Today as the Democratic leadership celebrates the passage of HR 1591, Dennis and I are in mourning. We mourn the deaths of those who have passed and those whose lives are now on the line, both in the military and civilian Iraqis. We mourn the destruction, the ecocide. We mourn with families in Iraq and the US who will see more death and devastation. We mourn the callous and calculated political spin cloaking the Congress's hawkish support of war with the rhetoric of peace.
Congressman Kucinich voted NO. Standing firm with him on this NO vote were 13 Democrats...
Indeed, it is WAY past time to try to muster some resources, or even sentiment to resist this hijacking of our nation which, let us be frank, has been going on for decades. It has been occurring in slow motion, and with the help and collaboration of both major political parties (or as many would say, the Duopoly).
You name it -- schools, housing, healthcare, decent jobs, livable wages, womens' rights, healthy food supply, air quality, political representation, dialog, respect, peace -- which of these has improved in the past decades??
So, of COURSE, it is time to stand up against putting more of our dwindling dollars into further ghastly dismembering of nameless residents of lands which house resources we covet, not to mention the the mincing of our own children in the process.
We should stand up strongly, as many of us as we can get together.
That is why I wrote her to take exception with Elizabeth's statements when she thanked those who have stood together
I would like to thank Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, Gold Star Mothers and all those other organizations who have worked so valiantly in recent years to raise awareness about what is going on in Iraq and to end the war.
It's "hats off" to the efforts of all those stalwart and courageous groups. However, in those "other organizations" was a political party, the Green Party, which stands and says out loud all that most Democrats have run away from. Having put in countless hours along with many other Greens in many venues working, educating, and fighting for issues such as getting Congress to stop the funding of this immoral debacle, I decided to set the record straight with this letter to Elizabeth:
================
Dear Elizabeth,
I couldn't agree with you more on your statement, and give encouragement to those who REALLY stood up for America's troops and best interests by NOT voting for more funding for the criminal occupation of Iraq.
Indeed! It's time to take a strong stand! Sometime it's incredibly lonely out here trying to get a message out to this society of what to us seems common sense and moral behavior. At times it is incredibly difficult and wearing. Those taking such stands must work together and try to grow.
That is why I write you, Elizabeth. In your mention of groups out there doing the hard work you should include the Green Party, even though that would seem to go against certain political niceties.
If you are willing, however, to stand up to those in your party who work hand in hand-out with the oligarchy, then I think it behooves you to recognize publicly that there is another political party that does not have trouble in telling its constituents to take a strong firm stand against escalating this war and in demanding an end to this illegal occupation. We are on the same side, mouthing YOUR message, something your own party won't do.
I have always marveled how the Democratic Party (certainly not your followers) reserve more vitriol and action against the Green Party than they do against our real adversaries. Funny, no? The Republicans, especially the neocons and religious right threaten the very substance of our land, its institutions and Constitution. What do Greens "threaten"? Apparently it is the Democratic piece of the power pie, which seems to be more important than all the rest.
That would make sense if when they did get a piece of the pie they would do the People's business, but both you and I know that the pushing of NAFTA, the media concentration and destruction of welfare and social services, served not the people, but those who have usurped all the rest of the peoples' roles in deciding anything.
It might do wonders for your party to be forced to recognize that it is possible for a political party even in America to represent people, not corporations even in these times. My sad conclusion: those who run your party do not trust nor really care for the American people.
If the Democratic Party ever truly wanted to do something decisive, important and -- why not -- patriotic for this country to really end this war, or, say, to get universal health care all they would have to do is to call upon the People to back them in public. Populism. Dennis may appear alongside concerned citizens and activists at antiwar rallies, but your party, as a party, does not show up. The Green Party is always there.
It is WAY past time to muster the courage or even the sentiment to resist the hijacking of women's contribution to our world which, let us be frank, has been going on for millenia. Realize that womens' rights ARE schools, housing, healthcare, decent jobs, livable wages, healthy food supply, air quality, political representation, dialog, respect, peace. Fifty-one percent of the human population isn't exactly a special interest group.
Instead, denial of women's rights is listed as just one of the problems rather than THE problem. Time to realize, boys: Make ending sexism the numero uno priority or none of the world's ills will ever be resolved. Women's rights ARE human rights. Period.
Recognize that the first step toward overcoming a shameful past is acknowledging it. But the boys don't seem to have the huevos to face thousands of years of shameful treatment of women nor their continued vile attitudes towards them. They've always found it easier to erase it; to view women as Other, secondary, less than human, humanity still tragically measured by the male standard, through the male lens.
Start by asking yourself one simple question: Are women human?
by
Mar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 155 comments)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 11:19:54 AM
I don't deny what you say. The question of how women are treated is a constant that cannot be ignored, but one that is so deeply ingrained and inherent at all levels of association, that even the most progressive of men an movements have rarely adequately addressed even parts of it.
Slavery is worse today than 200 years ago, yet barely is on anyone's radar.
The article addressed the political direction and efforts of the formationand growth of the Green Party in the US. Though not yet adequate, the GP has made serious attempts to address many issues concerning women in our society and in the world as well as addressing their role in polcy-making within the party. While the Democrats for example have abandoned their earlier support for ERA, it remains a Green goal.
It may seem inadequate to talk about building a functional participatory democracy without dealing with issues of patriarchy. I believe there should be concurent efforts to awareness while also dealing with pressing issues of resisting the complete installation of a structurally repressive government in the US, which is akin to a patrarchy's patriarchy, a feudal, if not stone age, vision of society/culture in which "womens' issues" will all be "resolved" by decree.
by
alan k (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 29 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 1:40:40 AM
Instant Runoff Voting will hardly help bring about significant benefit to democracy. It produces the same two party duopoly as our current plurality system - just look at the four countries to have used it long-term on a large scale: Australia, Ireland, Malta, and Fiji. Contrary to popular myth, IRV can lead to spoiler effects, and fail to elect the Condorcet (beats all) winner.
The solution that discriminating voters should be pushing for is Range Voting - score the candidates and elect the one with the highest average.
You picked up on but one relatively minor point in my article, IRV, which probably indicates it is your area of personal concern. I'm always amazed at how one can put together a whole piece and some readers only notice a part.
Look, I know IRV is not necessarily the end-all and be-all of voting systems, just miles ahead of where we are now. While by itself IRV does not produce 3rd party victories, it does something very important: allow other candidates to speak -- and to participate in the debate, which should, in time lead to victories. Above all, we need to change the narrative in this country.
The true main advantage of IRV as far as I can tell, and it IS a big one, is that it is relatively easy to understand, compute, and carry out: and therefore much more likely to be accepted and approved by the public Condorcet is a bear to understand much less compute. It would be a really hard sell. You might hold out for Condorcet perfection for a long time without ever getting enough political momentum behind it to become law. It's about going for the possible, and giving people a chance to see how it works, and who knows, when accustomed to it, they might be open to improving upon it.
Now, about the rest of my comments....any thoughts?
by
alan k (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 29 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 1:17:28 AM
Yes, voting methods are an area of personal concern for me, which is why I specifically responded to your mention of IRV. Different people are going to address different parts of an article of course.
IRV is not really "miles" ahead of where we are now, as utility efficiency calculations show. It is a moderate improvement over plurality, but comes at a price of much greater complexity - it can't even be tabulated on plurality voting machines, so it requires costly upgrades, whereas Range Voting does not. It also considers a ballot spoiled if two candidates in a race are given the same rank, which is part of the reason why San Francisco experienced seven times the usual number of spoiled ballots when we began using our "bastardized" version of IRV. So being "easy" is definitely not an advantage of IRV; plurality, Borda, Approval, Range Voting, and several other methods are simpler. Even Condorcet voting is simpler to explain - just elect the candidate who beats every other candidate head-to-head - though it is moderately more complex to compute because of occasional Condorcet cycles. I should note however, that Condorcet is anything but "perfection". Arrow's theorem shows that all ordinal voting systems suffer from a massive flaw in not being independent of irrelevant alternatives.
IRV also leads to two-party domination, just like plurality voting; this has been demonstrated in Australia's house of representatives since 1918, and Ireland's presidential post since 1938, as well as in Malta and Fiji. In every country where IRV has seen long-term wide-spread use, it has lead to two-party duopoly. So let any delusions that IRV will help third parties die. It doesn't. It won't allow any different kind of participation. It won't change any narratives. We need only look at decades of its use in Australia to see this reality laid bare.
Range Voting is simpler than IRV, breaks stifling two-party domination, and leads to a much greater voter satisfaction index than IRV. So voters, once properly educated, will be much more likely to accept and approve Range Voting. We don't need to sit around wasting invaluable electoral reform energy on extremely poor voting methods like IRV. Democracy is too important.
And now I leave you with the voter satisfaction indices (here referred to as "ratios") for several voting methods.
Utility measurements: Group A: 5 candidates, 20 voters, random utilities; Each entry averages the results from 4,000,000 simulated elections. Group B: 5 candidates, 50 voters, utilities based on 2 issues, each entry averages the results from 2,222,222 simulated elections.
Voting system
VSR A
VSR B
Magically elect optimum winner
100.00%
100.00%
Range (honest voters)
96.71%
94.66%
Borda (honest voters)
91.31%
89.97%
Approval (honest voters)
86.30%
83.53%
Condorcet-LR (honest voters)
85.19%
85.43%
Range & Approval (strategic exaggerating voters)
78.99%
77.01%
IRV (honest voters)
78.49%
76.32%
Plurality (honest voters)
67.63%
62.29%
Borda (strategic exaggerating voters)
53.26%
51.78%
Condorcet-LR (strategic exaggerating voters)
42.56%
41.31%
IRV (strategic exaggerating voters)
39.07%
39.21%
Plurality (strategic voters)
39.07%
39.21%
Elect random winner
0.00%
0.00%
These results are from 2 of 720 different models, with millions of elections simulated for each model. Note that range voting is approximately as great an improvement over plurality voting, as plurality is over random selection; range voting effectively doubles the benefit brought about by the invention of democracy. These experimental results also strongly suggest that range voting is the least susceptible to strategic voting, of these common methods.
by
Clay Shentrup (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 3:14:46 PM
Had enough yet?? Bush/Cheney should be impeached along with the resignations of about 500 corporate cowards of both parties currently occupying our halls of congress. How many impeachment gates have already failed to provoke outrage from the gutless corporate shills pretending to be stewards of our interests? Well let's refresh our collective memories shall we: Irag/WMDgate; Gitmo/AbuGhraibgate;Constitutiongate; Geneva Conventiongate; Wiretappinggate; Signing Statementgate; Voter Fraudgate; Plamegate; Unitary Executivegate; Katrinagate; 'Surge'gate; Walter Readgate; US Atttorneygate; Environment/ Kyotogate; Plutocratic Taxgate;POTUS IQ Deficitgate
by
Roy Murtishaw (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 78 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 10:28:04 AM
Your comments are right on track. I might add that each citizen has his or her own unique way to take a "strong stand."
Elected members to the House of Representatives can take a strong stand by filing articles of impeachment. Nothing else at this point is a strong stand.
Elected members of the Senate can request House members to file articles of impeachment. Nothing else at this point is a strong stand.
Citizens can decide to defend the Constitution by pledging to themselves and others that they will not vote for candidates who will not honor their oath of office by doing everything in their power to preserve and protect the Constitution. This means, in my opinion, that citizens who want to defend the Constitution must not vote for Democrats or Republicans in the next election. There are other people who are competent, honorable, and willing to serve. You can take a strong stand by being one of those people or by supporting one or more of those people.
Leadership begins with taking a stand. Others will follow if the stand you take is honorable and courageous.
by
Mark A. Goldman (80 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 241 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 5:54:52 PM
