[Prairiegreens] RE: [UCprogressives-discuss] Re: [Peace-discuss]Fw: Election Commission

Wed Oct 27 22:57:41 CDT 2004

Ken,

You seem to view everything through a rather stiff unyielding lens, 
Nader-like. I addressed my comments specifically to the County Board 
election, and I believe that has little to do with corporatism, unless 
you stretch things beyond recognition. Thus, most of your comments are 
irrelevant. We have here a local issue, and I believe it was a good 
thing that Democrats gained control for once at the last(?) election. 
(I would not say the same for the coming mayoral election of 
Satterthwaite.) If the Democrats on the County Board were not very 
different on local issues from the Republicans, then I would say the 
Greens should indeed run their own candidates.  Similarly, I would hope 
that progressive Democrats would support Green candidates if the latter 
were more likely to win. That is, in some campaigns they should strive 
to join forces, when the good for the community so dictates, however 
difficult this is to achieve in our party framework.

I don't understand your comment " Why are you working for 'the man' "? 
Don't you comprehend the grave issues at stake on the world and 
national level in this election, where the first priority for us is 
(and for most of the world would be) to oust the Bush government? Kerry 
is, unfortunately, the only viable option, in this particular struggle. 
  We will have to deal with him later.

I acknowledge your pity.

Mort

P.S. I don't have your crystal ball as to the next 10, 20 or 30 years; 
I fear and am more concerned with what is happening now.

On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Ken Urban wrote:

> Mort,
>
> You can't seem to see that the corporate parties will just continue to
> persue corporate activities. Can't you see that this is just another
> political ploy to gain power for the Democratic Party in the false name
> of progressive policies. I pity you if you can't see the difference; 
> you
> end up another dupe to be ignored by the millionaires running the
> country.
>
> And yes, there are some quite progressive Democrats, and my question to
> them is: Why are you working for 'the man'?  What good will it do you 
> in
> 10 years, 20 year or 30 years.
>
> Ken
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Ken Urban
> Assoc. Prof., Computer Science
> Parkland College
>
> Office: B129A
>            (217)-353-2246
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>>>> Morton K.Brussel <brussel at uiuc.edu> 10/27/2004 11:54:19 AM >>>
> The Greens are being self destructive here. In some places, Greens do
> agree to join with Democrats if the "progressive cause" will be
> advanced in doing so. This would seem to apply here. It has applied
> elsewhere (Germany, France, e.g.). Don't hold your breath for the
> current electoral system to change while we revert to Republican
> domination of the County Board.
>
> I understand that the current candidates of the Green party feel
> undercut by Fabri's argument, and resentful, but for the voter who
> wants to see progressive policies continue on the County Board, Fabri's
>
> argument has merit. Will progressive issues advance or retrogress if
> indeed the vote is split on the Green-Democrat side of the ledger? That
>
> is the question in this particular election.
>
> mkb
>
> On Oct 27, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Dawn Owens-Nicholson wrote:
>
>> Tony Fabri wrote:
>>
>>> In my relatively short time participating in local politics (12
>>> years), I've come to the opinion that splitting the progressive vote
>
>>> between two or more parties will only improve the already strong
> odds
>>> of electing conservative Republicans in Champaign County.
>>
>> This is only true under the current two-party system.  But if both
>> democrats and republicans are able to get themselves elected under
>> this system, there is no incentive for them to change the electoral
>> structure to something more fair to other parties (instant runoffs,
>> proportional representation, etc.)  In every election, democrats are
>
>> able to discourage progressives from voting for progressive third
>> party candidates by alleging that the republican alternative is SOO
>> horrible that it is irresponsible to vote for the candidate you
> really
>> want.  But are democrats moving us toward alternative election
>> structures?  No.  Why should they?  They can get themselves elected
> by
>> scaring progressives into not voting for progressive candidates.  It
>
>> is not in their interest to make it possible for non-democrats to win
>
>> races.
>> The ONLY way we will ever get instant runoff elections is if one of
>> the two power parties can no longer get its members elected because
> of
>> third party pull.  It is the democrats and republicans who would have
>
>> to be the ones to introduce and pass the legislation needed to change
>
>> the system.   To do this, they would need an incentive.  If they are
>
>> able to get elected under the current system, they have no incentive.
>
>> If democrats find it difficult to get elected because  the
> progressive
>> vote is split between the democrats and the greens and the
> socialists,
>> only then will they work toward a fairer election system--because it
>
>> will be in their interest to do so.
>>
>> -- 
>> Dawn Owens-Nicholson
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Prairiegreens mailing list
> Prairiegreens at lists.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/prairiegreens
> http://www.prairienet.org/greens/
>