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

[Dawn Owens-Nicholson]

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