By Xander Patterson
Published July 6th 2004 in The Oregonian
At the national Green Convention in June, I joined the majority of Greens in Oregon and nationally in choosing to nominate David Cobb for president rather than endorse Ralph Nader. I did so not for lack of appreciation for what Nader has done for the country over decades or what he has done to grow the Green Party in 1996 and 2000.
I and many Greens chose David Cobb because we and Nader have very different visions of the role of minor parties in our political system, especially in this crucial election year.
That differences would arise is not surprising because our antiquated electoral system puts minor parties in a very difficult position: It renders them either irrelevant or spoilers. It is very difficult for minor parties to grow into winners because the more votes they get, the more they alienate their most likely supporters.
This system has given two parties, no matter how grossly inadequate they may be, a lock on power for 150 years. The positive role that minor parties have played is to introduce new ideas and to pressure a major party to adopt them. For example, much of the New Deal was dreamed up by the Socialists and appropriated by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Nader's potential to follow this model is very appealing to many Greens. He has the unrivaled stature to get the progressive agenda into the debate and the threat of spoiling to pressure the Democrats into adopting portions of it.
Cobb supporters have a different goal for the Green Party, however. We aren't simply trying to make the Democrats more progressive. We are trying to release America from the two-party headlock on power and to open a political free market in which any party with popular support may meaningfully participate.
To grow as a party and achieve this goal, Greens need to be a pragmatic choice, not merely a symbolic protest vote. We need to show that we care about the real-world consequences of our actions.
For this presidential election, that means we must acknowledge that, as much as we deplore Kerry Democrats' stance on many fundamental issues (Iraq, the Patriot Act, the World Trade Organization, to name a few), Bush is not some Tweedledee. By choosing Cobb over Nader, Greens planted themselves firmly in the Anybody But Bush coalition, for the good of the country -- and the party.
In 2000, Greens hoped to get 5 percent of the vote in order to get federal campaign funds in 2004. This year, Cobb will concentrate on building the party and supporting local candidates in the 35 to 40 states where the convolutions of our system make a vote for him "safe." Most importantly, Cobb will aggressively promote electoral reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (see fairvote.org) that allow voters to rank their preferences, to vote their consciences without throwing their votes away or inadvertently supporting candidates they view as the greater of two evils.
Each of the past three election cycles Greens have doubled the number of states with party organizations (now 44), with ballot access (now 22) and elected officials (now more than 200). Even in this difficult election year we continue to be Green and growing.
Xander Patterson of Portland served as an Oregon state delegate to the Green Party convention in Milwaukee, Wis.
I and many Greens chose David Cobb because we and Nader have very different visions of the role of minor parties in our political system, especially in this crucial election year.
That differences would arise is not surprising because our antiquated electoral system puts minor parties in a very difficult position: It renders them either irrelevant or spoilers. It is very difficult for minor parties to grow into winners because the more votes they get, the more they alienate their most likely supporters.
This system has given two parties, no matter how grossly inadequate they may be, a lock on power for 150 years. The positive role that minor parties have played is to introduce new ideas and to pressure a major party to adopt them. For example, much of the New Deal was dreamed up by the Socialists and appropriated by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Nader's potential to follow this model is very appealing to many Greens. He has the unrivaled stature to get the progressive agenda into the debate and the threat of spoiling to pressure the Democrats into adopting portions of it.
Cobb supporters have a different goal for the Green Party, however. We aren't simply trying to make the Democrats more progressive. We are trying to release America from the two-party headlock on power and to open a political free market in which any party with popular support may meaningfully participate.
To grow as a party and achieve this goal, Greens need to be a pragmatic choice, not merely a symbolic protest vote. We need to show that we care about the real-world consequences of our actions.
For this presidential election, that means we must acknowledge that, as much as we deplore Kerry Democrats' stance on many fundamental issues (Iraq, the Patriot Act, the World Trade Organization, to name a few), Bush is not some Tweedledee. By choosing Cobb over Nader, Greens planted themselves firmly in the Anybody But Bush coalition, for the good of the country -- and the party.
In 2000, Greens hoped to get 5 percent of the vote in order to get federal campaign funds in 2004. This year, Cobb will concentrate on building the party and supporting local candidates in the 35 to 40 states where the convolutions of our system make a vote for him "safe." Most importantly, Cobb will aggressively promote electoral reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (see fairvote.org) that allow voters to rank their preferences, to vote their consciences without throwing their votes away or inadvertently supporting candidates they view as the greater of two evils.
Each of the past three election cycles Greens have doubled the number of states with party organizations (now 44), with ballot access (now 22) and elected officials (now more than 200). Even in this difficult election year we continue to be Green and growing.
Xander Patterson of Portland served as an Oregon state delegate to the Green Party convention in Milwaukee, Wis.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.