"Sure, neo-progressives will dwell on what a Democratic-controlled House might do in a positive vein, such as increasing the minimum wage and reducing funding for the Iraq war. And even more they are already jumping with joy about House investigations into the many misdeeds of the Bush administration, and maybe even a serious attempt to impeach Bush. Fine. These are good common dreams. But a few years later what reality will we see? " Thanks for such a well written article. We may be ideological opponents, but to see someone thinking outside the box and rationally considering the probable results of this next election; truly gladdens my heart. /I hope you don't get crucified for stating the reality of what these mid term elections mean. DEM's win in '06 gets no argument from me, but the resultant realistic actions, now there is a discussion.

by Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments) on Friday, Sep 8, 2006 at 1:56:49 PM

  (0+)

The DLC Democratic movement has certainly been a disaster. There are Democrats in office who are every bit as bad as the average Republican. True, true.

Where does this thinking lead us? Not voting? Voting for Republicans? Voting for third party candidates who have no chance of winning? Nowhere good it appears.

The problem is that the founders of this country left us the legacy of an electoral system that works poorly. With two parties or none at all, the system works and that is why George Washington pleaded with the country not to allow factions to develop. Translation: faction to George Washington is what we call a political party today.

Other countries around the world have democratic governments where multiple parties flourish. That is possible because they were founded later than the U.S. was, and they have more maturely defined election systems. Most have parliamentary systems, Australia has an instant runoff voting scheme. Either of these approaches make multiple parties function reasonably well. The U.S. is stuck, for the moment, with a system that fails dramatically if there are more than two serious candidates. The result of a multiparty election is that generally the least popular candidate will win.

Changing to a multiparty system where we can reasonably consider third party candidates probably should be viewed as a long-term process. We need to reform the electoral system itself and this will probably take decades to accomplish. Probably the best way to proceed is to work for change at the state level since in our system each state choses its electoral process. There is a history of good ideas being adopede from state to state once they are proven, so this is not as impossible as it may seem, but it will take time.

In the mean time, please, please! do not be so foolish as to just waste your vote on third party candidates. It will accomplish exactly what you want to avoid.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 8, 2006 at 7:47:25 PM

  (0+)

I believe that, despite the comments of PrMaine above, more and more on the left understand that neither party stands for our values or our goals for this nation. Some understand, or think they do, that seating a Democratic majority this fall might lead to the beginnings of investigations that will rip apart the farce that is the Republican leadership and expose Cheney, DeLay, Frist et all for the corrupt, criminal and selfish men that they certainly are. Perhaps many feel that it would be easier to hold a democratic politico's feet to the fire, I do not. I look for a slim majority of Democrats in the House this fall but understand in my heart that our real salvation will lie in a significant number of third party candidates being seated in the Legislature. I believe that , as long as the DLC leads the way for the Democratic Party, there is little difference between those two parties and neither works to benefit the great majority of Americans. I will surely vote for some Democrats this fall, but will certainly continue to work to make the Green Party grow stronger each election cycle.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Sep 9, 2006 at 5:57:22 PM

  (0+)

It seems "anybody but Bush" has been replaced by "anybody but Republicans". What a Democratic victory, especially in both houses of Congress will do is open up a very brief window of opportunity for true progressives and 3rd parties to gain strength, but not necessarily power. Failure to do so will give an illusion of "you had your chance and nothing's better". If it becomes a choice in 2008 of Republican or Republican lite, many will go for the real deal. Third parties can be most effective by uniting a large number of people under single voices, and the closer the 3rd parties come together, the more effective those voices can be. The likelyhood of any 3rd party candidate getting elected remains low, but if enough pressure can be brought to bear by those "single voices", even if under threat of departure from the Democratic Party, the more likely we are to see meaningful changes. True reform will include, at least partially, Democrats biting the hand that feeds them and once and for all doing away with corporate campaign donations and lobby reform. I wish then luck, they may need it. The Republicans will not be going along with those ideas either, but if progressives can't get it done in the next two years, that window of opportunity may disappear for a long long time.

by Mark Petersen (9 articles, 73 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 50 comments) on Sunday, Sep 10, 2006 at 8:12:35 AM

  (0+)

I've said it before, but let me say it again. Our present electoral system will not accomodate third parties, though I suppose this defect could be used to advantage if we could somehow encourage the growth of a third party on the right. That being said, our political system can accomodate change. We can change our electoral system, but clearly that will not happen in this or probably even the next few election cycles. Or we could act to keep things as they are by supporting the growth of third parties on the left. The primary election of Ned Lemont in Connecticut over Joe Leiberman shows that there is another way and that is to promote better candidates within the Democratic Party. It might even help to promote better candidates within the Republican Party, though I have little hope this could help much. We do have choices, but we have to be intelligent about implementing them. Just behaving as if things were as we might wish them to be is no recipe for improvement.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 12, 2006 at 8:07:26 AM

  (0+)

send a message to the Democrats. Third Party votes do not, as you suggest keep things as they are, they show plainoy the disgust of a large segment of the voting public. Neither of the two major parties espouses a path for this nation that I can fully support, I should not have to remind you how many democrats voted to invade Iraq.........voted for the HOmeland Security bill...voted for No Child left Undamaged...etc. I am fully convinced that it is only through the growth of a third party that the progressive ideals can be kept before the lawmakers. It is only the election of third party candidates to Congress, candidates not wedded to the corporate monies that currently enslave our two parties and through them ourselves.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 12, 2006 at 7:50:03 PM

  (0+)

Although I think we generally agree on objectives, I think we will have to agree to disagree on methods. I suspect that we also agree on a preference for having Democrats in office over having the Republicans continue their one-party rule. To me, ending this one-party rule of Republicans overrides all other concerns. Surprisingly, I find that many Republicans agree with me on this (see click here ). Your comments remind me of similar comments from liberals that I knew back in 1972 who wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party leaders about the handling of their convention. I don't know whether their message was ever heard, but these good liberals voted Republican that year and Nixon became President. The message that the Democrats seemed to take from that particular election was that the country had turned very conservative and the Democratic Party has moved steadily to the right ever since. Ironically, by today's standards, Nixon was a flaming liberal.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 13, 2006 at 8:01:31 AM

  (0+)

I know of no effort among liberals in this nation to vote for Richard Nixon, certainly none on a national level that would have affected the vote...I doubt that you do either. I give you the choice between voting for (now thankfully retired) Zell Miller or Republican Ron Paul and ask which lawmaker would you rather see in the Legislature? Thus I doubt that many of us would blanketly endorse ALL Democrats over ALL Republicans, much too simplistic a political philosophy for my tastes. The last Democratic President signed NAFTA into law, threw thousands off the welfare rolls without job training, child care assistance or much of any help at all, not exactly liberal actions, nor much favored by the left. We have gone beyond simplistic and silly black and white thinking here and it is long past time for those, like you, who (blindly?) support Democrats over Republicans to understand that you are making a choice betweem Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Sep 14, 2006 at 7:35:06 AM

  (0+)

I made no claim that there was any organized effort effort among liberals to vote for Richard Nixon, nor do I claim to have any evidence that such an effort affected the vote... I only cited my personal recollection of several liberals that I knew wanted to send a message to the Democratic leadership by voting for Nixon and stated my doubt that this message was ever heard. I entirely agree that there are particular Republicans that better choices than are particular Democrats. All things being equal I would vote for a good Republican over a bad Democrat, however, as things stand today everything is not equal. In fact, to me the overriding concern is that the Republicans have acquired complete control over our federal government. If we do not wrest back control of at least one house of Congress, I really fear for the continuance of a demcratic (or if you prefer, republican) government in this country. Individuals can make a difference, and a truly exceptional Republican leader might well be worth my vote. However, I can't think of any such Republican leader and absent that exceptional circumstance, my concern about one-party rule overrides any preference for individual politicians, particularly in the general election. The best way to deal with truly bad candidates is to eliminate them in the primaries - such as with Joe Leiberman. The choice of leadership in the Senate and in the House occurs almost invariably along party lines and this choice it absolutely critical in deciding what happens during the succeeding two years. The majority leadership decides what legislation will come before the floor and what investigations will have have subpoena power. They even decide what investigations will be allowed to use meeting rooms. It really does not matter if the Republican Senator or Congressman you elect has the most enlightened progressive attitudes of anyone on the planet if that Senator or Congressman begins his or her term by electing Frist or Hastart to the leadership. That is the singular decisive vote that affects the entire term.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 14, 2006 at 8:16:02 AM

  (0+)

because it is a popular one and one I believe to miss the boat: One party rule OR democracy? ( a beginning argument FOR third party growth) I made no claim that there was any organized effort effort among liberals to vote for Richard Nixon, nor do I claim to have any evidence that such an effort affected the vote... I only cited my personal recollection of several liberals that I knew wanted to send a message to the Democratic leadership by voting for Nixon and stated my doubt that this message was ever heard. (Your 'unique experience' to say the least was not worthy of inclusion into your article. I would seriously wonder at the motivation for its inclusion frankly, but I am not trying to be insulting or argumentative here, I do think you tried a bit to hard to make a point and almost got a mental hernia with that one...forgive me...;-}) I entirely agree that there are particular Republicans that better choices than are particular Democrats. All things being equal I would vote for a good Republican over a bad Democrat, however, as things stand today everything is not equal. In fact, to me the overriding concern is that the Republicans have acquired complete control over our federal government. If we do not wrest back control of at least one house of Congress, I really fear for the continuance of a demcratic (or if you prefer, republican) government in this country. (Democrats controlled Congress for about forty years, did you notice wonderful and exciting things happening during that time frame? I certainly did not. I do agree that the current situation in which all the branches of government are controlled by agendised and narrowly focussed white guys is a very bad thing. I would suspect that, regardless of party affiliation, this scenario would be equally bad.) Individuals can make a difference, and a truly exceptional Republican leader might well be worth my vote. However, I can't think of any such Republican leader and absent that exceptional circumstance, my concern about one-party rule overrides any preference for individual politicians, particularly in the general election. The best way to deal with truly bad candidates is to eliminate them in the primaries - such as with Joe Leiberman. ( You do not mention who among the Democrats you feel would be a charismatic and effective leader. Your mention of one party rule fails again, in my opinion, to understand the true nature of our current system which is, frankly, one party with two names.) The choice of leadership in the Senate and in the House occurs almost invariably along party lines and this choice it absolutely critical in deciding what happens during the succeeding two years. The majority leadership decides what legislation will come before the floor and what investigations will have have subpoena power. They even decide what investigations will be allowed to use meeting rooms. It really does not matter if the Republican Senator or Congressman you elect has the most enlightened progressive attitudes of anyone on the planet if that Senator or Congressman begins his or her term by electing Frist or Hastart to the leadership. That is the singular decisive vote that affects the entire term. (Err not almost invariably, actually leadership is based solely upon seniority among the ruling party and no other considerations. Again I refer to the forty years of democratic rule and the abysmal lack of progress, change or anything remotely resembling my vision for this nation, or yours either I suspect. I understand that support for third party growth is a minority and , never having been afraid to be in such a minority I urge you to take a real hard look at the platform of the Democrats and that of the Green Party, I would bet the farm that you are much more in favor of the latter over the former...if I had a farm that is...) by PrMaine (0 articles, 24 comments) on Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 7:16:02 AM (with additions by Ardee in parenthesis, like this)

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Sep 15, 2006 at 7:32:56 AM

  (0+)

...forgive me...;-}) OK, You are forgiven. Democrats controlled Congress for about forty years, did you notice wonderful and exciting things happening during that time frame? I certainly did not... I would suspect that, regardless of party affiliation, this scenario would be equally bad. Nothing in my experience has been remotely as bad as the current Congress and the Bush administration. This is not to say that Democrats always get it right but neither do I think your third party supermen would always get it right. If you insist that anything less than perfection is unacceptable, you are sure to be disappointed. You do not mention who among the Democrats you feel would be a charismatic and effective leader. Your mention of one party rule fails again, in my opinion, to understand the true nature of our current system which is, frankly, one party with two names. There are some good possible candidates out there, but that is not my point at all and you know it. As for the Republicans and Democrats being the same, I really just don't buy it. I will grant you that much of the Democratic Party holds views different from mine, but this will be true of any party that has even a remote chance of winning elections. Err not almost invariably, actually leadership is based solely upon seniority among the ruling party and no other considerations. Again I refer to the forty years of democratic rule and the abysmal lack of progress, change or anything remotely resembling my vision for this nation, or yours either I suspect. I understand that support for third party growth is a minority and , never having been afraid to be in such a minority I urge you to take a real hard look at the platform of the Democrats and that of the Green Party, I would bet the farm that you are much more in favor of the latter over the former...if I had a farm that is... Again you miss the point. I do agree with the aims of the Green Party more than with the Democratic Party, but I will not waste my vote on them in an important election because doing so will elect Republican candidates. Just wishing we had an electoral system that permits the election of third-party candidates does not make it so. Let's concentrate, at the local level, in reforming the electoral system first. Once that is accomplished we can cast meaningful votes for candidates that don't seem to have a chance. As things stand, doing so is not just showing your independence, it is being counterproductive.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 15, 2006 at 8:37:35 AM

  (0+)

sorry you will not consider alternatives to the Tweedledee and Tweedledum parties that have marched this nation down the sewer and into being the big bully, hated and feared by all. You say that the Green Party echoes your political stance best yet you insist upon voting for a party that does not, this makes no sense to me, sorry. Greens can be elected , one votes for them and, if one of them gets more votes she wins, its simple. Look to the German model if you need an example. They tried for decades to win office and finally became a power in that government, that Joshka Fischer ( the highest elected Green in germany) proved false is in no way diminishing the fact that he and his colleagues were actually elected. Voting Democrat is a vote for appeasers and those who seek to replace the GOP at the corporate teat, nothing less and certainly nothing more. I vote Green and do so because that candidate best expresses my views and wishes for this nation. I also vote for the best candidate in each race, sometimes, rarely but sometimes, that candidate is a democrat. I believe that my actions are the logical ones and that you voting only because someone has a better chance of winning, even though that someone may govern in ways repugnant to you, is no way to run a democracy. It would seem that you think voting for a winner is somehow better than voting for the fittest to govern. If today two percent vote Green and then 10% and then 30% etc. we can progress. If we just vote for those who misrepresent us what do we gain?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Sep 15, 2006 at 7:54:18 PM

  (0+)

As it happens, I did vote for a Green party candidate for the state legislature in the last election. That candidate did not win, but not to my great suprise. In my opinion, Green party members would be better advised to join the Democratic Party and work vigorously to change the Democratic Party from within. The Democratic Party can change, just as the Republican Party changed when the Conservatives decided to take it over. But it's a free country; Greens are perfectly free to perpetuate one party rule by the Republican Party.

Your example of the success of a third party in Germany is an interesting one. Germany uses a system of proportional voting for its legislative elections and this would be a great reform for our own electoral system. If we had proportional voting then it would make great sense to vote for minority parties like the Green Party.

Just wishing we had such a system, unfortunately, does not make it so. Just voting as if we had such a system is absolutely foolish.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 16, 2006 at 9:10:15 AM

  (0+)

I trust that you will work diligently to reform the Democratic Party as an insider. I will look forward with great relish to the abolition of the DLC, knowing that I once debated with someone who played a part in their demise. I wish you luck with your efforts.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Sep 17, 2006 at 7:34:43 PM

  (0+)