|
| |
|
Salon.com
Response to 'An Open Letter to Ralph Nader
Voters'
By Kirstin Marr
April 23, 2003
It is no secret that some
Democrats, like Charles Taylor, have strongly negative feelings
about Greens. Indeed, some of you may believe that Greens are
traitors to the progressive agenda, as we splinter off and focus on
building a new political party. While we disagree, we respect
diversity in opinion and perspective. This is an opportunity for the
Green Party to address the spoiler argument, especially as it
relates to the 2000 election. More significantly, we would like to
encourage understanding and collaboration among all progressive
citizens, regardless of party affiliation.
What happened in
the 2000 election?
Who voted Bush into office? It's the big
scandal that no one talks about anymore. We contend that Bush was
not voted into office. Al Gore won the election. It is unfortunate
he made at least two decisions after election night that handed the
election to Bush.
1. Gore should have trusted the Florida
voters and called for a statewide recount, which he would have won.
It was his bad decision to have a "selected counties" recount, which
sent the case to the Supreme Court.
2. Gore should have
supported the Black Caucus with a second to their motion not to seat
the Florida electors. Neither he, nor Joe Lieberman, who were both
in the Senate during the debate, made the second.
While
estimates range, many journalists have stated that at least 20
percent of Democrats voted for Bush. That adds up to more than 7.7
million Democrats. Exit polls from the 2000 election show that Nader
voters came from many political parties, including Greens,
Republicans, Independents and Democrats. With the roughly 5 million
total votes obtained by Nader, nowhere near the number of Democrats
voted for Nader as voted for Bush.
The working theory that
nearly all Greens would vote Democrat in the absence of the Green
Party is an unproven assumption. Progressives -- whether Democrat,
Green, Independent or Republican -- agree on many issues. We do not,
by association, believe in the same political leadership. The Green
Party is not going dissolve into the Democratic Party; it is time to
move beyond this notion and to work toward implementing the
progressive agenda.
We acknowledge the sharp differences
between some individual Democratic and Republican politicians. The
argument that a President Gore would be different from this
President Bush is a fair one. Sadly, though, the progressive
movement has long since been lost within this Democratic Party, a
party that is daily moving further into corporate-controlled
Republican territory. This movement to the right by the Democrats
has given the Republican Party an opportunity to move to even
greater extremes. Further, the marathon race for corporate money
among Democrats and Republicans is destroying our democratic system.
Remove the Green Party, and there's no progressive-populist,
ecological, antiwar political ballast.
A Green Party
introduction
The Green Party of the United States is a
confederation of state Green Parties. Originally called the
Association of State Green Parties, the Green Party was formed after
the 1996 elections. There are 10 key values of the Green Party:
grassroots democracy, social justice and equal opportunity,
ecological wisdom, nonviolence, decentralization, community-based
economics and economic justice, feminism and gender equity, respect
for diversity, personal and global responsibility, and future focus
and sustainability.
Committed to environmentalism,
nonviolence, social justice and grassroots organizing, Greens pride
themselves on renewing democracy without the support of corporate
donors. Whether the issue is universal healthcare, corporate
globalization, alternative energy, election reform or decent wages
for workers, Greens have the courage and independence necessary to
take on the powerful corporate interests. We believe that these
values mirror those of many progressive citizens, and we hope to
move forward in unison to implement a radically new national agenda.
The progressive movement: Implementing an agenda
The
progressive movement is so valuable because it demands that we stand
up for our fundamental principles, especially when it's difficult.
That is why the charge that progressive citizens are not patriotic
is absolute malarkey. We hope that the progressive community unites
and builds mutual respect for being so committed in this very
difficult political climate. Perhaps upon more careful
consideration, we can all begin to think about and rally around a
progressive movement, rather than one political party. Do you
believe that the impressive social changes many of us fought for
would have occurred if we took your advice of joining with the
established leadership in order to get some share of civil liberty?
Would the sole act of building within the system have worked?
Let's practice the art of suspending our disbelief for a
moment and imagine another view of party affiliation. What if a
truly progressive Democratic Party and the Green Party were major
political players in Washington and throughout the nation? We could
work together setting a national agenda: a sustainable economy and
lifestyle, a clean environment, an open electoral process, and an
integrated world community. Please add on to this list in your mind.
We need to imagine this reality, and we need to work at
implementing our visions. The best results in social, political and
economic change come because there are people working within
established contexts and there are people pushing and pulling
from the outside. We are all vital; we are all relevant in our
different roles.
If we can admit that we need each other,
then we can imagine the possibilities of progressive Democrats and
Republicans working from within the major parties while Greens and
Independents push and pull from the outside. We can begin to find
mutually shared goals and divine strategies with measurable results.
We'll need policy and legislative successes, and we 'll need direct
action plans. Combining policy with immediate action plans is a
powerful strategy to make strides in the short and long term and
measure success along the way. How about if we start with a fair and
representative electoral process?
Fair elections
If
Americans, regardless of political stripe, want fair elections, in
which the winner has the support of a majority of voters, third
parties and candidates have a fair chance, and spoiling is nearly
impossible, then it's time to push for instant run-off
voting.
Briefly, instant run-off voting involves voters
ranking candidates on a ballot. For example, a registered Green
votes for a Green candidate as his or her first choice. The Green
candidate does not receive 50 percent of the vote. The registered
Green's second choice will then be counted. This process continues
until a candidate receives 50 percent of the vote.
The
benefit for the Green and Democratic Parties is that Greens can vote
for Green candidates and then, if their candidate does not win 50
percent, they have already chosen the next most progressive
candidate as their second choice. So, when Greens vote Green, they
still help elect progressive candidates. To the extent that the next
most progressive candidate (from a Green voter's perspective) is a
Democrat, this helps the Democratic Party. Whatever the actual party
affiliation of the candidate, this win-win scenario instantly unites
the progressive vote.
The benefit for our democratic process
is great, because a true majority vote is required for a candidate
to hold office. Thus, candidates and political parties would need to
really encourage people to vote. The more voters there are, the more
people watch the politicians. This one tool would do so much to help
bring the power back to the people.
We also will push for a
fair playing field for political parties. Voters have a right to
information about the names they see on the ballot. In a fair
presidential election, all candidates whose names are on enough
state ballots to allow them to win (a threshold more legitimate than
some private firm's opinion poll percentage) would have a chance to
participate in debates and get some media exposure. For the latter
reason, Greens have called for free airtime for candidates, a much
more effective reform than the loophole-ridden and constitutionally
suspect McCain-Feingold Act. In order to push this forward, the
Commission on Presidential Debates must be run by a nonpartisan
organization, not by any political party. There are other
considerations to explore, like public campaign financing and
reducing election fraud. Focusing on instant run-off voting is a
smart first step, and there is ample room for dialogue and
consensus-building along the way.
A paradigm shift
We are asking for all of us, on all sides, to realize that
we're up against incredible political odds. We must work together,
listening and seeking to understand each other. Let's step outside
of the thought that we must belong to the same political party to
accomplish our goals. We know it is a big request; it will take some
retooling on our end as well. But, it is worth it; our cause is
worth it. We really are in sync on so many fundamental values. Let's
move forward.
(Kirstin Marr is on the National Media
Committee of the Green Party of the United
States.)
|
|
| |
