By Jeff Cropp
Published November 17th 2003 in Oregonian
Greens continue to be attacked over the 2000 election
by David Sarasohn and his fellow Democratic spin doctors ("Nader
decides Nader's vital, in any event," Commentary, Nov. 12). Most
Greens reject the "spoiler" argument and suspect that the real goal
is simply to destroy the Green Party. This attitude will not help
Democrats win in 2004.
Let's look at the facts. George W. Bush supposedly beat Al Gore in Florida by 537 votes (never mind the widespread electoral fraud and tainted Supreme Court decision). Ralph Nader did receive 97,000 votes in Florida and exit polls indicated that 30,000 were from registered Democrats.
Then look deeper, at the facts that Sarasohn and others conveniently ignore. They never mention that exit polls showed 350,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. There were five other presidential candidates, such as various Socialists and a Libertarian, who also received more than 537 votes but are never mentioned. Even worse, Gore wasn't even able to win Tennessee, his home state.
In a nutshell, Gore was a weak candidate who ran a lousy campaign. Many Democrats prefer to live in denial about this. But, if you talk to them about the issue, more startling facts emerge. Ask Gore voters if they contributed money to his campaign, or even volunteered for it. Ask them to even name five positive things that Gore did for this country while he was in office. The answers are usually bleak.
Democrats are on the run all over the country. They suffered terrible defeats in the 2002 elections, entirely without Nader's influence. They've
lost another three governor races this year. Progressives are appalled that congressional Democrats keep supporting the Bush administration's
agenda on issues like the war in Iraq and USA Patriot Act, and by confirming all of Bush's cabinet appointments, including John Ashcroft. As a result, Democrats have lost credibility and experience increasing difficulty in motivating their base.
Another enormous problem for Democrats involves large contributions to the Republican Party from corporations and the rich. In the early '90s,
Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency, and had the opportunity to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform to remove this threat. What did we get instead? Nafta and the World Trade Organization.
Even if Democrats do eventually crush the Green Party (despite the fact that our numbers keep growing), will that solve the problem? Do they believe that there will never be another progressive third-party movement?
If Democrats genuinely want to remove the threat, they need to support electoral reform and end the " two-party" system. Greens want proportional representation and instant runoff voting in order to permanently remove the "spoiler " effect. Why don't Democrats take a stand on this issue? If they did, Greens would work with them in support of mutual goals, such as universal health care, a living wage and environmental protection.
Instead, Democrats choose to scapegoat Nader as the source of their problems -- "get rid of Ralph and those pesky Greens and everything will be OK." They can keep dreaming, but our country will continue to suffer as a result.
Jeff Cropp is co-chairman of the Portland Metro Chapter of the Pacific Green Party.
Let's look at the facts. George W. Bush supposedly beat Al Gore in Florida by 537 votes (never mind the widespread electoral fraud and tainted Supreme Court decision). Ralph Nader did receive 97,000 votes in Florida and exit polls indicated that 30,000 were from registered Democrats.
Then look deeper, at the facts that Sarasohn and others conveniently ignore. They never mention that exit polls showed 350,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. There were five other presidential candidates, such as various Socialists and a Libertarian, who also received more than 537 votes but are never mentioned. Even worse, Gore wasn't even able to win Tennessee, his home state.
In a nutshell, Gore was a weak candidate who ran a lousy campaign. Many Democrats prefer to live in denial about this. But, if you talk to them about the issue, more startling facts emerge. Ask Gore voters if they contributed money to his campaign, or even volunteered for it. Ask them to even name five positive things that Gore did for this country while he was in office. The answers are usually bleak.
Democrats are on the run all over the country. They suffered terrible defeats in the 2002 elections, entirely without Nader's influence. They've
lost another three governor races this year. Progressives are appalled that congressional Democrats keep supporting the Bush administration's
agenda on issues like the war in Iraq and USA Patriot Act, and by confirming all of Bush's cabinet appointments, including John Ashcroft. As a result, Democrats have lost credibility and experience increasing difficulty in motivating their base.
Another enormous problem for Democrats involves large contributions to the Republican Party from corporations and the rich. In the early '90s,
Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency, and had the opportunity to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform to remove this threat. What did we get instead? Nafta and the World Trade Organization.
Even if Democrats do eventually crush the Green Party (despite the fact that our numbers keep growing), will that solve the problem? Do they believe that there will never be another progressive third-party movement?
If Democrats genuinely want to remove the threat, they need to support electoral reform and end the " two-party" system. Greens want proportional representation and instant runoff voting in order to permanently remove the "spoiler " effect. Why don't Democrats take a stand on this issue? If they did, Greens would work with them in support of mutual goals, such as universal health care, a living wage and environmental protection.
Instead, Democrats choose to scapegoat Nader as the source of their problems -- "get rid of Ralph and those pesky Greens and everything will be OK." They can keep dreaming, but our country will continue to suffer as a result.
Jeff Cropp is co-chairman of the Portland Metro Chapter of the Pacific Green Party.
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.