[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

I was thinking about the discussion among M. Spector, 500_Apples, Fidel and the others about strategic voting, and actually thought a discussion about similarities and differences between American and Canadian strategic voting dynamics could be interesting.

M. Spector wrote this:

quote:

---

Canadian conventional wisdom:
The only way to stop Harper from winning the plurality that allowed him to form a government would have been to vote Liberal. Voting NDP instead of Liberal is like voting for Harper.

USian conventional wisdom:
The only way to stop George W. Bush from winning the Presidency was to vote for Al Gore or John Kerry. Voting for Nader instead of the Democrats is like voting Republican.

---

Obviously, as 500_Apples suggested, one important difference is that American voters live in red, blue or 'swing' states that count for votes in the electoral college: during the last presidential election, I read of some people who were planning to vote Green since they lived in a non-swing state, but who were also encouraging potential Green voters in swing states to vote for Gore in order to keep the state from sliding into the GOP column.

(Needless to say, Nader wasn't happy with that, since he said it reduced pressure on the Democrats to move left.)

I've also read of people voting Dem to keep out the GOP out of the White House, but doing so on a 'fusion ticket' in order to signal their dissatisfaction with the Dem establishment.

Obviously, that kind of 'strategic' arrangement isn't available in Canada, where we don't even really vote for 'Harper' or 'Layton' or 'Martin' or 'Duceppe,' unless we live in one of four ridings in the country.

If I were Canadian, I would NEVER vote Liberal.
And I hate having to tell people that the only workable strategy in the US is to vote Democratic.
But until we get electoral reform there really isn't any alternative for those working through electoral politics above the local level.

The only real solution is a new electoral system that suceeds in bringing new voices into parliament.

My favourite about the election that Nader supposedly gave to Bush by running in Florida is that it is just a true that a black woman socialist was the problem. She after all garnered more votes than the difference between the Rep and Dem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The analogy is more workable for US politics, with our corrupt and completely antidemocratic electoral system, than it is for Canada with its only partially corrupt and antidemocratic model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Another I point I didn't make, of where I feel the analogy breaks down, is that while the difference between the liberal party of canada and the conservative party of canada is quite marginal, the gulf that separates the democratic party from the republican party is rather vast. Perhaps people disagree, but Bush's regime seems like a significant shift compared to Clinton, whereas Harper *almost* feels like continuity compared to Chretien-Martin - at least for now.

---

Right, when Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan going after the "terrorists", it was very different from when Bush does it. Or when Kerry never completed a sentence about the Middle East without promising to "hunt down and kill" the bad guys, that had a soft liberal edge to it. Or when Kennedy sponsored the failed invasion of Cuba, and Johnson sent hundreds of thousands of troops to Viet Nam (it was Nixon that withdrew them), or when Truman invaded Korea to stop the Commies (while Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex), it really showed how the Democrats love peace and justice while the Republicans are bellicose barbarians.

quote:

---

Right, when Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan going after the "terrorists", it was very different from when Bush does it. Or when Kerry never completed a sentence about the Middle East without promising to "hunt down and kill" the bad guys, that had a soft liberal edge to it. Or when Kennedy sponsored the failed invasion of Cuba, and Johnson sent hundreds of thousands of troops to Viet Nam (it was Nixon that withdrew them), or when Truman invaded Korea to stop the Commies (while Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex), it really showed how the Democrats love peace and justice while the Republicans are bellicose barbarians.

Have we been reading the same history books?

---

1) There are more issues out there than foreign policy. The differences between tax cuts for the rich or low interest rates for all, the difference between moving into the bullseye of abortion rights for the kill or protecting abortion rights, the difference beteween support for inner city schools or school vouchers, et cetera et cetera... let us agree that these are significant differences. At the rate things are going, by the year 2015 wealthy american women who get pregnant will fly to Canada for operations, and lower-class american women will be left with uglier options.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
We need all the voices in the political discourse, silencing the real left to make way for people who run from the left and govern from the right either Liberal or Democrat is just allowing the corporate class to have a free ride in elections.

---

Remind me which of the two parties with such a "vast gulf" between them took the radical stand of favouring free publicly delivered universal health care?

Or a national pension plan for all?

Or immediate legalization of equal marriage?

Or buying the Brooklyn Bridge again, having already bought it once and seen it confiscated by the rightful owners.

quote:

---

Remind me which of the two parties with such a "vast gulf" between them took the radical stand of favouring free publicly delivered universal health care?

Or a national pension plan for all?

Or immediate legalization of equal marriage?

---

1) I don't remember the exact differences between Bush's and Kerry's health plans. I know Bush's tax cuts will eventually make what public health care there is in the United States unaffordable to their governments, and the "starve the beast" philosophy does show up in neocon literature.

2) Is there no social security in the USA?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
My humble 2 cents: "Strategic voting" in the U.S. to elect Democrats rather than Republicans is equivalent to betting on a losing poker hand with all cards exposed.

---

I really do think there are some decent people in the Democrat party who have a slightly different approach to the economy. The trouble is, they're taken two steps back with every bout of supply side "starve the beast" Republicans.

I have a lot less repect for Clinton now than I did before, and it was after reading articles posted here by babblers. That party, like our Liberal Party, has been infiltrated by crooks, war supporters and opportunists. I think there are millions of Americans who know Ralph Nader speaks the truth and would like to vote for him but not at the risk of inadvertently electing a bunch of right wing extremists. But there were still a million or two Americans who voted for Nader in protest, and that's why Jimmy Carter pleaded with Nader to just stay home leading up to the last election in the states. Big business knows Ralph is untouchable and his integrity unquestionable. If Ralph were in Canada, he'd likely be be an NDP'er.

[ 01 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think there are millions of Americans who know Ralph Nader speaks the truth and would like to vote for him but not at the risk of inadvertently electing a bunch of right wing extremists.

---

quote:

---

And just so we're clear: if the Democratic Party were in Canada it would be considered a right-wing, conservative party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Yes, but all politics is local, and you shouldn't be applying Canada's standards of the left-right spectrum to other countries.

---

The fact is that, unlike most of the world, there is no mass party of the political left in the USA. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are on the right, by any objective political standards.

Official bourgeois conventional wisdom in the USA puts the Democrats on the "left". This is a cruel lie and deception.

In the USA, the democrats, by their distinctions from the republicans, such as supporting abortion rights, opposing constitutional discrimination against gays, opposing tax cuts for the rich, favouring more environmental protection laws, more post-secondary tuition subsidies and assistance, et cetera et cetera would be the left-wing party there.

quote:

---

Left is left and right is right, no matter what country you are in.

---

You mean Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. I'm not convinced you would find yourself at home in the left-wing parties of Cuba, Japan or India. And their opinions are just as valid as yours.

[ 01 September 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Poltical compass

Edited to Add:

I decided to retake the test since it has beeen a few years and it changes every so often.

my "score" Left/Right -8.63
Libt/Auth -6.51

I guess with that score I can keep my "handle"

My guess is Toadie Harper is somewhere in the +6 range on both scales.

[ 01 September 2006: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

And just so we're clear: if Stephen Harper were in Saudi Arabia, he'd be considered a liberal.

---

Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36

I'm right at the midpoint, sort of, between Nelson Mandela and Angela Merkel. "Riiiiiiight."

Nobody (that they list) comes anywhere near me on their chart. Anyhow, seriously, it's obvious those questions are plagued by western biases.

[ 01 September 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

quote:

---

supporting abortion rights, opposing constitutional discrimination against gays, opposing tax cuts for the rich, favouring more environmental protection laws, more post-secondary tuition subsidies and assistance, et cetera et cetera would be the left-wing party there.

---

then what makes Stephen Harper so centre-left in the US?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And yet - they get the right-wing extremists anyway, without even having the satisfaction of being able to say, "Don't blame me, I voted for Nader."

---

It's said that about 34-36 percent of Americans are self-proclaimed Republican supporters. The reason they've done so well with that minority of eligible voters is because they have campaign war chests that would be the envy of any plutocracy. And yet the most politically conservative party in the world had to resort to stealing an election in 2000. U.S. voter turnouts are abysmal, about where Poland's sits.

quote:

---

And just so we're clear: if the Democratic Party were in Canada it would be considered a right-wing, conservative party.

---

A 5-minute video in which George Carlin tells it like it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Who Really Controls America?

A 5-minute video in which George Carlin tells it like it is.

Caution: coarse language

---

Caution: blinding honesty and its 100 percent correct. I couldn't say it any better.

But I can try.

Anyway, the sad truth is the two party system was brought to you by the moneyed elite and this punch and judy show of democracy works very well for them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Nice column, AE!

Tell me, do you believe as I do that voting "strategically" for the Democrats is a wasted vote?

---

Yes.

Armed revolution isn't possible with the size of the American war machine.

Protest, by itself, cannot bring about change.

What, if you reject strategic voting, is to be done?

I remember Tommie and Dickie Smothers discussing this question some years ago.

Tommy said he favoured Republicans. Dickie said he favoured Democrats.

Tommy said: "But you told me there's no real difference between the two!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The only problem with that analysis is, if power is just conceded to the most extreme right-wing force(which, unfortunately, is what voting for third parties means in the US until we can get electoral reform)how can the left win by other means?

---

Everywhere in the world where there are large leftist parties, those parties got large because - wait for it - left people voted for them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Note to Fidel: Ok, ok, your system is JUST as corrupt and undemocratic as ours is. And you're the Puerto Rico of the North. Is that better?

Now go and translate "Lamento Borincano" into Quebecois French.

---

HA!

[ 04 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Fidel, US voter turnout is only a little bit lower than Canadian voter turnout (once you factor in the BS that the 62% figure represents the proportion of registered voters rather than eligible voters).

---

62 percent?! So you're saying that Canadian democracy rates a "C" grade at best?.

According to FairVoteCanada.org, in the 1990s, Canada ranked 109th among 163 nations in voter turnout, slightly behind Lebanon, in a dead heat with Benin, and just ahead of Fiji.

Plutocracy is the real name of the game in Canada and the U.S. Democracy is an illusion for North Americans in general.

[ 04 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Canadians often assume that life would be so much better if the White House and Congress weren't in the hands of Republicans.
....
But the Democrats who might take back Congress may not be any kinder to Canada. Watch out for a strong isolationist bent in any new crowd controlling Capitol Hill.

If the Democrats are successful in unseating the Republicans, who have controlled the House since 1994, it is likely to happen because of the sagging popularity of President George W. Bush, the war in Iraq and growing economic unease.

Democratic control could well mean more enthusiasm for tighter borders, stricter immigration laws, tough trade enforcement and further retrenchment from multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.
....
The public mood is sour. Seven out of 10 Americans say economic conditions are getting worse, according to a recent Gallup poll. Less than 40 per cent approve of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy. Rising energy costs, the collapse of the housing market and problems at General Motors and Ford have fuelled economic unease.

On foreign policy, the violence in Iraq and the war in Lebanon have convinced Americans that the country is on the wrong track.

How it all shakes out in November is unclear. Midterm elections are notoriously tough to handicap.

But Canadians should be prepared for a government in Washington that's a lot more U.S.-centric than the current one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
If they stop bombing and killing, torturing and kidnapping, then that's a start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
There are no magical short cuts for the left, in the USA or anywhere else in the world. Mass leftist parties have to be built from the ground up, and it's hard work.

Everywhere in the world where there are large leftist parties, those parties got large because - wait for it - left people voted for them.

Let me turn your question around: How can the left win by continuing to vote for the right?

---

1)there are no situations anywhere in the world that compare to the US situation. Unlike other countries, progressive people in the US don't have the luxury of tolerating endless decades of reactionary rule in the hope of an eventual revolution. If there were a credible independent left party in the US at this time(and the closest we came to that in my lifetime so far, the Greens, are now in permanent decline) I'd say vote for it. But such a party CAN'T be built between now and the fall election. And hope can't survive if Bush and Co. are given another mandate to be arrogant and aggressive, which is what voting for hopeless third-party candidates(and the reality is, except for Bernie Sanders, there isn't a third-party candidate ANYWHERE in the US who stands any chance of winning)would mean. We can't afford to leave things as they are.

2)Those who want alternative parties need to put there efforts first towards achieving electoral reform. Why vote third-party(even if we actually had one that was worth voting for at the moment, and you'd have to agree that we don't)when the current electoral system dooms such candidacies to defeat? It will be years before there is another time in US history(unlike Mexico, where history is still alive)where voting for a candidate you know can't win serves a purpose. When we get a meaningful electoral system(and that is an achievable goal, for a strong case can be made that it is in the interest of the Democrats to have small left parties that can demonstrate strength in order to develop ideas the Democrats can implement, as was the case in the Thirties)then go ahead, vote third party. But if you do it this fall, you are saying "fuck reality". You are saying "I don't care about stopping the war or fighting the cuts".
You are sacrificing everyone on the altar of a currently unachieveable dream.

3)Putting the main emphasis on destroying the Democrats, which I assume is your goal here, will turn most of the people who would be the basis of a left party against you. People of color never support third parties in the US. Neither does the labor movement. Neither do gays and lesbians and most environmentalists. Your basically stuck with the same 300,000 latte-chugging upper middle class whitebread college students who were bitter end Naderites. Why limit yourself to that?

Building a protest movement to pressure the Dems is fine. In fact, its urgent, and needs to reach out to all the groups within the current Democratic coalition.

And building an electoral reform movement is of equal importance. It can also reach those groups.

Compared to that, voting third party this fall(except for Bernie Sanders for Senate in Vermont)serves no purpose. We need to humble the right wing. We need to embolden the other party to listen to those who can elect it. Voting for hopeless third party candidates who can't pull a vote in double figures in any contest anywhere can't serve either of those purposes.

And even if there were case for such a strategy, arguing for it in the first week of September is ludicrously late, to say the least.

Build the movement, change the electoral system, beat the GOP. Those are the goals to be working on now.

And I apologize if I sound intemperate, but having the same arguement that progressives were having in 2004 just seems a colossal waste of time. I had a lot of respect for Ralph once, but there was no reason for him to run again that year. If he had to support a third party, he could at least have campaigned for the actual Green Party candidate. But Ralph wouldn't even display the modesty and common sense to do that.
[ 06 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 06 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 06 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

They overlook the fact that they have already been putting up with right-wing, racist, imperialist, anti-labour, pro-big-business governments for decade after fucking decade, with no end in sight – precisely because none of them are willing to break out of the existing system of political duopoly and actually form a political movement/party that will change anything. And even as they march to the polls to vote for their favourite right-wing politicians they reassure themselves that “this time, we’re going to really make a difference.”

And they believe quite firmly, and yet without any apparent evidence, that by rewarding the Democratic Party for its capitalist treachery by voting for it, they can transform it into a real progressive force for social change in America.

They have so befuddled and confused themselves by these mental gynmnastics that they are willing to accept the slightest crumbs from the oligarchic dinner table as a sign of real progress towards social justice: “The Democrats are only going to cut half as much from the Medicare budget as the Republicans wanted to? I’m so glad I voted for them instead of that unrealistic guy who wanted to bring in a comprehensive universal medical care program. Whatever was that guy thinking? Maybe 200 years from now a mass party of the left will spring forward out of nowhere and give us Canadian-style health care, but don’t ask me to start building such a party today. I’m too busy thinking about how I can get other progressive people like me to hold their noses and keep voting for the Democrats in perpetuity.”

[ 06 September 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Why are you obsessed with punishing the Democrats to the exclusion of all other objectives?

Yes, the Dems aren't good enough. No, there isn't anyone else running who has a snowball's chance to overtake them this year.

And no, no possible good comes of conceding continued Republican control of Congress without a fight, which is all that voting for third parties this year can accomplish.

Are you REALLY this out of touch with U.S. political reality, Spector?

Why insist on doing something that can only make things worse?

Build a movement yes. But don't waste time trying to build an unelectable party between now and November.

The Greens are dead. No other third party in the US is gaining strength anywhere at the moment.

Build the movement, stage protests. But don't split the anti-Bush coalition just to punish its less-courageous elements.

[ 06 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

The game is rigged, fixed and purchased. You can only save the Demcrats by destroying the party as its currently constituted.

The Dems are doomed - here' why - from Rolling Stone

Salient quote:

quote:

---

I asked Marshall if there was a publicly available list of donors to the DLC.

"Uh, I don't know," he said. "I'd have to refer you to the press office for that. They can help you there . . ." (Note: a DLC spokeswoman would later tell me the DLC has a policy of "no public disclosure," although she did say the group is funded in half by corporate donations, in half by individuals).

"So let me get this straight," I said. "We have thirty corporate-funded spokesmen telling hundreds of thousands of actual voters that they're narrow dogmatists?"

He paused and sighed, clearly exasperated. "Look," he said. "Everybody in politics draws money from the same basic sources. It's the same pool of companies and wealthy individuals . . ."

"Okay," I said. "So basically in this dispute over Lieberman, we have people on one side, and companies on the other? Would it be correct to say that?" I asked.

"Well, I guess if you live in a cartoon world you could say that," he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:

The game is rigged, fixed and purchased. You can only save the Demcrats by destroying the party as its currently constituted.=

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Give me one good reason, Spector, why anyone should vote for a left wing third party this year in the US when we all know that no third party leftists anywhere can actually be elected?

---

1. Because leftists who vote for right-wing parties are wasting their votes. They also lose the moral right to complain when their successful right-wing candidate once again screws them over.

2. Because elections are not just coronations of right-wing politicians. They are also opinion polls. A big vote for a leftist party or candidate lets that candidate and that party (and anyone else who is interested) know that there is a lot of support for their program among the voters. That just might encourage them to keep building support for the next election.

quote:

---

They overlook the fact that they have already been putting up with right-wing, racist, imperialist, anti-labour, pro-big-business governments for decade after fucking decade, with no end in sight – precisely because none of them are willing to break out of the existing system of political duopoly and actually form a political movement/party that will change anything. And even as they march to the polls to vote for their favourite right-wing politicians they reassure themselves that “this time, we’re going to really make a difference.”

---

We tried to build the Green Party under the existing system FOR TEN FRIGGIN' YEARS. It didn't work.

I'm advocating voting Democratic this fall because the last ten years PROVED that third-party politics can't succeed in the US WITHOUT electoral reform.

Why can't you see that the logical, and achievable step, is to work for electoral reform first, get it in place, and THEN build the alternative party?

Do you really think we can go on letting our social services be gutted without challenge, letting labor law be gutted without challenge, letting human rights be revoked without challenge?

The reality is, the Republican party IS worse than the Dems.

The Dems do need to be radically changed. I'm among those working to radically change them.

But the fall election campaign is TOO LATE in an election year to make punishing the main opposition party for its inadequacies the primary objective for left-of-center people(and btw, I'm a radical, not a liberal, so don't patronize me).

There are other approaches.

Protests during the campaign are one.

Supporting left candidates for local office is another, to build the alternative from the ground up.

But if we couldn't push the Greens anywhere close to equality with the Dems in this period of time, or even to a point where they were holding significant political strength in any areas of the US, how could that possibly change in the future?

And if not the Greens, then who the hell else? The ISO? The decaying old CPUSA? Who else is there even to vote for in terms of third parties these days?

We certainly didn't get it by sitting around and telling each other how we must vote for Mackenzie King because we really really had to get rid of Arthur Meighen, and couldn't really hope to build a mass labour party until we got "electoral reform" some time in the next millennium, if ever.

Besides, the NDP doesn't have a hope in hell of winning the next election. If you were voting in that election, and applying the same "logic" you use in the USA elections, you wouldn't vote NDP anyway. You'd vote for a party that actually had a chance of winning right away, even if it didn't represent your own interests.

Do you honestly think we could survive the certain outcome of such votes, when all they could do would be to give Bush an even BIGGER majority in both houses of Congress?

Why are you so sold on immiseration as a political strategy?

Exactly how long do you think people down here can simply tolerate more rule by the worst of the worst? Should the poor and unionized workers just take Republican abuse without a fight in the name of the greater good?

The far right is probably going to get a lot of people killed while the pure left party you dream of(a party that will end up making the same compromises the Dems have made in the end)is slowly built out of nothing. How many years of uninterrupted reactionary rule do you think people can survive down here? Will any social services still exist by the day deliverance comes? Will there be any breathable air? Will anyone still be allowed to be in an union?
How will the powerless defend themselves if they simply give up on the political process, which is what voting third party without electoral reform being in place means?

You are truly living in some kind of sectarian fantasy world if you think your strategy could ever work WITHOUT electoral reform and WITH the Electoral College still in place.

Why does your hatred of the Democrats outweigh all other considerations?

And why do you reject working for electoral reform first?

Do you actually WANT to see anything progressive ever happen again in the US?

How could it, if we did things your way and accepted decades of extreme right wing rule until a party you approved of became miraculously popular?

[ 06 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

The Democrats do need to be radically changed. I've never argued that they should be left just as they are now.

When we get electoral reform through, much more change will be possible.

A lot of us ARE working for that.

Do not take a call to vote Democratic this year as an endorsement of the status quo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
So you'd actually argue that people should cast pointless, hopeless votes for third parties this fall even though you know perfectly well that that can only make things WORSE in the US?

---

As a result, sometimes things get "worse" and sometimes things get "better". But we don't take the blame or the credit for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
But, if I were American, I would do almost anything to get rid of the Republicans.

---

Almost anything to get rid of the Democrats? Or almost anything to keep the Democrats in power? Whatever your answer, it's a lose-lose proposition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Should the poor and unionized workers just take Republican abuse without a fight in the name of the greater good?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And assuming you were successful in getting rid of the Republicans by putting Democrats in their place, what would you do in the next election?

---

Well, there'd be several options...

1)If the Democrats that we elected were that terrible, there'd be the possibility of working for other candidates against them in the Democratic primary(as was successfully done in the case of Sen. Lieberman), of staging mass protests against them to put pressure on them, or in that case, if nothing else were to work,

2) We could then start the work of building a third-party or independent candidacy against them.

But at least we would have broken the dominance of the current group of murderous bastards.

Probably we could reduce or even stop the cuts and put a little bit of protection in place against the reactionaries.

There would at least be space(as there was in, say, the 1968 primaries)to challenge the bad without electing the even worse.

Believe it or not, Spector, I want to change my own country as much as you want it to be changed. We only disagree on tactics.

I don't want to hurt those who are already being hurt. You don't seem to care about adding to the misery of the powerless. And yes, for the poor, things CAN get worse.

Your approach didn't work under Nixon or Reagan. In neither case did leaving the worst possible candidate in power produce an eventual progressive victory.

And it IS a different situation with our electoral system than it is with yours. No, the NDP probably won't form the next federal government. But it is electable in several provinces and can win enough parliamentary seats federally to hold the balance of power. With the restrictive ballot access laws we have in many states, with the Electoral College(which is specifically designed to stifle the creation of protest parties)with unfairly drawn Congressional districts, creating a new party at the Congressional or presidential level is an exercise in futility.

It can be done in local government. Those who want new parties can work at that level.

But in order to make it work at any level above that, there needs to be the passage of electoral reform legislation. Which is why I've been arguing in this thread and others that THAT needs to come first.

It is absolutely incredible to me, Spector, that with everything else that is happening in the US today, you would STILL put punishing the Democrats ahead of any other objective.

Do you really believe that what our current administration is so benign and neutral that it can safely be left politically unchallenged?

Tell me, honestly, how long do you think it would take to build tne alternative party you call for WITHOUT electoral reform, and why you think those who are out of power in this country could wait out a period of unrelenting reactionary government until this party existed?

You act as if we could pull it off in four or five years if only we weren't chicken or something.

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

You sound as if you've been chafing under the yoke of Republican rule continuously for the last 60 years, just itching to get a chance to free yourself from tyranny.

In reality, you've had plenty of opportunities to realize your fantasy of turning a Democratic government into a progressive force, and failed every time.

Your supposed "several options" would fly out the window pretty fast once a Republican challenger appeared all set to pull the old Tweedledum/Tweedledumber switcheroo and knock the Democrats out once again. Your strategy would be simple: "We must do everything in our power to make sure the Rebublicans don't win." I know because it's the same strategy the "progressive" Democrats have followed since the Second World War.

Come to think of it, it's the identical strategy you use when there's a Republican in the White House! Fancy that.

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

And it isn't about me personally. It's about not wanting to add to the misery of the poorest of the poor.

The current electoral laws make forming a meaningful third party impossible in the US, and you know it.

Why pretend otherwise?

Why act as if we could simply turn everything over in no time at all if we only put our minds to it?

The Greens had ten years. They got nowhere. It's over for them. What does that tell you?

[ 07 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

There were the Populists in the 1890's. But they didn't really go anywhere.

The last successful "left" third party at any significant level was the Progressives in 1924(I would have voted for them that year). And they collapsed after only one election with no lasting effect on American politics.

The Socialists got a million votes in 1920 and 1932. They were great but irrelevant at the presidential level.

The Henry Wallace campaign in 1948 also failed miserably and its main effect was to get most of its supporters blacklisted in the Red Scare years that followed.

Don't tell me I don't know my own country's history.

And you can't provide me with any possible scenario in which voting third party this fall leads to a progressive future. Without electoral reform, the possibility doesn't exist. What would be certain would be decades in which the Bushes and the Cheneys would have even MORE unaccountable power.

You know that third-parties CAN'T move past the Dems.

You know that they don't make the Dems better.

Why, I ask again, do you pretend otherwise?

How can making things worse in the short term ever lead to things getting better in the long term?

The other third parties never got beyond the presidential level, and were vehicles for particular individuals, whether it be Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, LaFollette in 1924, Wallace in 1948, Wallace in 1968, or Ross Perot. The only true third parties, the Greenback/Populst parties of the late 19th century, and the Socialist Party of the early 20th century, did have an effect as many of the ideas they espoused eventually were enacted. But they did not succeeded electorally to any great extent.

quote:

---

So don't pretend there's some huge difference in our political system that makes it so much easier for progressive Canadians to build a labour party: the only difference is we were willing to do it, and you aren't

---

Surprises, because 1) generally Spector hates the NDP and seems to support a nonexistent party to the left of the NDP, and 2)claiming that Canadians were more "willing" to create an independent progressive party is just silly.

There were democratic and progressive parties in many states, often coming from the same roots as the CCF-NDP. The best example is the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota:

farmer labor party

Many other states, such as Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, Kansas, California, etc, had strong progressive parties who elected governors and Senators.

However, because of the power of the Presidency, and the need to elect him NATIONALLY, statewide organizations were marginalized over the course of decades.

In Canada, no one has to get votes from every single state. And no one has anything like the power of the Presidency to reward supporters with defence contracts and other spending.