Why are we scared of a third party?

[terryg11]

Much trash is being talked about Nader and the Greens as if they are the enemy. Much of what the greens stand for is in sync with many democrats so why alienate them by bashing and cajoling?

Since 2000, I have seen Greens start up some serious grass roots activities and are even holding local and state level offices. This could be the revolution many have looked forward to, to cleanse the party they hold so dear and possibly even strengthen it. Sure, it's going to be ugly for a while and some sects of the greens are going to be militant and disruptive but that's their right. There are other factions though who would like nothing better than to get behind a real, winnable candidate that represents wht they and millions of others believe to be true.

Whether you like Nader or not you can't deny that many dems and former dems are disenfranchised with the party and they have the right to vote their conscience. This group of malcontents is going to keep growing too unless their wants and needs are addressed and not dismissed. I would love to say let's work with the greens on this but it's been said already and with little to effect. '04 is closing in and we may very well need all the help we can get to be rid of Bush but if he somehow gets reelected it's too late to blame others (assuming the election isn't stolen) since their mind may already be made up to think and vote a certain way just like some of us have done.

[Maple]

1. I think that the obvious answer

is that it splits the vote.

[bpilgrim]

3. then why doesn't the DLC seek UNITY?

:shrug:

seems OBVIOUS to most, no?

:hi:

peace

[Maple]

13. Well seeking it,

and achieving it are two quite different things.

Or...'easier said than done'

[bpilgrim]

27. seeking is certainly easier, no doubt...

so why don't the lazy creeps do that, even :shrug:


more...
http://bbs.globalfreepress.com/coppermine

:hi:

peace

[terryg11]

14. short term result

sure, that's going to happen for a while I imagine. If the dems and greens really cancel each other out then they will be forced to reevaluate their positions and try communicating again or continue to watch their power shrink.

Dems run a candidate that embodies everything the greens want. Dems need those green votes to win in certain areas. Dems negotiate something (many possibilities here) to get those votes and the greens can walk around tall and proud knowing that they used their political clout to help win the election. The greens get more recognition for this and eventually are able to get the dems to choose their girl or boy.

[Dagaz]

2. It's a 50-50 country

Anyone who takes 5% from either side causes them to lose. Nader running is fine as long as Buchannon is running as well but 1 against two is a bad scene.

[ulysses]

4. "so why alienate them by bashing and cajoling?"

Because it's obviously working so well as a recruitment tactic.

:crazy:

[QC]

5. It's called "basic math."

[BayCityProgressive]

6. Well

First of all for the Democrats to change they will need pressure from the inside AND the outside. A party isn't going to change their ways if the faithful just say "pretty pretty please" and don't threaten to leave. Secondly, we shouldn't even be having this conversation. We should be able to vote for whoever we damn well please in a democracy. Democrats and Republicans could easily pass IRV voting and let people vote their concience and avoid the spoiler problem but that won't happen because the old two party system has a monopoly on the American people and can do as they please thwarting democracy here and around the world. If given the chance to vote for an alternative many of these people will lose their elected office and much of their base will abandon them. The two parties keep their base by using a climate of fear about spoiling, unelectibility ect. and they certainly don't keep their bases by fullfilling their wishes.

[BayCityProgressive]

7. Also

Buchanan DID run when Nader ran.

[Dagaz]

29. True

I can't believe I forgot about that. In Florida that made the difference. because Nader had 80,000 more votes. There's no way to tell how many were just protest votes that wouldn't have gone to Gore but it sure looks like there would be enough that would have gone his way.

[Bushknew]

45. Well said

:hi:

[IranianDemocrat]

8. "Serious Grass roots activites" = passing out pamphlets...

... and giving speeches to college socialists. If they really wanted to get Republicans out of power, they would work for progressive causes inside the Democratic Party instead of stealing votes.

[Cthulu_2004]

9. I've got no problem with third parties...

I just wish they were far RIGHT third parties, and siphoned votes off from the Republicans instead of from us.

[Devlzown]

10. The Democratic Party

doesn't want to lose some of its most passionate and loyal members, which is understandable. If the Democrats would spend as much time addressing the issues the liberals raise as the Republicans spend coddling the Christian Coalition, this problem wouldn't be as serious as it is.

[Yentatelaventa]

11. Because we're right

and everyone else is wrong? We deserve to rule the people and everyone else should get behind us? Our ideas are better? We know what's best?

[Democat]

12. Because our system in winner take all

If there are three parties and two of them split 50% of the vote, that gives the remaining party (Republicans) the victory in every election.

[BayCityProgressive]

16. You people are missing the point

Check my last entry. If the Democrats and Republicans are sooooo worried about votes being taken they could easily pass IRV voting. They never will because as a two party system they can go around doing whatever they please and piss on their bases and on people who don't liek either parties platform. That isn't a democracy.

[Dagaz]

34. I would LOVE that system

I could cast a protest vote or even vote my conscience depending on the election and still not waste my vote. Who knows how many others would go a 3rd way?

[quinnox]

15. I'd like to see

four competitive parties, the Democrats and Republicans, and then perhaps the Greens and the Libertarians. It would be nice to have all four able to get many votes, instead of only two parties getting almost all the votes. It would be interesting to have a congress made up of all four of these groups, and they all would have to work together.

[BayCityProgressive]

17. People should be

more worried about the state of our democracy and country than some stupid party. The Democratic Party is not an infallable god. I say this as a person who almost always votes for them.

[terryg11]

21. that's something I can get behind

many dems are guilty of the same bllind following that we ridicule the right for.

[Maple]

31. It sounded nice to us Canadians too

but our experience has been that the parties KEPT ON splitting.

So now instead of the two original parties, we have 5 main ones, and a bunch of smaller ones as well.

Luckily for us, it was the rightwing that split the most, and they can't get back together either, anymore than your leftwing can.

But it's given us virtually a one-party state.

If this happens in the US, and you end up with a one-party state and it's Democratic...then fine, although you'll have to depend on the media then to keep them on their toes.

But if it's your leftwing that stays split...your one-party state will be Republican, and then you're screwed.

[OldEurope]

42. In Germany we have this system since WW2, and I can say:

It works! We´ve got 4 main partys, and a bunch of smaller ones, that normally never join a Parliament, due to that barrier of 5% of votes they needed.
Most of the time, parties have to work together, and they do. I cannot see, why this should be impossible in the US or any other country.
For me it´s kind of strange, that you´re not blaming the thief, but a passer-by. Nader did nothing but follow the rules, it was the Bush who did wrong!

[Nazgul35]

32. Yeah...

cause Congress isn't gridlocked enough!

We have a federal-seperation of powers system that needs a two party system to ensure at least a basic cooperation across these divides...

You want to make parties more responsive....work from within...and do away with these stupid term limit laws....all they have done is allow repugs to win state elections (cause it doesnt matter who runs as a repug...we dems actually think about our candidates) and also ensures that federal levek office encumbents become safer from challengers due to the fact that people are turned out of office instead of waiting for an open seat or being powerful enough to take on a sitting Congressperson...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. I'm not scared of a third party if there is an equal and opposite 4th

party. The third party in question seems to gain it's strength by weakening the ONE party which is a viable alternative to the CONTROLLING party. thereby making it a ONE PARTY nation...when was the last time any legislation to your liking got passed in the last two years?

[terryg11]

22. that's a problem with roots deeper than two party politics

that's about voter and citizen inaction. Not keeping up with what their rep is doing and then bitching about the result when they could have made a difference by organizing and calling their congressman/woman and saying if you pass this piece of shit we are not voting for you.

[noiretextatique]

24. the green party is responsible for bad legislation...

and republican political dominance?!?! i didn't know the green party had so much power.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. Where did I say that?

[noiretextatique]

33. effectively, we have a one-party nation now...

so i took a little liberty with what you wrote.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. If that were entirely true then we would no longer have

a) choice
b) a minimum wage
c) affirmative action
d) any federal laws left concerning clean air and clean water
e)but we would have priscilla owens, pickering and a whole host of undesirables on the bench
f) the vote for war would have been unanimous in congress versus the one third of congress (ALL DEMS) who voted against it.

You know I don't support every move by every Dem..but I live in California...WTF can I do about Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman?

[noiretextatique]

41. the war started and continues anyway

and everything else you mentioned is hardly safe from the chopping block. i appreciate the efforts of some democrats also. and...living in california is a blessing, at least.

[terryg11]

19. to all, the greens aren't going to go away

might as well get used to it. It's going to be an ugly and uncomfortable ride for many but revolutions never are easy and that is what this is. They are fighting to make some changes they see as necessary and will probably even win some battles

[eablair3]

23. agreed - i'm afraid it's gonna get uglier before getting better

You'd think that the Dems would court this base. You'd think that they'd not demonize them. You'd think that the Dems in power would at least start thinking of some of the reforms that would allow them to work together with the Greens. They won't as long as they think they can control them.

As much as I respect and admire Kucinich, I think he is fighting a losing battle. He gets demonized just like McKinney did, and those in power in the Dem establishment work against him to marginalize him at every turn it seems.

[Booberdawg]

36. OR .....

The party will move further to the right and pick up some moderate or more liberal Repubs's and the Greens will be left in the dust ...

[terryg11]

38. if that's the case

won't they then lose a large number of progressives who don't like the new look and feel of their party?

[Booberdawg]

47. Yes they would

I'm not convinced the numbers lost from the far left would be more than the numbers gained from the center.

[sangha]

48. Perot voters are more attractive than Nader voters

for one simple reason - there's more of them.

[eablair3]

20. Why do we need a 3rd party? Can't everyone get behind Lieberman!

Jumpin Joe Lieberman .... it'll get real interesting if he were to win and run for the Dems. Isn't he leading now?

I can't stand the guy, .. but I've got to admit that I often wonder what impact his nomination for the Dems would have. Maybe I'll pull a Gray Davis and start promoting Joe in hopes that he will win. On second thought, ... maybe not. :)

[JJ]

25. Reichstag-Germany-1933

Karl Rove is smiling.
Nader and the Greens want to wash the windows while the freaking house is on fire.

[BayCityProgressive]

28. Then what are the Dems doing?

adding gasoline? They have helped to enable Bush too. IRV VOTING IRV VOTING IRV VOTING the two parties could pass it and this discussion would be over. WE could put it on a ballot and pass it. Dems and Reps hate third parties because they aren't controlled by the big corporations who rule the world.

[BayCityProgressive]

30. In the 60's and early 70's

The Democrats were wonderful passing laws to limit the power of corporations, civil rights ect. However voter apathy on the side of liberals/working people sadly began to take over and still occurs today. When the GOP began raising their huge sums of cash the Democrats needed to go to the same people because there wasn't enough grassroots cash and activism to keep them alive.

http://www.gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html

I am not a Green but these are definately excellent points.

[BayCityProgressive]

35. As I said before

No one is going to change from "within" because their is no way to scare them into changing. YOU HAD BETTER VOTE MORE LIBERAL YOU STUPID CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS.....or or or or..we will have to just vote for you anyways and then whine about it on the internet. Gimme a break.

[terryg11]

37. I think it works to an extent

take Jim Leach, my house representative. he's a republican and likes to toe the line when he can (going after Clinton and all) yet he has voted against this admin. a few times in part due to the pressure of his constituents in a very liberal town he recently acquired due to redistricting. maye he's a fluke I don't know much about all the other states issues and reps unfortunately

[Bushknew]

46. You da man BayCityProgressive!

.

[w4rma]

39. You want to help stop the infighting? Here is what you need to do.

Tell Greens about the Progressive Majority. Their complaint seems to be that the Democratic Party leans too far to the right? Well, these Democrats want to help move the Democratic Party to the left, but we need the help of as many progressives as possible if we are going to be successful.
http://www.progressivemajority.org/leadership/
http://www.progressivemajority.org/candidates/

Progressives need to work *within* the Democratic Party.

[TacticalPeek]

43. Greens should wake up and smell the napalm.

Look around you. It's possible to break this country. Some environmental damage going on is irreversible, for many generations or forever. Our country's economy CAN destruct, and our policies CAN wreck the world.

I think Greens should forego national candidacies with no chance of winning. It's the bass-ackwards, cart-before-horse way to build a party. They get national tv time that feeds the ego and gets them exposure. But it advances their party about as much as it advances Pat Buchanan's "party" or Ross Perot's "party".

This is about electoral politics. It makes sense for Greens to stick to state, county, and local offices to build support, and fits the party ethos. If fact, many Green objectives are well addressed by politics other than electoral. And to really pursue their electoral approach, about elebenty jillion jurisdictions' election laws need changing, a noble but massive undertaking ("this is the business you have chosen").

If 600 of the 90000 Green votes in Florida had gone to Gore, the Kyoto Treaty would be real today; ABM, clean water standards, etc. etc. etc.

The only way a Nader run in '04 makes sense for the Green cause is under the very cynical aegis of "we must make things much worse before they get better". OK, free country, their vote is theirs to cast, as is mine. If I saw Nader slouching toward the Green nomination, I would wish I could join many other stealth dems, and sign up for the Green party to nominate Noam Chomsky and Kenneth Starr for P and VP. I'd like to see the national poll that ever showed that ticket over 0%.

The good of the country is more important than the good of any party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Should be, "Why are they scared of a third party?"

The answer is that 3rd parties give alternatives to voters who are dissatisfied with the antics of their own party.

The two "major" parties enjoy a stranglehold on the electorate with the money of the corporations and special interests. It's a sort of perpetual motion machine of contributions, lobbyists, handshakes, deals, with the aim of filling the candidates' coffers for election, and payoffs called "compromises" to those sending the checks.

Third parties threaten the status quo of the plutocrat/politician understanding by going directly to the people for support.

"Don't throw your vote away!" Translates to: "Sell it to me."

The major parties are terrified of people who dare to think for themselves.

Cries of "Party Loyalty" and "Unity" are just another way of saying, "Shut up and do as you're told."