By Richard Anderson-Connolly
Published October 21st 2004 in The News Tribune (WA)
Many Kerry voters are genuinely angry at Greens like me who plan to vote for either the Green Party candidate for president, David Cobb, or the independent candidate, Ralph Nader.
We are blamed for the result of the 2000 election and asked how we could repeat that mistake. Of course, most Greens recognize that there are differences between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry. But many of us believe that the more fundamental problem is that the two-party plurality system itself is inherently undemocratic.
Ironically, the electoral systems being created in Afghanistan and Iraq are more democratic than ours in America. Most modern democracies are multiparty, not two-party, democracies. Thus, the most important issue for many Greens is to use our votes to promote a real democracy, to break up the artificial duopoly of Democrats and Republicans.
Clearly, Bush has not made electoral reform an important issue over the last four years and has no plans for this in a second term. The Republicans, in fact, have stalled full funding of the Help America Vote Act, which itself is a rather modest attempt at reform.
Are Kerry and the Democrats any better? On his Web site, www.johnkerry.com
, Kerry lists15 issues including energy, security and health care, but nothing about electoral reform.
In the youth presidential debate (youthdebate.newvotersproject.org
), the candidates were explicitly asked about electoral reform: “The current presidential system seems to have several shortcomings, including two-party duopoly and the ability to win the election without winning the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic. What are your positions on instant runoff voting and proportional representation? Do you currently, and would you in the future, support any reforms to encourage a greater diversity in our political system?”
Kerry skirted the question, stating that “voter intimidation and race-based efforts to stop people from voting are an outrage” and that he “will protect voting rights by providing teams of election observers and lawyers to monitor elections.”
The Democrats make this offer to the Greens: We have fought against electoral reforms, even after the painful lesson of the 2000 election, but we now insist that you vote for our candidates.
This is an offer that many Greens can and should refuse. It’s more amazing that the Democrats can make it without blushing.
Despite the Democrats’ resistance to real reform since the electoral disaster in Florida, a number of Greens have made Kerry a generous counteroffer. Many of us who currently plan to vote for either Nader or Cobb would change our vote to Kerry if he would support electoral reforms like proportional representation or instant runoff voting. Even cautious support, like the establishment of a commission to look into these voting systems, would be enough to get my vote.
So if Kerry remains silent and it turns out to be a close race that the Greens spoil again, why not blame Kerry for refusing our offer instead of blaming the Greens? If Kerry’s silence about electoral reform is a reflection of his opposition to multiparty democracy, then Democrats and Greens are not allies and there is no reason to expect one to vote for the other.
The Greens are fighting for a real democracy; the Democrats are fighting to maintain their own power and privilege. A vote for Kerry is not a vote for democracy, and Democrats should not expect Greens to compromise on this issue. It would be just as reasonable to call the Republicans spoilers if Kerry loses. Parties that differ on fundamental issues are in competition with each other.
Because many Democrats have such an emotional reaction to the prospect of four more years of Bush, I can understand why they are angry with the Greens. But this anger is preventing many Democrats from working on the more important problem.
It would be better if Kerry’s backers pressured him to support genuine democracy and stopped harassing Greens to vote for him. The Greens already support genuine democracy; it’s Kerry they need to persuade. Greens have made a reasonable offer (much more so than the offer we received from the Democrats): our votes in exchange for Democratic support of electoral reform.
It’s a pretty good deal. The Democrats win, and the country becomes more democratic. If the Democrats refuse and lose, don’t blame the Greens.
Richard Anderson-Connolly is a member of the state Green Party and is on the board of directors of Initiative 318, the Instant Runoff Voting Initiative (www.irvwa.org).
We are blamed for the result of the 2000 election and asked how we could repeat that mistake. Of course, most Greens recognize that there are differences between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry. But many of us believe that the more fundamental problem is that the two-party plurality system itself is inherently undemocratic.
Ironically, the electoral systems being created in Afghanistan and Iraq are more democratic than ours in America. Most modern democracies are multiparty, not two-party, democracies. Thus, the most important issue for many Greens is to use our votes to promote a real democracy, to break up the artificial duopoly of Democrats and Republicans.
Clearly, Bush has not made electoral reform an important issue over the last four years and has no plans for this in a second term. The Republicans, in fact, have stalled full funding of the Help America Vote Act, which itself is a rather modest attempt at reform.
Are Kerry and the Democrats any better? On his Web site, www.johnkerry.com
, Kerry lists15 issues including energy, security and health care, but nothing about electoral reform.
In the youth presidential debate (youthdebate.newvotersproject.org
), the candidates were explicitly asked about electoral reform: “The current presidential system seems to have several shortcomings, including two-party duopoly and the ability to win the election without winning the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic. What are your positions on instant runoff voting and proportional representation? Do you currently, and would you in the future, support any reforms to encourage a greater diversity in our political system?”
Kerry skirted the question, stating that “voter intimidation and race-based efforts to stop people from voting are an outrage” and that he “will protect voting rights by providing teams of election observers and lawyers to monitor elections.”
The Democrats make this offer to the Greens: We have fought against electoral reforms, even after the painful lesson of the 2000 election, but we now insist that you vote for our candidates.
This is an offer that many Greens can and should refuse. It’s more amazing that the Democrats can make it without blushing.
Despite the Democrats’ resistance to real reform since the electoral disaster in Florida, a number of Greens have made Kerry a generous counteroffer. Many of us who currently plan to vote for either Nader or Cobb would change our vote to Kerry if he would support electoral reforms like proportional representation or instant runoff voting. Even cautious support, like the establishment of a commission to look into these voting systems, would be enough to get my vote.
So if Kerry remains silent and it turns out to be a close race that the Greens spoil again, why not blame Kerry for refusing our offer instead of blaming the Greens? If Kerry’s silence about electoral reform is a reflection of his opposition to multiparty democracy, then Democrats and Greens are not allies and there is no reason to expect one to vote for the other.
The Greens are fighting for a real democracy; the Democrats are fighting to maintain their own power and privilege. A vote for Kerry is not a vote for democracy, and Democrats should not expect Greens to compromise on this issue. It would be just as reasonable to call the Republicans spoilers if Kerry loses. Parties that differ on fundamental issues are in competition with each other.
Because many Democrats have such an emotional reaction to the prospect of four more years of Bush, I can understand why they are angry with the Greens. But this anger is preventing many Democrats from working on the more important problem.
It would be better if Kerry’s backers pressured him to support genuine democracy and stopped harassing Greens to vote for him. The Greens already support genuine democracy; it’s Kerry they need to persuade. Greens have made a reasonable offer (much more so than the offer we received from the Democrats): our votes in exchange for Democratic support of electoral reform.
It’s a pretty good deal. The Democrats win, and the country becomes more democratic. If the Democrats refuse and lose, don’t blame the Greens.
Richard Anderson-Connolly is a member of the state Green Party and is on the board of directors of Initiative 318, the Instant Runoff Voting Initiative (www.irvwa.org).
