic conditions in which no 'Labour' party could successfully be formed.

I don't have the answers, but America's social and economic conservatism suggests that in a multi-party system, you will see few progressive coalitions and many moderate or conservative coalitions.

You are probably correct. As a progressive, though, I would see this as a price worth paying to break the two-party deadlock. While there certainly are differences between the two parties, on too many important issues you effectively have a conservative coalition of two parties.

Sam

08-07-2006, 02:27 PM

I can't believe anyone is seriously contending that the green candidate should NOT be on the ballet.

Note -- this isn't actually what I'm arguing. I'm just saying that maybe the Green candidate should hesitate before signing on to be the sock puppet of a Republican candidate for the sole purpose of defeating the Democrat.

FBHthelizardmage

08-07-2006, 02:42 PM

Don't forget, though, that Britain could have evolved the same way. Because you have 'First Past the Post' voting too.

The important difference is that when the Liberals and Conservatives had already been firmly established as parties (albeit under different guises), just like everywhere else in Europe there came the ascendency of democratic socialism. Which in the end produced a formally tri-partite system (emphasis on formal). America had different social, cultural and economic conditions in which no 'Labour' party could successfully be formed.

I can't think of a time when their have not been some third party MPs in parliment however. Certainly it has not been the case this century.

Plus, there's the principle of the thing. Anybody should have the easy possibility of having any party with whatever set of policies on their election papers.

To do otherwise is monsterously undemocratic.

FBHthelizardmage

08-07-2006, 02:46 PM

Note -- this isn't actually what I'm arguing. I'm just saying that maybe the Green candidate should hesitate before signing on to be the sock puppet of a Republican candidate for the sole purpose of defeating the Democrat.

Has he? it seems to me he took some money in order to attempt to exercise his supporters democratic rights to vote for the set of policies they want, not vote for some other set of policies they probabbly don't support, or considering the views of the guy the democrats are running, actively opose.

It wasn't a particularly saavy political move, but he's hardly satan incarnate for trying to exercise his legitimate rights to stand as a candidate and put his policies to the electorate.

Quiet frankly, who gives a crap whether the republicans are trying to spoil, the far bigger crime is that third parties are not being given an equal place on the ticket.

ragnarok_2012

08-07-2006, 02:54 PM

Note -- this isn't actually what I'm arguing. I'm just saying that maybe the Green candidate should hesitate before signing on to be the sock puppet of a Republican candidate for the sole purpose of defeating the Democrat.

I personally don't buy the spoiler argument. Among other things, Casey and Santorum have essentially the same platforms. If you spoil for one in favor of the other, you're getting the same candidate. Santorum simply sounds a lot scarier than Casey does. As I've said before, I think Casey would simply side with his ideological brethren (whether Democrat or Republican) over any sort of party loyalty.

I don't see how Santorum could influence Romenelli should he win. So it's not quite the same as when PAC's and corporations pay out millions in contributions to a candidate.

I wonder how many signatures that six volunteers could have gotten, anyway?

Spike-X

08-07-2006, 03:15 PM

the far bigger crime is that third parties are not being given an equal place on the ticket.

Damn straight. Having the option of either Coke or Pepsi is not a choice. It's the illusion of choice. What if somebody prefers orange juice? What if the thought of having either Coke or Pepsi makes them sick to their stomach?

I think somebody needs to invade the US and bring democracy to these folks.

Spike-X

08-07-2006, 03:17 PM

it was Santorum who got him onto the ballot.

I thought it was the 100,000 people who signed the petition who got him onto the ballot? If those people didn't want him on there in the first place, Santorum or anyone else couldn't have done a damn thing about it.

Fenris

08-07-2006, 03:28 PM

Hey, Moebius! Thank you for clarifying your points: if nothing else, I at least understand what I don't understand.

Particularly this part:

2. It certainly isn't in the Democrat's best interest to support reforms that will hurt their party. That's called logic, and I'm not going to get all surprised when Democrats kill electoral reform or help water down campaign finance reform. Whether this is "right" or not in a deeper normative sense is neither here nor there.

So the Democrats have no pragmatic reason to push this reform, and thus shouldn't be expected to do so just because it might be right. That's clear enough.

By the same token, the Greens' behavior pragmatically helps them. Splitting the vote helps the Green Party- it proves that they can get votes, and disarms the Democrats' best pragmatic argument (that is, if they don't win very often, there's much less reason to compromise your principles by voting Democratic.)

Why shouldn't the Greens do this? If, as you've said, normative right is neither here nor there, and we're just talking about parties and their pragmatic interests?

I mean, yes, it lets the Republicans win; but so what? If they thought that the Democrats were an acceptable alternative to the Republicans, they wouldn't have become Greens in the first place. So this argument cannot possibly go over well.

õ
Who's trying to persuade whom of what?

Drew Van T.

08-07-2006, 03:38 PM

I can't think of a time when their have not been some third party MPs in parliment however. Certainly it has not been the case this century.

When I mentioned the ascendancy of social democracy - that happened late 19th century. Before that, though, British politics was liberals vs. conservatives (just like Belgium at the time, for that matter).

And it took quite some time. Labour didn't actually have any members of parliament until October 1900 (Keir Hardie).

FBHthelizardmage

08-07-2006, 03:40 PM

When I mentioned the ascendancy of social democracy - that happened late 19th century. Before that, though, British politics was liberals vs. conservatives (just like Belgium at the time, for that matter).

And it took quite some time. Labour didn't actually have any members of parliament until October 1900 (Keir Hardie).

But their were still independents, and various third party movements. It's hardly the same.

Calybos

08-08-2006, 04:39 AM

Valmore

08-08-2006, 06:39 AM

Fenris has made an excellent point, and one that more people should understand. The Greens are not "almost Democrats"--they're an opposing party to both Dems and Republicans. There's no reason for them to be looking out for the Democrats' best interests, or to be making "Well, if I can't win, at least YOU'll get it" concessions.

The Greens' approach is the only avenue open to them that might conceivably lead to greater influence and more electoral victories. If in the meantime it means that Democrats are inconvenienced... well, so what? They're not Democrats. Republicans "inconvenience" Democrats all the time, but nobody expects them to lose any sleep over it.

That's because the Republicans are the "legitimate" opposition in the two-party system, which is the system they and the Republicans both want you and everyone else in America to think as the only "legitimate" option when it comes to voting. The Democrats need to paint the picture of Greens as "Disaffected Democrats" in an effort to keep anyone in their party that might think of leaving. This, despite the fact Greens appeal to different people anyway, including some who might actually be seen as... "Renegade Republicans."

The two parties in power don't want you to vote for anyone outside of their two parties, because they see it as weakening the structure that keeps them in their cush jobs. (Unless, of course, that third party is "stealing" votes from the opposition, then it's okay.) Hence, why people say the Greens "stole" votes from Gore in 2000 and why people say Perot "stole" votes from Bush in 1992. And really, 2000 should be blamed almost squarely on Al Gore for not being able to appeal to his own home state! The majority of Tennessee didn't even pick Gore, which says quite a bit about the candidate - how great can he be if he can't even pick up his own state? Even Walter Mondale managed to carry Minnesota in 1984, when Reagan took every single state in the nation... except Mondale's home state (and DC).

Had Gore managed to win Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have meant bupkiss.

moebius

08-08-2006, 08:20 AM

The two parties in power don't want you to vote for anyone outside of their two parties, because they see it as weakening the structure that keeps them in their cush jobs. (Unless, of course, that third party is "stealing" votes from the opposition, then it's okay.) Hence, why people say the Greens "stole" votes from Gore in 2000 and why people say Perot "stole" votes from Bush in 1992. And really, 2000 should be blamed almost squarely on Al Gore for not being able to appeal to his own home state! The majority of Tennessee didn't even pick Gore, which says quite a bit about the candidate - how great can he be if he can't even pick up his own state? Even Walter Mondale managed to carry Minnesota in 1984, when Reagan took every single state in the nation... except Mondale's home state (and DC).

Had Gore managed to win Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have meant bupkiss.

Ugh...the thread that won't die!

Two points:

1. There's a significant difference between Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000. Post-election analysis of exit polls found that had Perot not been in the race, Clinton still would have won the head to head.

Let’s start with some actual data. If Perot hadn’t been in the 92 race, would Bush the elder have beaten Clinton? The exit polling was abundantly clear, and it was widely reported. On November 8, 1992—five days after the election—E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post. Headline: “Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:”

DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:

DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

Now compare this with Nader, where exit polls showed that Nader voters were more likely to vote Gore than Bush, and that discrepency would have been enough to swing the election (in Florida and New Hampshire).

2. To say that Nader was not responsible for costing Gore the election results from a very ropey understanding of cause and effect.

Yes, you can say that "Gore cost Gore the election" and "Palm Beach cost Gore the election" and these statements would both be true, just as it is true that "Nader cost Gore the election".

An example... Three teenagers (A,B,C) want to buy a Playstation that is $110. A contributes $50, B $40 and C $20? Each teen has given all the money they have. Who is "responsible" for buying the playstation.

A. They all are. Without any of their contributions, they would not have a Playstation...it's just as "true" to say A is responsible as it is to say C is responsible.

B. You can choose to assign weights to who is "more responsible". In this case it would appropriate to, for example, look at the amount of money contributed, whose idea it was to buy the Playstation or save for it, etc.

When assigning "responsibility" for the 2000 Election, it probably looks something like this:

A. Gore: Gore ran an uninspiring campaign and lost his home state of Tennesee by roughly 80,000 votes. In addition, the Democrats were thoroughly outmaneuvered by the Reps in Florida (though the Reps controlled all the relevant political offices).

B. Nader: Nader's candidacy in Florida and New Hampshire were enough to cost Gore the Electoral College. In Florida alone, Gore would have received (using conservative polling) 10-20,000 more votes than Bush if Nader had pulled out. There is zero evidence , except Mike's faulty exit poll question, reliance on Green propoganda (which naturally takes no responsibility) and the statement of a DLC member (using the faulty question) to the contrary.

C. Buchanan: Buchanan cost core 3-5000 votes in Florida, enough to shift the margin in the Electoral college. Buchanan (unlike Nader) did not expect to take more votes from Democrats and Republicans, and the whole thing was largely a misunderstanding.

D. Clinton, the Supreme Court, etc: Gore could not run on Clinton's record...The Supreme Court made the wrong decision...etc.

Valmore

08-08-2006, 11:51 AM

However, you're still missing the point Mike is making - just because Ralph Nader ran, doesn't mean those who voted for him would have automatically voted for Gore had Nader NOT ran. Plenty would have sat on their butts at home - Nader gave them a reason to get up and vote, because he at least offered a different perspective than Bush and Gore.

It's faulty logic to claim a third party "steals" votes and elections from another candidate, and it panders to the mindset in America that there's only two viable parties, and voting any other way is a "wasted vote." The two-party system is NOT a part of the Constitution, and there is no law that says we have to abide by it. However, there is a prevailing mindset that the two parties play off of to their advantage - and that's paint a vote for any other party as a waste.

Or, to wit - just because the Red Sox and Yankees have the highest payroll, doesn't mean one has to be a fan of them. Tampa Bay is a viable alternative.

Polling Florida voters is completely useless for the simple fact that we don't even have an accurate vote count and never will. They threw out, added, and argued over so many votes from the counties as well as the overseas votes that any count is suspect.

Gore cost himself the election - not Ralph Nader. It's fallacy to automatically count votes for Nader into Gore's camp, simply because the Greens ideology is what the Democrats sometimes stand for. The simple fact is, it's just as likely those Nader voters would have sat at home than vote for Gore.

So, again - Gore caused his own downfall. Not Ralph Nader.

moebius

08-08-2006, 12:06 PM

Valmore

08-08-2006, 12:14 PM

Ugh. I'm getting really sick of arguing this point.

Your assertion would be valid...but we know from survey research it is not true, because enough Nader voters in exit polls said they would have voted for Gore to swing the election to him. We know that about 25% would have voted for Bush, 45% would have stayed home, and 35% would have voted for Gore...which would have swung the election.

Why is that so hard hard for you to understand? Your hypothesis is a fine one, but it is contrary to all the empirical evidence that came out of the 2000 Election exit polls. It is just a rationalization; it has no objective support. Occam would attack you with his Razor, were he alive.

But hey...why let facts get in the way?

That's real nice - now show me an accurate vote count in Florida.

Show me actual vote counts in all states that would change Nader to Gore.

You can't.

You have a really nice theory there, but I see no concrete facts to back it up. Just an exit poll, which have been shown to be highly inaccurate.

Occam would laugh at you for picking the wrong simple solution.

moebius

08-08-2006, 12:15 PM

Polling Florida voters is completely useless for the simple fact that we don't even have an accurate vote count and never will. They threw out, added, and argued over so many votes from the counties as well as the overseas votes that any count is suspect.

Gore cost himself the election - not Ralph Nader. It's fallacy to automatically count votes for Nader into Gore's camp, simply because the Greens ideology is what the Democrats sometimes stand for. The simple fact is, it's just as likely those Nader voters would have sat at home than vote for Gore.

I didn't "automatically" throw Nader voters into Gore's camp...you can only make this assertion by failing to read the thread or deliberately misrepresenting or ignoring my evidence.

EVERY opinion poll or exit poll that came out of 2000 has more Nader voters going to Gore than Bush. These polls ALSO have Nader voters staying home or voting for Bush...but in every poll voters going to Gore>voters going than Bush.

Let me put it this way: Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. Even if 97% of those voters would have otherwise stayed home, 2% voted for Gore and 1% for Bush, mathematically Gore still wins the election.

ragnarok_2012

08-08-2006, 12:19 PM

Ugh. I'm getting really sick of arguing this point.

Your assertion would be valid...but we know from survey research it is not true, because enough Nader voters in exit polls said they would have voted for Gore to swing the election to him. We know that about 25% would have voted for Bush, 45% would have stayed home, and 35% would have voted for Gore...which would have swung the election.

Why is that so hard hard for you to understand? Your hypothesis is a fine one, but it is contrary to all the empirical evidence that came out of the 2000 Election exit polls. It is just a rationalization; it has no objective support. Occam would attack you with his Razor, were he alive.

But hey...why let facts get in the way?

lol

Gore lost his home state and the home state of Clinton. He seemed almost apathetic while running. There was little difference between the platforms of Gore and Bush. And he wouldn't even fight the Supreme Court decision that handed the election to Bush.

I don't think Gore ran a very effective campaign.

Democrats really shouldn't take liberal votes for granted. It's not in the voters' long-term best interests to support a party that they have little say in and which continues to move towards the right on every issue from abortion to civil liberties.

moebius

08-08-2006, 12:20 PM

That's real nice - now show me an accurate vote count in Florida.

Show me actual vote counts in all states that would change Nader to Gore.

You can't.

You have a really nice theory there, but I see no concrete facts to back it up. Just an exit poll, which have been shown to be highly inaccurate.

Occam would laugh at you for picking the wrong simple solution.

Even taking every manual recount conducted by the major newspapers after the 2000 Election, when combined with the exit polls, even if you give the most favorable margin of error to Bush, Gore still wins the election without Nader.

No election result is accurate...but some outcomes are more likely than others. For example, we can say with high certainty under no condition would Nader have won the election.

I understand that you hate the two party system. That's fine; lots of people agree with you.

But to say 2+2=5 just because you don't like the number 4 is, frankly, either highly obtuse or deliberatively misrepresenting the facts.

moebius

08-08-2006, 12:23 PM

lol

Gore lost his home state and the home state of Clinton. He seemed almost apathetic while running. There was little difference between the platforms of Gore and Bush. And he wouldn't even fight the Supreme Court decision that handed the election to Bush.

I don't think Gore ran a very effective campaign.

Democrats really shouldn't take liberal votes for granted. It's not in the voters' long-term best interests to support a party that they have little say in and which continues to move towards the right on every issue from abortion to civil liberties.

How does any of this negate the evidence I've presented? Mitigate, sure? Negate? Absolutely not.

But disprove the hypothesis: If Nader had pulled out of Florida, Gore would have won the election. Use facts or evidence, not normative statements about what you would like to be true.

ragnarok_2012

08-08-2006, 12:30 PM

How does any of this negate the evidence I've presented? Mitigate, sure? Negate? Absolutely not.

But disprove the hypothesis: If Nader had pulled out of Florida, Gore would have won the election. Use facts or evidence, not normative statements about what you would like to be true.

I really think that Gore should have dropped out of the race. If Gore had done that, he wouldn't have spoiled the race in favor of Bush. :D

Unlike my esteemed colleagues, I don't much care about the spoiler argument. If a third party doesn't play to win in elections, they get nowhere fast.

As for exit poll data, that kinda stuff, when combined with all the reports of just how easy it is to manipulate the Diebold machines, says to me that the vote counts were probably manipulated. Which really is a shame.

moebius

08-08-2006, 12:34 PM

It's faulty logic to claim a third party "steals" votes and elections from another candidate, and it panders to the mindset in America that there's only two viable parties, and voting any other way is a "wasted vote." The two-party system is NOT a part of the Constitution, and there is no law that says we have to abide by it. However, there is a prevailing mindset that the two parties play off of to their advantage - and that's paint a vote for any other party as a waste.

Furthermore, Valmore, I would like you to find a statement I have made where I've said Democratic voters are "entitled" to the votes of Progressives. I have never made that statement, nor as someone who studies voting behavior for a living would I be expected to do so.

It is a "classic" statement from established parties to tell voters that votes for 3rd parties are "wasted". In some cases this is true, in others not.

Of course, it's also a "classic" statement from minor or 3rd parties to say that the established parties are 1) corrupt; 2) the same; and 3) out of touch. You will not find a minor party anywhere who doesn't make some version of this argument; it's how they get voters. Sometimes they are correct; sometimes not.

I have argued, and will continue to do so, that voting for Democrats and working from within the Democratic Party will ultimately give Progressives a better outcome than putting their energy into minor party projects when conditions are unfavorable for the consolidation of those minor parties. I am fine with agreeing to disagree with Mike on this point, and letting history be the judge.

What I am not all right with is basic misrepresentations of facts, either through ignorance or deliberate obfuscation.

moebius

08-08-2006, 12:43 PM

Unlike my esteemed colleagues, I don't much care about the spoiler argument. If a third party doesn't play to win in elections, they get nowhere fast.

At least you're being honest with yourself about it. Nader seems to alternate between "I'm a spoiler, so what?" and "Of course I didn't spoil the election!", depending on his mood.

On the other hand, I see "spoiling" elections and restricting ballot access as somewhat morally equivalent...either way your're distorting the democratic process. In the first case, the presence of a spoiler leads to the election of the candidate that was not most preferred by the electorate (though to be intellectually honest, Bush would have won the popular vote without the presence of 4 "spoilers" on the Right). In the second case, imperfect electoral systems result in voter preferences being imperfectly signaled.

As for exit poll data, that kinda stuff, when combined with all the reports of just how easy it is to manipulate the Diebold machines, says to me that the vote counts were probably manipulated. Which really is a shame.

RE: massive voter manipulation? It's always possible. Diebold machines and electronic voting in general are horrible ideas the way they're being implemented now. Unfortunately, voter fraud and manipulation is probably as old as our democracy.

ragnarok_2012

08-08-2006, 04:06 PM

At least you're being honest with yourself about it.

Why thank you.

I do wish you'd reconsider your position re: the Democrats willingness to give you anything resembling your wishlist. I really see no evidence for it.

moebius

08-08-2006, 04:23 PM

Why thank you.

I do wish you'd reconsider your position re: the Democrats willingness to give you anything resembling your wishlist. I really see no evidence for it.

That's where we agree to disagree.

I think we have the same Ends in mind (a more progressive America), but definitely different Means.

I'd like to see the Greens focus on their strengths, and I have no problem with them pushing IRV...it's in their interests to do so. However, I've got a high discount factor, and I'm not willing to take short-term losses to get uncertain long-term gains.

Drew Van T.

08-08-2006, 04:26 PM

ragnarok_2012

08-08-2006, 04:38 PM

moebius

08-08-2006, 04:39 PM

So what does everyone think of the Lieberman vs. Lamont primary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800596.html)?

While not Greens-related, it is very much relevant to all the themes and topics in this thread.

And the funny thing is that Lieberman has said he will run as an independent if he loses. Kind of a very belated third party boost...drop the front already and run as a moderate Republican, Joe! :D

I was going to start a thread on this tomorrow, once the results and intentions are in.

1. Joe can not run, and Lamont can get elected (best result).
2. Joe can run as an Independent, and possibly get elected (worse result).
3. Joe can not run, and Lamont can lose (worse-er result).
3. Joe can run as an Independent, and possibly get Republican elected (worst result). Especially if that's the 51st Senate seat (though I don't think the Dems will take the Senate this time).

The bigger implication is how far to the Left on Iraq this shifts the party.

Valmore

08-08-2006, 05:56 PM

How does any of this negate the evidence I've presented? Mitigate, sure? Negate? Absolutely not.

But disprove the hypothesis: If Nader had pulled out of Florida, Gore would have won the election. Use facts or evidence, not normative statements about what you would like to be true.

If George W. Bush had pulled out of Florida, Gore would have won the election. See how easy it is to make a simple and stupid statement? Disprove it. Hey, if Bush had pulled out, Gore wins, right?

Even if I'm to accept your argument that 45% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, riddle me this - why did they bolt for Nader instead of voting for Al Gore? BECAUSE AL GORE IS THE CAUSE OF HIS OWN LOSS! Had Gore attempted to appeal better to those voters, they would have found no cause to "turn" on Gore.

And by the way, I also study this stuff and got my degree in American politics. So trying to impress me with your "status" doesn't do it for me.

Mike Smash!

08-09-2006, 01:13 AM

Interesting little diddy from the New York Times. Let's just pretend for a moment that I believe the mythical idea that third party candidates "steal" votes from the big two:

[Source: Davis Leonhardt, New York Times, p. 4 Dec 10, 2000]
There were 8 states in which no candidate received a majority of votes. In ME and NE, Gore won [by more than Buchanan’s vote], so those are moot. In FL and NH, Bush won, but by fewer votes than Nader received .

In the remaining four states, IA, NM, OR, and WI, Buchanan’s vote total exceeded the difference between Gore and Bush. Combined, these four states account for 30 electoral votes, or one more than FL and NH combined. In other words, if Buchanan has dropped out and his supporters had switched to Bush, Bush would not have needed Florida to become president.

So according to the NYT, Buchanan was more of a "spoiler" than Nader. And that's [I]if I believed the arrogant sense of entitlement that the Democrats and Republicans feel they have to our vote was legitimate.

The only votes in 2000 that were "stolen" were the people whose names from voter rolls in Florida, the millions who are regularly disenfranchised by the antiquated Electoral College.

The only votes Buchanan truly "stole" were via the Butterfly ballot, albeit unintentionally.

But hey, if it's easier to blame the 1 million Democrats who voted for Nader over the 8 million that voted for Bush, the Supreme Court decision, Gore's weak ass campaign and shitty platform, Gore's refusal to call for a statewide recount, Gore's inability to win his home state, the Senate Dems not calling for an investigation of voter fraud in Florida and the butterfly ballot, that's your problem.

I mean, what's the alternative? The Democrats taking responsibility for their own actions (and inaction)?

moebius

08-09-2006, 08:42 AM

Mike, your contitnued inability to understand voting behavior or separate objective truth from normative statements means there's nothing to really debate. I think we've established

As has been said a dozen (two dozen?) times:

1. Votes do not "belong" to anyone. It's trivial to state that Nader can't "take" votes from Gore, because there's nothing to "take". That's post-modernism and normative theory masquerading as an argument about an objective event.

2. We can objectively determine what would have happened (through election results + exit polls) if one or more candidates had dropped out of the race. If voters going to one candidate would have otherwise voted for a different candidate, and those voters were the margin of victory, it is perfectly accurate to say that one candidate "cost" another canididate the election. There is nothing normative associated with "cost" in that statement; it is a statement of objective fact.

That does not negate other truth claims. For example "Nader cost Gore the election" does not negate the truth claim that "Gore cost Gore the election"; we have evidence that both are "true" with a high level of certainty.

Furthermore:

For the record, I do: want a more progressive America and I will: use any and all legal means to get there. I don't: believe that my views are necessarily the American mainstream, and I definitely don't believe that your views (assuming you to be a Green in agreement with the party platform) represent the mainstream, so I understand that change will have to be incremental and opportunist. Do what you can, when you can.

I don't: care if Buchanan would have otherwise "spoiled" the election for Bush. Pile high the Far Right candidates as far as I'm concerned, to ensure that the Democrats can get a large enough majority to implement their policies and creep to the Left.

I also don't: care if the Greens cry about ballot access laws. I have no problem with Dems blocking changes to ballot access laws (it's in their interest to do so), though I do not necessarily agree with their position or that FPTP is the best voting system for where we're at. If the Greens want to enforce their view of society, run ballot initiatives and prove the Democrats wrong, or use community activism to change voter preferences.

I also won't: Ally myself with the fundamentalist racists of the US Constitution Party to get what I want. That reeks of a "negative majority" mentality; I don't care that the political system might be worse off than it was before if my enemies on the Far Right win, so long as I get mine.

See also: Austria in the 1930s (the Left and Far Right agreeing to dissolve the political system through Civil War), Germany 1928-1933 (the Communists and National Socialists tacitly agreeing to jointly destroy the political system) or France in 1986 (the Socialists making the electoral rules more permissive to allow the National Front into parliament in hopes of hurting the Right).

Mike Smash!

08-09-2006, 12:40 PM

Mike, your contitnued inability to understand voting behavior or separate objective truth from normative statements means there's nothing to really debate. I think we've established

Oh, I understand just fine. And your continued inability to see people as anything other than a series of statistics and behavioral patterns and talking about "payback" models rather than principle, to me, symbolizes everything wrong with politics today.

1. Votes do not "belong" to anyone. It's trivial to state that Nader can't "take" votes from Gore, because there's nothing to "take". That's post-modernism and normative theory masquerading as an argument about an objective event.

No, that's true. Gore owns only one vote. His own. The rest he is free to convince other people to give THEIR vote to him. If they choose not to, he has only himself to blame.

2. We can objectively determine what would have happened (through election results + exit polls) if one or more candidates had dropped out of the race. If voters going to one candidate would have otherwise voted for a different candidate, and those voters were the margin of victory, it is perfectly accurate to say that one candidate "cost" another canididate the election. There is nothing normative associated with "cost" in that statement; it is a statement of objective fact.

Contradicted by the DLC's exit polls (people who have every reason to want to tar Nader) and the fact that there's never been an accurate vote count of Florida.

That does not negate other truth claims. For example "Nader cost Gore the election" does not negate the truth claim that "Gore cost Gore the election"; we have evidence that both are "true" with a high level of certainty.

I've explained how even if I believed this "spoiler" nonsense, Gore lost more because of his own lame race, his big loss in his own homestate, voter fraud in FL and the Senate Dem's refusal to do anything about it, the butterfly ballot, the Supreme Court decision, his refusal to ask for a full state recount and oh yes....8 MILLION DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR BUSH AND MILLIONS MORE THAT SAT AT HOME, UNINSPIRED BY HIS SHITTY CAMPAIGN.

I am so sick and tired of your condescending refusal to make the Democratic Party accept the results of their own actions and inactions. What you have with the Nader situation is someone who failed the SAT after not studying, being given the wrong answer sheet, drifting through the test and then blaming the whole thing on forgetting to bring their lucky rabbit's foot to the test.

Gore is not in office because of Gore.

For the record, I do: want a more progressive America and I will: use any and all legal means to get there. I don't: believe that my views are necessarily the American mainstream, and I definitely don't believe that your views (assuming you to be a Green in agreement with the party platform) represent the mainstream, so I understand that change will have to be incremental and opportunist. Do what you can, when you can.

I agree, but we're more mainstream than you can guess and a lot of the reason that people believe otherwise is due to a Republican smear of the word "liberal" and the Democratic Party's retreat on it.

I don't: care if Buchanan would have otherwise "spoiled" the election for Bush. Pile high the Far Right candidates as far as I'm concerned, to ensure that the Democrats can get a large enough majority to implement their policies and creep to the Left.

I also don't: care if the Greens cry about ballot access laws. I have no problem with Dems blocking changes to ballot access laws (it's in their interest to do so), though I do not necessarily agree with their position or that FPTP is the best voting system for where we're at. If the Greens want to enforce their view of society, run ballot initiatives and prove the Democrats wrong, or use community activism to change voter preferences.

Yes, because you've made yourself very clear. You don't care whether something is morally or ethically right, so long as it gives you the result you like. The proper "payoff structure".

The method you endorse is trying to win by taking other options away, forcing us to choose between Coke and Pepsi when we'd rather have water or orange juice. That's patently undemocratic and authoritarian at its core. Good thing we have people like your Democrats to keep us from making "the wrong choice" in the voting booth.

As for this stealth progressive Democratic Party, you have never answered a simple question: Why do you believe against all available evidence that the Democratic Party will even glance at your wish list of issues if they take a majority of either house this year? And how electing conservative Democrats to defeat conservative Republican will do anything other than pull the party to the Right and send the message that progressives will vote for anyone out of "party unity" and not make any demands they're willing to back up?

I also won't: Ally myself with the fundamentalist racists of the US Constitution Party to get what I want. That reeks of a "negative majority" mentality; I don't care that the political system might be worse off than it was before if my enemies on the Far Right win, so long as I get mine.

But that is what you're saying. You don't care if we have an anti-democratic system that clamps down barriers around anyone who isn't a Democrat or Republican, so long as your precious Democrats are given an advantage by it.

You obviously don't care that we have a broken system that allows people to win with a minority of the vote and choose to blame people like Nader instead of the broken system that Democrats continue to prop up, for your own failures.

Pointing fingers is always easier than taking responsibility.

Because the bottom line is that the Democrats know this: if voters felt safe to vote for whomever they wanted in an election, alot of them wouldn't vote for these sorts of Democrats. So instead of making themselves a better party, they do everything they can to kill real choices and democratic elections with real differences of opinion.

By putting a velvet rope in front of politics, they're giving us not a choice, but a lack of options.

And the sooner that you realize that there are things that cannot be polled or fit into statistics like principle, integrity and the will to not be taken advantage of, the better off you will be.

moebius

08-09-2006, 01:12 PM

Contradicted by the DLC's exit polls (people who have every reason to want to tar Nader) and the fact that there's never been an accurate vote count of Florida.

1. They aren't the DLC's exit polls. You don't even know where they came from (I do...they were done by MSNBC, and I have already provided the link).
2. The "evidence" you use has already been debunked, by myself and other political analysts. Yet you still cling to it, despite not knowing where it came from, what questions were asked or what the methdological deficiencies were..
3. Every manual recount conducted by major news organizations had the vote margin at less than 1000 votes. As I've said...some outcomes are more probable than others. I can argue that Carter should have won the 1980 election because we can "never know" the true election results, but I would be stupid to do so considering the evidence stacked against me.

I've explained how even if I believed this "spoiler" nonsense, Gore lost more because of his own lame race, his big loss in his own homestate, voter fraud in FL and the Senate Dem's refusal to do anything about it, the butterfly ballot, the Supreme Court decision, his refusal to ask for a full state recount and oh yes....8 MILLION DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR BUSH AND MILLIONS MORE THAT SAT AT HOME, UNINSPIRED BY HIS SHITTY CAMPAIGN.

You have repeatedly mis-represented me on this point. I have not said Gore is not responsible for Gore's loss, or even that he's not "more" responsible than Nader.

I have however said that Gore being responsible for Gore's loss does not negate the truth claim that Nader is also responsible for Gore's loss. You have failed to disconfirm this hypothesis, nor can you using the available evidence.

Yes, because you've made yourself very clear. You don't care whether something is morally or ethically right, so long as it gives you the result you like. The proper "payoff structure".

We clearly disagree on whether the method that is "most democratic" also produces the greatest good. You are under (I feel) the mistaken assumption that it does.

Was Proposition 13 in California achieved through democratic means? Absolutely; it was a ballot iniative voted on directly by the citizens.

Did Proposition 13 also do severe harm to public education and public infrastructure in California? It did indeed. Would Californians have been better off without Proposition 13? Possibly (assuming the gains to infrastructure would have offset economic losses by those leaving over high property values).

Did Californians democratically vote for Prop. 187, denying services to Illegal Immigrants? They did. Did Californians vote for Prop. 209, ending affirmative action? They did. These initiatives were "democratically" supported, but were not necessarily normatively or ethically "right".

Do Americans support equal status for Gay couples? Not necessarily. Does that make it "right" that that status should be legislated or implemented by judges? I would say "yes," but it's not the most democratic solution. The most democratic solution would be a ballot initiative.

Should we institute prayer in schools? The majority of Americans say "yes", I say "no". Again, the most democratic solution is not necessarily the "right" one.

Between Arrow's Impossibility Theorum, the Tragedy of the Commons and other empirical evidence in Collective Choice that the most democratic option can lead to perverse outcomes (like everyone voting to set the tax rate below what is necesssary to sustain society), and repeated empirical findings that both highly Proportional and highly Majoritarian systems are unstable or unrepresentative, I am perfectly willing to admit that more democracy != better outcomes.

On the other hand, democratic elections where ideas can be debated and contested and the performance of our "agents" (the politicians) can be evaluated are not only normatively "good" (by giving individuals representation to go with their tax money and military obligations to the State), they have been shown empirically to produce better economic and social outputs than authoritarian systems. It's all about where you think the Pareto Frontier lies.

I am a classic "rational" or "strategic" voter, and you are a classic "ideological" voter. I would like to see changes in the electoral system and the elimination of the Presidency, but I do not believe the country supports me on this, nor do I believe throwing money into statewide races that can only hurt the current output of Progressive goods is worth sacrificing marginal gains. You will not support an output of Progressive goods that is very far from your "ideal point", and you have a low discount factor; you will sacrifice short-term gains for what you think will be long-term gains.

As for this stealth progressive Democratic Party, you have never answered a simple question: Why do you believe against all available evidence that the Democratic Party will even glance at your wish list of issues if they take a majority of either house this year? And how electing conservative Democrats to defeat conservative Republican will do anything other than pull the party to the Right and send the message that progressives will vote for anyone out of "party unity" and not make any demands they're willing to back up?

I have offered you my plan for how the Democrats can get us where I want to go. Nothing I say will satisfy you, however, so I see no reason to continue to re-iterate myself on this.

But that is what you're saying. You don't care if we have an anti-democratic system that clamps down barriers around anyone who isn't a Democrat or Republican, so long as your precious Democrats are given an advantage by it.

I hardly consider a system with universal sufferage, a free press and the freedom to contest elections "anti-democratic". Possibly "less democratic than other alternatives" with high barriers to entry, but to say such a system is "anti-democratic" is a good sign that you have no understanding of real authoritarian or totalitarian systems, where writing this on a message board would get you shot or thrown in prison.

You have a greater freedom to express your opinions today than most Germans, who would be observed by the FBI and fired from their positions in the civil service if they joined a "radical" party (though we have done that in the past). You are free to bitch and moan about how much you don't like the Democrats. You are free to organize a rival party and prove that you're stronger. There are no laws or institutions preventing you from doing so, though the mechanical effects of the institutions we do have admittedly make your task harder.