June 26, 2008

my third party strategy and the lack of political manner in the American public

The following is a series of e-mails, the top being an explanation of why I vote third party. The last is from a fellow voter who thinks that "Not voting, or voting third party, is voting for McCain." I am utterly fed up with people thinking the third party vote is totally worthless and moreso I am fed up with fellow American voters devaluing the vote of the citizen who goes for a third party candidate.

_____________

First, I think you need some general background info about how I came to be a third party voter. In high school I had an excellent history teacher. He is the person who really pushed me into activism and set an example for me with his own form of activism. In 2000 I was in the tenth grade, and he was a Nader supporter. He talked often of the election in the first couple months of the school year and made me realize that the 2-party run democracy was a joke (and also made me realize there were more candidates on the ballot than just the reps and dems). I guess I learned that voting is most significant when you vote for the candidate who best represents you politically.

Also, I am not a Nader supporter. I will support any candidate who is at my level of "liberalness". The Green Party is almost there, however Ralph Nader happened to be there in 2004 as well. It doesn't have to be Nader, but it just happened to be. I looked at all my choices (including Kerry) and wasn't set on who I would vote for until a few days before election day. This year I do not know who I will vote for until all the candidates are set and I can review each platform. However, there is little chance of me voting for Obama because I know that at least the Green Party candidate would be a better choice for me politically.

Perhaps the election I first voted in also has a lot to do with my views on third parties. My experience in '04 was totally different from yours because we are in two completely different voting segments (total brain fart on the actual term). I was 19 and the push to get young voters to the polls was basically "do you want 4 more years of Bush? vote for Kerry". Celebrities were the main drive behind this push, I remember Puff Daddy/P Diddy whatever basing his rock the vote campaign on that platform, and Jack Black wore a "vote Kerry" shirt at some awards show. These are just small examples but I think you understand the process. And of course what celebrities do, many people follow. Maybe it was the same over all age demographics (brain fart cleared ha), but of course celebrity exposure especially through outlets like MTV are aimed towards the 18-34 group. Alongside media was pressure from my peers. My really good friend Chris was a great example of voting for Kerry to keep Bush out for a second term, even though Kerry was not a good political representar for Chris' ideals. So I would get pressure from him and hear him talking to others about the lesser of 2 evils bit. And that is when I realized that I had an important choice...go with the flow in hopes Bush was not re-elected or stick with voting third party because that is what my heart wanted me to do.

I just heard this quote on CNN news, and this is what prompted me to write this e-mail out again: "(some democrats) blame Nader for stealing votes from Gore". Forget the fact that there are people with free will to vote for whom they want to behind those votes! Nader didn't "steal votes", he was a candidate who ran and who gave people more of a choice. Obviously the 4% of Americans who voted for Nader/the Green party in 2000 did so because they thought he was the best choice on the ballot for them. It's not like the Green party went after these people for their vote, nor did they have a secret plan to thwart the entire election and get Bush elected. It's statements like those that really get to me. First, it devalues the individual citizen's vote. I hold the vote very dear as it seems the only way for an individual citizen to voice their own choice (though of course even the vote doesn't -really- matter because of the electoral college). Secondly, it devalues the integrity of the individual voting citizen's decision, choice, and free will. It's just ridiculous and illiogical arguments that people try to make, like "Not voting, or voting third party, is voting for McCain", and it's people like me who are at the brunt of those statements.

"What possible candidate would that be?" Well, that would be yourself. Of course no candidate represents any individual 100%. There would be 200 million candidates on the ballot if that were the case. However, if you have a choice between a candidate that represents you 15%, 35%, and maybe 65%, what is the most logical choice? I personally go for the 65% even though the person that represents me 35% has a better chance of winning.

Why cannot an ideal vote also be a strategic one? It seems to me that the way people like you think and act, and there are millions of them, just perpetuates the cycle of "lesser of two evils". Of course Nader or the greens have no chance of winning. HOWEVER, they do have a chance of earning 5% of the vote which means they can debate with the Reps and Dems on national TV. Which means more exposure to the masses. So let's say Party Ideal gained 5% of the votes in 2008. Then in 2012, they debate on TV and they earn 8% of the votes. In 2016 same thing happens and they earn 12% of the votes. And maybe, just maybe, in 50-75 years we have a 3 party run democracy. So in my mind, I vote for a third party and that one singular vote helps achieve the 5% (I personally think it is utter bulls**t that candidates have to earn 5% of the popular vote to debate with the donkephant in the first place. Oh how wonderful American democracy is!). And it might just help achieve the breaking of the "lesser of two evils" cycle. That is my strategy. Maybe I am idealistic as I am 23, but I am looking to the future. I honestly really dislike American government for a lot of different reasons, the 2-party rule "democracy" is one of them. And I don't understand how it came to be this way in less than 100 years. The Democrats and Republicans used to be the same party! And it seems with my basic public school historical education that at one time there were always more than 2 parties who stood a chance of winning or who at least gained a significant number of the votes.

Politics aside, I really feel I would be lieing to myself if I voted for a candidate who I didn't really want to be my president. In 2004 I felt like I would be a "sell out" if I voted for Kerry. I felt like I would have given into the pressure of everyone else and ignored my heart. It sounds ridiculous to say I vote with my heart but I guess I do. I do what I feel is right and genuine. Only I can make the decision for me, I cannot let others pressure me or go by some stupid reason like name recognition. My vote is my right, but also more importantly it is MY choice.

"On the other hand, if you view the two major parties as the same, how do you explain the breakdown between to two parties on the most significant marijuana legislation introduced last year, the Hinchley-Rohrbacher amendment." I do not see the larger party disparity which is often displayed with Congressional and Senate bill support as having the same significance as the miniscule disparity represented in the percentage gained by each party in presidential elections. Which in 2000 was pretty much 50%/50%. When the vote is 50/50 or very close, the differences are small. Dem and Rep candidates are really just moderate, there is no huge left or right shift. I suppose when I say they are the same I guess I mean they are both moderate, stuck in the middle. My mother, who is 62, mentioned once that elections never used to be so close. I take that to mean there used to be more of a difference between the dems and reps in elections past, with one candidate having a large majority of votes earned than the other.

"How many Greens voted yes? None, because none were elected to national office." Which might be different if either the Greens got 5% in 2000 or if the democracy was really a democracy and each candidate could freely debate with one another, etc etc etc.

"So what qualifies a Green like Nader to hold the highest political office in the land in the first place?" Well, if the majority of the people vote for him then that would qualify him to be the president. What qualifies an individual with many connections to major industries and who defies his nation's citizens and does whatever he feels like to live out some legacy to hold the highest political office in the land? (this can be any president really, I am sure there are multiple levels of corruption no civilian will ever know about.) If enough Americans think this individual is worthy enough to be president for whatever reason, they will vote for them and then the EC will do their business and there we go. Of course there is the issue of enough Americans even knowing about this candidate in the first place. And here we are back at the 5% issue. I think a lot of Americans go by what they see on TV. If there are just two dudes on the stage then there must only be two dudes on the ballot. This is not about Ralph Nader, this is about third party representation. If we were having this conversation 2 decades in the past or 2 decades in the future, it would be a different name but the same argument (though I would hope that in 20 years something would change, however I doubt it).

"but if you see the Nader vote in 2004 as a positive vote for change, I'd just like to ask, where is the change? " I do not see, nor did I ever say, that I saw the Nader vote in 2004 as a vote for change. In fact it is the direct opposite. The 2000 vote is much different though. The Greens were oh so very close to that 5% mark. And there would be the catalyst for change, hopefully. But then everyone blamed the Nader/Green vote as the reason why Bush won in '00, and that was the reason why you SHOULDN'T vote third party in 2004. Because you know, a vote for a third party was a vote for Bush. I didn't listen to that nonsense and I still voted third party, because I felt that was the right thing to do given my political leaning. If anything, the Nader vote in 2004 was a reminder that voters like me are still around. I believe he earned 3% of the vote, and with all third parties combined (from both sides of the spectrum) the percentage probably totaled no more than 6 or 7 percent. To say that the 6% of us who did not vote for Kerry or Bush are to blame (and why is it always those who vote for Nader? Other candidates earned percentage points too) for Bush's re-election is a disgusting scape goat. Who is to blame for a candidate not succeeding? The candidate themselves and their campaign. And what is so democratic about BLAMING people for voting? This whole argument is so illogical to me, there are no factual basis for any blame or the what if's. And it really gets to me when Americans blame their fellow Americans for the outcome of presidential elections.

How can me voting for who I want to -ever- not be the right thing to do? If you voted for Bush in '00 or '04 and he was the person you really wanted to vote for I would never say that I disagreed that that was the right thing to do. An individual voting for the candidate they want to is ALWAYS the right thing to do! I do not think that voting for someone because of name recognition or because you are pressured to vote for someone (like I was pressured to vote for Kerry in '04) is the right thing to do, however, because those are lame reasons to vote for someone that has absolutely no political basis. Yes you say you respect my right to vote for whomever I want to, that's democracy right?, but really you don't because you think it is the wrong choice. I just don't understand how any vote can be a "wrong choice" when it is understood that the individual has the right and freedom to choose whomever they want to vote for. Heck, if you didn't like ANY of the candidates and wrote in yourself then that's fine by me, you are still using your right to make a choice (as a side I would like to make a point that many people write in fictional characters as their vote, Donald Duck always seems to come up. Why isn't anyone blaming these people for not actually voting for a person???) I accepted Bush's win in '04 because that is how American citizens voted. I didn't like it but oh well, the majority of my fellow Americans did and I have to deal with it. I would never say that what those Americans did by voting for Bush was the not the right thing to do. It is the individual's choice, and I respect that individual's choice. NOT just their right. Of course disagreeing with my vote does not take my right away but what it does do is sends me a message that fellow voting Americans hold some sort of grudge against me because I do use that right to vote and use it to vote for someone that isn't a rep or dem. I think that is ludicrous. It's like, you are saying you don't like how I use my right. I get this over and over from many people. Directed towards me or to people who vote third party in general it doesn't matter. I really shouldn't have to defend my choice in this way because I would hope most people have respect for one another to accept the choices that they make. At least I vote in the first place! Let's put blame on those who don't vote at all. I did not register to vote on my 18th birthday because it fell on a Sunday. I had to wait until the next day and I did so, right after school I went to the SOS and was registered. VOTING is the right thing to do, it shouldn't matter who you vote for. But apparently it does matter, and it's okay to blame the individual instead of the candidates themselves for not campaigning more effectively or for the whole damn false democratic system which allows for a 2-party ruled system.

It doesn't matter though, I feel I am doing the right thing by utilizing my right to vote to say I want a third party candidate for president (not because they are third party of course, but because I would rather have a 65% representation than 35%). I just get sick of hearing crap like "a vote for a third party is a vote for McCain". We can agree to disagree (I don't even know where the agreeance/disagreeance is really, it's just a difference of views), however I hope that you understand better now how someone like me feels when political blame is put onto them and why I vote third party. I don't think this is an agree/disagree issue but more of a failure to see the process (or strategy?) from the other's point of view. I understand completely why you think it is better to vote for a candidate who has a higher chance of winning even though they represent you less than a candidate who has no chance of winning but who better represents you. That is the view of the majority of "independent/undecided" voters and I considered that move in '04. But I think that a lot of these people do not take the time to consider how people like me see the process, and that leads to problems. It leads to "blame". And absolutely stupid remarks like the one that spawned this whole series of e-mails.

*******

Becky,

Thanks for speaking up. Although I disagree with some of what you are saying, I am sympathetic to your perspective and I will defend your right to vote for whomever you wish. I too, love the Green Party, especially at a local level where they stand a good chance of building a community political infrastructure. In 2004, I voted for 6 Republicans (all local township, anti-big box store, pro-local small business), 4 Greens, (local and state) and 4 Democrats (national).

I've never voted for a candidate because they represented my political ideals. What possible candidate would that be? My vote is ALWAYS a strategic vote as opposed to an ideal vote. In my youth, I could afford to be idealistic. As a 60 year old, I've eaten crow in enough elections to see my vote in the same way that I view the Hippocratic oath; ABOVE ALL, DO NO HARM. You have an absolute right to vote for whomever you wish but if you see the Nader vote in 2004 as a positive vote for change, I'd just like to ask, where is the change?

On the other hand, if you view the two major parties as the same, how do you explain the breakdown between to two parties on the most significant marijuana legislation introduced last year, the Hinchley-Rohrbacher amendment. The majority of Democrats voted yes. The majority of Republicans voted no. That's a huge difference between the 2 parties about federal marijuana raids. How many Greens voted yes? None, because none were elected to national office.

So what qualifies a Green like Nader to hold the highest political office in the land in the first place? I used to have a lot of respect for Nader, but his legacy for the past 7 years has been an embarrassment to anyone who has supported and loved the man's past work. If Nader was really serious about running for president, he would have spent the last 7 years, proving his ability to be a national leader by building a formidable political infrastructure within the Green Party but instead, he rests on his laurels and every 4 years pops out of the woodwork to massage his ego. Whatever! You have a RIGHT to vote for Nader or any other being but I just disagree that it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. Saying that I disagree with your vote doesn't take your right away. It just means that we are both exercising our right to free speech and agreeing to disagree.

Bob "Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing." --- Harry J. Anslinger (Commissioner, Federal Bureau of Narcotics)

*******

On May 31, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Becky wrote:

"> Not voting, or voting third party, is voting for McCain. Not just my
opinion, but that of just about every published observer of our
politics out there."

I STRONGLY disagree. Voting third party is a vote for real democracy. Voting for someone who doesn't support your political ideals is a wasted vote!

The 2004 election was the first presidential election I could vote in. I was pressured from many people, friend to celebrity, to vote for Kerry. Not because of his platform or ideals, but because he wasn't Bush. if I didn't vote for Kerry then Bush would win and the world would end, America would turn to hell and it would be MY fault because I didn't cast my vote for "the lesser of 2 evils". It didn't matter if actually I wanted Kerry to be my president or not.

I voted for Nader.

I am "very liberal" by the current political spectrum and was a member of Socialist Party USA for 2 years. Why the hell would I vote for a Democrat? They are no where near liberal enough for me and as far as I am concerned are the same as a Republican, they just have a different name and a different color. The 2 ruling parties of America are two in the same. The vote in 2000 should be enough to tell you that, it was pretty much split 50/50. (and I find it laughable that people blame the paltry Green Party vote percentage for Bush winning in 2000...nevermind the facts that the controversial state in question was Florida governed by Jeb Bush, and that Gore only recounted one county and not the whole state, etc etc etc).

I thought America was supposed to be a DEMOCRACY. I thought each citizen had the RIGHT to vote for whomever they wanted! If I were to vote for Kerry in 2004, I would have wasted my vote! And it is the same thing this year, if I vote for a Democrat then again I will waste MY vote because the Democrat party does not share my ideals. There are other parties and other candidates who better represent me as an American citizen. I roll my eyes each time I hear someone say "a vote for a third party is a wasted vote" or is a vote for the "bad guy". THE ONLY WASTED VOTE IS A VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU!!!! If Obama represents your political ideals then fine, vote for him. You have that right. But don't tell me that I'm wasting my time or that a vote for the candidate I actually want as my president is a vote for "the bad guy".

Again, I thought America was supposed to be a democracy...not a 2-party capitalistic monarchy! Maybe if more Americans had the patriotic balls to vote for the candidate who actually represents them, "we" wouldn't have to choose between deedle dum and deedle dee over and over and over. Maybe "we" would actually have some real democratic progress in this country if there was more political variety. Hell, a third party needs 5% of the popular vote to even be allowed to debate with the Rep and Dem candidates. Guess who made that rule? Welcome to democracy!

So I will vote third party this year, and probably will in all future elections. I do not see voting third party as a vote towards McCain. I see voting third party as an expression of my democratic right as an American citizen, a vote towards the person I want to be my president.

-Becky

*I do agree that not voting at all might as well be a vote for the greater of 2 evils, and the non-vote is the ultimate wasted vote.

----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 11:05:08 -0700
From:
To:
Subject: Huh? Re: MINORML-TALK: ltr to Obama! He wants to step up our drug war

At 01:16 PM 5/24/08, G wrote:

Obama has just lost my vote and I'm going to work against him now.


While what each of us does in the voting booth next November nobody
else will ever know, it seems to me that it would be good to think
through what could happen.

Does anybody think that John McCain would be a president who would
support our issues? Guess which party's congresscritters have voted
our way the most.

Perhaps it would be good to review this thoughtful column, printed in
several newspapers "Hazy Thinking On Medical Marijuana"
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n490/a07.html

I will support every way I can the party that does the most to
support my issues.

My own 91 year old mother says she can not vote for Obama because of
the color of his skin. She has voted Democrat since she was old
enough to vote, 21 back then. There may be many who think like her --
some just prejudice, some who, like her, are not -- but who just do
not think the country is ready for a black president. I hope to
change her mind.

Not voting, or voting third party, is voting for McCain. Not just my
opinion, but that of just about every published observer of our
politics out there.

I fear for our country if "we may be in Iraq and Afghanistan for a
hundred years" McCain is elected.

-Ric

No comments: