Zcom_simple

56

Strategic Presidential Voting




Change Text Size a- | A+


It’s puzzling that there is almost no discussion among progressives about the U.S.’s completely unique way of choosing its top political leader and how we could use that fact strategically.

 

In the USA there are 50 separate election contests to choose “electors” to the Electoral College. It’s not the national popular vote that does it. If winning the most votes nationally was our system, Al Gore would have been inaugurated President in 2001.

 

It’s one of those things that’s kind-of “hiding in plain sight.” All during Presidential campaign season journalists talk and write about the 10 or so swing states, or battleground states, that receive the overwhelming bulk of Presidential candidate visits and TV ads. These are the states that, historically, have voted for either the Democratic or the Republican Presidential candidate in the last few decades, that have not regularly chosen one or the other, as is generally true for about 40 or so states.

 

This reality is the flip side of the spoiler coin that keeps large numbers of progressives, even some revolutionary and radical progressives, from voting for a third party candidate. The fear of spoiling it for the Democrat, leading to the Republican winning, overwhelms their appreciation that a third party candidate’s positions on issues is much more progressive than the Democrat. This fear was present even in 2000 when the Green Party brought forward the most substantive third party Presidential campaign in decades in the persons of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke.

 

The spoiler concern is the major reason these progressives give for voting for a candidate like Obama who by no means can be trusted to do the right thing on most issues. The other reason given is that existing third parties, the Green Party being the prime one today, are too small and weak to have any impact, so why “waste my vote” on them?

 

The Green Party is small and weak, no question about it, but it does exist, and given the incredibly undemocratic and corporate-dominated nature of our two-parties-only electoral system, that is an accomplishment. There are about 250 of its members who have been elected to local offices like water boards, school boards, town and city councils and even a few mayoral offices. It looks like it will be on the ballot in 40 or more states this year, no small thing given restrictive ballot access laws in many states. It qualified for federal matching funds by raising at least $5,000 in more than 20 states. And it has two candidates for President and Vice-President, Dr. Jill Stein and anti-poverty activist Cheri Honkala, who are substantive, hard-working, articulate and very good on the issues.

 

Of course, these candidates are not going to win. But it would be, strategically, a positive thing for the independent progressive movement, broadly defined, if, in a number of states, they won a decent percentage of votes.

 

What if, in multiple states, 4-5 or more, Stein and Honkala received 5% or more of the votes? That would be a victory. It would say to the Democrats that there are a growing number of voters who are looking for something other than centrist, system-supporting candidates. More importantly, it would say to the U.S. American people that there is a political force in the electoral arena other than the Tea Party that is consistently progressive and growing.

 

New York State, for example, is ripe for a serious campaign to get at least 5% of the vote for the Green Party. The latest realclearpolitics.com polling results show Obama ahead of Romney by 25 points.

 

Voting for Barack Obama in New York State if you are a progressive who gets it on how problematic the Democrats are is a completely unstrategic, wasted vote.

 

It’s the same in a state like Utah, where polls show Romney ahead by 42%. In Idaho there are no polls at realclearpolitics, but it’s solidly red for Romney.

 

Other states where a smart 4th or 5th grader can predict who’s going to win on November 6:  California (Obama by 17%), Illinois (Obama by 21%), Arkansas (Romney by 24%), West Virginia (Romney by 21%) and Massachusetts (Obama by 19.2%).

 

The Green Party Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates are on the ballot in all of these states.

 

It makes sense that the Green Party would lead the organizing of this kind of an effort, although there’s no reason why non-Green Party activists in the states listed above, or others, couldn’t do so. It could be a campaign entitled, in New York for example, “New York, Don’t Waste Your Vote.” Literature and a website and social media and campaign organizers can explain the reality of 50 separate state elections and the certain winner in New York and utilize all kinds of tactics and media to reach out to progressive-minded voters to not waste their vote by voting for Obama in New York.

 

It’s late in the political season for something like this to be organized, but it’s not too late. I sure hope I’m not the only person who thinks this is a good idea. 

 

Ted Glick has been a progressive activist and organizer since 1968. Past writings and other information can be found at http://tedglick.com, and he can be followed on twitter at http://twitter.com/jtglick 

Glacier_k_256

Protest at the Polls

By Keller, Keith at Aug 21, 2012 21:05 PM

Ted,

Your call for strategic voting is, in essence, a call for namby pamby protest. What has Obama done for his base in office? A vote for Obama is a vote of support for his policies. Time to send Obama and the Dems a message: if you screw us you lose us. Long past time to protest at the polls, to vote Third Party or write-in. No time to qualify or equivocate, just do it.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Img_9835

Re: Protest at the Polls

By Andrews, John at Aug 22, 2012 08:19 AM

Sorry, Keith, I think I'm missing something here. You disagree with Ted and with Terri; what are you proposing? Just do what?

Best wishes

John Andrews
PS - as I'm in the UK I can't do anything about the US election other than read opinions and proposals.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Re: Protest at the Polls

By Lee, Terri at Aug 22, 2012 11:14 AM

Ted Glick, this is no type of 'victory' whatsoever: "What if, in multiple states, 4-5 or more, Stein and Honkala received 5% or more of the votes? That would be a victory."
The left needs to stop measureing 'success' in this way. It's not 'success' it's lame and a joke. This is the result of the systemic design of the electoral system itself. This is the BEST any Independent Third Party can do --- ever. And in the end it's meaningless and embarrassing. Stop suggesting that this weak, lame, small showing is a victory -- that is disingenuous. It's no victory.
 

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Re: Protest at the Polls

By Lee, Terri at Aug 22, 2012 11:17 AM

Look at this statement by Ted Glick:  "The Green Party is small and weak, no question about it, but it does exist, and given the incredibly undemocratic and corporate-dominated nature of our two-parties-only electoral system, that is an accomplishment." Ted Glick is suggesting that we fold into something which is 'small and weak' ("no question about it" he adds). Wow! Really? Where is the impact of that? Participate and support something which is 'small and weak' with the hopes of (just maybe) a 5% showing and then call that a 'victory'! You must be joking!  

Reply this comment


Glacier_k_256

Vote Third Party or wright-in

By Keller, Keith at Aug 22, 2012 15:49 PM

John,

"You disagree with Ted and with Terri; what are you proposing? Just do what?"

Just "vote Third Party or write-in."

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Vote Third Party or wright-in

By Lee, Terri at Aug 23, 2012 01:14 AM

Why? It's completely ineffective -- as Ted's article proves. 

So, you vote third party or write somebody in. Nothing happens. Nada. What's the point?

There is no point because it does not advance your political desires at all. 

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Protest at the Polls

By Lee, Terri at Aug 22, 2012 11:05 AM

Here's the thing, Keith  -- there is no way to 'protest' at the polls --- well, unless of course it's an ACTUAL protest as the Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is calling for among other things.
There is no way to 'protest' from INSIDE the voting booth no matter what you do with your illusionary vote.
Additionally, the Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is the only action that rejects the entire system. During the uprising of OWS we say many who communicated that the problem is 'the system' itself and this is the only (non) electoral act of resistance which confronts the entire system itself -- the root of the problem (the capitalist structure itself).

Reply this comment


Person

Election Boycott Articles for your perusal and consideration

By Lee, Terri at Aug 21, 2012 13:42 PM

-

Time to Boycott the Election by LINH DINH

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/14/time-to-boycott-the-election/
 


You've Got to Stop Voting - by Mark E. Smith
http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172

*I apologize  for the font size -- but I was not able to adjust it. Thank you, Terri




 



  










  


Reply this comment


Person

A Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election

By Lee, Terri at Aug 21, 2012 12:20 PM

Ted, I am very disappointed to see your continued attachement to electoral politics -- a dead end street, to be sure.
This year -- for many reasons --  I have decided to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election and am working to encourage other to do the same.
The Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is not a call to apathy nor is it a call to quietly non-vote -- but rather it is a call to actively, publicly, vocall and communally Boycott as a direct act of resistance.
For more, I invite you to look at my Z-blog contributions: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/TerriLee  
Thank you,
Terri


Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Glacier_k_256

Re: A Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election

By Keller, Keith at Aug 21, 2012 20:52 PM

Terri,

This election is an important opportunity to register dissent by voting for a Third Party or write-in candidate. It is important to protest at the polls and easy to do. If enough people do it, it will send a message, indicating to elites that an active opposition is forming, and to protesters that they are not alone, that there is support out there. When someone like Jill Stein is unable to rally support for her anti-imperial, anti-neoliberal message, what kind of message does that send? Your call for a boycott is a shameful call for capitulation wrapped in bravado.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Re: A Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election

By Lee, Terri at Aug 22, 2012 11:11 AM

Keith there is no way to 'register' dissent. At the end of the day as we all know either a Democrat or a Republican will be sitting in the Oval Office post election day no matter what anybody does at the polls. The electoral contraption which has been designed and secured by the monied elite has been designed to secure that their corporate monied interests are protected Period.
A third party or write-in does nothing -- and besides that -- a person's very participation in this fraudulent, immoral system validates it. Don't validate it -- reject it and resist it. What people need to do is to actually, phyiscally 'protest' and partake in actions and antics on and leading up to Election Day which will de-legitimize the system itself.
Jill Stein is a Green -- that is 'capitalism lite' and certainly not any type of answer.
My Call for the Boycott of the 2012 Presidential Elections is a strong and wise call and it is gaining traction -- as it resonates with so many who are fed up with the entire system.
As one friend put it: Do you want to choose your warden or knock down the walls of the prison?




Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Glacier_k_256

Vote for Change!

By Keller, Keith at Aug 23, 2012 00:50 AM

Terri,

A vote for Third Party or write-in is a vote for an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, it is a vote for change and an indication of at least minimal involvement and commitment. Not voting is silencing your electoral voice, an indication of either apathy or satisfaction with the way things are. Silence implies consent. If folks won’t even vote for change, you think that they are going to join in a revolution? And if you and others succeed in dampening the vote of progressives, and the Tea Party gets out the vote for the Rabid Right, what kind of message does that send? That standing up for progressive values is a losing proposition, that’s what. That would be the Koch brothers dream come true! Fiery rhetoric is no substitute for electoral action, quelling progressive participation counterproductive and a rejection of democratic forms, and arm chair revolutionaries are a problem, not a solution.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Vote for Change!

By Lee, Terri at Aug 23, 2012 01:17 AM

There is no viable alternative to the duopoly -- they own the show!  However, the duopoly does not shed a bead of sweat should you busy yourself with this or that unelectable candidate or if your write in your mother or favorite pet. That does not impact the D's and the R's at all because you have chosen to enter their rigged voting contraption and you are electorally impotent in the voting booth. 

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Vote for Change!

By Lee, Terri at Aug 23, 2012 01:21 AM

The Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is not a call for apathy or to quitely not-vote and stay home. It is a call to noisely and publicy resist the entire system -- which is the actual problem. 

You cannot 'vote for change' --- that is an impossible task. Vote 1,000 times and the system will process as it is designed to do. 

As Adolph Reed Jr. said, "We did not voter ourselves into this mess and we cannot vote ourselves out of it."

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Vote for Change!

By Lee, Terri at Aug 23, 2012 01:22 AM

Direct Action is THE substitute for electoral participation  --- there is nothing for us in the voting booth.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Re: A Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election

By Lee, Terri at Aug 22, 2012 11:22 AM

Here's another utterly ridiculous claim by Ted Glick: "Of course, these candidates are not going to win. But it would be, strategically, a positive thing for the independent progressive movement, broadly defined, if, in a number of states, they won a decent percentage of votes."    Ted Glick is calling on people to get behind a loser (which we all know, in advance, will most certainly lose because the system itself guarantees it) but somehow tries to present this as a 'strategic' 'win' calling it a "postive thing for the independent progressive movement" --How is voting for the loser with only a possible projected chance of just maybe (tops!)  possibly a 5% showing (at best) a 'victory'. If anyone is being irresponsible and shameful it is Ted Glick and not I.

TedT 

Reply this comment

Loading_border