In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Open Thread: Politics, In General

Latoya

Some quick background on me.

I am a registered Independent voter. I generally vote Democrat, Independent or Green. (This may change, since I have only been eligible to vote in one state election and one federal election.) I have considered some Republican candidates (see: former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich) but there was always some kind of red flag waving in my face at the last minute.

In this election, I endorsed Barack Obama. (The entire team of Racialicious at the time did, though we were not expecting to do so. We all prepared our statements separately, for a joint post, and then realized we were all supporting BHO.)

However, due to how the political climate is changing, I am considering submitting an op-ed for why women who feel disenfranchised by both parties should be voting green instead of opting out of the process. I am dismayed that the McKinney/Clemente ticket is not getting more time in the news.

And, what bothers me the most, is how the election news cycle is being framed in this election. I read pages and pages of opinion and analysis, and watch hours and hours of punditry and I am still not hearing the questions that are knocking around my mind.

“Drill, baby, drill!” But how is that going to help Americans now, when we will not reap the benefits for seventeen years? Why are we trying to wean ourselves off a dependency to foreign oil, just to create a new dependency on a stateside finite resource?

“Barack Obama wants to raise taxes!” But how else are we going to pay for the War? (You know, the War they keep cutting out of the budget estimates because it throws the budget off?) Someone has to pay the piper, and I haven’t seen anyone collecting tin cans or growing a victory garden in my neighborhood. And who – on either side of the aisle – has a plan for the budget? And where the fuck is the accountability for all of these punk ass contractors that are wasting billions of dollars for services that they may or may not be providing? (KBR, I’m looking at you. And you aren’t the only one.)

“Sarah Palin’s baby has a baby!” And? Where the hell are the plans for working mothers? What happened to all the discussions on poverty? Where is the townhall on how relying on the “market*” isn’t producing the jobs America needs? What about corporate accountability as well as individual accountability? And what the hell happened to the discussions on Social Security? Did we decide that program is FUBAR? Because if so, I would love to see y’all stop taking that out of my check.

[Oh, surprise! I’m a fiscal conservative. I’ve also lived in the ‘burbs of Washington my whole life and I currently work in a bureaucratic position designed to prevent reckless spending. We have more than enough money to pay for social programs, and we don’t even need to raise taxes. But that’s another post, for another day.]

I feel like there are a lot of comments that need to be made, and conversations that just aren’t happening. So this thread is for that. Feel free to argue/vent/scream/nitpick as you will. Over at Racialicious, we are discussing the RNC and the GOP at large. Here, I would love to hear just about anything. Party politics or social justice, have at it!

*Don’t quibble over the definition of the market here, I have a post coming out about capitalism, where we can yell about the market all we want to.

39 thoughts on Open Thread: Politics, In General

  1. I’m mostly encouraging anyone in a safely Democratic state to vote McKinney/Clemente.

    I don’t understand why you are upset it isn’t getting news coverage though. It’s a third-party ticket in a two-party system and isn’t polling high enough to look like it will affect anything when such a major two-party storyline is going on.

    What budget questions are not being answered? (Not in the news, of course the news doesn’t discuss details, they suck at it. Have you looked at the candidates websites and such?)

    Social Security, not under attack right now, therefore not news.

  3. @LC –

    The Green Party should be getting news coverage, in a news cycle where gender and race themes are usurping coverage of issues, and you have a third party who centered both gender and race in their package. At the very least, I would expect to see McKinney & Clemente at least referenced in pundit roundtables and on the Sunday Morning set.

    Why would you assume I haven’t looked at the websites? What’s on their sites is a rough sketch – the details come out in speeches, discussions, debates, and historical analysis of actions. None of which is happening. And there aren’t any budget questions being answered because most of the questions being put forth are not about the budget. Though, it should be.

    Social security isn’t under attack, but it isn’t sustainable and that should be a major point in campaigning. John McCain did make some references to Social Security early on in campaigning but abandoned that tactic – so now, the issue is off the table, just like poverty dropped off when John Edwards withdrew from the race.

  4. It is almost official that Canada will be having a federal election in mid-October (our elections are short). I am in a particularly environmentally conscious city in Canada so I will be voting Green. The last survey found Greens have 25% of support and 16% of voters are undecided (compared to 10% support overall in Canada). I think more than ever we are getting tired of the two main parties. They are tied with only about 33% support each. Maybe if more people voted for other parties the main parties would stop assuming one of them will gain power and start trying to meet the needs of the 40% of people who aren’t voting for the two main parties. The Green party is not allowed in the debate even though 82% of people think they should be. What frustrates me is our democratic system that gives the Green Party no power unless they win the most votes in an area. What proper democratic system gives a party with 10% support no power?

  5. I’d love to vote for the Green ticket, but I’m in MO and I feel compelled to do what little I can to edge out the Republicans.

    I voted for Nader in 2000 while living in FL and have never fully recovered from that trauma.

  6. I looked at McKinney/Clement platform because I’m not thrilled about voting democrat this election, but I feel seriously disquieted that there isn’t really a position articulated for LGBT issues. Obama’s not great on that score either, but that should be practically a tee-ball for the Green party in which politicians should have more freedom to say what they really mean, which leads me to believe they don’t really care much one way or the other.

    Plus I live in Israel, so while I agree that Israel interests are a too defining for America’s politics I also can’t get behind outright hostility.

  7. @Scorpia – I feel you.

    @Natalie – Great points. I have seen those conversations pop up around the Greens while I’ve been doing my research. (I should note that a lot of what I read in connection to the green party comes with trying to build a sustainable hip-hop platform for action, and turning social justice issues into campaign talking points.)

    I still feel that it is more beneficial to help the greens as a long term strategy – the introduction of a viable (if small) third party could affect a lot of change of the local level and change the direction of the national conversation, as well as make it harder to lapse into binary thinking around issues.

    But, you are correct in wondering why the Greens dropped the obvious “tee-ball.” I wonder how that came about. And I hear you on the hostility to Israel piece as well.

    @Lyndsay – Yeah, I also hate that line of thinking. “They are never going to win anyway, so why vote for them?” Yet, if you don’t vote for them, they won’t win. I think the crux of my op-ed is based in hearing so many women feel as though there is no point in voting in November and that their voices won’t be heard. So if you were planning to stay home anyway, you may as well take your vote and do something that could create more options and help shift the conversations in the future. (Still trying to figure out if Palin throws a wrench in my theory or not…)

  8. “I am dismayed that the McKinney/Clemente ticket is not getting more time in the news.”

    YES.

    Not only have they been ignored by the news, but they’ve been ignored by more liberal groups as well — BFP has an older post up about their omission from antiwar.com:
    http://brownfemipower.com/archives/2851

    And while I haven’t been keeping up regularly on the news, the times I’ve heard mention of third party candidates, they’re about folks like Barr and Nader and completely omit McKinney, like this article from USA today:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-06-thirdparty_N.htm

    In fact, I’ve heard almost nothing about the Green party at all this cycle. And I would bet that the gender and race issues of this election season are a part of the reason for that. Maybe that’s a cynical view, but I can’t help but think it’s something along the lines of, “Why should we need the perspectives of these two obscure third-party WOC on race when we have Obama, or on gender when we have Hillary (or Palin)?” The media can gobble up the major party candidates on that stuff and ignore McKinney/Clemente.

  9. @LaToya: You are giving the media far too much credit. Gender and race issues only matter insomuch as they affect the Washington cocktail circuit. The Green party doesn’t, therefore they don’t need to be talked about.

    Websites: Mea culpa. I have seen lots of people complain of no detail without even having checked out the sites for that first level of sketchy detail, the question was not asked maliciously, but I *did* leap to an assumption. If we are lucky, someone will bring up budget, but since the MSM (and the Republicans) want to make this a vote about personality, I doubt it will happen. I agree it should be.

    Why do you think Social Security is unsustainable?

  10. Excellent points — the absence of blueprints from either side is troubling, re budget and how to pay for the wish lists. I mean, I could articulate a pretty decent wish list as well, but without a “how to” it’s pretty blue sky.

    I’ve read up on McKinney/Clemente with interest, and despite the realities of the 2-major-party system, it would be nice to hear more analysis in the MSM, beyond the occasional post on niche websites. She is a real maverick, going against party forces like Pelosi and Gore. I wish she’d stood up harder against her dad’s statements about Jews, but I don’t think those reflect her views.

    Kudos for coming out of the financial conservativism closet! You’re in good company, or I guess since part of that company is me, I should say you are in evil, corrupt company.

    Interesting teaser about upcoming posts! I can’t wait.

    And

  11. @Ico, I agree.

    @Lyndsey. I am a little shocked that the Greens can’t even get onto the debate. I remember the good old days when you had 5 parties debating. Since moving, I haven’t followed closely enough. I thought the threshold for national party status was something like 5% in the last election or some such? Have they changed that? I have trouble accepting NO threshold for debates, or everyone who felt like randomly making up a party that day could demand debate status and the debates would be even more of a joke than they are now, but the threshold should be fairly low.

    @Lyndsey: I agree with you completely that if you were thinking of staying home, voting for a third-party candidate is a far more effective strategy. Anything that gives more clout to outside viewpoints is a good thing. Of course, I desperately what election reform and the elimination of first-past-the-post voting, so I’m a dreamer.

  12. However strongly I feel about the green issues, I still think a vote for the Green party is like an approval stamp for four more years of anti-green agenda in the White House (republicans).

    We have to be practical with this election. A vote for the green ticket is like a vote for Ralph Nader in 2000. And how nicely that turned out in the end?

    Obama’s green goals are these: 1) Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. 2) Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

    In a give-and-take world, you have to go with the best offer at the table, not live in what-could-be land. Beyond green issues, I personally feel the anti-choice agenda of the republicans is just disgusting relic of the old world. Just my 2 cents.

  13. Nicole: I agree that in a first-past-the-post system, a vote that increases the Republican’s chances of winning is a bad choice. This is why I (and others) advocate voting green in places where the outcome is not in doubt. Anywhere safely Dem or Repub is a good place to vote Green, because you can increase their national presence without risking handing over the election in a close race. Anywhere it is close, I advocate voting Dem.

  14. I totally sympathize with the urge to vote Green in “safe” states. I’m feeling the itch myself. But after what we saw happen in 2000 and 2004 and after all I have learned about election fraud and what the Republicans are capable of I would never, ever help them out by NOT voting Dem. And I live in Massachusetts, where you think it’d be safe to do so! I want to see Obama win with the biggest, baddest popular vote mandate in the history of this country. Just my 2 cents.

  15. I’d question whether Social Security is unsustainable. I’ve heard that repeated a lot, but it basically started as a Republican talking point in their efforts to privatize social security, which would be a disaster. I believe a very slight increase in taxes could cover the gaps. And the increase would be worth it, given the huge social costs (especially to women!) of pulling the rug out from our elders, our sick, and our disabled.

    My dad died recently, and the payments of ss are allowing my sister to pay for her first year of college. That means my mom will be able to retire at some point, instead of indefinitely working the 12 hour days that are killing her. There are a lot of people who need ss more than we do, but it is making all the difference to my family. It’s a really important program for a lot of people.

  16. I’ve pretty much decided that I’m not going to endorse anyone, or talk about how I plan to vote in November for two reasons:

    First. My vote is not any of your fucking business. I step into a booth and pull some levers, punch some chads, press a screen, or make a mark on a screen. That is an anonymous and private decision, and I hate the way in which the left has turned claimed votes into something of a litmus test.

    Second. In the hours of news coverage and more than $350 million dollars spent on the Democratic candidate, the fact that we have the opportunity to win a gay right trifecta at the ballot box in three states gets lost. None of the presidential campaigns are going to be harmed if I give those issues some attention.

  17. @Ashley/LC –

    I am at work now, and I don’t really have time to pull some numbers. I’ll check back into this thread later tonight and will try to post some. But SS as it stands is unsustainable, and here’s the quick why:

    1. Ashley, what you said here:

    My dad died recently, and the payments of ss are allowing my sister to pay for her first year of college. That means my mom will be able to retire at some point, instead of indefinitely working the 12 hour days that are killing her. There are a lot of people who need ss more than we do, but it is making all the difference to my family. It’s a really important program for a lot of people.

    Is important because it underscores one of the issues with SS, in that it is made to benefit a two person, wedded household. Households with a single earner who draws SS, particularly an earner who never wed, nor has a pension, tend to fall below the poverty line if SS is their sole source of income. It has not kept pace with certain societal changes (trending away from marriage, loss of pensions through the private sector – and reorganization in the public sector – as well as inflation and cost of assisted living.) Other support programs are there to pull up the slack, but those are dramatically underfunded as well.

    Now, I see that you both might have gotten the impression from my comments that I meant to do away with the program entirely, and that was not my intention. If they (Repubs and private interests) have determined that SS is FUBAR and that we need to trend toward privatization, I highly disagree with that plan of attack, and would love them to take their hands out of my pockets in the meantime. I do not think tax incentives or mandatory savings plans are going to be able to put a dent in the amount of need that will occur over the next 10 – 15 years.

    This would not be as large of a problem if we didn’t exacerbate an already shaky financial outlook with war debt. But we did, and are continuing to do so. That also factors into the sustainability argument. I’ve been hearing some interesting ideas positioned about how to overcome this issue (most notably, taking a page from other nations in terms of creating more access to medicine and elder care) but nothing from the people who are in position to fix.

    Okay, long nutshell, but I’ll get back to that later. [I first became aware of this issue through seniors who patronize my local library system, and would talk at length about their problems. My understanding of the issues involved is heavily influenced by my region, so keep that in mind as well.]

    @Nicole –

    I understand you, but the people I am trying to reach are the people who wouldn’t cast ballots anyway, and for some reason are turned off by both major party selections. If they aren’t planning to cast, I’d rather lobby them to apply their vote to another cause. If people are on the fence, I tend to call up the differences between the two candidates.

    @Octo –

    Yeah, I tend to think I am just Washington jaded, but I look at the platforms as a big ass wishlist. Most of the real work is done through appointees anyway, so they are the people to watch out for.

  18. I totally sympathize with the urge to vote Green in “safe” states. I’m feeling the itch myself. But after what we saw happen in 2000 and 2004 and after all I have learned about election fraud and what the Republicans are capable of I would never, ever help them out by NOT voting Dem.

    I think the corruption by the Republicans in these states was what made me even want to vote Green even more and not because of them. Because the Democratic Party rolled over and didn’t fight hard for the fundamental rights of the voters in those states. I’ll never forget the Congress members who went to the Senate to contest the certification of the 2000 election and all they needed was one friggin’ Democrat to support them. One. Did they get that? No, not even from the more “liberal” members including some I love. People were getting arrested and threatened with arrest. Carpools got stopped at checkpoints and cited for not having limosine or taxiing licenses.

    If the Democratic Party stands for anything, it should stand for the right to vote. But the times it caved selling out mostly men and women of color of course was the say I couldn’t tell it apart from the Republicans b/c essentially what they did was prop up an illegitimate Republican regime.

    I agree that people’s votes are private and I’m not always eager to say I’m third party especially around liberals but the right to vote is something that should be fought for, much harder than it was in actuality.

  19. @ LC Since you asked I googled “canada election debate green party” and found an article titled “Greens threaten legal action to join election debate”. Also, in 2003 the Supreme Court striked a requirement that “had previously required a political party to nominate 50 candidates before receiving certain benefits.” Apparently television networks decide who participate in the debates. I think the excuse was that they had no member in the House of Commons but now an Independent has joined the Green Party so they do. Oh, and “The Conservatives have made it clear that May won’t have a voice in the debates if it’s up them.” What? If this happens, I will wonder further about our “democracy”. Millions are considering the Green Party.

  20. Latoya:
    You mention hoping for a “viable (if small) third party,” but that’s simply not feasible under a plurality-vote system. Political scientists call it Duverger’s Law for good reason – it’s largely impossible for a plurality-vote system to create any more than two parties.

    If you want to see more diversity of political opinion represented in elections, increasing the likelihood of Republicans winning by voting third-party (or not voting, for that matter) seems to be a sub-optimal strategy. Working to change the way we vote would be more effective at generating more diversity of views on the ballot, and wouldn’t have the downside of making it more likely that conservatives will win elections.

    With that said, if the choice is between not voting and voting third party, third party is certainly the better option. But to get more voices on the ballot, the solution has to be to change the way the ballot is constructed.

  21. 1) In the US, voters who voted outside the realm of Dem-Rep eight years ago were blamed for how close the votes were (remember the Florida re-count?), and ultimately – albeit indirectly – brought Dubya to the White House. It’s irresponsible, given your election system, to do otherwise.

    2) In Canada, I do vote Green. We have more political parties to choose from (and funnily enough, our elections aren’t international news for OVER A YEAR). Also, smaller party candidates receive a certain amount of funding for every ballot cast in their favour – you may want to check up on that, but in the last election, the Green candidate I spoke to told me that voting Green wouldn’t be a “waste” because of that extra $2.

  22. I’m voting Third Party.

    But I often worry if a Third Party President took office–I’m speaking hypothetically, of course–would it create a legislative gridlock? Could ANYTHING useful get done? After all, we’d still have that corrupt circus called Congress to deal with…

  23. To throw in with the Canadians on here, I still haven’t decided who I’m going to vote for, and in fact I’m exploring running for the Greens (if they just need a name to put on the ballot). The MP in my riding is very popular, has been elected under the banner of three different political parties, and I doubt he’s in much danger. I’m not particularly impressed with the NDP right now (other than loving a few local MPs and MLAs), so I’m quite likely to vote Green. Canada’s party system is rally starting to show its dysfunction, and I think the best thing that could happen is for the major parties to get reshuffled to three parties with triangulated (instead of linear on a spectrum) ideology.

    Also, the only party leader (Elizabeth May notwithstanding) that Ive been consistently impressed with is Gilles Duceppe. If the Bloc Quebecois ran in BC, I might vote for them.

  24. I vote Green at the local level. But at this point, throwing my vote to a Green Party candidate at the National level would be irresponsible. Anyone who votes for a Green candidate might as well vote for McCain.

  25. Ah, that clarifies. I did think you were calling for dismantling social security altogether. I’m all for reforms that help more people.

    I think in the political context where (at least in mainstream politics) anytime a useful but improvable social program gets criticized it’s because someone wants to do away with it and let us eat cake, I’m a bit paranoid.

  26. Anyone who votes for a Green candidate might as well vote for McCain.

    *Yaaaaawn*
    It’s comments like this that make me want more than ever to vote for McKinney.

  28. Ico, you took the yawn right out of my mouth! If you’re so concerned about those errant third-party voters really voting for McCain, you should be at least as concern about feminists who are talking about voting for him b/c they didn’t get the nominee they wanted. I ran into several of those today unfortunately.

  29. Oops, Ico, you took my yawn. But Politican Guinea Pig is the one who should be equally concerned with feminists for McCain. Sorry about that.

  30. I welcome more information on McKinsey and Clemente! Although I will probably vote for Obama despite living in a safely blue area (I like winning), I’m very interested in information on McKinsey, Clemente, the Green party, and on third parties in general. I used to feel that voting for the third party candidate was throwing your vote away- but in my parent’s state’s last election, they voted Green because a certain number of votes would help the Green party get on the ballot next year. I don’t think it matters that a strong third party would be nearly impossible, if not actually impossible, under our current system, I think the participation of third party deserves more attention and respect.

    Especially since the recent mess with Texas- only Bob Barr was on the ballot because neither the Dems nor the Reps submitted their application to get on the ballot in time, and the state of Texas just decides to let them on anyway??? It is absolutely not acceptable for the two party system to dominate political life so completely that the law no longer applies to them. When the institution does not fear for its life, it’s not going to be receptive to change from within or outside. Why would rank and file Democrats look at Nadar’s role in the election and conclude that they should shame anyone considering a third-party candidate instead of looking at their own policies and asking how they can attract some of those third party voters? I don’t get it.

  31. It’s comments like this that make me want more than ever to vote for McKinney.

    Anyone who bases their vote on a fit of pique over something someone said on a blog instead of what’s going to create the best outcome for the country really needs to reevaluate their priorities.

  32. Why would rank and file Democrats look at Nadar’s role in the election and conclude that they should shame anyone considering a third-party candidate instead of looking at their own policies and asking how they can attract some of those third party voters? I don’t get it.

    Because, sadly, the system we have right now makes 3rd parties a largely Pyhrric situation. The two major parties in this country are both essentially populist parties with very slight ideological leanings; both contain extreme and radical members, but the Dems and the GOP pretty much spend most of their time seeking the votes of people in the middle 68.2% of the population. People who fall a little farther from that middle chunk end up being the base, and people who are a bit further out than them from the mainstream end up voting 3rd party.

    It isn’t an accident that most third parties in this country are either very extreme or single issue parties. They’re formed by the handful of people who are so disgusted with the mainstream pandering of the big two that they strike out on their own. The Greens started out as basically a one issue party and have now become a broadly progressive party, the Constitution party is pretty much the party of the Rapture, the Libertarians are minarchists, but what they all have in common is that their views sound a little crazy to the people in the middle and their actions seem treasonous to the party elites.

    A lot of Democrats have disdain for people thinking about voting Green for the same reason that a lot of Republicans hate the Ron Paul people: they see the primary purpose of elections not as being a forum for the voice of the people but as a means of deciding who’s voices will be heard. People who say a green vote is a vote for McCain (or Bush) could very well be identifying a likely outcome, but what they fail to see is exactly what you’re failing to see in them: that some people might not hold the same basic assumptions of what the purposes of political engagement are

  33. William, I get that third parties do not win large-scale elections, that it’s difficult for them to win elections on the small local scale, that the votes of undecideds and people in the ‘middle’ are sought after by the major parties, and that people who look at third party voters and decry them as being for the “enemy” are thinking in terms of what the outcome of the election is (ie, whose voices will direct the government). These things are obvious, and I suspect most people who consider voting third party understand these things.

    What I do not understand is why so many bright, politically-active people think the problem is with third party voters. With the presidential campaigns, the major parties can count on at least some third party members voting for their candidates for whatever reason. (They really like that candidate, they don’t like the other major party candidate, the list goes on.) When the major party starts losing votes to the third party, the major party is the one with the problem. They need to woo their base back, or they won’t be able to win with just “the base plus some” because the base just shrunk. It doesn’t pay in that situation to act like you can make up the difference with the political center, because you’re competing with the other party and it’ll be too difficult. But nobody’s going after those third party voters.

    So it doesn’t make any freaking sense for voters who sincerely want their major party to win to complain and treat third party voters like they should just suck it up and deal or else they’ve as good as voted for McCain. It’s not the fault of the third party voter, but the fault of the major party for not giving the third party voter a good policy reason to stick around.

  34. Anyone who bases their vote on a fit of pique over something someone said on a blog instead of what’s going to create the best outcome for the country really needs to reevaluate their priorities.

    Oh Puh-leeeeze. Nowhere did I say that I based my vote on one idiot comment. Only that it reinforces my decision with a certain degree of emotional satisfaction, which your comment has doubled.

    I mean honestly, do you think insulting people who refuse to march in lockstep is a good strategy? Are all unity-criers this tactless? It boggles the mind.

  35. So it doesn’t make any freaking sense for voters who sincerely want their major party to win to complain and treat third party voters like they should just suck it up and deal or else they’ve as good as voted for McCain. It’s not the fault of the third party voter, but the fault of the major party for not giving the third party voter a good policy reason to stick around.

    Oh, I certainly agree that its the fault of the party and not the third party voter. I also agree that attacking third party voters is illogical and divisive. I think a lot of the problem is that logic doesn’t always factor into human decision making processes as we would like to believe it does. Politics is about big, important, sometimes literally life-or-death issues and people get passionate. I’ve noticed that the people most likely to say “A vote for third party X is a vote for opposition party Y” are the people who get sucked into the us vs. them mentality fostered by the two party system. To that mindset, of course a third party voter should suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils. They’ve already sucked it up on a variety of issues, they’ve already invested so much into their choice, and they’re so terrified of the immediate threat of losing that they see any deviation as being either stupid or disloyal. It doesn’t make sense, but then again human motivation rarely does.

    The reality is that voting is kind of a ridiculous idea anyway. The impact of any one person’s vote is so dilute that it rarely makes a difference because of the sheer number of votes cast and the electoral college discouraging outliers, and on the rare occasions when a few hundred (or thousand) votes might make a difference the result goes to court because counting votes is imprecise and corruption universal. Even if you can get past the fact that individual votes are unlikely to get through the noise, the people you’re voting for aren’t that different. Obama and McCain (or really any two major party candidates for any elected office) agree on far more things than they disagree on. They agree on the basic tenets of government and social interaction that many third party voters reject, they agree on the status quo because they’re generally people who’ve done well under it, they agree about social order and cohesion, they agree about the big issues that most people with social influence or power agree about (for better or worse). If, by some chance, you manage to suspend your disbelief long enough to get through the issues of noise and similarity, you run into the fact that our government is designed to be conservative. A president can be overridden by congress (stacked with hundreds of people who went through the same vetting process as presidents do to ensure their loyalty to the status quo) or by the courts (staffed by their rivals over the course of generations).

    Saying a vote for a third party is a vote for the other guy, under the above conditions, seems to be missing the point of why third party voters cast their votes in the first place.

  37. I remember Cynthia McKinney when she was representing my district in Ga, and I’m pleased and proud to have the option of voting for her this November. I’m wavering, just yet, but William hit the nail on the head as far as our system perpetuating the status quo.

    I might like to shake things up a bit. Though I haven’t voted for a winner since the first time I voted (’96).

  38. Saying a vote for a third party is a vote for the other guy, under the above conditions, seems to be missing the point of why third party voters cast their votes in the first place.

    Yes. If you vote to make a “statement” about how you view the world, it makes all the sense in the world to vote third party.

    If you vote based on what the concrete, measurable impacts of one of the two possible winners taking the election will be, voting third party is dumb as a box of rocks in a close election.

    I’ll vote third party if an election isn’t close at all, and if that third party has a clear strategy for winning their goals. I think building viable third parties is very important for America, and we should work for instant runoff voting to make more viable parties possible. If a third party isn’t spending the majority of their time working toward instant runoff voting, I tend to think they’re full of crap.

    To get specific. In this presidential election, if McCain wins, I know that more people will die than if Obama wins. The dead people will generally be the most oppressed people. Very poor people, people in colonized nations, etc. So, probably not me.

    So, since those people aren’t me, I could choose to ignore them and make my vote a statement.

    Or, I could recognize that people’s lives are more important than a hissy fit about my political ideals.

    If I want to make a statement, I’ll write a book or create a piece of art. That’s not what voting is for.

  39. Oh Puh-leeeeze. Nowhere did I say that I based my vote on one idiot comment. Only that it reinforces my decision with a certain degree of emotional satisfaction, which your comment has doubled.

    I mean honestly, do you think insulting people who refuse to march in lockstep is a good strategy? Are all unity-criers this tactless? It boggles the mind.

    Saying a vote for a third party is a vote for the other guy, under the above conditions, seems to be missing the point of why third party voters cast their votes in the first place.

    Good comments and thanks for bringing up the “us vs them” dynamic or the “you’re for us or you’re against us” which pervades these kind of remarks. THAT is more responsible for being ONE of many, many, many reasons I vote third part and to have it written off as responding to a blog posting is just dismissiveness and paternalism which is symptomatic of that mentality.

    Really, it’s disappointing to hear this mentality from so-called progressives and feminists. Because the place I usually hear it the most is from cops.

Comments are currently closed.