Mother Jones - Comments for "White House Threatens Veto Over Expanded Intelligence-Sharing With Congress"

A third party vote would have appeal , that is if there were a third party candidate worth voting for . We need a situation like in the early 1900's when the socialist party got I believe 30% or so of the vote . That scared the old democratic party into adopting many of their planks , thus forming the modern democratic party . The current corporate system that requires huge amounts of ( their ) money to be viable pretty much rules out such an event happening again . We're in a real predicament , the big money boys learn from their mistakes , apparently the public doesn't .

You're welcome.

I think we are in basic agreement that the current system discourages 3rd party candidates. I also think we agree that this isn't the way it ought to be.

I'm open to your suggestions. I don't harbor any illusions that it will be easy to fix this. However, the first thing that needs to be fixed is that the process needs to be simplified, standardized, and set up to encourage people to run for office. We're supposed to be a participatory democracy, this should be something that can be explained in a sound bite or two.

I'm encouraging everyone I meet to vote for the 3rd party candidate of their choice, or write somebody in. Barr, McKinney, Paul, Nader... Alfred E. Neumann. Since I was a precinct captain for Obama in a VERY liberal area, this is am easy sell for me. I'm working for Nader, and I don't particularly care for Barr, but I'd even vote Barr before the other two.

Best,

-Wexler

Thanks for restating you position, W. W.

Now, would you like to tackle any of the questions I posed about why you believe letting the DemoPublicans & RepubliCrats mandate to the States in yet one more arena will work out the way you think it should? Why it wouldn't simply give them one more way to limit the playing field to their OWN teams, as they have at every other opportunity?

I ask again, why should the state you live in make a difference as to which candidates you can vote for on a federal ticket?

Ballot access for federal offices, as I stated before, should be mandated by federal law, not by state law, and should be designed to grant access, not deny it.

-Wexler

Duncan Bruce states: Well Droolius, like I said above, in the year 2000 a vote for Nader was effectively a vote for Bush, and look where that got us!

Just because you said it, doesn't make it so.

I believed then, and continue to believe now, that a vote for Nader was a Vote For Ralph Nader.
Where is it written that every vote that Nader got would have necessarily gone to Gore had Nader not been an option?
What makes one assume that because someone found Gore & Bush equally unacceptable, that they wouldn't simply have refrained from voting in the Presidential race in disgust, had they not had an alternative they thought better? Or stayed at home entirely?

And anyway, how do you know, and how can you prove that if Gore had been elected in 2000 we wouldn't be in just as bad, if not worse shape than we are today?
Please don't give me "belief" on that one. We know where we are, but how can we know where we would have been in some alternate reality?

If the Democratic party couldn't put up a candidate that enough of the nation felt comfortable in giving their votes to.., if many saw Nader (or Harry Browne or John Hagelin or whoever...) as an option preferable to voting for the offering the Democrats were pushing, it wasn't Nader's fault.
Nor was it the fault of The Voters!

Two shots to beat George Dubya, and they couldn't do it either time.
Yeah, yeah..., "stolen" elections... right.
But why were they even so CLOSE that they COULD be stolen, given the turd that is George Dubya Bush??? (Because America didn't see the Dem as a vastly better option, perhaps?)

Democrats need to look into offering something other than the same-old-machine-politician crap they've been running against the same-old-machine-politician crap the Republicans have been running, if they're serious about "CHANGE". If it isn't just a campaign slogan.

But imagine what might happen if we could get campaign finance reform passed through both houses and signed into law by the president.

Already happened.

Wouldn't that give alternative candidates a level playing field? Wouldn't alternative candidates then become a viable alternative?

Fact is, it did just the opposite.
It made it even harder for upstart parties or candidates to raise the necessary cash to compete.
The reporting requirements and fund-raising restrictions had a MUCH harsher impact on cash-strapped campaigns who couldn't afford all the bookkeepers required, while having little to no effect on the two big parties who can dip into the taxpayer pocket at will to fund such things.

If Obama should be elected president, we will certainly press him for campaign finance reform (among other things).

McCain & Feingold already gave us that. The studious, NON-DemoPublican & NON-RepubliCrat observers pretty much all labeled it "Incumbent Protection", because that's what it amounted to, and they fought against it's passage. But it was JUST what the co-partisans inside the beltway wanted!

What makes you believe that just because "we press him" for it, that "we'll get it"?
And even if "we get it", what makes you believe it'll really turn out to be what we think we're getting..., This Time?

What makes you believe another round, promoted by another member of our Oligarchy Party won't yield exactly the same result?

Considering the situation, how long can we afford NOT to vote for "guys like Nader"??
Or Barr?
Or ANYBODY besides John Obama or Barack McCain?

If we like what we've been getting, then we need to keep doing we've been doing. We can rest assured we'll continue to get it.
Just continue allowing ourselves to be scared into voting in those same old patterns.

As for me, I'm voting for Change. (the Reality, not the Slogan)

Well Droolius, like I said above, in the year 2000 a vote for Nader was effectively a vote for Bush, and look where that got us!

If an alternative candidate had broad appeal - across established party lines, and could raise a reasonable amount of money, then people might see the purpose in voting for them. The problem is these candidates are seldom able to raise enough money to get the media exposure they must have to even stand a chance of winning.

Considering this situtation, how long can we afford to vote for guys like Nader while the country is in a tailspin? Isn't this exactly what the rich and powerful are hoping we will do? Divide & conquer?

But imagine what might happen if we could get campaign finance reform passed through both houses and signed into law by the president. Wouldn't that give alternative candidates a level playing field? Wouldn't alternative candidates then become a viable alternative? So how can we make that happen?

Today's politics is a money game - wealthy men like Junior Bush raise more money than just about anyone else. But look at what has happened this time around - along comes Obama who raises considerable money on the Internet (he even got twenty bucks from me). He got that twenty because I thought he would begin the process of ending the corporate stranglehold on government.

If Obama should be elected president, we will certainly press him for campaign finance reform (among other things).

["But until minority candidates actually stand a chance of getting elected, I see no point in voting for them, do you?"]

If our ancestors had followed that path, Abe Lincoln would never have gotten elected.

Fortunately for us, 19th century Americans were a bit less skittish about doing something that might upset the status-quo.

Duncan Bruce writes: ...until minority candidates actually stand a chance of getting elected, I see no point in voting for them, do you?

I certainly do.

Until we break away from the two 'majors' and actually vote for someone else, how CAN they ever 'stand a chance' of getting elected?

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

If we really want to see the stranglehold of the DemoPublicans and the RepubliCrats on our government weakened and destroyed, then SOMEONE has to be the first to step out of line and vote for true change.

Waiting for others to do the grunt work of creating viable parties or independent campaigns, and pushing them to the point of 'electability' before we hop on board is not really supportive of change at all.
It's just 'going with the flow', once the flow has shifted.

W. W. Wexler writes: The states should not each set their own standards for getting on the ballot for national offices. It should be set by federal statute, and it should not be designed to prevent ballot access, it should be designed to grant ballot access.

Why would someone who clearly sees that federal government is corrupt from top to bottom, that the one wing of the Oligarchy Party facilitates the other, imagine that any federal statute mandating how ballot access it to be achieved would do anything other than make it yet more difficult for third parties and independents to succeed in challenging their hold on power? (While claiming, of course, that they're doing the opposite.)

Does the makeup of the FEC offer a clue? Any independents on that panel, or just representatives of the two wings of our single ruling party? Do they establish rules that permit Americans to hear as many viable candidates as possible in public debates, or rules that serve to prohibit more than 2 participants?

I believe the framers of the Constitution showed exceptional logic in setting up a system whereby the States served as a counterbalance to central power. The problem with the system is that we've already allowed central government to concentrate too much of what once was State's authority into it's own hands.

Jefferson et al. warned us directly about this.
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all Power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
--THOMAS JEFFERSON-- 1821

I saw Sirota interviewed on his book tour, but I haven't read it yet.

What exactly is the ballot line? Is this a write in effort? How would I vote for Nader, who is my choice, under this system?

What Nader is doing now, and I think rather successfully, is getting on the ballot in 50 states. Or working to do so. Nothing against the WFP, but I don't think we have one in this state and if we do I've never seen them (noticed them) on the ballot.

This brings up another point, and now this thread will be totally hijacked. (So sorry, MJ, it wasn't intentional). The states should not each set their own standards for getting on the ballot for national offices. It should be set by federal statute, and it should not be designed to prevent ballot access, it should be designed to grant ballot access. Why should the state be telling you who you can or cannot vote for in a national election? Where does THAT come from? Those that stole power are now telling us that they are going to keep it no matter what?

-Wexler

William, Howard, Duncan, and Concerned - you all might be interested in David Sirota's book "The Uprising," or at least Chapter 4 where Sirota discusses fusion politics. It concerns the Working Families Party in New York State. Instead of fielding its own candidates, it puts whichever candidate it most agrees with on its ballot line, and urges people to vote for that candidate on their line, not on the major party's line. That shows the major party's candidate directly how much support they're getting from the WFP, and how much they stand to win or lose by listening to this minor party. In a day when many elections are close, fusion politics could be a very effective tool. Very interesting reading.

Wow, Wexler, Bruce and Howard... These are some of the most intelligent and thoughtful comments I've read on the web yet... :)

As Howard said, you hit the money with the recognition of corruption at every level of the government, and I agree with Howard that not voting would be a great way to "wake up" the gov., but Bruce is right, it won't work, and it's one of the reasons we're here. Unfortunately, they (meaning the corrupt, and the lobbyists) don't really want us to vote, so the process is cumbersome, unwieldy and broken... But, since we have our creature comforts (cable tv, cell phones, suv's) and our wonderful (read: sad) media, most people are too distracted to make the effort to affect change. So, if we (meaning the consciencious public) don't vote, all you have voting are the die-hards, the ignorant and the status-quo. It's a great dream, but the reality is something far..far different.

Bruce - I hope your right, as of now, he's got my vote, and more importantly my support. But it's still darn hard to trust any of them...

Here's to change...

Wexler, I agree with your comments. In particular, "The entire system is corrupt to the core and reeking with corporation control of every government institution." That statement is right on the money (pun intended).

Concerning how to put it right however, I think the only way to stop business-as-usual right away is to vote for Barrack Obama. Certainly John McCain isn't going to change the status quo - he abondanded campaign finance reform long ago.

Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and the gang of "green" candidates don't have a chance of getting elected. In the year 2000, a vote for Nader was clearly a vote for Bush, and look where that got us!

I know Obama isn't the best of all possible candidates - Dennis Kucinich would have been better, but Obama will do more to end the corporate stranglehold on our government, don't you agree?

And finally, "Minority parties with coalitions in the two houses" sounds wonderful - I'm all for it. But until minority candidates actually stand a chance of getting elected, I see no point in voting for them, do you?

Howard, I appreciate your suggestion, but unfortunately not voting is what has created this situation, not what will fix it. Not voting is what a majority of people already do.

Minority parties with coalitions in the two houses is the fix. If the Democrat party had to govern with the consent of the liberal wing, or if the GOP had to work with the Ron Paul wing, none of this would have happened.

The days of the Donkephant Uniparty are done.

-Wexler

There's actually a very easy fix to the two-party rule of corruption - and it's not to form new parties (which will simply be absorbed into the corrupt power structure). The fix is to stop voting. That'll send the only kind of signal politicians understand. It'll say loud and clear: you don't govern with our consent any longer. And if you think it won't work, then try and name any two-bit dictator who doesn't hold elections, no matter how rigged. The bottom line of any government, no matter how corrupt or how dictatorial, is legitimacy - or the appearance thereof. Let the politicians elect each other - and let the whole world see once and for all what a sham our "democracy" really is.