Burnt Orange Report

Byron:

It's accurate to say that in many cases, voting Green means voting Republican. But, I think the problem here is not the Green Party (since, after all, they're votes don't belong to us) but our countr's anti-democratic election laws.

Rather than cursing the Green Party, I think we ought to make it so that they can exist and be partners instead of competitors. We can do that by scrapping the outdated Electoral College, adopting runoff voting (or IRV), and allowing major/minor party "fusion" (letting the Greens endorse Democrats, or letting Democrats endorse Greens).

The game is rigged to exclude third parties, and this is wrong. Why should the Greens only compete in non-competitive states? They ought to have the right to compete everywhere and not be spoilers.

There are a lot of flaky, stupid, and just downright evil members of the Green Party, but then again I can say the same things about our party sometimes. I think it really hurts the entire country that third parties don't really have an opportunity to emerge and participate in a meaningful way, because it limits our choices.

As for San Francisco, I'm not sure who I would vote for. I think Gonzales has better ideas, but Newsom would probably be better at bringing the city together. I don't think Newsom is qualified to be mayor just because he's a Democrat, though (although if he were a Republican, that would definitely disqualify him).

Well I support IRV, but I doubt it will happen. And until it happens, it's self-defeating to support third parties. And I doubt that the two controlling parties would enact a system that would cause both to lose power. Its hard to imagine a scenerio where either the Republican or Democratic establishment would support IRV, because IRV would increase the probability of electing third party candidates and thus decreasing the probability of electing Republicans or Democrats. I like the idea of IRV, but I'm also aware of political realities - that's what most hardcore Greens fail to understand.

Talk all you want about reforming the system of electing the president, but understand this:
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

A constitutional amendment, after getting through Congress, requires the approval of 75% of all the state legislatures.
Under the current system, the small states get a disproportionate number of electoral votes because all states, regardless of size, get two senators and a minimum of one House member. And electoral votes are based on Congressional representation.
The small states will never willingly give up this advantage. It would take only one chamber in each of 13 states to block this.
The only realistic way to mitigate this is to increase the size of the House. Most people do not realize that the number of House members is determined by the House itself. It's been stuck at 435 since early in the 20th century when the U.S. population was less than 40% of what it is now. An increase in House size by a third to 583 would keep Wyoming at 3 electoral votes while giving Illinois an increase from 21 to 27.

Minor parties have no chance of winning a presidential election. A vote for Nader was indeed a vote for Bush in Florida in 2000.
His Greenness himself admitted so much, quoted on page nine of the February 26, 2001 issue of The New Republic:

PRICE OF ADMISSION: This week on "Hannity & Colmes" former Green Party candidate Ralph Nader once again insisted that his quixotic presidential campaign didn't cost Al Gore Florida - and with it the presidency. But this time he came armed with numbers to back up his case. "Well," said Nader, "Clinton's pollster, Stan Greenberg, said - and the exit polls - for every one hundred votes I got, twenty-five would have voted for Bush, thirty-eight would have voted for Gore, and the rest wouldn't have voted at all." Yes, and according to that calculation, had Nader not been in the race, Gore would have won Florida by over 12,000 votes. Congratulations, Ralph - admission is the first step to recovery.

Most Nader organizers knew exactly what they were doing in 2000. Their Orwellian slogan,
It has to get worse so it can get better
was a tacit admission that their short term goal was to make sure that Bush would get elected. Their logic was that "progressive" forces would be so galvanized by the evil of a Bush presidency that they would flock in droves to the Greens in 2004 and beyond.
As it turned out, the Green Party didn't come close to getting its magical target figure of 5% of the popular vote. Even liberal Oak Park, IL, which has a lesbian village president and a ban on the ownership of handguns, gave Nader less than 4.5% of the vote.

Nader's appeal to politically illiterate and historically ignorant voters was at best naïve and at worst perfidious.
Indirectly, no single American has caused more misery, despair, and death in this century than Ralph Nader.

I hate the Greens as much as the next guy, and I used to be one. I still have Green Party memorabilia around my room, I sported a "Nader/LaDuke 2004" T-shirt to school on election day in 2000 (thank god I wasn't old enough to vote). I wish that we could have a multi-party system, but that is a ways off. I will and do vote for Greens where there are no Dems in the race (for SBOE in 2002), where the Dem is useless and has no chance of winning anyways (Comptroller in 2002) or in a non-partisan race (as I would vote for Matt Gonzales if I lived in San Fran).

Well, I have to say I find it amusing to see the shoe on the other foot for once. Bush's lack of spending discipline seriously angers me, and I have frequently considered voting libertarian. The libertarians have also done a fair bit of damage to the GOP in congress, as the combined Lib + GOP vote exceeded the Dem share in three recent senate races, yet the Dems still won (Nevade, Reid vs. Ensign '98; Washington, Gordon vs. Cantwell '00; and S.Dakota in '02). 54-46 would be a lot more comfortable than 51-49 is now.

The simple fact is, though, as you pointed out, single member electoral districts w/a plurality being enough to win guarantees the only stable equilibrium is a two party system. Any minor parties split the vote, electing the other major party in perpetuity, until they merge, or one drops out. It happened in '92 with Perot (which I don't see you guys complaining about) to us, and I can't say it pains me to see that it happened in '00. The purpose of a third party in the kind of system we have in the US isn't to win elections, it is to force one of the major parties to alter its position, to move closer to the 3rd party position, in order to avoid losing votes to the third party. Directly, a 3rd party can't change anything. Indirectly, by forcing the major party's not to run too close to the center to attract votes, but to tend to their ideological bases as well, they can affect a lot. A third party voter just has to realize that they are deliberately torpedoing the chances of the party that somewhat agrees with them in order to force it to agree with them more in the future. That isn't evil per se, it is just extremely calculating. A lot of pro-lifers in the GOP would happily do this if we nominated a pro-abortion presidential candidate, in order to force the party to nominate pro-lifers in the future.

Sherk

Oh, just a side note on IRV. Despite the claims that IRV will empower third parties, in the real world, it doesn't. Check out Australia, which has IRV for its house of Representatives (which is the lower house that also selects the Prime Minister). The fact is, even with IRV, third party representation in the House is almost as absent as it is here in the US. Out of 150 members, one is a Green. There are three other independents, but they aren't affiliated with any minor party, and are mostly elected on the basis of being well known personalities in their ridings, not for being third party insurgents. This happens from time to time here as well. Still, with IRV, the Greens elected 1 member to the house in the last election. It just doesn't change much, except make the major parties even less responsible to the wings of their party, because at the end of the day, greens will vote Democratic over republican, and libertarians will vote GOP over dems, so why bother catering to get their votes? The fact is third parties are third party's because most people disagree with them, so even under IRV, they still won't get elected.

(As a side note, the Aust. Senate has tons of third party representation, but that is because senators are elected under a truly whacked proportional representation scheme that is designed to prevent either of the major parties from gaining a majority in the body, and excessively empowers small minorities, a la Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, or the Greens, or the Australian Democrats, all of which recieved tiny portions of the vote, but have enough seats in the senate to block either Labour or Coalition initiatives)

Sherk

We don't know many things for sure in political science, but this is an axiom: single member districts lead to two party systems. This is a good thing, as it excludes wackos on either extreme of the political spectrum.

Doesn't anyone believe in democracies or republics anymore? Theoretically our representatives are supposed to /represent/ the beliefs of their constituents. "Rule by the people" not "rule by the party". If you don't agree with two arbitrary collections of political opinions embodied in the Dems or Reps, your beliefs don't deserve representation. That viewpoint is just ridiculously anti-American and undemocratic.

How can you sleep at night when you are forcing people to conform to your party's views against their will? You might as well get some return on your immorality by robbing banks. Pretty soon you Dems are going to have to learn that until you enact true electoral reform, a few greens have enough power to give the election to someone else. So instead of whining and bitching about how 5% of the population didn't go against their values and endorse some hypocrite Democrat, do something about it.

Flaws in IRV are well-known and there are many different ranked-choice voting systems besides IRV, notably the Borda Count and Condorcet/pair-wise. Arrow's theorem tells us that no voting system can be perfect, yet knowingly using one of the worst possible voting systems (plurality) makes no sense. IRV is a step in the right direction at the very least.

Well I'd disagree with you, Sherk that Perot elected Clinton. If I recall correctly, most exit polls showed that Perot voters were pretty evenly split between Clinton and Bush. Secondly, Presidential elections with incumbents are a more than anything else, a referendum on the job performance on that President. The fact is that 62% of the voters in the 1992 election wanted someone other than Bush. Sure, you could say that 57% of the voters wanted someone other than Clinton, but the fact that 62% voted against the incumbent, while not necessarily a mandate for Clinton, was certainly a mandate to throw out Bush I.

chrisken - I agree with everything you say in your last paragraph.

As for the rest... Call the current system unfair or undemocratic all you want. It won't make a bit of difference. The way to make a difference in American politics is to work within the party system. You won't get one of the two parties to embrace your issues by making a point with your vote. In fact, I'd argue that the Green Party makes the Democratic Party more conservative, because liberal voters who might otherwise be voting for a liberal candidate in a Democratic Primary are not participating in that primary, in that caucus, in that convention, etc. Thus, it allows more moderate and conservative Democrats to have a greater chance of victory.

As for going after that 5% of the population, well sure, I'm all for reaching out to them. But there becomes a point where you lose more votes from the center for every vote of that 5% you gain. I usually support liberal Democrats, but I'll vote for a more conservative Democrat in the primary when the candidate is acceptable enough and has a better chance of beating Republicans.

Byron is correct. All polls of Perot voters established that Perot voters were pretty evenly split from Rs & Ds. The only state that Perot could have possibly altered in the 92' race was Ohio, and even then the difference was within the margain of error. So even if you gave Ohio to Bush in 92', Clinton still kicked his ass in the electoral college. In 96', Perot was a non-factor.

What the Right forgets is that GORE GOT MORE VOTES THAN BUSH!!! (Even putting Florida aside) Even with Perot, Clinton may not have had a majority, but he had more votes than any of his opponents. Gore, however, won the popular vote, and still did not become President. I am in favor of the electoral college and this happens sometimes (twice in US history), but for all of this talk about this being a conservative country, do not forget that more people wanted Gore than Bush. (And of course Gore should have been President but for shenniganbs in Florida, but that is another story).

I have to laugh at the RED state BLUE state maps, and especially the RED county BLUE county map that try to show that so much territory is red, hence the overwhelming majority of the Nation is "Bush country." It may be that most of our territory is Bush country, but bushes and tumbleweeds do not vote, people do. The popultaion centers voted for Gore and MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE THAN BUSH.

After 4 years of the Chimp-in-Chief, even more people are going to realize what a joke he is, and we will have our first MD as President.

The other problem with the Greens is that they have become a "cult" party of Ralph Nader and tried to build from the top down (Presidential race) and not from the grass roots up. Yes there are some Greens who hold local office, but VERY few and far between. In reality, these are the easiest races for a third party to win. The smaller the office, the easier for an outsider to win.

Greens will counter that Federal election law encourages such top down action because of the 5% ballot access rule (which is really more important than the 5% funding rule). Still, a third party will never get anywhere as long as it is a "cult" party centered around a Presidential hopeful. (Eg. Bull Moose Party, Reform Party, etc.)

The best way to prevail comes from the addage, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Greens and other progressives should stop their whining about how Dems have "sold out," get active in the Democratic party at the grass roots level and bring about change in the party.

Accordingly, I invite every Green to join the Democratic Party (not just vote Democratic, but get involved - go to Precint conventions, join your local club, etc.) That is the only way we are going to bring out meaningful change.

Just briefly, the exit polling that I have seen suggested that in '92, Perot voters said they would have voted Bush over Clinton in a 2 man race by a 2-1 margin. Given the fact that Slick Willie won by only 6pts, and Perot took 18% of the vote, Bush I could have won, though it certainly wouldn't be guaranteed, if Perot wasn't in the race.

Now, if you guys have some links to the official exit polls from '92, I am ready to stand corrected, but I am pretty sure it was a 2-1 margin of Bush over Clinton if Perot wasn't in the race.

That said, I totally grant that Bush I screwed up the race and ran a campaing worthy of defeat. As a President, besides appointing Thomas and winning Gulf War I, he didn't do much to deserve being re-elected. Certainly betraying the one major promise you made in the 1st campaign "read my lips ..." was just plain stupid.

As a side note on the "Gore got more votes" theme. Granted, he did, and that sucks, but everyone knew that the goal wasn't to win the most popular votes but win the electoral college. Pouring cash into GOTV efforts in Texas, Bush could have easily gained more than 500,000 votes and taken the popular vote. As I recall, he won 69% in '98, but only 58% in 2000. The reason was he wasn't trying to run up the score in Texas in 2000 since spending that cash would have been pointless, as Texas was going to go GOP anyway, so the campaign spent in battleground states instead. Sure Gore won more votes, but if the winner had been determined solely by the popular vote, both campaigns would have been run differently, and we don't know who would have won the popular vote.

Sherk

My point about the 5% of greens or whatever the actual figure is, is not that the democratic party necessarily needs to "reach out" to them, but rather that if democrats would merely support a ranked-choice voting system they would give people the freedom to vote their conscience while still being able to take political realities into account and express a choice between the big two parties. Seriously, I thought liberal meant open-minded. IRV will have little effect on the electoral chances of third parties, as Australia demonstrates, so the corporate parties shouldn't be scared of losing their campaign contribution monopoly.

Whome? --

Agreed. The Green Party is going to die as long as it dependent on Nader. For much the same reason, the Libertarian Party has struggled because of its dependence on a few people like Harry Browne.

For the record, I voted a straight Democratic ticket in the last election, and only hesitated on one position. But I liked having the choice.

(And the fact of the matter is that in Texas, the Greens had almost as many people on the ballot as the Democrats did. They certainly have the candidates to run at the local and state level; they just don't have the infrastructure).

The amazing thing about the San Francisco race is that it is one of the very few in which the Green candidate's message consists of more than "we hate Republicrats." If I were living in San Francisco, I'd be considering Gonzales because of his positions on renters' and neighborhood issues, etc.

At any rate I think it's more productive to try to get along with the Greens (or at least the ones that WANT to cooperate) than to dismiss them all out of hand as crypto-Republicans. I can tell you that if I were running for a public office, I would work hard to earn every vote I could.

chrisken -- absolutely!

Regarding Shrek's comment of Perot's influence, I wish I remember the exact sources to back it up, along with a link to a website, but I do not, but I do distinctly remember that the mainstream media through many sources (network televiion, major dailies, etc.) reported that the polls, exit and otherwise, of Perot voters had them split more or less evenly between those that would have voted Bush & Clinton, with the exception of Ohio, as I stated earlier.

Shrek dismisses Gore's popular vote as campaign strategy. What his comments really demonstrate is the Right's view of elections as being nothing more than purchasing votes. ("Pouring cash into GOTV efforts in Texas, Bush could have easily gained more than 500,000 votes and taken the popular vote"). [As an aside, Gore would have had to play by the same rules, so if they were changed to a popular vote, then he could have changed his strategy too and probably got another 500,000 votes out of NYC alone)]

Ultimately, I know it is hard for the Right to swallow that more people rejected Bush and his policies than embraced him. Does the Right have such a cynical view of the electorate that they believe that Bush only lost the poluar vote because he did not throw enough money at them? Who can blame them, that is their modus operandi when it comes to corporations, why should they believe people are any different?

Jim,I wholeheartedly agree that we Democrats should focus more on getting our Green friends to come aboard then to chastise them. Many Greens are issue driven and not candidate personality driven voters (i.e. they are more educated & intellegent than the average voter). This trait means that they have a high likelihood to listen to reason. Therefore, fellow Ds, when you meet a Green, do not chastise him/her for electing Bush, try to reason with him/her as to not allow it to happen again.

Re: 1992 Perot voters costing Bush I reelection, interestingly, you are BOTH right.

1. Perot voter exit polls did split evenly between Clinton and Bush as their alternate. "Exit polls showed that Perot’s voters apparently split their preferences between Clinton and Bush nearly equally".

2. But this was not consistent across the nation, and made more impact in states which went for Clinton. "the Perot vote didn't split equally in every state. Perot’s impact in particular states was clear – and almost certain to have been to the detriment of George Bush."

3. Nevertheless, the analysis concludes that Clinton would still have won, although much more narrowly: "Analysis: Perot’s vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush’s victories had been reversed...Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer."

Well, there you have it, even assuming Perot siphoned off substantial numbers of Bush voters (which I do not believe happened at all), then the evidence irrefutably shows that Clinton would have won with our without a third party Perot. Obviously the reverse is the case with Ralph Trader.

As an aside, it is prophectic that Clinton carried out the budget hawk principles that Perot espoused (which was his biggest attraction to his supporters) against the will of the Republicans. Now that Bush II came along, the party of fiscal irresponsibility has managed to plunge us back into deficit spending. (I know it is so hard for the Right to swallow - that a very small marginal tax increase for the very wealthy was a key component to the economic boom of the 90s).

(I would be surprised that the Perotstas have not set up a groundswell revolt over the deficit spending, but it goes to show you how they are mute without their cult leader.)

Anyway, back to the subject. Presidential politics is above my pay grade, but Dallas County has 68 county-wide elected officials. 67 of them are g.o.p. One of them is a Democrat. I havent analysed the 2000 numbers that in depth, but I'll bet that the margin of people who voted Green in 2000 in Dallas County (and therefore did not vote straight Democrat) is enough to account for why we didn't elect a district judge in 2000 in Dallas County. I'm sick of Greens, or Reformers or voters in general, who think that the only thing that matters is presidential politics. If the Green Party decides to target Texas because it is a safe Bush state, and peel away Democratic voters, then they will succeed in keeping republican judges, tax assessor-collectors, and sherriffs in office. Once again, we have a plan for Greens to get republicans elected. If the individuals who call themselves Greens cared about democracy as much as they say they do, then they would line up behind the Democrats in Texas. They complain about two Parties not being enough of a choice, but we in the South are in danger of having only one choice. If you thought the Solid South was bad with just a With a Democratic monopoly on power, wait 'till you see one-party-rule with party discipline enforced as well. I too challenge the Greens to get involved in the process. Vote in the Democratic Primary (or the republican Primary), go to the precinct convention, bring resolutions forward about the things that are dear to your heart, and get elected as a delegate.People can only influence the political process if they show up!

David,

Amen. We in Dallas County need to get our Green friends to realize Tip O'Neal's addage, "All politics is local." Joe/Jane citizen is just as much affected by their local public officals as by their national officials.

For all you Greens that visit BOR, you have an open invitation to attend Democratic events, and please get involved. Vote in the Dem primary and attend the precinct convention. Go to a local club meeting. They key is to get involved.

I used to be very involved in the sense the I voted (always Dem. in general elections) and kept myself informed about the issues, but nothing else. I then had a glance into the inner workings of Republican Grass Roots politics and it scared the shit out of me. THEY'RE NUTS!!! Since then, I became a Dem. activist (although I had always been a Dem.). If you do not get involved at these levels, some right wing nut will.

Re: Perot

You also need to go back to the conduct of the 1992 race to see where Perot really hurt Bush. Bush essentially had two major candidates attacking him. For a critical six weeks, when Clinton could have been driven into the ground after the Gennifer Flowers revelation, the Bush campaign turned its guns on Perot. This gave Clinton breathing room. If the R's had only had Clinton to pound on for the whole summer, I don't think the race would have even been that close.

Clinton's recovery from the Gennifer Flowers revelations took place long before Papi Bush was even thought to be vulnerable. The Flowers allegations struck before the New Hampshire primary. Hillary's strong defense of her husband helped him recover enough to take second place in that contest. That "comeback kid" remark by Bill was a reference to his showing there.
In mid-March Clinton got about 75% of the vote in the "beauty contest" portion of the Illinois primary. By then, his nomination was seen as inevitable and party leaders were uniting around him.
Perot had just entered the race at that time and was, at best, a negligible factor.

The Republicans had been in power at that point for over 11 years. They had convinced themselves that they had a "lock on the electoral college". So they did not take Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, or any Democrat very seriously until November 3rd when Papi Bush ended up with the same percentage of the popular vote that George McGovern got 20 years earlier.
I hope they make the same mistake in 2004.
:P

Well, you can argue about presidential and other offices where Greens can cause trouble all you want. But is it not incontrovertible that one would prefer a Green candidate who is running against only one other candidate (either Republican or Democrat)? Jesse Jackson endorsed a congressional candidate who was running against only a Republican, what is the harm in the Greens there? In San Francisco, the choice for mayor is between a Green and a corporate centrist (at least, that is what the opponent is depicted as). And what about most races Greens won, which were nonpartisan or just plain ol' local/county seats?
The Greens have made some big mistakes (running against Wellstone) and can seem unpragmatic many times but if they can just shift the debate left so that the Democrats will take it. Socialist candidate Eugene Debs said both parties stole ideas from his platform several times. Running for local/county government is okay, I think the Democrats have enough of their own damn problems to go pointing fingers at others when they have for so long (especially under Clinton) simply been a punching bag by the right, or just running through the right-wings obstacle course.
Right now, I think a Green run for president would be very bad, and I am supporting Howard Dean for now.

Although IRV does *not* improve the situation for third parties (and can make other things worse), there *are* electoral systems which do not force a two party system.

Approval voting and Condorcet are examples, and I'd be happy with either.

See http://www.electionmethods.org/ .

(Note that there's a lot of pro-IRV nonsense on the Internet by people who haven't actually studied voting theory at all -- unfortunately, it doesn't have the benefits it claims to have.)

However, how are you going to get a new voting system installed? Only Congress can change that -- and as long as third parties can't usually get elected to Congress, that means voting for a major party candidate. And some Democrats have committed to making improvements in the election system, so vote for them. :-)

Grassroots Green candidates at the local level are a *good* idea. Particularly in cases where there's been a 'one-party lock' locally, which is very common.

I'd say that at a minimum, whenever there's no major-party opposition (candidate running "unopposed", which is disgustingly common), the Greens should field a candidate.

In those cases the voters don't even have to think about a "lesser-of-two-evils" situation -- the Green candidate is simply the second-party candidate! (And plurality voting works just fine with only two candidates.)

Oddly enough, this has *not* been happening.