Shared publicly  - 
 
Frankly, the Green Party is an ideological grabbag that only academics could love, but they're the most visible alternative to the Democrats because socialists in the US would rather fight with each other than form a broad-based party. I have no regrets for voting for Nader twice, and I'm a little sorry I voted for Obama. I knew he was a neoliberal, but I thought it would feel better than it did to finally be able to vote for a black prez. In retrospect, I wish I'd voted for Cynthia McKinney or one of the socialist candidates.

So maybe I'll vote Green again this year. Especially if Roseanne Barr is their candidate.
1
Bill Stender's profile photoChris Merle's profile photoJohn MacLeod's profile photoWill Shetterly's profile photo
30 comments
 
"socialists in the US would rather fight with each other than form a broad-based party"

Also true in Canada. Our Green Party and the NDP really have no reason not to amalgamate, yet they continue to divide the left vote every election instead...
 
I'm very sad to hear you'll be voting for Mitt Romney.
 
+Lis Carey That's neoliberal math. In the US, a vote that's not for a branch of the Biparty will not support the other branch. It simply disappears, thanks to the Electoral College and the mainstream media. It's kind of like Dem/Rep unemployment statistics: If you're unemployed too long, you no longer count as unemployed.

There are a lot of good sites pointing out that Nader did not cost Gore the election in 2000. Here's one from 2004:

http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-nader-didnt-cost.html
 
Or you can go straight to the US Department of Labor page and get all of the statistics from U-1 to U-6 by state complete with an explanation of what each one means. :)

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

Roseanne Barr would certainly make an interesting president. I think I'll probably vote for my friend Frank, though. He's planning a write in campaign. Heh.
 
+Emily Ritter Does Frank have a web site? Or a favorite issue?

I've been thinking about running for a combined office of President of the US and Queen of Canada.
 
If it really looks like:

1. Romney has a chance of winning.

2. My vote in my state will make a difference.

3. Romney's policies are markedly worse than Obama's.

I'll vote for Obama. But the odds of all three are mighty slim.

I'm 56 years old. I didn't figure out the truth about lesser-evilism until Clinton was first elected, when I voted for him and was hopeful that he would be better than Bush I. But I should've figured it out in 1964, when I was nine, and Goldwater was the war candidate and Johnson was elected as the guy who would prevent the escalation of the Vietnam War.

Mind you, right now, I'm not sure Romney is worse than Obama (though I haven't researched him to be sure, 'cause so far as I can tell, Obama has the next election locked up presently). At least Romney's willing to talk about raising the minimum wage.
 
Will, 1964 was the only year my dad voted for the Republican for president, because Johnson was lying, and Goldwater was at least telling the truth about what he planned to do. But then, my dad was a smart guy.

If you want to know what Romney is like, you might try asking those if us in MA. Or just ask yourself why he didn't dare run for re-election.
 
+Lis Carey My dad learned his lesson that decade, too: he didn't vote for Humphrey or Nixon in '68.

I'm not defending Romney, and I can't imagine voting for him. But the gap of lesser-evilism has to be greater before I'll vote for Obama again. If you haven't seen me quote Adolph Reed Jr.'s 1996 observation before, I'll be glad to provide it again. But here's one I also like. In 2007, Matt Taibbi called Obama “an ingeniously crafted human cipher, a man without race, ideology, geographic allegiances, or, indeed, sharp edges of any kind. You can’t run against him on the issues because you can’t even find him on the ideological spectrum.” (Actually, you can find Obama; Taibbi must not've known about neoliberalism then.)
 
+Steven Sudit I also had a financial calamity then. Personal hard times may be necessary for folks to lose their hopes for our lesser-evil system. Uh, not wishing them on anyone!

I grinned at your point about the state where I'll live, but actually, Minnesota's pretty safely Democratic and Arizona's pretty safely Republican.

And I will be watching the elections. I'm really not committing to a 3rd party candidate yet.
 
I do plan to spend a little time researching the Justice Party. But right now, I fear they're just another example of the left's desire to divide itself to the point of irrelevancy.
 
+Steven Sudit Oh, I do know you're not happy with those things, and during the many years I was a Democrat, I wasn't happy with them either. Even now, I don't know whether it's best to accept two-partyism or support a 3rd in a system that makes 3rd parties irrelevant.

But I do know that when you vote for the lesser evil, you vote for the system as a whole. A vote for either Scylla or Charybdis is a vote for the rule of Scylla and Charybdis. Obomney will continue wars on foreigners and wars on the working class. Romama will leave issues like gay rights to the states and seek compromises on welfare and health care in order to give more money to the military. My vote is almost sure to be in a state where it won't affect the outcome. Right now, the most effective thing I can do with a vote is cast it where it says, "The evil that's done by my government is not done with my support."
 
+Will Shetterly Frank doesn't currently have a campaign site. His basic platform is that he'll focus on reforming the electoral process and otherwise try to keep things status quo stable for the next four years. Thus allowing us to have a real choice when the next election, in which he will not be running, rolls around.
 
+Emily Ritter I would like that better if he was including a freeze on foreign expenses while doing the house-cleaning. But if I was a friend of his, I'd prob'ly vote for him. I'm not sure we would have a worse system if we simply elected the person with the most friends.
 
It would probably resemble a social networking site or one of those reality shows I don't watch. 0.0

Heh heh heh.
 
Even if the top position is not third party or inspiring, real choices at lower levels will help make change happen and third parties will help with that. I started blogging because a lot of progressives still do not have significant policy positions to address the complete failure of neoliberalism even in alternative parties. For example, you don't hear much about how to transform an economy based on war into something else.
 
Or the states that do have it to show everyone how it could work.
 
Could Vermont do that now if they chose to since fusion voting is not illegal there?
 
+Steven Sudit I don't think it's the ultimate solution, but fusion voting is a way to push the two-party system toward something more like true democracy. The current system keeps closing in on itself. I always wonder if any Dems felt any twinges about their name when they voted to end fusion voting.
 
Every election season I watch otherwise very bright people get wrapped up in this soap opera. Looking at the Federal polls as a dramatic spectator sport is reasonable, but actually thinking that there are representatives intent on carrying out the "people's business" and fretting over one's vote, or the outcome, is akin to thinking that Santa Claus really exists.

Barack is a corrupt lying dog, no different than Bush was, with different style. The Congress is completely corrupt, the Senate recently voted 100 to 0 to apply sanctions to Iran, they all voted for invading Iraq as well. The Supreme Court has Citizen's United for recent evidence that branch's agenda. The entire govenment is owned, it is a sham, and the elections are a grand spectacle that tries to suggest that "we" chose it.

The best vote is no vote. Boycott. If everyone acknowledged that the Emperor has no clothes then reform is possible. Participating only perpetuates the situation.

(This does not apply to local ballots)
 
+Bill Stender I'm with you right up to boycotting, 'cause if everyone stayed home, they would vote for themselves, then trumpet their mandate.

Jefferson was right: start over every 20 years.
 
+Steven Sudit I sympathize enormously, but having the people with a conscience voting for war doesn't bring peace. I agree that the two-party system is more than a placebo, but it ain't much more.
 
Will, I agree that a mass voting boycott is a bit of "bringing a knife to a gun fight". I mean, clearly, they're not too worried about who you vote for, that was rendered mute since before I started voting lo these 35 years. Surely a general strike is the least that should be considered. Voting is f-ing sugar to this cancer.
 
or if people would just vote for people who will clean up government then, problem soved. i wonder why they don't do that?
 
Maybe because they can't get any? To me, Obama looked like someone who could do that, but once he got in he turned out to be like the others after all...
 
I was being sarcastic, of course he's like the others. No candidate with any chance to win is on the ballot unless they are 100% on board with the elite agenda. The first hurdle is amassing millions of dollars with which to compete, the second is gaining support of the very people you're standing in opposition to, getting media coverage, getting on State ballots. No, it is fixed in dozens of ways to filter any serious threat to the organism. This is an oligarchy, a Triple-Amazon river of cash is driving the Empire. If some miracle were to happen and a true independent populist gained sufficient support and threatened to win the vote (it would need to be an "unfixable" landslide), he/she would simply be removed. There would not be one second of hesitation on this, it is serious business.

Obama was so charismatic and such a bright spot that almost everyone I know was full of hope for real change. I hated to be the wet blanket, but I've been saying this for decades and never miss a chance to remind everyone that they're repeating the same actions expecting a different result. It's like that Star Trek episode where they keep making the seemingly rational choice only to be sent back in time to repeat the same drama over and over and over. War, Health, Environment, Israel, Education, Taxes...not a single policy of significance is being done with popular support. (for decades)
 
+Bill Stender Agreed on watching it happen over and over. Someone could do a parody of Groundhog Day with Democrats.

+Steven Sudit I have a tentative theory that the Overton Window shifts to the right because people keep voting for the lesser evil. But this isn't the day to explore that.
 
+Steven Sudit There's been a long-term effort by the left, too. But the system is greater than the players.
 
+Steven Sudit I should just plus that, but I don't think you're being fair to the left. We have a two-party bourgeois system, which is designed for the bourgeois right and the bourgeois left. But the bourgeois left is, effectively by definition due to the conservative nature of wealth, still right-of-center. Most people on the left whine about the Democrats, then go along with them or don't vote. A few try to create third parties, but those parties are usually limited by the biases of their creators. And, whenever the the left does find a loophole in the system, the DemReps unite to fill it--see fusion voting.

So I have a lot of sympathy for the left.

But I still agree they're incompetent.
Add a comment...