----- Original Message ----- From: <portsideMod at netscape.net>
Election Crisis and Electoral Reform
* Leon Wofsy - Greens, Dems and Electoral Reform * Center for Voting and Democracy - VOTING SYSTEMS STUDY * David McReynolds - reflections on the election mess
===================== [Hi, This Op-Ed piece was sent to the SF Chronicle yesterday [Nov. 16] and was rejected on the same day. Left progressives who voted for Gore or for Nader are still bashing each other. Maybe it's time to put down the brick- bats and talk with each other about the problems ahead. Best, Leon Wofsy]
GREENS, DEMS AND ELECTORAL REFORM
Election 2000 saw Greens and progressive Dems at each other's throats, but its bizarre outcome should lead them to bury the hatchet. This crazy election makes a most powerful case for electoral reform. That might just provide common ground where mortal combat gives way to a truce on the political left.
Of many questions about electoral reform, from chad- counting to debate over the Electoral College, two are absolutely fundamental to democracy. One is freeing campaigns from domination by big money; enacting McCain- Feingold legislation would be a start. The other is opening the electoral system to more voices and making every vote count. Right now candidates picked by Republican governors or the right-leaning Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) command the only votes that count (and the only voices heard in presidential debates). It was the two party lock on electoral politics that forced Greens and progressive Dems to behave as enemies despite many shared aims, and that made both fall short of their goals on November 7th. The system operates to squeeze voters into a "lesser evil" choice. If you dare to vote for "other", you pay a heavy price -- your vote helps the candidate you favor least. What's more, you suffer abuse as a "spoiler", even from people who may agree that the person you voted for is actually best. Though many voters may be dissatisfied with both major presidential candidates, and about 50% choose not to vote at all, the system effectively squelches alternative candidates or parties.
Are there reforms that could broaden choice and make every vote count? One such proposition is called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), a system used in Ireland, England and Australia. It could be enacted by states without any constitutional change. With IRV, the voter could designate a second choice. It would kick in if no candidate won a majority and if the voter's first choice was out of the running. Despite the closeness of Election 2000, the results show that a majority did not want George W. Bush in the White House. It is likely that many voters who preferred Nader cast "lesser evil" votes for Gore. Still, the small Nader vote in Florida was much larger than the margin that separated Bush and Gore. With IRV the will of the majority would have prevailed without chad disputes and court battles.
There is something very wrong with a system that can't tolerate a 1.6% vote for Nader in Florida without nullifying the will of the majority in selecting our President. For Democrats to berate Nader and his supporters for daring to pursue their anti-corporate message and hopes for a viable third party makes a travesty of democracy. It is just as myopic as Nader's reluctance to acknowledge significant distinctions between the major parties. It's the exclusionary electoral system that's at fault and that's what needs reforming.
IRV is only one of many possible ways to open the electoral system to more voter power. Harvard Law Professor Lani Guineer has written pioneering articles on altering our winner-take-all system to make room for minority input. The road to electoral reform is hard, shown by fierce opposition to McCain-Feingold. For those who seek a strong third party, the road is even harder. That goal may be possible only if joined to cooperative efforts to make election practices more democratic. That holds too for progressive Democrats who may hope to rescue their Party from stifling control of the DLC and corporate lobbyists.
I woke from Election 2000 with a dream: a coalition of all progressives -- Democrat, Green, or neither -- to push democratic electoral reform state by state. Why not California first for Instant Voter Runoff? We're famous for propositions other states follow for better or worse. It might take multiple tries and lots of dialogue, but Californians could put IRV in the nation's electoral sights.
Leon Wofsy
11/16/00 ===================================
What's Next?
Democratize our electoral system through Proportional Representation, Instant Runoff Voting and other reforms.
Join the VOTING SYSTEMS STUDY now being conducted by the League of Women Voters (men welcome, too)
contact: Center for Voting and Democracy www.fairvote.org
subscribe to: Ballot Access News www.ballot-access.org
====================================
Thu Nov 16, reflections on the election mess
THE ELECTORAL STALEMATE: NOT THE END OF THE WORLD
This was a fight out of which I thought I would stay. But watching the flow of impassioned emails crossing my modem, maybe it would be worth weighing in. I have a small supply of pomposity left over from my recent campaign - let me put it to use.
First, this election is the most remarkable I've ever seen. I'm old enough to remember the 1948 election when, as a 17 year old youth, I was working in Finney County Kansas, organizing for the Prohibition Party. It took me days to recover from the impossibility of Trumans' victory. (There was a lesson buried in that election, which Al Gore remembered - fight until the last instant. Bush's handlers are angry that, unlike Gore, Bush rested on his laurels, coasting to what he thought would be a clear victory).
Yes, we are all caught up in something historic and of course we want to talk about it. But a good deal of what I've read is irrelevant There was no conspiracy in the Florida voting - if anything Bush was hurt by the early call, giving the State to Gore - it demoralized his own voters in the far West. Those in charge of the now infamous ballots in Palm Beach (where Mary Cal Hollis and I - and the Socialist Party - have gotten more media coverage after the campaign was over than at any time during it!) were Democrats, not Bushites. They were trying to simplify things and failed.
Second, the media is in deep shit. To call a state wrong twice in the same night, and then to award the Presidency before all the votes had been counted - it will be many years before the media or the pollsters will be trusted again. The media should not "call" an election. Express an opinion, sure. But "call a state", let alone an election, is something they will want to stay away from. Far away. Never have so many talking heads been so covered, head to toe, in egg.
Third, there is no constitutional crisis. We don't have a conflict between a party of the far right and the far left - even though many of the folks whose posts I've read are treating it this way. There were no major divisions during the election.
Let's assume Gore wins (I won't deny I'm uneasy about George W. sitting in the Oval Office - he is not a moron, but he is incredibly ill-cast for the office of President). Executions will still go on throughout the nation. Many thousands of children and the elderly will continue to die in Iraq because of our sanctions. The economic situation in Cuba will remain serious because of the sanctions there. Military spending will increase. If Gore wins, we are more likely to have an interventionist foreign policy than if George W. wins. (The daily death toll in the Occupied Territories of Palestine will be more likely to rise with Gore - since the Democrats are more deeply indebted to the Jewish vote than the GOP).
Let's look back to 1952, when many on the Left felt that if Eisenhower was elected we would have a quasi-military dictatorship, a terrible supreme court, and the triumph of McCarthyism. In fact, Eisenhower ended the Korean War, pulled the rug from under McCarthy, and appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice.
With the exception of Bush and Reagan, both of them bloody minded in their foreign policies, the Democrats have historically been more likely to send our youth to war. (Have we forgotten Vietnam? Kennedy and Johnson?). The much hated Nixon presided over the end of the Vietnam War, he didn't start it. (And on the domestic front, Nixon was to the left of Bill Clinton).
Regardless of who finally wins this weird contest, they will have little power. The media has been telling us how effectively Kennedy governed despite his narrow (and possibly illegitimate) victory. But he DIDN'T govern effectively. He was a weak president who left the CIA and the FBI untouched, who authorized the Bay of Pigs, set us on the path to intervention in Vietnam - with bi-partisan support. Only his murder has caused his history to be re-written.
At this point it honestly doesn't matter who wins. If Bush wins, he won't dare submit bad supreme court nominations - the Senate won't confirm. (Remember Nixon lost two fights over weak nominations). There will be so much anger about whoever wins, that there will be a sense of illegitimate rule. Congress will either find a way to get along, or we will have a stalemate. But it is certain Bush can't ram things through - nor, if he wins, could Gore.
If we are radicals, and this writer is, then it is fun to watch the fuss, but we don't have much stake in it and should not spend too much time on it. Nothing much will change. The political framework is too evenly balanced. Yes, if Gore had won a clear victory, things might have been better for labor and minority groups. (But then again, look at Clinton's record on welfare reform). The left is behaving as if Al Gore was really their candidate - he wasn't. If the Left had a candidate it was Ralph Nader, who is currently "everyone's favorite enemy" for costing poor Al Gore the election.
A more careful observation suggests that Nader might have pushed the political framework a tiny bit to the Left. Yes, I know that organized labor had a stake in Gore's victory - and I do understand angry Democrats who say that "voting one's conscience is fine if you are white and middle class - but what about working folks?". This suggests a couple of things the Left should be careful to avoid. One is the assumption working folks and communities of color don't have a conscience, only economic interests. That sells them short. In the long run do American workers want to increase their share of the pie if it means more dead kids in Baghdad? Do they want to turn away from the murderous military actions of the Barak government?
In any case all of this is moot. The fury of Florida, the butterfly ballots of Palm Beach, the battalions of lawyers being air dropped into Miami by both parties - all are fun to watch but anyone who thinks this will make much difference in how the country is run has a different view of reality than I do. (Yes, if Bush had won an overwhelming vote, then his hidden right wing agenda would have gone public, but he didn't, and it can't. And yes, if Al Gore had won a resounding victory we might have somewhat better judges appointed. But he didn't. What we have is a standoff and to our immediate interests, moral or economic, the results aren't that important.
What will happen is that the key forces behind the scenes will compel a fairly early end of this mess. It isn't good for the stock market. It isn't good for the US image abroad. My hunch is that since November 8th some phone lines of people whose names we barely know have been humming with working out the agreement they will then impose on both Bush and Gore.
We are better advised to find ways of bringing pressure to bear on whoever becomes president on issues ranging from Star Wars to the Middle East, from the drug wars to capital punishment, from decent health care to a rising minimum wage - all things where we found ourselves, all during the campaign, in opposition to BOTH "major" parties.
David McReynolds Socialist Party candidate for President - who has conceded and is not demanding a recount / web site: www.votesocialist.org
==============================
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/2/_/245053/_/974611927/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Post message : portside at egroups.com Subscribe : portside-subscribe at egroups.com Unsubscribe : portside-unsubscribe at egroups.com List owner : portside-owner at egroups.com Web address : http://www.egroups.com/group/portside Digest mode : visit Web site