So, Robin Kelly has official won the Democratic Nomination to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.'s congressional seat. This article covers why (as most media outlets are agreeing) the eventual GOP candidate will not be a threat, so much in fact, that Liberals and Progressives could vote for the Green Candidate (LeAlan Jones) and in no possible way cause the elections of a Republican: http://freeindependentsun.com/repub...idate-can-position-self-as-top-two-candidate/ So my question to Liberals, Progressives, and heck, anyone who plans on voting in Chicago on April 9th, which candidate do you support and why? Remember, this is really between Kelly and Jones, Democrat and Green. NO SPOILERS! Voting Green in this election will only help the Green win. It will not cause a Republican to win. So, for once we can really say, which is better? Democrat or Green? If those were your choices (which they essentially are Chicago), especially when that Green is a dynamic candidate like LeAlan Jones, which would you choose? If you vote Green the worst that'll happen is that the Democrat still wins. The only other outcome, would be the Green winning. http://freeindependentsun.com/repub...idate-can-position-self-as-top-two-candidate/
Spoilers. Ugh. I wish someone could wave a magic wand and make that entire idea go away, so that it never need be an issue in any election. I hate this entrapping idea that a vote for the candidate you want could ever be considered "wasted" simply because it wasn't for one of the dominant parties. Green should always have a fair shot at winning, which would be based on the quality of their platform, and NOT on whether there happens to be a Republican candidate on the ballot. Why should (D) and (R) get such preference? They certainly haven't been earning it. They're like Microsoft, simply churning out crap but still dominating simply because of how freaking large they are and how much momentum that gives them.
I agree, you should vote for whoever best represents your views. Period. Not voting for smaller parties because your vote will affect the major parties is a profoundly silly way to vote. You're here to present your opinions, if the Democrats aren't the party most representative of your views then you should not vote for them. In general I think the Greens are better on social policy but worse on economic policy. They tend to grab up a lot of the actual Socialist+Marxist individuals (people who are actually these terms, not just left leaning Democrats) which makes them pretty authoritarian on a lot of economic policy. I can still see them being better than the Democrats by a long mile, however. I still think the Democrat will win, but hopefully the Green vote will get out there and make themselves heard on social issues
Based on the history of IL-02 wouldn't it be better if they would vote in as their Representative someone that is already in prison?
As an active Green I agree with you. I was a volunteer organizer for the Ron Paul campaign. My main reason was the Wars overseas and the War on Drugs (both of which Ron Paul opposed). Some of the libertarian economics spoke to me. I think you'd like LeAlan Jones if your main issue with the Green platform is their economic positions. Kent Mesplay (multiple year Presidential candidate) is another Green that has a less "authoritarian" economic philosophy. I think a big perception issue is the difference between "Greens" and Greens that get elected (or get close to being elected). Most of the Greens that get elected, or get close to being elected (like Mark Miller in MA who got 49% in a two-way State Leg. race) are far more "moderate" on economic issues. To me, I see the Green Party as the more accessable independent alternative to the two-parties. I think we need to be more able to appeal to both Republicans and Democrats who are fed up with their elected Party members. Obviously Greens agree more with Democrats, but I think we need to work with Republicans like Paul, and Justin Amash, and people like Huntsman (who recently made a huge effort in support of Gay Marriage) and find out how we can attract socially tolerant conservatives into the Party (or at least to support our candidates when they are a viable option).
I was canvasing for Greenpeace and someone literally asked, "Is there something free and easy I can do to help?" At some point we have to literally stop wishing things were different and just address reality. Reality is that people feel as if they are not making the most out of their vote if they are not directly effecting the winner of the race. If we want to get independent candidates into office, we cannot ignore this. That is why I think LeAlan's campaign is so important, because it does away with the spoiler falsity in a somewhat major race.
But it won't stick. It's a rare exception that will never make a difference to voters elsewhere. People there didn't wake up and quit thinking spoiler-wise - they just happen to lack the usual two choices. Heck, I'll bet they view anyone other than the Democrat or the Green as a "spoiler" in that particular race.. The two parties control the electoral process, at least at the state and national levels. They effectively own the media and control their own debate process, shutting everyone else out. Other candidates get some money each cycle to spend on advertising and campaigning, but it's always dwarfed by the major parties and they're deliberately barred from participating in the debates. What can change that? How do we alter or do away with the so-called Debate Commission? How do we keep the two parties from swamping the media with their top-dollar advertising?
If you watch this video (a critique on the current voting system) it shows why it is just as much a natural reaction to the current system, and a natural inclination for political "parties" (or interest) to solidify control of the electoral system no matter the system (single-party, two-party, multiply-party, parties will do what they can to close out other parties, special interests will do what they can to make sure only their candidates get in office). [video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/video] In this particular election, I agree, the Republican could actually be seen as a "spoiler" against a non-Democrat (or rather, that voting Republican will only help the Democrat win). If we want to put candidates into office that are closer to the "libertarian/progressive" platform (anti-war, anti-drug war, balanced budget, sensibility in regulation, etcetera). then we need to work within the reality of the system we have. So, like you said, since nobody will wake up and quit thinking spoiler-wise (and if you think about it, it isn't stupid for them to think that way), then we need to take advantage of districts and races in which "our candidates" are not spoilers, and can actually say, "Why wouldn't you vote for me over the Democrat?" Or, for Libertarians, wouldn't you want to run against only a Republican and say, "Hey, there's no Democrat, so let's really get down to business and talk about policy, why are you doing XY and Z again?" There are many districts in which the opposition party does not run candidates, IL-02 could very well become one of those districts if the Republicans go back to pre-2012 results. What I'm saying is that Greens should run strong in Democrat only/dominated districts, and Libertarians should run strong in Republican only/dominated districts, and that either should support the other in their endeavours. They should run in other races as well, especially in non-incumbent races in districts that are split. Don't worry about it sticking, we haven't even hit it yet. Once we actually get a few hits we can start working on how to make it stick. One step at a time.
I'd enthusiastically prefer to see a LeAlan Jones victory in the election in question. Most of my reservations about Greens concern their candidates' frequent use of populist rhetoric, opposition to nuclear energy, and at times rather unpleasant economic stances. Perhaps it's an inaccurate perception of mine but, either way, Greens > Democrats.
Having the Libertarians and the Greens dominating instead of the present two parties would be interesting, wouldn't it? Might they then manage to come up with a good mix of libertarian economics and green social policy? How might that actually work?
Aye - it certainly would - and I'd welcome there being stark contrasts in economic and foreign relations policy agendas for a change while the two major parties generally agree that the best stances on social issues involve a recurring theme of deferring to the individual's preferences so long as nobody gets harmed (and even then only if there wasn't consent). The closest thing I can think of to an even-handed compromise betwixt green and libertarian politics would be along the lines of Canadian political theorist Matthew Kalkman's concept of new liberalism - an ideology attaching the concept of "timeless freedom" onto social liberalism in an effort to draw into the fold a profound concern for adopting policies now which ensure the future liberty of generations yet to come. Alternatively, I could envision a green-blue order where government has minimized functions yet the market is teeming with social enterprises, environmentally-conscious business people, and entrepreneurs who consider eco-friendliness and profitability complementary goals. Or more to my liking, a green-red establishment might combine a generally "small government" with a cultural rejection of anthropocentrism and economy full of democratically-run workers' cooperatives. It's hard for me to offer a confident prediction. The Greens tend to be social democratic and share with the Democrats an attitude of government being more of an asset than liability in advancing the public interest in spite of wanting more decentralization of authority. Their stances will still seem statist in comparison to those of Libertarians, who for their part are more interested in people doing the right thing on their own accord - not legally forcing them into compliance under threat of state violence.
Yep, that fundamental disagreement over the role of government would make it a really interesting confrontation. I know I wouldn't want the Greens to get their way, though, if they want big government trying to take care of everyone. Then again, such social programs would probably be more affordable if we didn't have the central bank sucking us dry..
