>>The San Francisco mayoral election is hardly the biggest or most
>>significant mayoral election in the nation. As a matter of fact,
>>the Democratic Party establishment did more to defeat Green Matt
>>Gonzalez than Republican candidates in most elections for
>>governors, congressional representatives, etc.
>
>If I lived in SF, I'd probably have voted for Gonzalez. There was
>little to lose and something to gain. But there's no analogy between
>that and the U.S. presidential election, where there's something to
>lose (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) and little to gain.
The Democratic Party leaders could have contacted the Green Party leaders and made an offer in 2000, or at least _before_ the July 2003 national meeting of the Green Party (see below): "If the Green Party does not run a presidential candidate and refuses to endorse another Ralph Nader candidacy in 2004, we will help ease ballot access and implement other electoral reforms like Instant Runoff Voting, and we will not run Democratic candidates in non-presidential elections where viable Green candidates are running and we don't have strong candidates anyway." Such an offer would have alleviated the "practical concerns" mentioned below:
***** Greens Want Candidate in 2004 At Party Meeting, Most Rule Out Supporting a Democrat
By Brian Faler Special to The Washington Post Monday, July 21, 2003; Page A04
The Green Party emerged from a national meeting over the weekend increasingly certain that it will run a presidential candidate in next year's election, all but settling a debate within the group over how it should approach the 2004 contest.
. . . But participants said the discussions came to at least a symbolic close when they were asked to stand in different parts of the room depending on how they felt about the presidential race.
Those who wanted a presidential candidate who would run the strongest possible campaign were asked to stand in one area. Those who wanted someone who would run only in areas where electoral votes would not be pulled from the Democratic presidential candidate stood in another. Those who wanted to skip the race altogether and, instead, support the Democratic candidate stood in yet another.
The unusual exercise was intended to help participants visualize where the highly decentralized and often fractious party stood, literally and figuratively, on the issue.
The overwhelming majority of those present supported joining the race, according to several participants.
"I think people were happily surprised that Greens feel they're more on the same page than they may have believed that they were leading up to this conference," said Ross Mirkarimi, a spokesman for the California Green Party who attended the conference. "This is a very strong litmus test -- that people want to see a Green Party candidate for president." . . .
There are also more practical concerns: Without a presidential candidate, the party could lose its place on some states' ballots. It would probably be largely ignored by the news media without someone at the top of the ticket -- and the public might assume the party is on the decline. . . .
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A20410-2003Jul20¬Found=true> *****
The Democratic Party, however, made no such offer to the Green Party, hence no deal. Far from making an offer, the Democratic Party has made sure that it would further alienate the Green Party, Nader voters, and other third-party supporters who care about democracy: e.g.,
***** Case A. In the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Democratic Party ("DFL") is the largest political party, followed by the Green Party. But in 2002, a nine-person redistricing commission included only one Green and three Republicans, even though Greens hold city offices and Republicans hold none. After showing a modest redistricting plan at a public meeting, the commission then voted for an extremely different plan, which happens to disrupt the Green officeholders' districts, forcing 'progressive' incumbents to run against one another.
You can find lots of further information about this scandal, and others that we will mention in this article, by searching the World Wide Web. As a starting point, here is one of the clearest descriptions: http://www.citypages.com/databank/23/1116/article10337.asp . . .
Case B. In April, 2003, Democrats in the legislature of the state of Maine adopted an unconstitutional redistricting plan that would dismantle the district of the state's only elected Green Party legislator, John Eder. (Eder won election with 67% of the vote, defeating a Democrat.)
Case C. In the first half of 2003, Democrats in the New Mexico legislature advanced a bill to ban the Green Party. Of course they did not phrase it precisely that way, but the bill would have that effect, was dubbed the "kill the Greens" bill, and everyone understood this was its purpose. Thanks to a last-minute filibuster by a Republican who favors democracy, the bill did not pass -- yet Democrat Ben Lujan, speaker of the New Mexico House, said he would try again.
<http://www.progress.org/2004/demo08.htm> *****
>But now Gonzalez is off the scene, and he didn't leave much of an
>institutional residue. So even in the best of cases, Greens leave a
>lot to be desired.
If the point is to build an institution rather than a following of a charismatic candidate, Matt Gonzalez made the right decision of not running for District 5 Supervisor again. District 5 voters need to vote for the Green Party, whoever its candidate will be (most likely Ross Mirkarimi this year), rather than vote for Gonzalez as an individual. The Progressive Voter Project <http://www.progressivevoterproject.com/> is just the right project for this purpose. -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>