Can a Green vote for a Democrat? As an election reform activist and a registered Green Party voter, I’d been planning to vote a straight Green Party ticket in the next election, with the exception of voting for California State Senator Debra Bowen, a Democrat who is running for Secretary of State. Bowen has taken the lead on election integrity, sponsoring important legislation and holding investigative hearings. Debra Bowen is exactly what I would call a good Democrat. Progressive, intelligent, a leader, and concerned about the things I care about.
But I keep remembering how John Kerry had raised millions of surplus dollars towards the end of his 2004 campaign by saying that he needed the money for lawyers and legal fees to challenge the election outcome if necessary. As it turned out, the lawyers all volunteered to work without pay, but Kerry conceded early and told them to go home. As for the money, he kept some of it for his war chest, and donated some of it to the Democratic Party and to Democratic candidates.
So along comes Debra Bowen who understands that we have a serious election integrity problem in California and sincerely wants to do something about it. Everybody seems to assume that once elected Secretary of State, Bowen will immediately move to decertify Diebold election systems in California. Everybody except me, that is.
You see, we used to have a Democratic Secretary of State, Kevin Shelley, and he actually did decertify Diebold. Then the Republicans mounted a recall campaign, removed him from office, and appointed someone who immediately recertified Diebold. The Democratic Party was unable to stop this from happening.
So, the way I see it, since Debra Bowen just got the endorsement of the Democratic Party at their recent convention, once elected Bowen will be unable to decertify Diebold.
My reasoning goes like this: Having secured the Democratic Party’s endorsement, once elected Bowen will be beholden to them for their support and campaign contributions. And they really do want a Democrat as California Secretary of State, every bit as much as much as Bowen really wants to restore election integrity to California. But the moment Bowen moves to decertify Diebold, the Republicans will threaten a recall. And since the Democrats were unable to block the last recall, they’ll pressure Bowen not to decertify Diebold, as that would only invoke the wrath of the Republicans. And owing the election to their support, and knowing that they are powerless to block a recall effort, Bowen will have to agree to drop the matter. It is important to understand that while Bowen understands the vulnerability of Diebold election systems to hacking and fraud, the Democratic Party leadership does not and is still referring to election integrity activists as wackos and conspiracy theorists. As far as the party leadership is concerned, having a Democratic Secretary of State in California is important, election reform is not.
So while I don’t question Bowen’s integrity and sincerity, I will be voting for Green Party candidate Forrest Hill for Secretary of State. Hill believes that “California’s electoral system needs a complete overhaul,” and he is beholden to noone. A Financial Advisor with a Ph.D. from MIT in ecosystems analysis, Hill recently coauthored the new book, “California Under Corporate Rule,” with Peter Miguel Camejo, the Green Party candidate for Governor of California. Hill is an advocate of proportional representation, ranked voting, publicly-financed elections, and secure, accurate elections.
I expect Debra Bowen to win, even without my vote. But I recently offered to bet a friend fifty dollars that once elected, Bowen will not decertify the Diebold machines in California. My friend, who firmly believes that I’m wrong, hasn’t taken me up on this yet. I’m not holding my breath.
In his article, Mr. Smith poses the question, can a Green vote for a Democrat?
His answer apparently is no.
As a confirmed and active Democrat, I cannot say that Mr. Smith's conclusion does not disturb me.
I would prefer that Greens join us and that we form together in one party.
The GOP is a clear and chilling example of what happens when a mainstream political party abandons coalition building and sets itself upon an ideaological course.
Nevertheless, I recognize that the Green Party adherents may not want to be Democrats or to support us.
That is their right as Americans and as sad as I find that conclusion I respect it.
May I offer another proposal: that the Dems and the Greens look at a formal partisan coalition.
In broad conceptual terms we would recognize the differences in our parties, accept them, but look for issues that overlap.
Candidates could run in opposition to each other in some districts, with cross endorsements in others and one or the other party could run unopposed in still others.
In my opinion, this would help Greens establish themselves as a viable, legitimate political party and help them attract new members from the ranks of potential voters currently abstaining.
The advantage to the Democratic Party would be the strengthening of the left and an end to the current sad state of affairs in which the GOP is able to maintain legislative majorities based on a minority coalition among the rank and file voters.
Anyone up for discussions?
Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 557 comments)
on Sunday, May 7, 2006 at 12:50:41 PM
All the Democratic Party has to do to win over Greens
is to refuse corporate money, refuse to endorse candidates who are Democrats In Name Only (DINOS) like Joe Lieberman and Diane Feinstein, use the party leadership power they used to keep Democratic Senators from signing the Congressional Black Caucus petition in 2000, to force them to stop voting with the Republicans instead, call for the impeachment of everyone in the current administration and an immediate end to the war in Iraq, as the Green Party has, and stop breaking campaign promises. We'd be with you in a New York minute.
But we're leery of coalitions with parties that don't share our values, like the Democrats and Republicans. For some people winning is everything, the ends justify the means, and you do whatever it takes. For us, what counts is doing the right thing, for ourselves, for our children and grandchildren, for our country, and for the world, even if it kills us.
Remember the famous Jimmy Stewart line in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? He said, "Sometimes a lost cause is the only one worth fighting for." Some people still think Hitler was a great leader because he had lots of power. We think the White Rose Society was an excellent model because they stood up to Hitler even when they had no power whatsoever and knew that it would get them killed, which it did. So you admire the winners, and we admire the losers.
How can people with such different viewpoints work together?
by
Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 812 comments)
on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 3:06:20 AM
Not just a Democrat, but someone who has integrity
If you want to write off all Democrats, ok. But to compare Debra Bowen
to John Kerry is ludicrous. Kerry was in denial about Electoral Fraud,
Bowen is not. Kerry was in denial about what is at stake; Bowen is not.
Few people really wanted Kerry; he was just the candidate who won the
"anybody but Bush" sweepstakes. Bowen got 81% of the vote for her
endorsement at the California Democratic Convention, even before
the primary! She is very popular and very effective. Kerry took a
long time to really start fighting; Bowen has been attacking
McPherson's actions for a long time, and getting press for it.
As for the Republicans recalling Shelley, that never happened. The
Republican dug up some dirt, his mother had a heart attack (I hope
she recovered), and he resigned. Shelley was never convicted of anything.
I doubt they will find anything on Bowen and I doubt
she would resign.
Bowen has real support and a community which will rally to
support her; Shelley didn't.
As for the Democratic Party, I see hope. I went to the
Progressive Caucus at the Convention (I wasn't a delegate - anyone
could go), and they were talking about everyone must be "recount
ready" and not concede like Kerry did. And listen to the Bowen-Ortiz
debate at the convention - there is lot's of applause for Bowen and
hecklers asking Ortiz "What about Ohio?". Ortiz still thinks Florida
in 2000 was about hanging chads; not disenfranchisement and monkey
business.
As for decertifications, that may not even be needed. The vendors keep
changing the systems, and the certification documents say in section
4.b. that the Secretary of State must approve any changes and can
retest. Plus the 2005 Voting Systems Guidelines will be in effect in
late 2007, and none of the electronic voting systems have been checked
against that standard.
Plus the disabled are mad because the California Elections Code
requires the information on the voter verified paper trail be
"provided or conveyed to voters via both a visual and a
nonvisual method, such as through an audio component."
The disabled will be pressing for certification of accessible
machines.
Then there is the current lawsuit against Diebold in California,
plus AB 1747 requiring open source.
I'm just predicting that the Democratic Party leadership will not permit Bowen to decertify the Diebold machines.
California courts might do it, but I'm sure Diebold would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court which would overrule them.
I believe that Bowen wants to decertify Diebold, every bit as much as Boxer wanted to sign the Congressional Black Caucus petition in 2000 to prevent Bush from taking office. But the Democratic Party leadership wouldn't permit it. Do you think Bowen is more powerful than Boxer? Do you think the Democratic Party leadership can tell Boxer what to do, but not Bowen?
Only time will tell. Come back here after Bowen takes office and decertifies Diebold, and I'll admit that I was wrong and apologize. Unless, of course, Bowen then has a tragedy in the family and has to resign for personal reasons, and happens to be replaced by someone who immediately recertifies Diebold. Maybe history won't repeat this time. Maybe the sun won't come up in the morning. Maybe everything will be different if we just believe that it will. I commend you for your positive attitude and I hope it isn't just wishful thinking.
by
Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 812 comments)
on Monday, May 8, 2006 at 3:18:33 AM
Most Democrats don't understand that it is not we Greens whom they must convert, but the ones they have turned off to politics entirely. Sadly, these are the same voters we ultimately must win over. If the voting population expands it will only be through the efforts of smaller political parties like the http://www.gp.org>Green Party.
But let's be honest. The real point you made is that there really are no Democrats to vote for when there is a qualified Green in the race, and I agree 100%. Any politician who chooses to use his or her position to advance the cause of the Democrats or Republican party is not a politician I care to give my vote to.
Even if they believe the Green Party, or another alternative party, does not offer them a route to victory, but think the Democrats and Republicans are not on the right path, they are at least responsible to refuse to associate with those corrupt parties and run an independent campaign for office.
The bottom line is, any politician who would choose to associate with a political party which places profit and corporate power ahead of human rights and environmental action is a politician I don't want to be associated with.
But, isn't the ownership of Diebold in the same hands as the ownership of EES, the "second" paperless, software based voting system?
To follow your logic, there is no such thing as a good democrat. Be it Franklin Roosevelt, Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, Barbara Lee, Russ Feingold, Cynthia McKinney, or Barbara Boxer. The world is worse off because they served our country, so you would never vote for them.
From a cynical politics point of view, Senator Bowen got an 81% endorsement from the state democratic convention because of her strong stands, not in spite of them. She knows that should she fail keep her #1 promise, to dump Diebold, her statewide political future is toast.
From a long term strategy point of view, greens, libertarians, small parties of any stripe should support Senator Bowen. She held hearings on IRV (instant runoff voting) in Oakland last fall, signalling that she would like to encourage more real democracy for all parties in California. As grass roots support builds for IRV here in California, she will be there to help it along. That will help all small parties, which will be good.
From a recall point of view, the Busheviks know that a recall would backfire, because it would put the issue of Diebold on the front burner, and they have no case. I think Senator Bowen would welcome the chance to educate America about the crooks at Diebold. They can't claim national security because security is the issue. They can't claim taxes, because the machines mean more spending. So what are they going to use here? Guns, gods and gays? The publicity from opposing open democracy would be disastrous for the republicans.
From a personal point of view, I have seen her grill the lackeys from McPherson's office. I sat there stunned to see a politician who actually knew the technical details, and understood the broad picture, and was not willing to take spin for an answer. Senator Bowen has brains and a spine. She has the personal integrity to stand up for Democracy, and I am betting months of my time, way more than a measly $50, to help ensure that she gets the landslide she will need to be come Secretary of State.
Because Senator Bowen's tanking these corrupt machines will send shock waves across the country, hers is the most important single election in the country in 2006.
Please support Senator Debra Bowen and donate to her campaign at www.DebraBowen.com. Read more about her positions at www.ElectBowen.org.
by
Jim Soper (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, June 1, 2006 at 10:37:16 PM
