Intro: "It's puzzling that there is almost no discussion among progressives about the United States' completely unique way of choosing its top political leader, and how we could use that fact strategically."
File photo, voters at the polls. (photo: Luis Sinco/LAT)
Strategic Presidential Voting
22 August 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
t's puzzling that there is almost no discussion among progressives about the United States' completely unique way of choosing its top political leader, and how we could use that fact strategically.
In the USA there are 50 separate election contests to choose "electors" to the Electoral College. It's not the national popular vote that does it. If winning the most votes nationally were our system, Al Gore would have been inaugurated president in 2001.
It's one of those things that's kind of "hiding in plain site." All during presidential campaign season journalists talk and write about the 10 or so swing states, or battleground states, that receive the overwhelming bulk of presidential candidate visits and TV ads. These are the states that, historically, have voted for either the Democratic or the Republican presidential candidate in the last few decades, and have not regularly chosen one or the other, as is generally true for about 40 or so states.
This reality is the flip side of the spoiler coin that keeps large numbers of progressives, even some revolutionary and radical progressives, from voting for a third party candidate. The fear of spoiling it for the Democrat, leading to the Republican winning, overwhelms their appreciation that a third party candidate's positions on issues is much more progressive than the Democrat's. This fear was present even in 2000 when the Green Party brought forward the most substantive third party presidential campaign in decades in the persons of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke.
The spoiler concern is the major reason these progressives give for voting for a candidate like Obama, who by no means can be trusted to do the right thing on most issues. The other reason given is that existing third parties, the Green Party being the prime one today, are too small and weak to have any impact, so why "waste my vote" on them?
The Green Party is small and weak, no question about it, but it does exist, and given the incredibly undemocratic and corporate-dominated nature of our two-parties-only electoral system, that is an accomplishment. There are about 250 of its members who have been elected to local offices like water boards, school boards, town and city councils, and even a few mayoral offices. It looks like it will be on the ballot in 40 or more states this year, no small thing given restrictive ballot access laws in many states. It qualified for federal matching funds by raising at least $5,000 in more than 20 states. And it has two candidates for president and vice president, Dr. Jill Stein and anti-poverty activist Cheri Honkala, who are substantive, hard working, articulate and very good on the issues.
Of course, these candidates are not going to win. But it would be, strategically, a positive thing for the independent progressive movement, broadly defined, if, in a number of states, they won a decent percentage of votes.
What if, in multiple states, 4 or 5 or more, Stein and Honkala received 5% or more of the votes? That would be a victory. It would say to the Democrats that there are a growing number of voters who are looking for something other than centrist, system-supporting candidates. More importantly, it would say to the American people that there is a political force in the electoral arena other than the Tea Party that is consistently progressive and growing.
New York State, for example, is ripe for a serious campaign to get at least 5% of the vote for the Green Party. The latest realclearpolitics.com polling results show Obama ahead of Romney by 25 points.
Voting for Barack Obama in New York State, if you are a progressive who gets it on how problematic the Democrats are, is a completely unstrategic, wasted vote.
It's the same in a state like Utah, where polls show Romney ahead by 42%. In Idaho there are no polls at realclearpolitics, but it's solidly red for Romney.
Other states where a smart 4th or 5th grader can predict who's going to win on November 6: California (Obama by 17%), Illinois (Obama by 21%), Arkansas (Romney by 24%), West Virginia (Romney by 21%) and Massachusetts (Obama by 19.2%).
The Green Party presidential and vice presidential candidates are on the ballot in all of these states.
It makes sense that the Green Party would lead the organizing of this kind of an effort, although there's no reason why non-Green Party activists in the states listed above, or others, couldn't do so. It could be a campaign entitled, in New York for example, "New York, Don't Waste Your Vote." Literature, a website, and social media and campaign organizers can explain the reality of 50 separate state elections and the certain winner in New York, and utilize all kinds of tactics and media to reach out to progressive-minded voters to not waste their vote by voting for Obama in New York.
It's late in the political season for something like this to be organized, but it's not too late. I sure hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is a good idea.
Ted Glick has been a progressive activist and organizer since 1968. Past writings and other information can be found at http://tedglick.com, and he can be followed on twitter at http://twitter.com/jtglick.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 17 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Just for emphasis, in MA if a party gets a certain percentage of the vote then the party has automatic ballot access in the next election. This means that a vote in MA for the Green Party is not a wasted vote for all the reasons Mr. Glick points out.
1. There are three legitimate options to the "two party system" (quotes because it is 2 parties by practice not by law). This site list 6 (http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#binding), but some of them are just tweaks of one of the others.
2. Almost all would do away with the Electoral College, which has the most effect of maintaining the two party system.
3. Doing away with the College would increase the number of viable political parties in national politics. Especially affected would be Congress.
4. How more gridlocked would our Congresses be with 5, 6, maybe 10 political parties?
5. This would lead to elections for President with no one candidate getting a majority. Throwing the election into a vote of the House Of Reps. Last time that happened political deals denied the most popular choice.
6. The legitimate role of third parties is to popularize stands on issues to the point that the major parties can no longer ignore them and that has been the history of the major parties. They don't change quickly, but they do change.
The system still works,but in the fast paced Twitter world we often act without considering all the effects of our actions and that will spell trouble in the long run.
As long as it does, and as long as it takes an absolute maajority of EC votes to win the presidency, we are locked into a two-party system, as we have been since the 1790s. Only the parties themselves can change--and that hasn't happened since 1860, when the Republicans replaced the moribund Whigs. The two present parties haate each other like poison, but they've spent generations collaboraating to ensure that only they can pick the president.
Just sent the following to the Greens to suggest a bolder course and would like to share it with your readers as well.
OPEN LETTER TO JILL AND CHERI
RE THE NECESSARY MIRACLE
- Big magic & shadow cabinetry for a meaningful Green 2012 victory
Fierce ladies,
I approach you both with great respect and a wild sense of urgency to suggest some new memes that could help you prevail this year - not just in the noble quixotic sense, but as honest-to-god victors in ways that really count. Specifically, we propose a unifying Big viral message, America's first shadow cabinet, and an evolutionary death knell for all monstrous orgs on Earth.
Admittedly, your odds do seem pretty dim at the moment given the media blackout, the duopoly lockout and the exorbitant firepower the corporate parties wield. As things stand you, Gary Johnson and Roseanne Barr will collectively pick up less than 1% of national political funds, 0% of presidential debate time and 3~5% of the November vote.
This is both clearly realistic and totally unacceptable since 4 more years of tech-accelerate d corporatist business as usual will irreparably cripple our democracy, eviscerate our freedoms and critically wound the biosphere.
--------------------
It goes on to explain how this all can be overcome here: http://bit.ly/shadow-cab
Everyone who feels unrepresented by either of the two main parties AND who will not compromise the chances of their lesser evil candidate should vote third party.
Progressives need to have a party, ONE party, ideally, but for now, mine is Justice, and it feels great to vote for something hopeful, based on something badly needed: Justice.
A Green/Justice coalition would be even better, but it seems solidarity, even strategic solidarity, is beyond our progressive leaders, even when they agree 90% on important issues. Sad.
Parties change, though infrequently, and if this is not a time when all the parties need to shift and others need to be born, I don't want to see that time.
To Gramamo, The totally lame Democratic party gave us Bush. The Supreme Court gave us Bush. Al Gore gave us Bush. Nader didn't give us Bush. He gave us Integrity and Truth. The American voters, and millions of clueless American non-voters, Republican voter-suppressi on and the greedy 1%ers and the corporations and the media gave us Bush. Painter understands. Try to look at the big picture, instead of blaming one of the great patriots of American history. If you want to place blame for the Bush debacle, the totally spineless Democratic party is at the top of my list. Do you get it? We must have a 3rd party, NOW, or America is finished, down the toilet, into the dustbin of history. With Romney the vulture capitalist, or Obama the remote bomber of innocents, etc., it will be Evil or Evil. The whole system is rotten and corrupt. If either of those 2 wins, the corporatocracy wins, the oligarchs win, again. Then, we all lose, the Planet loses, unless we revolt. Join me in a revolt at the ballot box, vote for Rocky or Jill or Roseanne. A Green/Justice/P eace and Freedom coalition would be very attractive. I wish those folks could raise their consciousness enough to come together. IMAGINE! Otherwise, it is very sad...
Both corporate parties have honed the ability to frighten their base constituencies. Most of us on both sides of the political divide have been brought up to fear the other party so much that we are blinded to the many ways our party leaders are selling us out by their actions. Both parties love to hold the spoiler threat over their base to frighten them into voting for their version of the imperial corporate party.
There is a solution. Any state where one party holds control of the legislature and the governorship could institute instant runoff voting (IRV) which would end the spoiler issue. Neither will do it now because they love the status quo. The only thing that will change that is when enough people vote 3rd party that it really threatens to spoil elections. New Mexico is the only state that has seriously considered IRV because the Greens nearly got strong enough there to spoil it for the Dems.
That's why I am voting 3rd party with relish, even though I live in a swing state.
RSS feed for comments to this post