Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny

By Theresa Amato, The New Press. Posted July 7, 2009.


Third-party candidates are effectively shut out of the presidential race by the two major parties designed to squash the competition.
grandillusion
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is an introduction and excerpt by Theresa Amato, author of Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny. Copyright 2009 Theresa Amato. Reprinted with permission by The New Press.

In the run up to the 2004 elections article after article appeared documenting the reigning chaos in our electoral procedures, and surmising that another “Florida 2000” could happen.  After the election, questions were raised in Ohio and in the gubernatorial race in Washington State, but in 2008, the infatuation with the electoral system was otherwise directed to the early primaries and the “historic” potential to elect Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  With neither election as razor-close as the 537 vote discrepancy in Florida 2000, some of the prior attention paid to our electoral systems has waned.   

To the extent concern is shown, it tends to focus on the mechanics of registering to vote, keeping accurate lists, and having votes counted by machines of better-than-dubious programming or security.  Less concern is directed to the far more disenfranchising systemic problems of having a “winner-take-all” system that results in uncompetitive elections in most congressional and local races. Nor is there a widespread movement toward choice maximizing voting systems, or just better competition by structuring campaign finance systems to encourage participation for more than our millionaires or those who have access to them. 

In this country, we are really just at the beginning of understanding the deep flaws with our arcane electoral processes.  Virtually none of the attention is on the rights of third-party or independent candidates to compete on a level playing field with the major parties so that all voters, not just two-party voters, have a chance to vote for whom they want.  This book is written for third party and Independents candidates, their voters, the election law reformers and chroniclers, and all those who have tried or will try to grapple with the stunning incompetence and injustice of the broken, two-party dominated American electoral system. 

      -Theresa Amato, June 3, 2009 

**** 

Once people find out that I ran the Nader 2000 campaign, they often ask me if I am “sorry” that my first venture into electoral politics was to “help elect” George W. Bush. To the contrary, given how the two-party-imposed structural barriers have operated against third parties and independents in the last half century, I could not be more proud of our efforts to reveal and break down this exclusionary system and to help provide more voices and more choices to the American people. Third parties and independents are arguably the only remaining defenders of real political choice in the United States today. The fact that they continue to exist in a system so rigged against their participation, as this book will demonstrate, is nothing short of miraculous. Am I sorry? Oh yes—I am sorry that we have a broken and uncompetitive electoral system that traps Americans into poor choices and delivers worse government in almost every political cycle, failing for decades to fix, and sometimes even to discuss, intransigent problems like access to health care, poverty, immigration, global warming, fair trade, drug policies, a fossil fuel–dependent economy, racism, corporate crime, civil liberty violations, and many more. 

That said, am I sorry that against all odds, with no money, no experience, a ragtag team, and an embryonic Green Party, we put an alternative choice in front of the American people? Hell no. I would do it all again. And did. In 2004, I helped run the only major antiwar candidate for the general election when the Democrats lost their collective nerve and let George W. Bush march the United States into Iraq. And I hope third parties and independents of every stripe will run again and again and again. It doesn’t matter if I don’t agree with a word of what they say. Just like exotic animals I would never make an effort to see, I want third parties and independents to run because I fear for their extinction. It reassures me to see them—like planet ecodiversity. I have never really gone out of my way to see a bird, though millions of Americans apparently do every year. But I wouldn’t want just two bird species or brands of toothpaste or flowers, even if I always do order the red roses. And I don’t want just two-party candidates on my ballot, even if I were never to vote for a third party or an independent such as John Anderson, Ross Perot, or Ralph Nader. I want all individuals to have a fair chance to run—for as long as it takes to get a better electoral system and better leadership for the American people.  


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: politics, elections, voting, political party

Theresa Amato was the national presidential campaign manager and in-house counsel for Ralph Nader in both 2000 and 2004—and the only woman to have managed two high-profile American presidential campaigns outside the two major parties. A graduate of Harvard University and NYU School of Law, she is the founder of the Citizen Advocacy Center in suburban Chicago and a public interest lawyer. Amato lives with her family in Oak Park, Illinois.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obamabots, transform!
Posted by: Spot on Jul 7, 2009 12:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Our zero-sum, winner-take-all voting system cements the institutional barriers against third parties, protects the incumbents, and at the end of the day, primarily protects the predominance of the two major parties."

How anti-democratic! My greatest hope is that in wake of Republican collapse, the Fear motive to vote for Democrats will disappear and a party will emerge running on a platform of:
-No Foreign Wars
-Food, Shelter, and Jobs are human rights
-All people are equal under the law and corporations are not people.
-Produce as much at home as we consume. Trade what we can to other countries for things we need.

Naturally, this party would sweep the election, garnering 70% of the vote, and leaving out only the capitalist elites and weapons manufacturers.

While I'm dreaming, we should make Nov. 7th a national holiday, with all workplaces closed. If America is to be a great experiment in republican government, we must make sure all citizens are available to fulfill their civic responsibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The "Kick Them All Out" Project: Posted by: CRaPWHiSPeReR
» I'm a registered green. Posted by: Spot
Two-party system destroying itself?
Posted by: Perry Logan on Jul 7, 2009 3:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the record: I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and for Cynthia McKinney in 2008.

The ongoing catastrophe of Barack Obama suggests the two-party system may be arranging for its own demise--collapsing from its own corruption.

The Republicans cheated to get Bush II into office--and it destroyed them. Agents for the Democratic Party couldn't have done a better job.

Thank you, Republicans!

And now...the Democrats have started to cheat as well. If you don't know Obama stole the nomination from Hillary, get on the web.

Just as Bush II was The Worst Demcorat Ever™, it's clear that Obama is destined to be The Worst Democrat Ever™.

Note how Obama has destroyed our chances of getting publically-funded elections, which might have rectified the third-party thing. :(

With both parties putting incompetent ex-cokehead sinto the White House, the golden age of the third party may be just ahead.

PS: Right-wing think tank report proves Torture is GOOD for You

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Erratum Posted by: Perry Logan
» RE: Thanks for your votes, Perry. Posted by: oregoncharles
THANK YOU ! For once, Alternet finally decided to give 3rd parties a little room here.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 7, 2009 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason most of us who vote 3rd party do so is we actually vote on the issues and not by party. I've rarely voted for a Republican or Democrat even on local elections for that reason alone. I can see that our electorate consists mainly of brainwashed Obamabots and Dubyabots. I would like to see Alternet run these kinds of articles again especially closer to election day. I won't forgive the media and even the major progressive sites including this one for trying to tell us to pick between Democrat and Republican and lying about their positions. When elections are over, most Republicans and Democrats break 99% of their campaign promises not because they can't fulfill them but because they're proud to be bald-faced liars. Ralph Nader fought the corporate interests for decades and even this decade he was able to help stop NJ from harming its citizens with Big Nuclear. Compare that to Obama and Mccain who are in bed with Big Nuclear. I always voted on the issues and took even the little time I had to know who's for real and who isn't and I'm proud I voted for Nader thrice. The Obamabots just can't stand it that Obama's turning out to be a criminal like Dubya and getting exposed for it too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» PB, get lost. Posted by: Benn_Miller
» THANK YOU, Jennifer Posted by: sirios
» I agree...... Posted by: progressive-life
» RE: I agree...... Posted by: superfeduphoosier
» RE: I agree...... Posted by: Basenjis
By the way, let's see if Alternet and other progressive outlets on the Internet
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 7, 2009 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
show that they are really progressive by introducing voters of various districts to 3rd party progressive independents running for Congress in 2010. When they can do that more often and quit joining the distracting media on Palin 24/7, then I'll consider donating. Until then, Alternet has no right to ask for bailouts !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Better a two party tyranny than multple party chaos.
Posted by: grindermonkey on Jul 7, 2009 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sound of two hands clapping can be understood with clarity; one hand clapping is a monarchy three hands clapping is Newt Gengrich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not helpful... Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: not helpful... Posted by: DaBear
» yeah-ok Posted by: Drclaw
» chaos vs. stasis Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: A technical solution: Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: franklin on 2-party system Posted by: tazdelaney
» RE: franklin on 2-party system Posted by: Basenjis
The System is Rigged.
Posted by: shill on Jul 7, 2009 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our two major parties are just two sides of the same coin. And "coin" is what it takes to get elected. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican party is going to help third parties get enough of it to be able to challenge their supremacy. It is going to take large groups of voters who are informed enough to understand that a lot of what we have been fed our entire lives about the U.S. being "free" is bunk. And then these voters are going to have to have the time, resources, and dedication to keep on keeping on until we have more than the two party system. I don't see this happening soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The System is Rigged. Posted by: Axiom69
People in power tend to cling to power and only street opposition
Posted by: MeyravLevine on Jul 7, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could bring down the corrupt system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Consider Iran. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Consider Iran. Posted by: Jennie
rgd
Posted by: rgd on Jul 7, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrat, Republican and Mainstream Media. They are one entity with three parts. They will do whatever they can to keep their power. You watch. 2010 the rep. will take back the house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If there's any group of people that blew it, it's third parties on the internet
Posted by: Beck on Jul 7, 2009 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd be amazed if anyone outside their ranks saw them as anything but a hostile, isolated group of people who knew nothing about their own candidate (anyone who praised Nader while mocking Obama's middle name never googled "Ralph Nader bio" or "Ralph Nader's middle name") and have no political skills whatsoever. I see no evidence that any of them are addressing any problems like the debate situation. Or pressuring their Messiahs to run for office other than the highest office in the land. Why DOESN'T Nader run for congress in Connecticut? 5 house seats, all held by Democrats? Maybe a public figure who thinks that only the highest office is worthy of his efforts simply does not appear that attractive. Maybe a group of insulting, swearing, juveniles does not attract "party" membership. There is nothing strange about this. If you wrote a playbook about how NOT to get a candidate taken seriously, you couldn't do better than this group of people right here did. And watch what happens when you point out to them why they didn't get the thing they supposedly wanted: their guy in office. Let's see if they learn why they failed.

The internet helped many candidates. It hurt others. Although I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because of how anti-choice he is, I do notice that most of the Ron Paul folks seem not only to be fairly polite and able to converse about him, they actually seem to know things about him and what he would do in office. Not so the others. They sound like unpopular and hostile 8th-graders. It's too bad there wasn't a way to measure the harm they did to Nader. Because he had no chance of winning (and none of them are working on that, unless it's a deep, dark secret) but he certainly could have gotten more than his share of the 1.2% that third parties got.

You know who loses? the group that never examines their own past failures and never changes their losing strategy. Blaming the Democrats (this site wouldn't exist without us) is satisfying, and better than changing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» selective recall, Beck Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: I'm hurt. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: I'm hurt. Posted by: DaBear
» Thanks Beck Posted by: aahpat
» RE: Thanks Beck Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Thanks Beck Posted by: CarlaWaters
» RE: Thanks Beck Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Thanks Beck Posted by: Wayne Etheridge
» RE: Thanks Beck Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Thanks Beck Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: Patented Democrat personal attack Posted by: Wayne Etheridge
» Beck = leafmen = Pelican Beak Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» No it's not. Posted by: pelican beak
» Yes it is and YOU'RE BUSTED. Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: Yes it is and YOU'RE BUSTED. Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: Yes it is and YOU'RE BUSTED. Posted by: Benn_Miller
What choice???
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 7, 2009 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For decades "WE THE PEOPLE" have been deluded by the lies told to us and our culture has been deformed by the Corporate Oligarchy! That we've actually bought into the line that "we have choices" in our political system (& our lives) is about as mythical as the Unicorn! Unfortunately, until "WE THE PEOPLE" realize this and start demanding real reform & choice we are trapped and deserve what we get!

The funny part (not haha) is, the Iranian people whom we are told live under tyrannical theocrats appear to have more "democracy" as they take to the streets because they realize that their voices have not been heard! Why are Americans not taking to the streets in droves demanding their voices be heard - whether it is on Universal health-care, Corporate accountability, jobs that continue to move to overseas markets, equal pay, education (or lack of quality in), housing, poverty, and the myriad of other things that we as a society really do need to face - and stop putting off for our children to decide!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For more BIG GOVERNMENT and EMPIRE expansions, please vote Democrat or Republican.
Posted by: superfeduphoosier on Jul 7, 2009 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But if you're sick and tired of losing your taxpayer money to war criminals and corporate welfare queens, please consider voting beyond these two party cretins. With the notable exception of Paul, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, etc ... both parties are stuffed with corporatists and yesmen giving you the MIDDLE FINGER. Bob Barr may have been a rightwing kook in his earlier years but ever since he went Libertarian, he actually grew a brain and some sanity. How many Democrats and Republicans have even come close?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Republican/Democrat, left/right paradigm has been infiltrated & neutralized—they are two sides
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Jul 7, 2009 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of the very same coin.

Obama is likely a tool of the Elites, as were all our other presidents for decades before, with the exception of JFK, perhaps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Re JFK Posted by: tazdelaney
Third party reality --- peace is an environmental issue
Posted by: sherry on Jul 7, 2009 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wonderful to hear from Theresa on this forum.

In 2000 I coordinated the ballot drive to put Nader's name on the ballot in my state and was active in the Green Party on a local, state, and national level. A few years later I decided to narrow my focus to one issue: single-payer health care. Last election cycle I quit my job and worked for a Congressional candidate who supported HR 676. I had to vote absentee, and for the first time in years I voted for a Democrat (even voted for Joe Biden --- what was I thinking?). A few days later, I heard a fragment of an NPR interview with Cynthia McKinney. The interviewer, suggesting the Greens were primarily an environmental party, asked Cynthia what she had done environmentally speaking while in Congress. She began listing a few bills but interrupted herself with these words: But peace is an environmental issue. Plain and simple. The most sensible, straightforward, and profound six words to emerge out of all that political jabbering that had gone on for more than a year.

I wanted to take my vote back. When I'm not working with third parties, I can never escape the feeling of having destroyed my own personal integrity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clubs few want to join
Posted by: Beck on Jul 7, 2009 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clubs where anyone already a member ever says "KISS MY ASS" to non-members. (wouldn't you leave the room if this happened in person?)

Clubs where anyone uses a word like "motherfucker" to describe members they lack but need.

Clubs were only one opinion counts, and any others get you called "Bot" or "clueless" or "uneducated" or any of their many synonyms.

Clubs where hostile people blame the big clubs for tyranny and hogging all the membership.

Clubs where, when the subject of low membership comes up, blame all the meanies who won't join despite all the hostility.

Clubs where the leader won't accept any job but the very highest.

Clubs where the supporters actually damage the leader and his/her cause.

Clubs where a losing strategy has been adopted, but when it again loses, the member ramp it up, not down.

It's just common sense. No one would stick around any roomful of people like that. And no one will join any party if those forms of communication are the main ones. And now, they are. Read the responses and tell me if third party membership is going up or down. Then maybe explain why the members aren't themselves directly responsible for this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ad Hominem Arguments... Posted by: oregoncharles
good luck
Posted by: jstepp590 on Jul 7, 2009 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good luck getting third party candidates on an even level with the two parties, for the reasons listed above. The problem is that we have everyone else paying for our elected officials campaigns instead of us.

Until we have a Clean Election system in place, probably through referendum, nothing else is going to change. Until the Clean Election choice of candidates is on the ballots under both parties and it allows third party candidates to compete by giving them matching funds, everything that matters is going to get flooded out in an avalanche of dirty money.

Until we the people have the choice of voting for a candidate whose campaign was paid for by us as well as the choice of voting for a corporate candidate nothing will ever change.

Our democracy is hijacked and we no longer live in a democratic republic. The sooner we wake up to that truth the sooner we will wrest control of our country back. If we do not it will, and is, destroying our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Multiple parties
Posted by: bonapartist on Jul 7, 2009 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMHO great article and one that touches the real and biggest problem of current US political structure. US is for all practical purposes an empire (neoimperial power) ruled by ONE and only ONE oligarchy. That oligarchy represents top 10% of the population and it is organized in two multiple supportive factions - the Republicans and the Democrats.

The system of US so-called "democracy" is old, it was established in 18th century during the period when the dominant political structure was a monarchy (most often the enlightened absolutims) and during which few questioned the elite's rights to rule. American colonies broadened that ruling class from monarch and aristocracy to bigger number of plutocrats. Instead of having wealth and title one had just to have wealth.

The times changed, the World changed, the absolutism is gone but US system is stuck in the past and changed very little. The oligarchy has a monopoly on power and it steers the country as it sees fit. Let me ask you this how many ordinary americans will receive spoils from Iraqi war? Very few, but it did line the pockets of the oligarchs.

The system needs to be reformed with at least two things. One, the electoral system garbage has to go and voters should vote for party lists or candiadates directlly. Two, and morei mportantly, the monopoly of the rulling oligarchy can be broken if and only if the multiple parties emerge. Not just the third party, four, five or even more. Some will be major and other minor but it would break the currend monopoly.

How is this to be done? Frankly I can think only of supporting the third parties for legitimate means but I also think legitimate means will not work. US empire is shaking, it needs to start falling and enter another crisis before for the system to become too weak for oligarchy to maintain the monopoly on power.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

well said, honey
Posted by: tazdelaney on Jul 7, 2009 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
firstly, nader didn't 'help elect bush-cheney,' at all. that was accomplished by the biggest vote fraud in history, as was 2004. if americans took democracy as seriously as iranians...we voted nader in both elections and in 2008... as the man with integrity – a man who has steadfastly fought the corporatists and warmongers (same thing), since 1960 – unbribed, unbought by any PAC or SIG, not even goldmansachs, riyadh-exxmob or AIPAC. a man who had a bit more credentials than a half-done first term in the senate.

when we watched the video of gore refusing to even acknowledge the senate's black caucus regarding the hundreds of thousands of illegalities committed on them in florida and elsewhere, and the way he just did not fight the bush-cheney-baker camp...

then in 2004, 2 hours before conceding in another avalanche of vote fraud, this time mostly in ohio, kerry had been saying that he "would not concede until every vote was correctly counted and all charges of election fraud were resolved."

we knew we were basically watching a fixed boxing match in which the 'loser' had sold out on the count of 7...

we watched as nader/kucinich/gravel/paul were denied participation in the RNC/DNC/NBC-disney 'debates.' we rea that the decision of these oligarchs was that the dissenters "didn't have the campaign funds to be serious candidates." that about says it all, eh? the best demockery money can buy.

ben franklin wrote that in a two party system, in order for it to be a genuine democracy, the two parties had to be almost diametrically opposed to each other. when we look at the past 8 years, we see that congress voted often 94-6 for virtualy every major bush-cheney bill, for the illegal wars, the sham war on terror, even financial actions which have led us all to the abyss. this is a 2-party system in name only. while i see no change whatsoever, call him obamabush, the rabid rightwing just screeches on as usual. if they'll just shut up, obama will kill his own million and on his 2nd day in office obama continued the CIA rendition program of outsourced torture; continues the same corporate-communism of trillions in 'bailouts' for the financial criminals; protects the butchers and spies and torturers from prosecution and will back out of even health care for all; much less end the 75 year drugwar on americans and other nations.

a couple other quotes you might find useful... jefferson said, "the prerequisites for democracy are a well-educated and truthfully-informed public." the usa now ranks 49th in education behind bulgaria at 48th... the usa now classifies 30 million documents a year as top secret an the monomedia is blatantly manipulated.

evn that vulgar indian-killing syphilitic and slave-rapist george washington said, "a democratic society cannot long survive in the presence of a standing army." and indeed, it has not survived.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You left out Cynthia McKinney. Posted by: oregoncharles
Thanks, Alternet,
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jul 7, 2009 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for acknowledging reality. It's about time. Does this mean the infatuation with Obama has worn off?

I can add a couple of points:

First, the notion that "3rd parties" "can't win" is a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy: it's true mainly because so many people believe it. They can't win if YOU won't vote for them, even if they're the only candidates or parties that represent you.

(Note: to a degree, this reflects my rather spoiled position in Oregon, where the Pacific Green Party is on the ballot. So far. As Theresa points out, ballot access is a huge hurdle in many states. That is really a federal constitutional issue, but in the meantime it, too, is a matter of state law and the state legislature.)

Next: electoral rules are set by your state legislature (and the details by the Secretary of State). That's where you go if you want to change those rules. The key change would be Instant Runoff Voting (see Fairvote.org for the details - they're always worth a plug), which eliminates the "spoiler" effect. Public campaign financing would be a big help, too, but that depends partly on the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, politicians are unlikely to willingly change the rules under which they got elected, so effective forms of pressure are called for. The most effective is to play the spoiler effect to the hilt, against whichever party is in power. In Oregon, that means "spoiling" races for Democrats. I have to admit that the Oregon Green Party has been neglecting that duty; it's a high priority next year, along with going after Sen. Wyden for his opposition to single-payer health insurance, among other things.

Note: IRV has been authorized by the Oregon Constitution for 100 years. It is not a new or revolutionary idea. The Democrats completely control state government; but this year, they blocked implementation of that Constitutional provision yet again.

So personally, I'm utterly unapologetic about being a "spoiler:" we didn't make the rules, but we have to operate under them. If the Democrats want us to be spoilers, so be it. They make the rules. They will have to live with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE NEXT LEVEL FOR THE THIRD PARTY MOVEMENT
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 7, 2009 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a dream of the major third parties and Independent groupings would take their independence to the next political level. Beyond direct party building to issue based power brokering. It can be done.

Individually, the Libertarians, Green Party and Nader Independents are dismissible as fringe. Together, on a single issue, they are a voter block. A discernible constituency.

The long term value to each group of being a partner in getting a major policy crafted with their coalition input is immeasurable. As a voting and activist coalition going into the 2010 elections the Democrats will listen to them.

The one policy that Libertarians, the Green Party and Nader Independents all agree upon is ending the war on drugs. The immediate opportunity would be for the coalition to activate members to lobby their U.S. senators to co-sponsor Democrat Jim Webb's S-714, a bill to create a national criminal justice commission. Webb's characterizes the commission as putting everything related to America's failed criminal justice system on the table for critical analysis and review. Even legalization of marijuana.

Webb's S-714

Tally Sheet of 29 senator co-sponsors

Bringing a third party and Independent coalition together on a single issue will educate the two dominance parties to the power of listening to and working with third parties and Independents. Rather than the stone wall that they put up today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George Washington: "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally"
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 7, 2009 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE RELEVANCE OF "THE VOTE" IN THE AGE OF EMPIRE- PART ONE
Posted by: chlamor on Jul 7, 2009 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an entry from a blog entry I wrote Oct. 2008 which you can view here:

THE RELEVANCE OF "THE VOTE" IN THE AGE OF EMPIRE

Here comes the common refrain:

"If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome."

The opposite is true. By playing the game, voters agree to the rules. Only those who don’t play and withhold their consent have a right to complain about the outcome, especially since the winner will have his hand in the non-voter’s pocket.

Voting is not an act of political freedom. It is an act of political conformity. Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician’s ear: "You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you."

Non-voting has a rich and long history through which the dissenting electorate has expressed everything from religious convictions to political cynicism.

Who makes the decisions in our society?

Who writes public policy?

Years of social engineering has caused people to be deluded on this matter.

The White House and Congress don’t really make the decisions, Wall Street and the Pentagon do.

Who wins the election makes no difference because all politicians must do what the elite want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the state.

Elections do not secure popular control over the state, they do help secure state control over the populace. Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state authority. It creates the illusion that “the people” control the state, thereby masking elite rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. This is why even totalitarian states like Russia under Stalin had elections. Embedded within all electoral campaigns is the myth that “the people” control the state through voting.

There's far more potential in 80% of the political drones staying home or burning tires in the street on election night but neither of these things will happen here in Never-Never Land. Instead the usual 50% will show up to keep the facade in place and validate the system that beats on their heads every day. Then the folk can swell with a moment of civic pride and think that "Democracy", if imperfect, has once again triumphed. "Well at least we got the vote"- and other such dripping bathos will resonate through the corridors of America.

We have no say, or very little, in what even gets voted on be it issue or candidate let alone considering if the vote gets counted.

But as long as the vote charade goes on the appearance of "having a say" remains intact. And you must admit this is part of the genius of the system. It really does give you a few minor openings and the appearance that you are playing the game. LTTE's, three minutes at city council, online petitions and call in radio and hey, "Let's call it Democracy! Let's vote!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE RELEVANCE OF "THE VOTE" IN THE AGE OF EMPIRE- PART TWO
Posted by: chlamor on Jul 7, 2009 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter who is nominated & elected, the policy will be endless war & military spending, further upward transfers of wealth, with the corporate elite controlling news & writing all legislation.

This policy can be cloaked under 2 different costumes. If a Democrat is elected, as seems likely, the foregoing will take place with more smiles, and more pseudo-liberal rationales. Obama will claim to be introducing "health care for the people," or "protecting the environment," or some such BS. The militarism will be presented in milder tones, emphasizing themes like "stabilization" rather than "killing our enemies."

On the other hand, if the president is McCain, there will be no smiley face. There will be more in-your-face militarism, with overtly blood-thirsty rhetoric. There will be more blatant pandering to the Religious Right.

That's the only "choice" the system will permit.

What do I want to see changed in the political landscape? Well, on a daydream basis, I'd like to see the US government overthrown by the people of the United States, with the society reorganized to function on a socialist basis. I'd like to see all the war criminals & war profiteers put behind bars for life, with all their personal assets confiscated. The Supreme Court should be replaced, being an illegitmate body that has egregiously betrayed its mission. The corporate media should be replaced, reorganized from the ground up. Many large businesses should be nationalized, starting with the oil companies & Wall St. The military should be downsized by about 90%, with virtually all overseas bases dismantled. The CIA should be abolished. That would be on the first day. Give me a few minutes to think about the second day.

What we have is the continuation of a duopoly in which the differences between the two sides of the duopoly are far less important than their similarities. There is a largely successful establishment effort to control the political process so that the range of options is severely limited. We have the outward semblance of democracy without the reality of it.

For example, studies show that a large majority of Americans, including majorities who identify with each major party, believe our national priorities are screwed up and we shouldn't be spending most of our resources on the military. But the Presidential candidates of both major parties, and probably at least 95% of the Congressional candidates, support the screwed up priorities. Obama and McCain have virtually identical positions calling for greater increases in the military budget and an increase in the active duty forces.

And despite rhetoric making it sound as if their positions are very different, when you look closely at the real positions of the candidates, there's very little difference on Iraq either. And both have consistently supported Bush's requests for funding the war.

AFAIK, in his entire political career, Obama has never once taken a position for anything that could be called meaningful change. And he's been backtracking on previous positions for even marginal change.

The establishment relies for their continued power on the people assuming you have to choose between the duopoly candidates. This guarantees that the establishment wins and the people lose.

We must stop trying to figure a lesser evil, and take a position of not voting for evil. We should be measuring them against our understanding of what this country needs, not against what another wing of the establishment is presenting.

Any vote, no matter who you vote for, is a vote in favor of the status quo. When you vote you are saying you support a system whose deck is stacked in favor of the criminals. The only way we will ever have real change is if everyone stops supporting that system en masse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tyranny
Posted by: AZWizo on Jul 7, 2009 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally, I think Tyranny is a huge under statement!

RT
Online Privacy when it Counts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wanker Alert! Identity theft! Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
THE RELEVANCE OF "THE VOTE" IN THE AGE OF EMPIRE- PART THREE
Posted by: chlamor on Jul 7, 2009 4:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Making a conscious decision to not vote is not apathetic, nor does it mean you do not care, it is a political statement in and of itself that says very clearly that you do not support the system as it is and you will not take part in it accordingly. More people need to consider making that statement instead of going to the polls every 2 years and voting for criminal thug A or criminal scumbag B, Tweedledee or Tweedledum. You might argue that voting for choice C, in this case perhaps someone like Ralph Nader, can make a difference, but sadly it will not, you must face the reality of this and come to terms with it. Even a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote in favor of the current system in which is the deck is clearly stacked in favor of the enemies of this nation by way of Diebold Incorporated.

Bad "leaders" or bad system?

Better to place this action in an institutional context. The forces placed on the elected person by the state machinery and pressures from big business dictate the outcome. Your vote is meaningless. You can argue all you want that "We need to keep up the pressure to demand Politician______ needs to listen to ordinary citizens, not to business" and you will rot on the vine as your words disappear into the indifferent air.



There is a difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection of institutions that have entrenched power structures and interests. The government is made up of various politicians. It is the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence, not the representatives who come and go. We cannot expect different politicians to act in different ways to the same pressures. However, this is all ignored by the voting political consumer who wishes Politician______ was more a socialist, green, populist etc. and could ignore the demands of the dominant class in society while in charge of one part of its protector and creature, the state.

Is Voting an Act of Violence?

Now what connection is there between electoral voting and those who act violently in the name of the State? Why does the State want large numbers of people to participate in electoral voting? There are two primary reasons for this. First, those who act in the name of the State can use the fact that many people vote as evidence that they are acting in the name of "the people." Widespread voting is cited as evidence of "consent." State agents, such as legislators, presidents, and judges need an aura of legitimacy if their actions are to be viewed as right and proper by a large majority of the population. Second, governments - especially democratic ones - have discovered that as the proportion of the citizenry which holds the government in esteem increases, the less force the government requires to keep the balance of the population (those who view the government as illegitimate) under control. In other words, the more legitimacy that a government attains the less it needs to exercise outright violence against it opponents. A government which continually had to resort to violence to achieve its ends would soon be seen for exactly what it was: a criminal gang.

So, given that a successful State requires legitimacy and that one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy is through widespread voter participation, what is the responsibility of the voters for the actions of its government?

Voting in the United States isn't about "democracy"—it's about perpetuating the illusion of democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE RELEVANCE OF "THE VOTE" IN THE AGE OF EMPIRE- PART FOUR
Posted by: chlamor on Jul 7, 2009 4:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am told I should vote Democrat, simply to get rid of the Republicans. Or I should vote for whatever candidate is opposing the incumbent, simply to throw the bums out. All of this, of course, is simply a well-oiled shell game, for as the historian Carroll Quigley wrote, there is no difference between the parties, they are essentially cut from the same cloth. According to the elite who run things behind the scenes, “the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy… It should be possible, to replace one party with the other party which will pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policy.”

"What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies."

~ Benjamin R. Tucker

We need to remind ourselves of Albert Einstein’s admonition: “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Trying to reform the political process makes no more sense than trying to reform the carnivorous appetites of jungle beasts. If it is your desire to put an end to the violent, destructive, corrupt, and dysfunctional nature of government, stop wasting your time by focusing on the current management of the system.

As physicians have learned from the study of the body , a disease often indicates, not a permanent deterioration, but an attempt to restore an equilibrium that has been disturbed, and to recover natural functions that have been thwarted or suppressed. Without some overt manifestation of pathological symptoms, permanent damages might result before the disease could be detected and adequate measures taken to overcome it.

The voting ritual serves to disguise the symptoms. The patient is gasping for air. A face lift won't help.

Now consider two "what if" scenarios:

1) 90% of the people refused to vote. I think there is great potential in that. Tremendous acknowledgment that the machine is broken and a refusal to play in a rigged contest. Opportunity for galvanizing folks I'd say.

2) The controllers pulled the curtain back and said "Hey folks you knew this was a game anyways didn't you, no more voting." Report to work as you normally would and shut up. No more pretense.

As in every election we’re now being bombarded with propaganda about how “your vote makes a difference” and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians are supposedly servants of “the people” and the government an instrument of the general populace. This version is a myth. It does not matter who is elected because the way the system is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want, not what “the people” want. Elected representatives are figureheads. Politicians’ rhetoric may change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that “the people” control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The party is over
Posted by: sirios on Jul 7, 2009 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to see a third, fourth, fifth, etc. party's, just for the variety. but this will not solve the nature of politics and the addiction to power. Eventually we need to see that politics itself is an expression of a much deeper issue, a very low level of collective thinking. The two party system and the candidates are merely a reflection of the collective consciousness. We are going about it backwards. A leader that somehow transcends the collective influence will find it nearly impossible to alter the ignorance of humans. on the other hand, if everyone takes responsibility to transform themselves, the collective awareness will be altered simultaneously and a whole new class of leaders will emerge. We have arranged and rearranged all of the knowledge that is available in the present level of awareness. We can't keep using the same knowledge and expect a different outcome. Knowledge is structured in consciousness and knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. If we want new knowledge, new politics and new leaders then we must tap into an expanded version [ a very expanded version] of the present level of collective awareness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The party is over Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Well said. A high 5 for you sir. Posted by: Wayne Etheridge
Nothing destroys communities, constitutions and public confidence like a party.
Posted by: godsbreath64 on Jul 7, 2009 6:05 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The framers of the American Constitution sought to create a system of government that would simultaneously counteract three related dangers: the legacy of a monarchy; self-interested representation by government officials; and the power of faction, or 'majority tyranny'"
Cass R. Sunstein

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for breaking the myth Teresa. When Choice A and B fail, there's always C or higher.
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Jul 7, 2009 8:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got so sick and tired of Obama changing his positions on issues that I decided to vote for Nader in sheer frustration. I might have voted for Obama had he been consistent about himself which he wasn't. Now I realize that he wasn't joking and that he really did plan to copy Bush once in office. I feel a little better than I voted for Nader even though I was completely tired of Bush. Call me crazy but I would much rather get punished for being honest than rewarded for being a bald-faced liar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IRV has entrenched the two-party political system wherever it has been tried
Posted by: ncvoter on Jul 7, 2009 8:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IRV leads to two party domination:

"The three IRV countries: Ireland (mandated in their 1937 constitution), Australia and Malta (and more recently Fiji for a brief period of IRV democracy before its coup) all are 2-party dominated (in IRV seats) – despite having many other features in their governments which would seem much more multiparty-genic than the USA with IRV added will ever have. So you can be sure the USA with IRV would be 2-party dominated too." - from the Center for Range Voting's report "Why does IRV lead to 2-party domination?

Two Parties entrenched wherever IRV tried:

"IRV has entrenched the two-party political system wherever it has been tried.xxiv
One reason is because if a voter puts a third party candidate as his or her first choice,
it can hurt the chances of the voter’s second choice major party candidate,
who could potentially be eliminated in the first round, causing that voter’s last choice to be selected for office.xxv

Examples include Australia (IRV seats are two-party dominated, zero third party members currently in the federal house; even though other NON-IRV seats NOT 2-party dominated, so this makes it quite clear) ditto Ireland and Fiji (but Fiji's democracy recently ended)." From From Kathy Dopp's report "Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting -18 Flaws and 4 Benefits":

More on IRV and Two Party Rule

Australian Politics - the "Disadvantages of the Preferential System"... promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.

Libertarian Reform Caucus "Anyone for a Bullet in the Foot? Instant Runoff!"

http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/3rdparty.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greens and Libertarians
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jul 7, 2009 8:48 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
here's a thought: why don't you start local? demonstrate you can win and then govern successfully in your own communities first, then your counties and states.

#@!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Greens and Libertarians Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: Greens and Libertarians Posted by: pawheel
Taking back the election process first
Posted by: truthteller on Jul 7, 2009 10:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2008, no third party candidate for President got even 2% of the vote. In 1920, Socialist and labor organizer Eugene V. Debs, running for President for the third time, from prison no-less, where he was put by Woodrow Wilson for opposing U. S. involvement in WWI, garnered 6% of the national vote. This in an era that was without the instant individual communications options available to us today, and that was influenced in large measure by newspaper syndicates run by Hearst, Pulitzer, etc.

Clearly, the system is gamed from the inside out to keep insurgents from gaining any traction. I think that a key to taking back the process for The People is for those of us who take activism seriously, to become involved in the "boring" world of Board of Elections politics. The system has to be reformed at that level before there is any real choice to be had at the ballot box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Taking back the election process first Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
I do think I have a good bumper sticker idea, in honor of of the strongest voices for 3rds
Posted by: Beck on Jul 8, 2009 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nader, I Swear

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best We Scuttle American Style Representative Democracy
Posted by: booboo on Jul 8, 2009 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Otherwise?"

"Doomsday."

"Based on?"

"Perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse."

"But if not electoral democracy, what?"

"Direct or do it oneself democracy."

"But how?"

"Online."

"What'll the new system be called?"

"People Power."

"Anything else?"

"Yes we can."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

civil rights under attack
Posted by: scottdavene on Jul 8, 2009 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although, I personally am so far to the left that even the democrats appear to me to be "right-wing," I consider myself to be a strict constitutionalist. It is my opinion that since its inception there has been an organized and systematic assault by the conservatives in the United States on the civil liberties written into the US Constitution. The “War on Drugs”; “War on Terror”; “War on Communism” and a host of other wars waged by the right wing are really nothing more than a War on People--an excuse to erode civil rights to the point of non-existence. I invite you to my website devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on freedom: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instant-runoff voting
Posted by: ahhbach on Jul 9, 2009 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer is to get rid of the electoral college and have Instant-Runoff Voting for all of our elections.

Check it out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Instant-runoff voting Posted by: AaronH
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement