[Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!

Thu Feb 4 14:40:17 CST 2010

One votes Green, as I did, with the hope (Always with hope, even if laced with pessimism) that this party may gain in stature and be able to effect future progressive change in the national politics. Yet, one regrets not being able to also vote for candidates like Cheryle Jackson, who, because she is caught in the Democratic party web, has small (negligible) chance of winning. 

Question: Is it important to keep the Green party going and to increase its visibility, or is it more important to vote for possibly progressive candidates in established parties that fail the test, over all, of effective progressivism (anti-war, anti-militarist, socially conscious, egalitarian, etc.)?  The evidence indicates that the Democratic party in recent times has not been a counterforce, au contraire, to the conservative corporate establishment. Can it be improved by voting for someone like Cheryl Jackson  when even getting someone like her on the ballot is unlikely, given the nature of the D-Party. This is a symptom of the utter corruption of our political system. 

We need a complete turning around, i.e., a revolution, of that political system. Can voting Democratic achieve this? Can voting Green better achieve this?

There seems to be no pat resolution to these dilemmas. 

--another 2¢ worth.

--mkb

Incidentally, at a meeting of Gill supporters, Gill unequivocally stated that he would not support the AfPac or Iraq wars/occupations…, or the budgets that sustain them. He did this in the face of Democrats who were uncomfortable with his position. 

On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:

> Tom, do you agree with Matt's view that
> 
> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was
> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in
> this rigged election."?
> 
> If so, does this statement also apply to Green candidates? If it
> doesn't also apply to Green candidates, why not? If it does also apply
> to Green candidates, does it apply forever, or only until some
> particular reform(s) of the "rigged election" are achieved? If the
> latter, what reform(s)? What is the Green Party strategy to bring such
> reform(s) about?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom Abram <tabram at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Obviously, the Illinois Green Party, its candidates, and active
>> members are going to encourage their members to vote for Green
>> canididates.  That's kind of the point of building a party.  To get
>> candidates of our values elected and influence public policy.  Just
>> like the Dems and Reps, but our values are far more progressive.
>> Would you really expect the Democrats to advocate their members voting
>> for a Republican candidate?  Why should we?  We gain absolutely
>> nothing from this and further distort the power dynamics between
>> ourselves and the corporate parties.  When Greens have stepped aside
>> from an election due to pressure from "progressive Democrats" they
>> have gained absolutely nothing, furthering the acceptance of such
>> candidates and marginalizing the Green Party.
>> 
>> If an individual wants to vote in a different primary to influence the
>> outcome, I can understand that.  However, I personally feel it's a
>> stronger statement to vote Green.  I have been criticized for
>> advocating voters to pull a Green ballot.  To expect one party to
>> kowtow to another and encourage their members, supporters, and the
>> public to vote in another party is ludicrous.  When Republicans cross
>> over in the primary to vote for Dems (like the 2006 District 9 County
>> Board race and the silly Rush Limbaugh effort to nominate Hilary
>> Clinton) they're called infiltrators by the Dems.  But these same Dems
>> encourage Greens to cross over.  No thanks.  We are not a subset,
>> splinter, or sect of the Democratic Party.  The law and media have
>> already treated the Greens inferiorly  (even though we're now a
>> recognized established party in Illinois).  We don't need our activist
>> allies to do the same.
>> 
>> Tom Abram
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/4/10, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I find Matt's argument here quite striking. I wonder how many
>>> activists in the Illinois Green Party share the views that Matt
>>> expresses here. If it turns out that these views are widespread in the
>>> Illinois Green Party, I think it should affect the calculation of
>>> folks who are interested in promoting progressive change in the world
>>> in which we actually live about whether the Illinois Green Party is an
>>> institution whose influence in public affairs they want to promote.
>>> 
>>> Matt argues that it actually doesn't matter who Cheryle Jackson is or
>>> what views she espouses:
>>> 
>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was
>>> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in
>>> this rigged election."
>>> 
>>> Presumably, Matt is acknowledging here that he actually doesn't know
>>> anything about and doesn't care to know anything about Cheryle
>>> Jackson, a remarkable position for someone who presumes to educate
>>> others on public affairs. But in Matt's worldview, that information is
>>> irrelevant, so why bother acquiring it? All you need to know about the
>>> world is that you should vote for the Green Party.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, one presumes that according to Matt's logic, so long as
>>> the election remains "rigged," no Green Party candidates will ever
>>> have a realistic chance of ever winning any election.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, in Matt's worldview, the call to vote for the Green Party
>>> is essentially a call for a boycott of the election. The only
>>> difference between voting for the Green Party and staying home is that
>>> if you vote for the Green Party, there is an official record of how
>>> many people participated in the Green Party-initiated boycott.
>>> 
>>> Note the similarity between Matt's argument and the old anarchist
>>> slogan, "if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it." Of course,
>>> anarchists with this view are generally electoral abstentionists. The
>>> only difference is that the anarchists generally don't exhort you to
>>> go the polling place on election day and vote anarchist.
>>> 
>>> Other folks here are more familiar with the Illinois Green Party than
>>> I am. Are these views widespread in the Illinois Green Party?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Matt Reichel <mattreichel at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Of course, I couldn't disagree more with the analysis that it is
>>>> worthwhile
>>>> pulling a corporate party ballot. If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the
>>>> corporate ballots was actually any good, then they had no realistic chance
>>>> of winning in this rigged election.
>>>> 
>>>> The act of pulling a Green ballot in itself was a vote against the system
>>>> of
>>>> corporate bribe-taking candidates.
>>>> 
>>>> In the end, over 5,000 people in the state pulled a Green ballot: a 60%
>>>> increase over 2008 numbers, despite turnout being about 1/3rd of 2008
>>>> across
>>>> the board. (Champaign County was the only major county that saw a
>>>> decrease,
>>>> in large part due to the graduation and relocation of several active GP
>>>> activists from there)
>>>> 
>>>> Most of the increase occurred in inner-city Chicago, where residents have
>>>> the benefit of clarity that those of you in the cornfields might not have:
>>>> choosing among corporate bribe taking candidates in one of the corporate
>>>> bribe-taking parties is an act of futility. In the land of Blago, Rahmbo,
>>>> Stroger, Daley, Burke I and II, Dick Mell, and so on, this couldn't be
>>>> clearer.
>>>> 
>>>> Solidarity,
>>>> 
>>>> Matt
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:39:31 -0600
>>>>> From: galliher at illinois.edu
>>>>> To: kmedina67 at gmail.com
>>>>> CC: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!
>>>>> 
>>>>> My experience exactly. Without the kiss.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Karen Medina wrote:
>>>>>> Election judge to Karen: "Would you like a Democrat or a Republican
>>>>>> ballot?"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Karen: "You are not offering a Green ballot?"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> EJ: "Would you like a Green ballot?"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Karen: "No. But aren't we offered a Green ballot?"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [... ] [Karen was voter 110 at her precinct at 10:30am today.]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Karen to 3 EJs in an otherwise empty poling place: "Have a wonderful
>>>>>> day! Hope you have a great turnout!"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> EJ1 blows a kiss. A heartfelt good-bye.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>>>> believed to be clean.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
>>>> --
>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>>> believed to be clean.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Robert Naiman
>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> 
>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan
>>> Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations
>>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations
>>> 
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Naiman
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> 
> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan
> Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations
> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.