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

[Ken Urban]

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/