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

Thu Feb 4 15:14:36 CST 2010

I don't think your question can be answered in general.  How to vote depends on 
the particular situation that obtains at the time of the given election.  And 
that's certainly something we should analyze when the occasion arises, as in the 
recent primary. "There seems to be no pat resolution to these dilemmas."

Did Gill actually say "unequivocally [that] he would not support ... the budgets 
that sustain ... the AfPak or Iraq wars/occupations"?  Did he pledge to vote for 
no more money for "the AfPak or Iraq wars/occupations"?

If so, that's a substantial change in his position in four months. From the 
News-Gazette, 10/09:

   "Gill said he would not support a total withdrawal of U.S. forces from
Afghanistan but would favor keeping 10,000 to 20,000 special operations forces
in the country 'with a very narrow mission to prevent any further expansion of
al-Qaida.'"

There's a lesson here for the anti-war movement. We seem to have an example here 
of a candidate switching to an anti-war position because his incumbent opponent 
has taken an anti-war position; and the incumbent seems to have done so in 
response to what he heard from constituents (and perhaps his own analysis of the 
situation).

It's reasonable to think that our efforts to increase AWAREness have contributed 
to this outcome.  --CGE

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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.