And so it begins. The quadrennial tradition to bring out the Spoiler argument before anyone is elected or even nominated. It's an old tradition and goes further back than you may think. At least as far back as Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. From History.com
"Although Roosevelt overwhelmingly won the most votes during the primaries, the Republican National Convention nominated the more conservative Taft to stand for re-election. A bitter Roosevelt broke with the GOP to form the Progressive Party, nicknamed the “Bull Moose Party” because Roosevelt often declared himself “fit as a bull moose.” The party advocated the direct election of U.S. senators, women’s suffrage, tariff reductions and social reforms.
Roosevelt and Taft ended up splitting the Republican vote, which led to an easy victory by Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt finished in second after winning six states and 27 percent of the popular vote. Taft was a distant third"
As is plain, the GOP shot off their own foot (so to speak). They could've won if they'd used any sense whatsoever. But, instead, they ignored a popular politician who then proceeded to garner the votes it was all too easy to predict he would. Why did they do this? Because they thought Taft was naive and would be easier to control. Taft wound up with just 8 electoral votes, sinking his party who could have chosen to look beyond their own graft but just could not do it. The same can be said for other candidates that are labeled with the epithet "spoiler". The major parties always have the chance to nominate a good candidate, to run on platforms (and records) that would give them an unshakable devotees. Instead they choose to run whomever they think will do for them what is profitable for whatever reason (such as "owing" their corporate financiers).
I am one of those people who voted for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein…twice. I also voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in 2008. Ralph Nader was the first person I heard speak who actuall opened my eyes to the reality of the 2 party voting (and ruling) system in the US and , as is common, I never even considered anyone in either major party again. There are a few things that are not common knowledge about the Green Party, and independent parties in general. Here, I will attempt to shine the light on at least some of the information that is not commonly known about the campaign and election process for independent and third parties, and the Green Party, in particular.
It is a misconception that the Greens don’t run anyone but a presidential candidate, Currently 136 Greens are serving in local elected office, who were elected to those offices. Another three have been appointed to elected office, and six more joined the Green Party after being elected.
The reason this is not more well known should be obvious. Until this year, the Green Party has gotten very little coverage in the media. Even when candidates are arrested for participating in various events that are important to that party, and many times important to the public who may be dissatisfied with the major party in which they’re registered, the media chooses to ignore them so everybody will say “they do nothing but come out every four years and spoil the vote for the REAL candidates”. The candidates that do get any coverage are those running for president, who are generally covered in order to mock them/blame them for what is perceived as “taking votes from the rightful candidates”. Truthfully, no one I know who voted for Stein would in any case have voted for Clinton, or Trump, for that matter. It is the height of arrogance to think that anyone owes any candidate their votes. Votes do not belong to a candidate, they belong to the voters. Candidates claiming a “loss” because someone exercised their right to reject those candidates that they see as unfit is a poor, but easy and effective, excuse for their own failings.
Like so much other information lacking in general knowledge is the answer to why Greens run a presidential candidate every time, and that reason is ballot access. In some states, ballot access is dependent on the vote a third party candidate received in the previous presidential election. In 2016, Greens were able to achieve ballot access in 44 states, which is a hell of a lot of work, and not an easy nor inexpensive process. Signature lists that have been gathered for access are routinely challenged in court. Third parties and independent candidates try to gather more signatures than they need because of this very practice. And you would be surprised at the nit picking reasons some are challenged. Things such as the wrong font on the signature forms, that the voter signed their names John Smith, when his driver’s license says John X. Smith, even though addresses and phone numbers are included, and that the petitions are submitted in a manila envelope and not “fastened in a secure and suitable manner”. Even if the challenge is overcome, the challenger still comes out ahead, having wasted the scant resources of money, man hours and time to comply with the 51 different ballot access procedures that are required by, and sometimes adjudicated by the very parties that are the challengers.Those resources could otherwise go to election of party members. It may be
This brings me to one more thing people don’t generally take into consideration when assessing how committed, organized or serious Greens are, and that is that Green Party candidates don’t take corporate money. Ever. This is not the case with the Libertarians, to whom the Greens are frequently compared, nor of Mr. Kennedy. Greens fight, because they don’t want to abandon their principles. They fight hard, with one hand tied behind their backs, and shackles on their feet.their efforts are stymied any way the major parties (who make all election and campaign law) can conceive of.
And finally, if either major party candidate can’t get enough votes to get elected, maybe their party should choose better candidates or have better platforms. Many people just stay home rather than help elect people who don’t deserve it.
Oh...and just as an aside, 300,000 Democratic voters voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. That beats the 97,000 votes Nader got by a long shot. Still, it was all Nader’s fault. There is so much more I could write but I am working with a reading audience that likes short bites of info. I hope this will help at least some people who want to know how things work, and why. If I do my job, at least some of them will question what they thought they already knew. I know that's how it started for me.
Commentaires