>>> Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad at gte.net> 05/04/99 10:40AM >>>
Instead, we ought to be focusing on the history of democratizing social
movements, and ask what kinds of political structures would be more
favorable to them. Proportional Representation in legislative elections
is clearly one that would, as is the use of the single tansitive vote
(STV) in elections for executive offices. This combination would
facilitate third party formation, and provide a foundation for party
expansion and coalition governance, so that people would not face the
dilemma of fearing they are "throwing their vote away". This in turn
would put further pressure on the Dems not to drift ever farther to the
right.
So long as we retain our current electoral system, there are fierce obstacles to consolidation of left electoral power which will always constitute an enormous drain on our energies, even when we do manage to acheive scattered success. Neither strategy -- forming a third party or building a progressive force within the Democratic Party -- can succede so long as the electoral structure remains as it is, a choke-point to strangle the energies of movements from below.
(((((((((((((((((((
Chas.: This is not meant to criticize the whole analysis of Paul Rosenberg's post here. But there is something of a double bind here because to institute proportional representation, which would require constitutional amendments, state and federal, would require winning 2/3 and 3/4 's majorities among the currently elected Dems and Reps. They ain't stupid when it comes to defending their political advantages. They don't want to promote third parties. For example, they currently severely limit third party ballot access. In other words, the precondition for executing this plan would be to win the majority of Dems and Reps to undermining their own parties.
I say this , but I can't fulfill my obligation to propose an alternative plan to Paul's.
Charles Brown