Duh. I'm a Green, so don't bother 'forwarding' this. It is no accident that the law in the United States basically supports a 2 party structure. Just like the law upholds private ownership in the means of production.

But in Minneapolis Democrats, Greens and Republicans have just come out for Instant Runoff Voting. The next city elections should be organized under that basis, if they can figure it out technically.

So, to get more democracy, we need a change in the laws in this ostensibly great 'Democracy.' The greatest step would be abolition of the electoral college, and then the diminuation or replacement of the Senate. However, I don't think the abolition of the electoral college will ever happen without overturning the present political structure.

Clinton got elected on account or Perot, who got over 20% of the vote. You got to burn the house down to build it up. If Obama is not the candidate, Black people will remember all the hurtful things done to our leader and we will not vote Democrat. Hear that!

So if the 2 dominant parties were the Nazi party and the KKK, you'd insist on supporting one of them rather than vote 3rd party. Now that's damn irrational. At some point you have to stand up for your beliefs, even it it costs you in the short term. I'm a leftist and I will never vote for a Dem, because they are the corrupt handmaidens of the super-rich. Sometimes democracy doesn't hand you a suitable candidate so you have to agitate for one, even if it might not lead instantly to a true reform candidate. It is still the only way. You offer no suggestions how else progress could be achieved, just smug assurance that nothing good can come from opposing the Dems. If I felt that way, I'd join the half of the electorate that doesn't vote at all.

The problem here is that all the talk we're hearing about change is just that--talk...

Now, probably, you don't want to hear it--but, certainly, Gore is no better than he himself who's the very devil on the environment (GW Bush)(ouch there!!!)

Be mature in your understanding, not in your maliciousness--talk, talk, talk--consider how in '49 a jury convicted GM, Standard Oil of CA, and others of criminally conspiring to replace electric streetcars with diesel-powered buses: "By the time the scandal was brought to court and its perpetrators identified and penalized, its intended result had already been achieved. GM was fined $5,000 and each executive was ordered to pay a fine of $1." (Wikipedia--The Great American Streetcar Scandal)

Who Killed the Electric Car (the movie) explores the roles of auto-makers, the oil industry, the US Govt. and others in killing the implementation of the electric car.

Nowadays such a vehicle is entirely feasible--a charge goes as far as a tank of gas, charging takes minutes instead of hours--how about service stations offering quick battery pack changes...? And tiny onboard gasoline generators could provide emergency power. (Wikipedia--electric vehicles)

OH SURE THING!!! All the major candidates are talking up change--but the Energy Information Administration of the DOE says that wind energy will be supplying a mere 0.25% of US electricity by 2020.

Forget that the DOE says that 150% of our current electricity usage could be supplied by onshore wind farms--and the same potential lies in offshore wind farms--the new MagLev wind turbine technology boosts generating capacity by 20%, at the same time decreasing operating costs by 50%--and it can harness winds as slow as 3 MPH!!! (ENN: MagLev Wind Turbine)

Instead of Obama crowing about how modern technology allows 30% more "juice" to be "squeezed" from solar panels, this goes entirely unimplemented.

All the major candidates are 100% behind ethanol, but "This year the Massachusetts Institute of Technology issued a report concluding that using corn-based ethanol instead of gasoline will have no impact on greenhouse emissions, AND WOULD EVEN EXPAND FOSSIL FUEL USE ..." (The Hidden Agenda Behind Bush's Bio-fuel Plan)

In other words--Dem. or Rep.--all we're getting is a lot of hot air!!!

It sounds pretentious to say I'm going to correct a few things, but I don't know how else to put it. Elydog, I live in Minneapolis and followed IRV closely. The Republicans did not back it. The Greens, Democrats, and Independence Party endorsed it. Since the Democrats are almost always the party hurt by independent and third party challenges, it makes sense they would back it while Republicans will oppose, which gets to Jesse's point about Perot. If you look at the data, Perot sometimes hurt Republicans Bush and Dole, but sometimes took more from Clinton. It varied by state, and appears to have been a wash. I see no reason to strongly doubt that without Perot, Clinton would have had a majority.

Rayhorn, the point of the article is that because winner-take-all voting lends itself to two parties, not that you should support whatever two parties exist regardless. Just don't expect a multi-party system. Expect that a third party has to cause an existing party to go defunct, like the Republicans did to the Whigs. So there are two choices, either displace a party or take it over.

I say that as someone who backed Nader in 2000 because the Democrats had become Republican-lite and needed a warning shot to stop taking the base for granted. However, you have to be willing to look to see if changes have taken place, and they have. The Democrats have moved distinctly leftward. The frustration of the base with congressional Democrats isn't that the party hasn't moved, but that many holdovers from Republican-lite days won't figure this out. At the local levels however, this is no longer the DLC's party. There is a movement that is taking over the Democrats from the bottom up, even if the blue dogs can't see it.

As regards Bloomberg, do the people thinking of supporting him know what a neocon he's been in regards to Iraq? I'm just saying check into it before backing. In foreign policy, you won't notice a difference from Bush.

Go Bloomberg! Hopefully Ron Paul will run as an independent and make the election even crazier!

I'd settle for a second party at this point, not GOP-Lite and regular like we have now.

All it would really take is for a third party candidate to one time win enough states under the current system to throw the whole thing out of whack.

What would happen if no candidate got the requisite number of electoral college votes to make it to the "post"?

Better yet, i long for the day when "none of the above" wins a state or two...that's a shot across the bow.

Gore was the polar ice cap that wouldn't melt: a typically unappealing Democratic candidate. Nader was the best thing that has happened to Democrats in a long time. He sent a message: You've got to give us better candidates than this. Sure enough, the candidates we have now are almost all the best we've had in decades.

Eric Ferguson,

Please provide some links about Bloomberg and Iraq. I tried to look into that a while ago and came up with nothing.

As for differences with W, please look at the man's environmental record. He is doing phenomenal things for the city in a huge way.

Though I didn't like him initially aligning himself with the repugnicans, nor the way he essentially just bought the election by spending around 11 times as much as Mark Green, I have to say, he's been doing an excellent job since getting into office.

(aside)
This is something I would not, as a New Yorker, say about Giuliani, a.k.a. El Duce. Nor do the NYPD and NYFD have anything good to say about Giuliani.
(/aside)

I think that Bloomberg is highly capable of doing the necessary research (and spending the required campaign money) and will likely not run if his odds are no better than the likes of Nader and Perot. If he runs, he will likely have determined that he has a very good chance of actually winning. However, previously, he had already stated that he did not think the country was ready for a 5'8" Jewish president.

BTW, isn't there anyone else out there who would prefer a zero party system? One in which we vote for candidates, not parties?

You are right Scott about the Jewish president. It is not necessary. The Jews already contribute over 25% of all political contributions to all of the parties. 25% of the U.S. Senators are Jews or have Jewish spouses. The Jews only make up 2% of the population. Where is affirmative action in practice? By the way Bloomberg is a big supporter of AIPAC.

Troy,

Damn. I was stating what Bloomberg had stated. I was not giving my opinion on that last point. But, damn if I didn't drag the anti-Semitic ignorant asshats (or at least one) out of the woodwork. So, if the boot fits, boot yourself in the head with it.

http://www.webguys.com/pdavis/karate/tikwanleep.html

Looks like this Scott guy is an intolerant bigot. Let's try to keep the conversation intellectual and no name calling. All opinions are welcome, even the ones that we disagree with.

With a huge personal fortune and the unquestioned backing of AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby, Mike Bloomberg would make a formidable candidate for US President.

One small problem remains, with his dual allegiance baggage, some secular Americans might question whether Mike would place Israel’s national interests above those of the USA.

Mayor Bloomberg, like so many Americans, is self-delusional; he actually believes that what is good for the state of Israel is good for each of our united states and is good for the USA as a whole. It’s a ludicrous premise but no politician dares to challenge it, for fear of being smeared as an anti-Semite.

Why take a chance on a conflict of interest/ dual-allegiance candidate?

This new editor has been running right wing talking point after right wing talking point. This article is no exception. Want to hear an advocate for 3rd parties? Talk to Howard Dean. Howard Dean credits the strong presence of a 3rd party with enabling him to pass (near) universal health care in the state of Vermont. It's a standard tactic in negotiation, a variation on good cop/bad cop. Someone asks you for $100, then follows it up by asking for $10, you're more likely to give $10. Because the 3rd party split the Democratic vote in two, the government of Vermont decided to institute IRV. IRV has been used throughout the world for quite a long time. Politicians here don't like it because it means they'll have to compete against 3rd parties. You have to hurt them enough where it matters, their relevancy and their careers, before they're willing to give it to you.

The main problem with the anti-Nader argument is that it assumes that what matters most about an election or an administration is the positions the candidates and their parties want to pursue, rather than what they can get away with.

The main problems with the noted pro-Nader replies are that (1) Bush and the Republicans are -- because of the differing constituencies backing them -- considerably worse than Gore and the Democrats and (2) at most the Democrats would learn from losing a close election due to Nader's appeal that they need to change their image a little -- their reality being another thing entirely.

What seems missing on both sides, therefore, is recognition that the most important impact of the Nader campaign will be changing the political climate in the country by energizing the left, and that our arguments need to take account of this impact. Take the cases most often bandied about: Supreme Court Justices, taxes, police violence, abortion, and interventionism. The issue isn't can we plausibly predict that Bush's preferred personal agenda for each of these policy areas would be sufficiently worse than Gore's to adversely impact many suffering people. Of course it would. The issue is, if lots of people throughout the country support and vote for Nader, thereby awakening not only hope but also organizational clout and commitment, will either Gore or Bush be as able as otherwise to pursue their full agendas on these issues?

In other words, the real choice is Gore winning without Nader getting lots of support and therefore with a typically un-aroused populace that will allow him to pursue his full corporate agenda nearly unopposed, versus Bush (or maybe still Gore) winning but with Nader getting lots of support and therefore with a highly aroused sector of the populace impacted very positively by Nader's campaign and ready to fight up a storm. The correct comparison isn't the will of Bush versus the will of Gore -- it is what Bush (or Gore) will do with a 10% Nader constituency fighting on, versus what Gore will do with no such on-going, galvanized, and organized opposition contesting government policy-making, plus, as well, what the emerging opposition will mean in future elections, and general movement development.

What is odd, therefore, about the lesser evil discussion is that it stacks the deck against third party politics by simply ruling out, tout court, the whole reason for Nader's campaign, it's whole logic and purpose, and thus its real value -- and not only in the long term, but in the short term as well. The discussion most often assumes, that is, that the only thing that matters about an election is who wins it -- not the election's impact on constituencies supporting or opposing candidates, and on movement organization and commitment. It assumes, in other words, that nothing substantial can ever be accomplished electorally (or otherwise, with just a little tweaking of the argument) unless it occurs by some kind of overnight miracle that wins all things sought in one swoop. If Nader could win, then it would be okay to vote for him, but we can't participate in an extended process of work and organizing needed as a prerequisite to later winning major gains and even eventual electoral power. The discussion denies that with elections, you lose, you lose, you lose -- and then you win -- and thus all those losses weren't really losses at all, but were, instead, part of a process of building eventually definitive support. And, more, the discussion denies that the supposed debit of having pushed some elections in the short term from tweedle dumb to tweedle dumber (and more vile), were not such large debits as they might seem, because the electoral swing to the right was offset by the fact that tweedle dumber then had to operate against a far more aroused and organized populace constraining his options.

Reasonable people might still plop down on either side of this debate – despite that given the seriousness of their efforts every vote for Nader/Laduke seems like it will be a step in a movement path forward, another tally toward Green electoral finances, another person likely ready to continue dissenting beyond election day, whereas every vote for Gore seems like it will enlarge resignation and whether intentionally or not pave the way for people throwing up their hands as if their task is done once they have elected Gore to gently commandeer our futures further into the maws of big capital.

What certainly isn't reasonable, however, at least for leftists, is to let liberals redefine the lesser evil discussion in a way that presumes that elected officials are invulnerable to pressure, that vote outcomes matter more than the consciousness and organization of constituencies, and that movement organizing impacts what occurs in the short term and what is possible in the long term only by miracles as opposed to the hard work of losing, losing, losing on the road to winning.

Condemn progressives for voting enthusiastically for Democrats and the inevitable response is something like “just imagine how much worse voting for Republicans would be.” Similarly, many true conservatives and Libertarians see voting for Republicans as a necessary evil. With many progressives regretting giving Democrats a majority in Congress and many conservatives regretting putting George W. Bush in the White House, it is timely to refute lesser evil logic.

Inevitably, lesser evil voters face personal disappointment and some shame. Politicians that receive lesser evil votes do not perform according to the values and principles that the lesser evil voter holds dear. These voters must accept responsibility for putting ineffective, dishonest and corrupt politicians in office. Though they may be lesser evils, they remain evils.

All too often lesser evil voters avoid shame and regret and prevent painful cognitive dissonance by deluding themselves that the politician they helped put in office is really not so bad after all. Corrosive lesser evil voting erodes one’s principles as pragmatism replaces idealism. This makes the next cycle of lesser evil voting easier.

Lesser evil voting helps stabilize America’s two-party duopoly that greatly restricts true political competition. Third party and independent candidates – and minor Democratic and Republican candidates in primaries – are defeated by massive numbers of lesser evil voters. Despite authentically having the political goals that mesh with many voters on the left or right, these minor “best” candidates fall victim to lesser evil voting. Lesser evil voters are addicted to a self-fulfilling prophesy. They think “If I vote for a minor candidate they will lose anyway.” They ensure this outcome though their lesser evil voting. The truly wasted vote is the unprincipled lesser evil vote.

Effective representative democracy requires politically engaged citizens that vote. Lesser-evil voters support the current two-party system with its terribly low voter turnout and chronic dishonesty and corruption. Lesser evil voters help put into office disappointing politicians, not the best people that would restore American democracy and show more citizens that voting is valuable. Lesser evil voters demonstrate the validity of turned-off citizens’ view that it really does not matter which major party wins office.

Politicians knowingly market themselves to lesser evil voters by constructing phony sales pitches, especially to certain audiences outside of their more certain base constituents. Democrats make themselves look more progressive than they really are, and Republicans make themselves look more conservative than they really are. Lesser evil voters are phony, and they produce a phony political system. Lesser evil voters contribute mightily to the travesty of our political system that no sane person respects and has confidence in.

Lesser evil voting demonstrates the worst aspects of political compromise. This is the common cause of terrible laws. When citizens surrender so much of what they truly believe in, they enable compromise politicians to create bad public policy that, in the end, satisfies very few people and puts band-aids on severe problems. Lesser evil voters concede victory to the other side – the side they view as the worse alternative because the people they vote for will not stand up for what is right and necessary. Think Iraq war. Even when their lesser evil side wins, they do not have the principled positions that would prevent awful compromises, often in the name of bipartisanship that is a clever way to justify our corrupt two-party mafia.

Lesser evil voters deride the alternatives of not voting or voting for minor candidates. The outcome should the “other” side win is deemed unacceptable. There is worse and there is worst. The core problem with lesser evil voters is that they are short term thinkers. They fail to see the repeated long term consequence of their style of voting – a system over many election cycles that persists in delivering suboptimal results. The “good” outcome in the current election (from their perspective) is the enemy of the “better” solution in the longer term (from an objective perspective). The better solution is major reform that will never happen as long as lesser evil voting persists.

Understand this: Lesser evil voting is not courageous. It is cowardly surrender to the disappointing two-party status quo. Lesser evil voters should trade regret for pride by voting for candidates they really think are the best. Voters in this presidential primary season have some remarkable opportunities to transform fine minor candidates into competitive major candidates – more honest and trustworthy people like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, for example.

Finally, the deadly decline of American democracy results in large measure from lesser evil voters electing lesser evil politicians. When virtually no elected public official is there because most voters have embraced his clear principled, trustworthy positions we get a government that is easily corrupted by corporate and other moneyed interests. We get what we have now. And if you are dissatisfied with that, then reconsider the wisdom of lesser evil voting. We will only get the best government by voting for the best candidates. Otherwise, we get what we deserve and what the power elites prefer.

By voting for some obscure third party, you are actually NOT voting. Congratulations.

["By voting for some obscure third party, you are actually NOT voting."]

By voting for either wing of the Mobius party and the Oligarchy that rules this nation, you are voting to have us continue down the road-to-hell we've been on, and telling them that what we've been getting from inside the beltway is A-OK with you.

Thanks for Nothing!

I created my own website and blog called Anyone But Nader. I felt called to create this site because as a member of the Green Party I was aghast that my ballot for the upcoming CA primary had Nader at the top. The perception that Nader's presidential ambitions gave us eight years of Bush still haunts the Greens here in the USA.

If we can agree to choose someone other than Nader (who, BTW, is also running on the Peace and Freedom Party primary), then maybe we can get this perception removed and we can get back to our lives and hopes for this nation. This idea that Nader gave us Bush is in error since only weak-willed Dems combined with fraudulent election practices caused Bush to take the job of POTUS twice in a row.

My blog will adhere to the highest standards of Journalism, and not be a left-wing Drudge Report. I intend to research everything I write very carefully and not just lean on the first rumor I hear. Even so, I want to make the statement loud and clear that the Greens would prefer "anyone but Nader."

Besides, we need his energy to be focused on issues that he once shone his light upon: dangerous consumer goods, and companies such as Wal-Mart who have only been allowed to flourish with Nader occupied on becoming president.

What a JOKE!

There is ONLY ONE PARTY in the US and that's the CORPORATE PARTY. (And, the honestly Greens of the Green Party and whatever other party don't have a chance.)

The rhetoric about TWO parties is only that: RHETORIC, a cover to make us think there are TWO parties, whereas in fact, our government, such as it is, is lead by its genitals to whatever the Big Business, Multi-nationals want.

After all, wouldn't you beholding to some organization who gave you a few thousand to run for office?

Ann, You are absolutely right! I have always held the belief that Party Politics was fine for places like Russia and China,but, not for MY country{the Constitution}! I have watched as, step by step, the government was altered until it no longer exists.Welcome to the Ultimate Police State! Sorry "Brain Dead America" you are about to get the Ultimate Awakening! Always vote for the best Person, to Hell with the party CRAP! WAKE UP AMERICA ITS LATER THAN YOU THINK!

Many people do not like either parties. I would love to see a good third party. The Dems to me are nothing more than the lesser of the two evils.

Greens Demand Transparency from Israel on Nuclear Weapons
WASHINGTON - July 8,2004 - Green Party leaders are calling on the Bush Administration to put pressure on Israel to open up its nuclear weapons program to international scrutiny.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Israel cooperate with the effort to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons, but the Israeli government has refused to acknowledge that it possesses such arms.
"Israel may already have as many nuclear warheads as Great Britain," said Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the International Committee of the Green Party of the United States. "Israel is not formally listed among the countries which have acquired WMDs. Western governments have allowed Israel to maintain its 'nuclear ambiguity' stance too long, provoking suspicions that the U.S. might have shared nuclear technology with Israel."
Israel's treatment of Palestinians -- those who are Israeli citizens as well as those in the territories -- is comparable in many ways to South African apartheid, and has resulted in a cycle of violence and lack of security for both Israelis and Palestinians," said a member of the Green Party of Wisconsin. "A stable and just resolution of the conflict requires the full realization of the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis.” Real environmentalists and progressives vote Green.

Political scientists refer to this phenomenon as "Duverger's Law." You can read an excerpt of the original formulation here:

http://janda.org/c24/Readings/Duverger/Duverger.htm

To my Green and other third-party friends above: This isn't a normative analysis. Duverger isn't an advocate or apologist for two-party systems -- he's simply describing what tends to happen when you have a constitution that arranges legislative elections the way ours does.

It's really worth getting your head wrapped around this argument. It certainly convinced me when I, a longtime third-party voter, finally encountered it

This article says we can't get away from the two-party system, so there's no point voting for a third party. Well, it's clear that the Republicrats are quite happy with the monopoly and have no intention of abolishing the electoral college, so therefore the only way to make a change is to get a third party candidate into power who can push that change through (among others which ensure the continued reign of the entrenched powers). I generally won't vote for Republicrats because being a prominent member of either party means buying into and participating in the the status-quo of corporate-controlled government. A vote for Republicrats (except, possibly, Kucinich)is a vote for the status-quo. That's why this article is pretty pointless. The two-party system is not the evil that we need to fight agains. It's the one-party system, which can only be brought down by third parties or mavericks like Kucinich within the existing party.

WOW, lots of good posts here. :)
I'll never vote the lesser of two evils again. The difference between the Dem. and Rep. is superficial. The true major difference is which path should be taken to support the system that serves the owners. The only logic I can find that gets me to lean a bit to the Dems. is that they do lean a bit towards the Constitution and the people. But neither serve the people as the Constitution requires. So I can't as an American, in good conscience vote either Dem or Rep. I do not wish to compromise myself by for evil or its lesser.

So, yes - change the U.S. Constitution - but don't give up on third parties. The Europeans seem to be able to get along just fine with a large number of parties - and have political systems that are more representative of the full spectrum of opinions. We know the math - the real stupidity is continuing to support the two-party duopoly.

Does this apply to birthday parties?

The basic argument is simple enough.....when you have a winner-take-all system, that system will eventually produce two groups to oppose each other, as if elections were football games. We all understand this. I agree that blithely cheering on the creation of more and more parties -- without acknowledging the parallel importance of adopting something like IRV -- doesn't make a whole lot of sense given the system as it is.

However, Mr. Baumann seems to think that that means "game over." It does not, for two reasons.

First, the success in terms of eventual influence of the 1840 Liberty Party, the 1890's Populist Party, and the early 20th century Socialist Party - not to mention the Republican Party, which began in 1856 as a 3rd party - demonstrate the usefulness of 3rd party movements even within the system as it has been constructed for over 200 years now. The Libertarian Party, without winning a single significant election aside from a handful of Alaska state representative races many years ago, has had enormous influence on American politics way beyond what its membership size and election record would indicate. I'm sure the Green Party will eventually occupy a similar place. Ditto for the new party Ralph Nader may or may not start up.

Second, precisely because of winner-take-all, there is in countless situations the interesting prospect of a MAJOR PARTY candidate having no chance of winning. McGovern '72, anyone? How about Mondale '84? Voting for one of those guys was, in terms of the norms of winner-take-all, no "less wasteful" than voting for Ben Spock in '72 or Barry Commoner in '84. And how about the dozens and dozens of house districts around the country where the incumbent essentially runs unopposed? Why shouldn't a 3rd party candidate step in to ensure that at least those voters have an election instead of a coronation?

3rd parties absolutely fill an important role in American elections as long as people view these elections as something other than zero-sum games.

Nope. Sorry. False argument. No dice. I am now MORE motivated to vote against the corporate duopoly know under the aegis of the Democrat and Republican Parties.
Returning the same parties and politicians to office who currently are serving only guarantees a continuation of the status quo.
That's not good enough. I'll never sell out to either of the two elected dictatorships that actively break our constitution, work against public interests, and have no allegiance to America.