I got in a pretty heated discussion about third party presidential candidates last night, mainly centered around whether voting for them is good, pointless, or hurting the respective party from which they are often accused of “stealing” votes. Is voting for them when you’re genuinely unimpressed with the two main candidates a viable alternative, or are you just throwing your vote away, doomed to help the opposition? What are all of your thoughts?
Personally, I'm a pretty big Nader supporter. Come this November…if Obama doesn’t take the primaries, I’m voting Nader (assuming he’ll run…which he will, if Hillary gets the nomination). I’d vote for him, even if I lived in FLORIDA! HOLD UP…don’t kill me yet, let me explain why.
First of all...I don’t like the argument that Nader steals votes from Democrats, even though that’s partially why third parties are good (I’ll get to that later). In Nader’s specific case, I feel like he’s been made a scapegoat.
Take Florida in 2000, many claim it to be Nader's true rise to fame, having thwarted the Democratic party’s chance to win. But I think this is bull. Here's why: exit polls show that in Florida, 25% of his voters came from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest would not have voted at all (37%). However, people claim that the amount of Democrats who voted for him could have still swayed the election, since Gore only lost by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421. Unfortunately, sometimes this is the only part of the story people see. What many forget to realize, is that there were seven other third party candidates on Florida’s ballot! For example, Pat Buchanan received 17,412 votes, 4th runner up, and "stole" more than enough to break the gap coming from the conservative side. To blame the Democratic loss in 2000 on Nader is to use him as a scapegoat, pure and simple, because there were seven other candidates on Florida's ballots who ALL RECEIVED more than enough to swing the vote either way. If Dems are going to blame Nader for screwing us with Bush, then they should also blame the other seven third party candidates who ran in Florida that year (Well...or just the ones that they claim to attract liberal voters). I read somewhere once that 500 something people voted for Mickey Mouse in Florida in 2000. I personally blame him…damn you Mickey, you AND your cryogenically frozen anti-Semitic creator! (shakes fist)
I voted for Nader in 2004
and I'm proud I did.
Why? There were a combination of factors, the big one being that I lived in Idaho at the time, where ALL of the electoral votes are going to the GOP regardless of how I vote anyways, effectively nullifying my civic duty. So I said, “hey, why not give my vote so somebody who I think needs more recognition.” But, I also voted for Nader for another reason, he had some arms to flex this time around. Having "thwarted" the election four years prior, the Democratic party now saw him as a REAL threat, which is why Kerry met with Nader nearly four years ago on May 19, 2004.
Kerry MET with Nader, THAT'S the power of the third party! THAT’S why I voted for him! Third parties help scare the big ones into adopting policy. Now...if only Kerry wasn't so much of a tool, he could have won Nader's support. At the meeting, Nader gave a list of OVER 20 PAGES of issues he thought were important, then told Kerry that if he selected JUST THREE OF THEM and adopted them into his campaign policy, he would refrain from running for the presidency. Knowing Nader, those 20 pages touched on environmental issues, health care, tax reform, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM,...etc.
But, obviously Kerry passed up the opportunity to take a stance on something different, which is unfortunate. In today’s Washington, where lobbyists and corporate interests wash out real problems, we’ve come to expect this. But it hasn’t always been this way, and prior to the corporate worlds big money dump in the 1970’s into PACS (Corporate Political Action Committees), third party’s actually got stuff done. Back then, it wasn’t so unreasonable for candidates to listen and adopt policy.
Third Party Accomplishments (taken from About.com):
-Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.
-Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.
-Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
-note* This one fits in with Geoff’s May Day article, which I enjoyed : )
-Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.
-Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.
-Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.
-Tough on Crime
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)
So in terms of third parties, some may say they don't have merit, people don't listen to them, they don't hold any influence, the media doesn't pay them any attention, etc. But to me, it seems like they've historically held a lot of merit, drawn MORE ears into the political arena, have held "enough" influence to get us the 16th amendment...
and as for the media's attention, well I suppose it's always going to focus on how "disruptive" they are being, because that's going to be the story. But...there's no such thing as bad press right?
History shows that when Third Party candidates really TRULY start "stealing" big chunks of the vote, the GOP and Dems SHIFT their policy! Imagine that...helping the party by going against it. Third parties keep politics dynamic, and help deviate from the "us and them" attitude of contemporary politics (something Obama has spoken much about), and although I wish they did it more, they really DO bring topics to the table, but only if they are a “legitimate threat.” Imposing this threat is my new civic duty should Hillary take the primaries.
Sadly, corporations got their shoes on in the 1970’s, changed their policy, changed their budgets, walked to Capitol Hill, and put forth massive lobbying efforts. When Nixon finally withdrew from Vietnam, the activism and civic engagement of the public lost steam, and apathy ensued. During the 1980’s, true progressives were pushed out of Congress and replaced by corporate/conservative Democrats who called for what they called the “necessary move to the center.” We were left with the state of politics as they are today: corrupt, money driven, and out of touch with the people.
Much of the public tends to think in the short term though, and we see third parties as ruffians messing up the two-party system. But when you step back and look past the next 4 years, 8 years…20 years, is it more important to settle for a short term lesser evil, electing yet another president that has their pockets full of lobby money? Or should we hold our votes hostage, put greater value on them and say, “No, not this time. I’m tired of the status quo. This time, my support goes to somebody who can rattle a cage.” Democrats like HRC have taken steps to the center of politics, and I’m tired of telling myself that it’s the best option if I want something to change. Because the fact is…I’m not changing anything, I’m keeping politics the same as it’s been since the 1970’s, and gee look what progress we’ve made…we’re trying to put the same family in the White House that we had 15 years ago, one that’s policy still revolves around dirty lobby money, double talk, and a “necessary move to the center.”
Just for fun: adjusted for inflation, average American wages peaked in 1973. America’s GNP (real gross national product) has nearly doubled since then. So why are wages lower? I have an inkling that part of it might be because the dems lost the motivation to fight for viable initiatives to better worker’s compensation. That kind of reform is hard when all your campaign supporters are completely against it.
Another example: The rich are getting richer. Everybody knows this, but what’s scary is by how much they are spreading the gap. In 1980 the richest 10% of the world's population was 79 times higher than the poorest 10%. In 2004, it was 117 times higher. (source, introduction written by Robert Weissman for the Multinational Monitor, a magazine founded by Nader)
What do these statistics have to say about the global economy and spread of wealth? Why is Obama the only Democrat who seems to see the source of this problem? The party that is supposed to fight for reform in these areas has been hijacked by the richest businessmen in the world, who love those statistics, and hope to see their patterns continue.
Hate me for it I suppose, but Hillary is not my candidate, and I won’t vote for her should she get the nomination. I really don't feel like she's going to implement the policies she preaches. She was bought out of her universal health care plan in 2006 for $854,462. This link is an interesting read, and gives you an insight to how much of a stranglehold lobbyists have in Washington. WE NEED OBAMA...otherwise nothing has changed. Casting a vote for Hillary would be casting a vote for the puppet on the left. McCain...puppet on the right. Big business interests are throwing cash down Hilary and McCain’s pockets, and getting priority over US, the PEOPLE, the ones who will inevitably elect one of them.
I'm sick and tired of settling for the lesser evil, I don’t want a shift from Halliburton running the show to Pfizer. The former is a war profiteer, the latter a drug cartel. What a trade off…
I want a candidate that puts the people first.
Why settle for less? Why does my vote have to be strategic?
We have to get Obama…
nobody else will do...nobody else will come close to what is needed in American politics. If this doesn’t happen, my only hope is to vote for Nader, not because I think he can win (he can’t). Not because I feel hopeless (I don’t). But for the sake of rattling the cage. I want the Dems to adopt policies I care about, and I’m not going to do that by doing what they expect me to, and just “voting for her anyways.”
"'Freedom is participation in power,' said the Roman orator Cicero. By this deep definition, freedom is in short supply for tens of millions of Americans," - Ralph Nader
Friday, May 2, 2008
im in ur party, stealing ur votez
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I understand how you feel, but I honestly think that it is naive to think that getting a third-party ticket into the White House will create any kind of a solution. What will a White House without any allies accomplish? Oh wait, that's right, nothing. The same nothing that happens with opposing parties in office, even when there are only two of them.
The small changes Democrats can do are ones that are necessary. Yes the minimum wage needs to be raised higher. The Dems increased it in 2006 and it needs to go higher - but that little increase, that little bit of extra help, meant a lot to so many people that it really was a huge change. Things do not happen in leaps and bounds in our political system (or ANY political system, for that matter). Non-governmental organizations (NGO's) are constantly working tirelessly to bring issues to the front of the table for the different parties, the same thing you claim the third parties do. Our entire political system is biased to the two-party system. The bicameral legislature, the amount of people allowed in the legislature, the electoral college... all constitutional, all lead to the creation of the two-party system. Changing it means changing the constitution.
That isn't going to happen. So instead of complaining about how biased our system is and talking about how little gets done within it, go within it and change it yourself.
Also, Tao, PACS include groups like NARAL Pro-Choice and the Sierra Club. Be careful to avoid lumping all "lobbyists" together; some of them truly are there for a good cause, as hard as that is to believe!
Trust me, I understand that our country is based on a two party system. First past the post systems like ours breed that kind of democracy. I also agree with you that it's naive to think that we could get a third party candidate into the white house. Getting Nader to the white house is not my point, and I don't think it's his point either. I'm sorry if I didn't state this more clearly but, the point, is to get major parties that are SUPPOSE to represent us, the people, to adopt policy that we care about...instead of the ones only the corporate lobby approve of. I understand that not all PACS are owned by corporations, and that many lobbyists are just your average every day citizen. But I'm sorry to say that although I admire many NGO's efforts, I just can't see them being more persuasive than the corporate lobby, seeing as they lack millions upon millions of dollars to throw into election campaigns. It's the same with normal citizens who lobby, they usually aren't allowed into the discussions of policy many corporate lobbyists are. The voice of the American people is being diminished, and we are not nearly as well represented as we have been in the past. Going along with it and hoping that the Dems will take baby steps in the right direction, when clearly, their footprints show otherwise is not the solution to this problem. The corporate lobby and the power they hold is an insult to our democracy. It really wouldn’t be that hard to get done, not nearly as hard as politicians make it out to be. A Business Week pole taken in 2000 showed 72% percent of Americans believed corporations had too much control over their lives. There are only a 1500 of them or so that have a significant role in running Washington, a roll that they don’t deserve, since nobody elected them. The support is there, it has been for a long time, Washington and candidates like Hilary and McCain just refuse to acknowledge it and make it an issue, while candidates like Obama, Nader, etc. who don't take corporate handouts make the issue an easy one. There is a lesson to be learned here I think.
When the Dems AND the GOP stifle the competition like they have, they tend to converge. They become more cautious and resort to protective imitation. Some good examples Nader lists in his book "The Good Fight" include Bill Clinton's welfare reform, and Bush's no child left behind act. He states "More and more the major parties become Coke and Pepsi, frantically highlighting their dwindling differences and masking their growing similarities." So why should we continue to vote for candidates that don’t represent us? I suggest, and Nader suggests, that if more of us voted for people who do, we would see some of their attractive policies adopted. If there is a better way I’d love to hear it, because right now Washington has to many closed doors on the American people, and one of the only ways left to get them to listen is by voting third party. Suddenly, when faced with competition that’s effective, politicians tend to adapt quick or fear losing votes.
I'm not calling for a quick fix, and I understand things take time. That's one of the key drawbacks of democracy, sometimes things take TOO much time. But taking a position on something shouldn't take time. Giving the public an honest answer shouldn't take time. Getting rid of the corporate schmucks that run our country indirectly shouldn't take another 30 years. Issues like this and Iraq are barred, locked down, and buried in congress, while others like teaching evolution in schools, Terri Schiavo, and Baseball Players on steroids take the center stage. Quite frankly, I’m tired of it. I think a lot of us are, and we need to realize that keeping with the status quo isn’t going to change that.
I'm going to have to agree to disagree on your point about the changes the Democrats can make being the only ones that are necessary. I believe if we don't offer ample incentive for them to pursue changes, we'll keep being disappointed. The Dems took back congress in 2006, and we are still in Iraq. They raised the minimum wage just enough to convince you they still have your interests in mind, but fell short on so many other things like Iraq. My choice to vote Nader if Hilary gets the nomination is based around my knowledge that he'll work harder for my beliefs than she will, even without winning.
What's interesting is that our constitution makes NO mention of political parties; we don't have to change it at all. In fact, many of the founders hated the idea of them (examples being George Washington, John Adams, and especially James Madison). The system of winner take all and the Electoral College were put in place mainly to appease smaller states, and like a lot of things back then, had unintentional effects.
That effect can be seen today, and how our oh-so-democratic duopoly has turned 95% of congressional districts into one-party districts. These districts are seen as "safe" since no opponent from the other major party even tries challenging the incumbent. Districts like Idaho’s, where I’m a citizen. It’s easy to turn a blind eye when you live in a state like Washington and you’re consistently on the winning side, but many conservative voices are still silenced, and this is wrong to me.
I’ll gladly keep complaining about how biased our system is thankyouverymuch, because it’s one issue that means the most to me. Meanwhile I’ll take your advice to heart about getting in there and changing policy myself by voting for Nader should HRC take the nomination, because I don’t think she’s going to help out on the policies I want changed.
Don’t take my word for it though. I highly suggest taking a look at what Nader has to say for himself regarding these issues. He reiterates himself very well in the following interview, much more intelligently than I ever could.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjUcQeUNsbE
Two-party systems, by their nature, allow third parties to occasionally arise, gain support and ultimately supplant one of the two major parties. This is the scenario that occurred when the Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party in the 20th century United Kingdom and when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs in the 19th century United States. Under Duverger's law third parties may rise to prominence within the two-party system but only at the ultimate expense of one of the two former major parties. The system re-stabilizes into two-party mode after a three-party interlude.
While you are having your third party revolution you will be talking away from one of the two parties. It is a fund-mental fact of a two party system and has happened in the entire history of third parties in the US.
The framers didn't anticipate the arisal of parties, but nevertheless, the structure they bequeathed us has been well-served by the two-party system, which has worked to keep the system stable. It's also significant that throughout American history, with brief deviations (e.g. the Progressive era) and interregnums as one party dies and another springs to life (e.g. the slow death of the Federalist party), we have remained a two-party nation, at least in terms of major parties. Always two there are - never more, never less. As one might expect of such an organism, the extraconstitutional two party system is both a product of and at the same time supports and compliments the formal structures the Constitution.
Like many things that the constution doesn't espressly talk about (like the right to privacy) are implied within the structure of the the document spelled out it still is used to support the two party- system and make it stable.
also the only way to change the electoral college is by constitutional amendment.
The two party system, whether you like it or not, is the equilibrium that our system creates.
Geoff, I agree, I agree, I agree that our system favors two parties. Why are people arguing with me over this?
"Under Duverger's law third parties may rise to prominence within the two-party system but only at the ultimate expense of one of the two former major parties."
Of course third parties dissipate into the main ones, AFTER they get the major party to adopt their policy. THAT'S the whole point! My entire post was explaining WHY this is a GOOD THING, and I cited multiple examples of history that supported this. I urge everyone to check out that youtube video I linked in my last response. Nader answers written and callers questions that touch on the exact same issues many Dems regurgitate. View it and then tell me he's wrong...I dare ya.
"While you are having your third party revolution you will be talking away from one of the two parties"
When did I state I wanted a third party revolution? Did I not just say that getting Nader into the white house is NOT THE POINT. You're damn right I'm threatening major parties, THAT...is the point. That's why I titled my article as I did. As Nader says in the interview I provided to a caller who asks this same question, "Relax, caller, don't be afraid of freedom and diversity." Again, please view the interview. Since I've obviously failed at arguing this point effectively, it's important to hear the mans own words regarding this spin.
"The framers didn't anticipate the arisal of parties, but nevertheless, the structure they bequeathed us has been well-served by the two-party system, which has worked to keep the system stable."
What that last sentence in the quote should have added onto it is "Until...the corporate lobby, which threw our system completely upside down." I admire your vigilance and respect for the system, but find it naive. The system isn't stable at all, one only has to look at the diminishing voice and influence of the American people in politics to see that. The American people's voices are silenced and drowned out. 90% of Washington is part of the corporate puppet show. Our government IS a corporation at this point. One has to look no further than the Bush administration to see the problems that happen when corporations get who they want in power. And right now, they play both sides of the card. I'm not going to be a tool and play into this stupid game of the fool.
"Like many things that the constution doesn't espressly talk about (like the right to privacy) are implied within the structure of the the document spelled out it still is used to support the two party- system and make it stable."
Yes, the constitution's electoral college is used to support the two party system. Which is why it needs to go. Much like the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms being taken out of context, the electoral college is as well. That being, it wasn't intended to support the two party system, this fact is completely unintentional. There is nothing "implied" about political parties with the electoral college OR anywhere in the wording of the constitution. Determining what the constitution "implies" is the courts job (your example being the right to privacy), and as far as I know they haven't touched this issue of the electoral college with a ten foot pole. It's intention was to appease smaller states that were uber paranoid about losing significant power in Washington, a fact now moot in contemporary society. Is it so wrong of me to want to move forward?
"Also the only way to change the electoral college is by constitutional amendment."
Touche, I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. We don't have to change the constitution to accommodate for third party candidates. Them running, and participating in the electoral arena is a GOOD thing. But yes, I understand that throwing out the electoral college would call for a constitutional amendment. We've added them in the past, and the support IS THERE for the addition to it, especially after the 2000 elections. The issue remains to be put on the table however, even though the Dems have every reason in the world to do just that. I wonder why that is...
"The two party system, whether you like it or not, is the equilibrium that our system creates."
Equilibrium? Don't make me laugh.
Post a Comment