<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Without getting into this hair-pulling match, which - sorry, everyone - I see as basically internecine, I think Tom's right that a party will tend to encourage folks to vote for it. Bob's point I think is that Matt went beyond that at least in his argument, to something else which is questionable logic and politics. I will also say that if we disagree with the Democrats when they put party before principle, it's fair to do the same with the Greens.<br><br>The law is unfair to Greens. And so are the Democrats more often than not. But I think there is a more positive side of the dichotomy Tom describes: when Republicans cross over, the Dems are hostile, yet the Dems encourage the Greens to cross over. The difference is in which *direction* the two groups would influence the Dems. I'd say the Greens would have a positive
influence on the Dems, myself.<br><br>I'm not suggesting the Greens give up and join the Dems. I've helped the Greens get on the ballot when I could. But surely the outcome is important. And there may be times when breaking with the Dems is helpful, other times when joining with them helps more.<br><br>My 2c more -<br>Ricky<br>
<br>
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn<br><br>--- On <b>Thu, 2/4/10, Robert Naiman <i><naiman.uiuc@gmail.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc@gmail.com><br>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!<br>To: "Tom Abram" <tabram@gmail.com><br>Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><br>Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 11:41 AM<br><br><div class="plainMail">Tom, do you agree with Matt's view that<br><br>"If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was<br>actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in<br>this rigged election."?<br><br>If so, does this statement also apply to Green candidates? If it<br>doesn't also apply to Green candidates, why not? If it does also apply<br>to Green candidates, does it apply forever, or only
until some<br>particular reform(s) of the "rigged election" are achieved? If the<br>latter, what reform(s)? What is the Green Party strategy to bring such<br>reform(s) about?<br><br>On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom Abram <<a ymailto="mailto:tabram@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=tabram@gmail.com">tabram@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Obviously, the Illinois Green Party, its candidates, and active<br>> members are going to encourage their members to vote for Green<br>> canididates. That's kind of the point of building a party. To get<br>> candidates of our values elected and influence public policy. Just<br>> like the Dems and Reps, but our values are far more progressive.<br>> Would you really expect the Democrats to advocate their members voting<br>> for a Republican candidate? Why should we? We gain absolutely<br>> nothing from this and further distort the power dynamics between<br>>
ourselves and the corporate parties. When Greens have stepped aside<br>> from an election due to pressure from "progressive Democrats" they<br>> have gained absolutely nothing, furthering the acceptance of such<br>> candidates and marginalizing the Green Party.<br>><br>> If an individual wants to vote in a different primary to influence the<br>> outcome, I can understand that. However, I personally feel it's a<br>> stronger statement to vote Green. I have been criticized for<br>> advocating voters to pull a Green ballot. To expect one party to<br>> kowtow to another and encourage their members, supporters, and the<br>> public to vote in another party is ludicrous. When Republicans cross<br>> over in the primary to vote for Dems (like the 2006 District 9 County<br>> Board race and the silly Rush Limbaugh effort to nominate Hilary<br>> Clinton) they're called infiltrators by the Dems.
But these same Dems<br>> encourage Greens to cross over. No thanks. We are not a subset,<br>> splinter, or sect of the Democratic Party. The law and media have<br>> already treated the Greens inferiorly (even though we're now a<br>> recognized established party in Illinois). We don't need our activist<br>> allies to do the same.<br>><br>> Tom Abram<br>><br>><br>> On 2/4/10, Robert Naiman <<a ymailto="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> I find Matt's argument here quite striking. I wonder how many<br>>> activists in the Illinois Green Party share the views that Matt<br>>> expresses here. If it turns out that these views are widespread in the<br>>> Illinois Green Party, I think it should affect the calculation of<br>>> folks who are interested in promoting progressive change in
the world<br>>> in which we actually live about whether the Illinois Green Party is an<br>>> institution whose influence in public affairs they want to promote.<br>>><br>>> Matt argues that it actually doesn't matter who Cheryle Jackson is or<br>>> what views she espouses:<br>>><br>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was<br>>> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in<br>>> this rigged election."<br>>><br>>> Presumably, Matt is acknowledging here that he actually doesn't know<br>>> anything about and doesn't care to know anything about Cheryle<br>>> Jackson, a remarkable position for someone who presumes to educate<br>>> others on public affairs. But in Matt's worldview, that information is<br>>> irrelevant, so why bother acquiring it? All you need to know about the<br>>> world is that you should vote for
the Green Party.<br>>><br>>> Furthermore, one presumes that according to Matt's logic, so long as<br>>> the election remains "rigged," no Green Party candidates will ever<br>>> have a realistic chance of ever winning any election.<br>>><br>>> Therefore, in Matt's worldview, the call to vote for the Green Party<br>>> is essentially a call for a boycott of the election. The only<br>>> difference between voting for the Green Party and staying home is that<br>>> if you vote for the Green Party, there is an official record of how<br>>> many people participated in the Green Party-initiated boycott.<br>>><br>>> Note the similarity between Matt's argument and the old anarchist<br>>> slogan, "if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it." Of course,<br>>> anarchists with this view are generally electoral abstentionists. The<br>>> only difference is that the anarchists
generally don't exhort you to<br>>> go the polling place on election day and vote anarchist.<br>>><br>>> Other folks here are more familiar with the Illinois Green Party than<br>>> I am. Are these views widespread in the Illinois Green Party?<br>>><br>>><br>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Matt Reichel <<a ymailto="mailto:mattreichel@hotmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=mattreichel@hotmail.com">mattreichel@hotmail.com</a>><br>>> wrote:<br>>>> Of course, I couldn't disagree more with the analysis that it is<br>>>> worthwhile<br>>>> pulling a corporate party ballot. If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the<br>>>> corporate ballots was actually any good, then they had no realistic chance<br>>>> of winning in this rigged election.<br>>>><br>>>> The act of pulling a Green ballot in itself was a vote against the system<br>>>>
of<br>>>> corporate bribe-taking candidates.<br>>>><br>>>> In the end, over 5,000 people in the state pulled a Green ballot: a 60%<br>>>> increase over 2008 numbers, despite turnout being about 1/3rd of 2008<br>>>> across<br>>>> the board. (Champaign County was the only major county that saw a<br>>>> decrease,<br>>>> in large part due to the graduation and relocation of several active GP<br>>>> activists from there)<br>>>><br>>>> Most of the increase occurred in inner-city Chicago, where residents have<br>>>> the benefit of clarity that those of you in the cornfields might not have:<br>>>> choosing among corporate bribe taking candidates in one of the corporate<br>>>> bribe-taking parties is an act of futility. In the land of Blago, Rahmbo,<br>>>> Stroger, Daley, Burke I and II, Dick Mell, and so on, this couldn't
be<br>>>> clearer.<br>>>><br>>>> Solidarity,<br>>>><br>>>> Matt<br>>>><br>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:39:31 -0600<br>>>>> From: <a ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" href="/mc/compose?to=galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a><br>>>>> To: <a ymailto="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=kmedina67@gmail.com">kmedina67@gmail.com</a><br>>>>> CC: <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!<br>>>>><br>>>>> My experience exactly. Without the kiss.<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> Karen Medina wrote:<br>>>>> > Election judge to Karen: "Would you like a Democrat or a
Republican<br>>>>> > ballot?"<br>>>>> ><br>>>>> > Karen: "You are not offering a Green ballot?"<br>>>>> ><br>>>>> > EJ: "Would you like a Green ballot?"<br>>>>> ><br>>>>> > Karen: "No. But aren't we offered a Green ballot?"<br>>>>> ><br>>>>> > [... ] [Karen was voter 110 at her precinct at 10:30am today.]<br>>>>> ><br>>>>> > Karen to 3 EJs in an otherwise empty poling place: "Have a wonderful<br>>>>> > day! Hope you have a great turnout!"<br>>>>> ><br>>>>> > EJ1 blows a kiss. A heartfelt good-bye.<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> --<br>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>>>>> believed to be
clean.<br>>>>><br>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>>>>> <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>>>> <a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>>>><br>>>> ________________________________<br>>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.<br>>>> --<br>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>>>> believed to be clean.<br>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>>>> <a
ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>>> <a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>>>><br>>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> --<br>>> Robert Naiman<br>>> Just Foreign Policy<br>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org<br>>> <a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>>><br>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan<br>>> Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations<br>>> <a href="http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations"
target="_blank">http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations</a><br>>><br>>> --<br>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>>> believed to be clean.<br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>>> <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>> <a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>>><br>><br><br><br><br>-- <br>Robert Naiman<br>Just Foreign Policy<br>www.justforeignpolicy.org<br><a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org"
href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br><br>Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan<br>Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations<br><a href="http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations" target="_blank">http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations</a><br><br>-- <br>This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>believed to be clean.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br></div></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.