Not so democratic Democrats of Illinois

[Laotra]

http://wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/illi-j07.shtml

"WSWS readers protest Democrats’ bid to bar SEP candidate from Illinois ballot
7 July 2006

Below we post letters from WSWS readers protesting the Illinois Democratic Party’s effort to exclude Socialist Equality Party state Senate candidate Joe Parnarauskis from the ballot. On July 3, the Illinois Democrats filed an objection to Parnarauskis’ nominating petitions, challenging the validity of more than half of the 4,991 signatures submitted by the SEP to the State Board of Elections.

The Democrats are employing the same anti-democratic methods as in their unsuccessful bid to bar SEP candidate for state legislature Tom Mackaman from the ballot in 2004. They have one aim—to exclude as many signatures as possible, using whatever technical discrepancies they can find or invent. A preliminary examination of the Democrats’ objections has already revealed that they are seeking to disqualify legally registered voters whose signatures and addresses on petition sheets clearly match the information on their voter registration cards.

In addition to the SEP, the Illinois Democrats are challenging the entire statewide slate of the Illinois Green Party, including its gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney."


Are they harrassing also the right wing third parties, or do they leave it to the Republican wing of the antidemocratic twin party?

The purpose of this post is not to discuss the political views of WSWS, but democratic priciples or lack of them.

[papau]

1. SWSW is trying to and expecting to prevent a GOP win by doing what? n/t

n/t

[Laotra]

3. WSWS is a website

Supporting Socialist Equality Party, among others. Why don't you read from the link before your kneejerk post?

[papau]

7. Again- how does the "website" stop the GOP from running America?

BY THE WAY:

World Socialist Web Site = International Committee of the Fourth International(ICF) where "The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) is the leadership of the world socialist movement, the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938.

In all countries the sections of the International Committee fight to unite the world working class in a common struggle for social equality.

The ICFI rests on the proud heritage of the movement founded by Leon Trotsky, co-leader with Lenin of the Russian Revolution."
=============================================
Based on egos, but with both different and the same members we have (or had recently) the Socialist Equality Party (US), the Socialist Party USA, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Socialist Labor Party of America, the Freedom Socialist Party, the New Socialists, the Young Democratic Socialists (US), and the Socialist Workers Party.
===================================================
As to why so many "parties" that ICFI was needed:

http://www.thesocialistparty.org/spo/archive/McR/sdusa.html

Q: Why are we not a member of the Socialist International? And, how are the Social Democrats (SDUSA) our successors? I don't understand this.

A: On your two questions, which because of age (which has few advantages, but some) I can answer.

First, on why the Social Democrats are our successors - they are not. But . . . At the last convention of the Socialist Party (1972) three general factions were "under same tent". (I was not at that convention, having resigned from the SP in 1971 over the support the majority, led by Michael Harrington, gave to the war in Vietnam - that is another story). The three groupings were: (1) the left wing and the "traditional SP folks", who had opposed the war and also opposed the "realignment position" of going into the Democratic party, (2) the grouping around Michael Harrington, which, while it wanted to work in the Democratic Party, had finally moved into opposition to the Vietnam War and (3), the group loyal to Max Shachtman, (a man with an unusual history, having begun political life as a youth in the Communist Party, split from the CP to join the Trotskyists in the late 1920's, moved toward democratic socialism by the early 1950's, entered the Socialist Party in 1958, and then moved steadily toward the far right, supporting Israel uncritically, supporting the right wing in Labor, which had hoped for Nixon's victory in 1972, and of course supporting the war in Vietnam). Shachtman's group had a narrow majority. it changed the name from "Socialist Party - Social Democratic Federation" to "Social Democrats USA". Where Michael Harrington had been the sole Chair, he was now made one of three co-chairs (the other two being Bayard Rustin and a man from a small right-wing pro-Israel group of Jews called the Democratic Socialist Federation - I hope I'm right on that name).

The party's traditional folks and the left wing left almost immediately. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, California, etc. A year later they reorganized as what we have today, the Socialist Party USA.

Harrington's group also split almost immediately to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee which merged with the New American Movement and became the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

So . . . if you've followed me this far, the Shachtman folks had a majority at that convention. But . . . almost the entire "original" Socialist Party split. (Not all - the late Sam Friedman remained in SDUSA, and a few others). Ironically Shachtman's forces then declined, Shachtman himself dying at about this time. Today SDUSA is almost non-existent but it went on from 1972 to play a key role in the Reagan Administration and provided foot-soldiers for the neo-conservatives. They have a website (I think) but almost no members. I feel like adding "an incredible story but true".

DSA is the largest of the three groups with about 5,000 members, but it is more of a mailing list organization. Some of us, including me, are dual members of the SP and DSA. There are some good folks in DSA and they have to a great extent abandoned their earlier hopes in the Democratic Party.

SDUSA is NOT in any way our successors. They simply had a majority at a convention over thirty years ago after which the SP-SDF split in three directions and SDUSA largely vanished.

On the International, I had originally favored our entering the SI (which has some very good members) but the political direction of the SI has moved to the right and most of those who share my politics would look to loose international contacts with democratic left groups in Holland, Norway, Japan, Germany, etc. However more to the point, the SI has fairly clear rules on admission. They do NOT historically recognize more than one member in any one country. The Americans, in this as in so much else, are exceptions. When we had a split in 1936 over whether or not to back Roosevelt, Norman Thomas had the majority but a very large group, largely foreign language federations, left. In an effort to "push and pull" the two groups back together, the SI gave each group a half vote. That continued until the SDF re-entered the Socialist Party in 1956, when the SP-SDF gained a full seat.

After the split in 1972 I met with the SI International Secretary to plead our case but we had two problems. One, they had to recognize the SDUSA group because it had the legal majority and they had given recognition to Harrington's group as a "half vote" because of the work Harrington had done with the SI. They didn't want to recognize three groups and asked us not to press the matter.

To make this more complex I doubt the SP as a whole would have followed through and joined and if we had joined I don't think we could have afforded the dues, and if had afforded the dues I have no idea where we'd get the money to send delegates.

So the question is moot. As of now SDUSA is a grave embarrassment to the SI and they wish it would simply vanish. They are comfortable with DSA. But they hate to expel a section and in this case their Israeli section and probably the British Labour Party would defend SDUSA. So there it is - SDUSA and DSA both have half-votes in the SI.

I hope this helps to explain the situation.

Fraternally,
David McReynolds
member, SP National Committee
================================================================

SO ONCE AGAIN I, PAPAU, ASK:

HOW IS SWSW trying to and expecting to prevent a GOP win by doing what?

[IndianaGreen]

14. You are missing the point and you are obfuscating the issue

the issue is the right of the American people to have choices in a democratic election, and its corollary, to have every vote counted.

One need only to look at the multi-party elections in Israel and even in Mexico, where they have yet to count every vote, to see how fucked up our electoral system is, and how corrupt the 2 major parties have become.

[Laotra]

20. Made you look

But why would a bunch of orthodox trots make any difference between the corporate twin party?

[papau]

51. Until you change the US to a parlimentary system, 3rd party=GOP shill n/t

n/t

[Greyhound]

2. The only issue the Democrats and Republicans agree on is that

nobody else is allowed to play. Watching these "arch-enemies" close ranks to prevent any other party from being heard should make it plain what the agenda really is. :banghead:

[demosincebirth]

4. These are serious times in our country and demand

serious measures. I agree with the Illinois democrats. We must take Congress back, either by "hook or crook."

[Monkeyman]

5. Your Right

We have to win in 06 or we are in deep do do

www.john06.com

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madrchsod]

6. it really is funny to watch the dems and republicans

get all upset by these parties who have no chance to effect the election. with blago going in front of a grand jury soon and judy trying to figure out how to rebuild the republican party after their corruption convictions maybe they should worry about their own parties. but it`s illinois where both parties are pretty much the same -where else would a democratic mayor of the largest city in the midwest be george bush`s soul mate? only in the land of lincoln

[Monkeyman]

8. This time the other will take Dem votes away

The Republicans in Il do not support Veterans
The Democrat in Il have passed laws to protect us.
The Republicans in Il do not help the People
The Democrats in Il have passed laws to protect the people
The Republicans in Il don't want children to have health care
The Democrats passed a bill to help every child in Il with health care
The Mayor of Chicago got something from Bush
Bush made a fool out of himself stomping for Hastert
Yes both Parties have had its share of corruption convictions but who would you want in power

[IndianaGreen]

11. People that would vote for SEP would not vote for a bourgeois party

It is undemocratic to keep voters in a 2-party yoke, the more so when the third parties that do get on the ballot on a regular basis are pseudo-Republican parties such as the Libertarian.

A real democrat would want multi-party elections and would demand that every vote be counted. I guess that's the difference between bourgeois parliamentary "democracies" and democratic socialism. To the former, democratic is merely a label, to the latter it is a way of life!

[kevsand]

9. This is my district.

For those who haven't read the link, this is Illinois' State Senate District 52. In other words, this is for a seat in our General Assembly in Springfield. It's an open seat, since the Republican incumbent has decided not to run. It has also been in Republican hands for at least a couple of generations.

The last time out (four years ago), the Republican won by only about 600 votes out of a total of approximately 57,000. This time, we have a very bright young Democrat by the name of Mike Frerichs running. In various other elections over the past eight years, Mike has consistently demonstrated a rare ability to win in some of the most Republican areas of the district.

It is widely expected that Frerichs has a better than even chance of winning, but that it could be very close. The entry of a Socialist candidate may very well be the difference that keeps this seat in Republican hands, squandering our best opportunity in decades to flip it.

[IndianaGreen]

12. What you are advocating is a political monopoly

It is like saying that only Coke and Pepsi products will be allowed.

If Frerichs is such a hot number, he should be able to win on his own. A SEP Trotskyite won't vote for Frerichs no matter what, and if the choice is between GOP and Dem, he/she would more likely than not sit out the election.

I thought voter suppression was a GOP monopoly.

On a personal note, I am still pissed at Indiana Democrats for kicking the Socialist-Worker Party off the election ballot back in the 1970s. Every time Democrats join Republicans to restrict voters' choices, as it was in this particular case, the people lose.

[kevsand]

16. No, we're trying to overthrow a political monopoly.

The Repubs have had a stranglehold on this seat for decades. We want to change that, but it's going to be a tight squeeze no matter what.

"A SEP Trotskyite won't vote for Frerichs no matter what, and if the choice is between GOP and Dem, he/she would more likely than not sit out the election."

So your best point is that third party voters are poor citizens, less likely to participate unless we balkanize the left? I've seen this argument over and over, and I've never seen any actual proof, just isolated anecdotes. In fact, given the passion of the third party voters, I think just the opposite is probably true. I think your assumption insults those voters, and impugns their sense of civic duty.

"I thought voter suppression was a GOP monopoly."

No voters are being suppressed. What's being upheld is the rule of law. If the Socialists raised the required number of signatures legally and properly, then they should be on the ballot. If not, then the law should be enforced. Democracy can only exist under the rule of law. If any group (even the Socialists) are suddenly exempt from the law, then democracy is compromised.

My personal opinion is that if the "SEP Troskyite" is "such a hot number," then he should have run in the Dem primary. By running separately in the general, which he has no chance of winning, he demonstrates that he has no real interest in public service.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Considering the large proportion of citizens that don't bother to vote

I think it would be unfair to characterize them as "bad citizens," but instead, they are citizens that realize they have no real power because only the elites decide what scraps they are going to get from the feast table.

My personal opinion is that if the "SEP Troskyite" is "such a hot number," then he should have run in the Dem primary.

That's like expecting a Christian to participate in a Satanist group.

We should always stand for more freedom and more choices for people. Voting laws are oftentimes intended to restrict freedoms and choices available to the citizens.

I'll take Israel's democracy over America's Democracy In Name Only any day!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kevsand]

24. What planet do you live on?

"they are citizens that realize they have no real power because only the elites decide what scraps they are going to get from the feast table"

1) That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. The party is built from the ground up, and even at its uppermost levels exists only with the consent of those at the bottom. The only way to change a party is to become that party. No external influence has ever or will ever change the Democratic party, unless it wants to change in the first place; i.e. from the ground up. That means the citizens have all the power, if only they would use it. Voters of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your own imagined limitations.

2) Your description does not describe any of the Socialists (or Greens) that I know. They know full well that they are not powerless; otherwise they would not be bothering to mount these campaigns. They only lack the experience to use their power to its greatest effect. If they really wanted to, they could take over our local Dem party and remake it in any image they wanted.

3) The real reason people don't vote is because they just don't care. And yes, that is a civic failure, no matter how you try to spin it. People who care, vote, regardless of the choices.

"That's like expecting a Christian to participate in a Satanist group."

That's a perfectly dreadful analogy. It's the Republicans who are the Satanists. The difference between modern Dems and modern Socialists is more like Jews and Christians, or Christians and Muslims. People can and do go back and forth.

"Voting laws are oftentimes intended to restrict freedoms and choices available to the citizens."

So you are officially on record, then, as advocating that third parties ignore the law at will? How does that make them different from Dubya? How can democracy function at all if any group places itself above the law?

[IndianaGreen]

28. And who voted for the Bankruptcy bill? and the war?

and for cloture in the Alito nomination? and against the Kerry-Feingold Iraq exit resolution?

Sounds to me that there is a great deal of hearing impaired politicians in Washington that cannot hear what the people are saying back in the real America.

"That's like expecting a Christian to participate in a Satanist group."

That's a perfectly dreadful analogy.

That's a perfect analogy because to a SEP supporter, that's exactly how he/she would feel about the scenario that you proposed, i.e, that they run in Dem primary.

[kevsand]

30. I'll tell you who voted for them.

People who we all elected. And if you say you're not responsible because you didn't vote, then you are actually twice as responsible. We put them there. We can remove them. That's how it works. But you have to play, or you can't win.

And if the SEP folks truly feel that way about their only realistic chance of making a legitimate contribution or having any real impact, then they have victimized themselves with a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. I will not, however, stand idly by and let them drag the rest of us down with their ideological purity. People's lives are at stake. This isn't an academic exercise, it's life and death. I choose to make a difference.

[IndianaGreen]

33. I am not arguing with you, and I wish you well in your endeavors

but I wasn't addressing myself to the specific issue of SEP in Illinois, but the larger issue that monopolies are always bad, and political monopolies are particularly bad in this country and abroad, e.g., PAN and PRI in Mexico.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

27. Pretty absurd analogy

The whole Christians/Satanists comparison. Perhaps a graphic of Hitler representing the Dems and one of Ghandi representing the third party advocates to complete the spin cycle?

Pretty Rovian of you IG, such as I would've thought beneath you.

Julie

[IndianaGreen]

29. Within the context of the poster''s suggestion that SEP runs in Dem

primary, it is a perfect analogy for that is the way the SEP feels about the 2-party system.

I read WSWS and I know how they feel!

[davsand]

31. If they want an established party they need to follow the laws.

Like ANY new party, they can either play within the existing parties or else they can get enough LEGAL signatures to get on the ballot. Take your pick, those are the options. I am not giving ANYBODY a free pass as a third party. They can follow the same laws the rest of us do if they want to play.

I have zero acceptance for a double standard, and letting them go on the ballot with illegal signatures is WRONG. You'd all piss and moan to the end of the earth if you thought the GOP was putting up illegal petitions. WHY is this any different? Because they are Greens or Socialists? Because you feel a "kinship" with them politically as a liberal?

I call BS.


Laura

[IndianaGreen]

32. You will notice that I have been speaking of the larger issue and not

about SEP's problems in getting on the ballot in Illinois, or anywhere else for that matter.

If any fraud has been perpetrated by a political party in obtaining signatures, that has nothing do with what I am talking about which is opening the political process by providing voters with more choices. This is only one small part of the larger electoral reform issue which cannot be achieve without universal registration, proportional representation, etc.

As to SEP itself, I have my own issues with a party that sees Mexico's Abrador as a sellout.

While WSWS is widely respected by the Left for its political analysis and reporting, the same cannot be said for SEP, a party that is NOT seen as mainstream Marxist.

[Laotra]

36. WSWS

I read it too, because the analysis is worth considering and they do OK journalism (standards high), but I don't like the general tone and attitude, which I find too spitefull and divisive and very unhelpfull towards building solidarity among the forces of the left. The tone of the Socialist Worker (http://socialistworker.co.uk) is much more constructive. Only reason I belong to a trotskyist party (of the IS-tendency) is because where I live there is nothing better available, who work the streets. My heart is with the Zapatistas and the Other Campaign, and therefore I agree that Obrador who I would not call sellout, as he is generally considered exceptional for his honesty, is however from the above political class and not a real force of change.

[MrBenchley]

10. And so know we know what a handful of half-assed far left loonies

as if anyone cares....

[IndianaGreen]

13. "half-assed far left loonies," like the ones that support Ned Lamont?

That's the way you have applied that label in the past, and I guess that's the way you will continue to use that label to describe those that don't adhere to your ideological "purity," which is another label you use.

I am throwing the words you frequently use back at you!

[MrBenchley]

17. Hey, they call themselves the World Socialists....

Don't cry to me that they're fucking loonies.

"I am throwing the words you frequently use back at you!"
And demonstrating yet again how utterly clueless you are.

[IndianaGreen]

19. and the DLC calls itself "Democratic" Leadership Council

Don't cry to me that they're fucking loonies.

And demonstrating yet again how utterly clueless you are.

[MrBenchley]

41. And the DLC are Democrats...unlike this rancid bunch of shitheads

And yeah, you've demonstrated yet again how fucking clueless you are.

[adwon]

15. Bullshit

It's not the job of a political party to aid other parties for some mythical 'democratic' purposes. Additionally, how the hell would helping Trotskyists do a damn thing for Democrats generally? Would it help win the South, which is essential in presidential elections? Or how about Catholics?

Communists always bitch that nobody else has democratic principles because it suits their purpose to do so. I see no reason to enable, and every reason to hinder, the efforts of a failed ideology whose principal purpose was always the destruction of liberalism. Don't fall for this 'no enemies to the left' bullshit.

[Laotra]

23. So

For you democracy is a myth, that explains a lot. You blame revolutionary socialists for the same crime you are committing in defence of totalitarian "liberalism".

[adwon]

35. No

I don't support empowering inherently murderous ideologies.

[Laotra]

37. Umm

Then why do you support capitalism and neoliberalism?

[adwon]

39. I never said I did

To assume that I do is create words I never wrote. It's quite possible to vigorously oppose communists and communism without falling into the trap of being equally stupid and being a free market dogmatist.

[Laotra]

40. OK

My bad, I don't believe in either-or but generally consider it logical fallacy.

Anyway, it would be nice if all Marxists (socialists and communists) would not be blamed for the crimes of Stalinism and Stalinistic state capitalism. One can just hope.

[adwon]

45. Haha

Stalin was the real face of Marxism. Totally free except to advocate the restoration of the old system? That premise alone guarantees the gulags and mass murder. Stalin was a good Leninist and followed his mentor's teachings. State terror and the atomization of the old society into the 'new socialist man' required bloodshed. The truth is that Marxists want to gloss over the fact that their system demands murder in order to be created.

I see no reason for the Democratic Party to give any assistance to the ideology of madmen. We might as well aid the American Nazi Party while we're at it.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[adwon]

49. What about the freedom of debate?

Point out the lies and the tears always start. :P

[davsand]

25. We are busting chops about illegal elections--RIGHT?

Let me get this straight--we here at DU are unhappy about the state of elections overall--right? We think that maybe there were illegal things done to help the GOP win since about 2000--RIGHT?

HOW the hell is it ok to let it slide now that there are signatures on those petitions that are not legit? On WHAT planet and by what standard is it acceptable to turn a blind eye to illegal stuff in the interest of "democracy?"

Jesus Christ in a sidecar, after all these years the crap on here just staggers me at times. I am an Illinois Dem from that Senate district, and I am FINE with this challenge. If the "alternate parties" are too inept to follow the election law (or have a disregard for election law) then that is just too bad.

Somebody has to stand for something and I am a lot happier to see Illinois Dems standing up for the election laws than I would be to see illegal candidates on my ballot.



Laura

[Laotra]

38. Read from the link

It's bad will harrasment, nothing to do with genuine questions about legitimacy, but just to keep other candidates excluded from elections, and if not succeeding, to cause time and money consuming problems for other political parties. AFAIK it is not legal to use challenge for bad will harrasment, but the judicial branch in Illinois is controlled by the establishment and lets this travesty happen because of ideological reasons, anti-socialist and anti-green and anti-democracy.

[kevsand]

42. By calling it bad will harassment,

you have pre-judged the allegations without knowing any of the specific details. You have also pre-judged the court without knowing anything about the venue.

[Laotra]

43. Well,

It's not like this is the first time Illinois Dems use this tactic of harassment, it's their standard modus operandi. I'm not an idiot but you can pretend to be. Hint: you sands are the only ones to claim "innocence" on this thread, against the tribalist majority of "my party right or wrong".

[kevsand]

47. I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

"you sands are the only ones to claim "innocence" on this thread, against the tribalist majority of "my party right or wrong"."

I'm not even going to pretend that I can parse your intended meaning from that phrase. I am not claiming innocence, since I haven't been acccused of anything. I also haven't seen anyone claim "my party right or wrong." That's not what we do here at DU. We (all of us) regularly criticize our party on a daily basis. We do that in the hopes of improving it, since it is, after all, our party.

I would give you a word of friendly warning: read the rules of conduct for participation here. Calling people names violates those rules. Promoting parties or candidates other than the Democratic Party is also a violation.

I have to ask. Are you originally from the USA, or have you ever even lived here? Or is everything you know based on the propaganda our government and media spews?

[Laotra]

50. Then let me explain

>>>I am not claiming innocence, since I haven't been acccused of anything.<<<

You are claiming that the Illinois Dems that challenged the signotories of third party candidates are innocent of bad will and harassment. If they acted purely on non-partisan motives and not out of bad will and partisanship, they should have at least some ground for suspicion that the signatories are not kosher, as the burden of proof lies with the accuser.


>>>I also haven't seen anyone claim "my party right or wrong<<<

Then you did not read the post supporting "hook and crook" tactics.

I know the rules, I have not called you names, I have not promoted any candidate or party and I am generally supportive of all Democratic and other genuine anti-war candidates.

I'm not from US and have never been there, why do you ask? I generally try to avoid reading and hearing the propaganda that your governement and media spews, because it is not good for my blood pressure. DU is one of my major newssources about international issues.

[davsand]

44. The link IS the Socialists. Do you think they *might* have an opinion?

Not to be terribly snotty about it all, but the article you are using to support your discussion is one put out by the folks impacted by the challenge. Do you suppose they might have injected a bit of opinion there--maybe a bit of spin?

:think:

We can (and should) discuss it from the position of what the actual election laws are here in Illinois regarding third party petitions. You DO know what those laws are--right??? It would only be fair that you would know those laws since you feel it acceptable to claim harassment from the Illinois Democratic Party.

Let's discuss it from the vantage point of "Too bad they might get knocked out of the race because they screwed up with the petitions." If you prefer we can even discuss the issue of how Illinois election laws make it difficult to establish a new party.

Just don't be sitting here wailing about how downtrodden they are if they can't manage to follow the laws. I find that argument a non-starter.


Regards!


Laura

[Laotra]

46. Nope

You accuse so it's your task to show even single piece of evidence justifying the harassment against Greens and Socialists. But you got none, just bad will.

I'm not from Illinois or even USA, I'm just citizen of the world who is fundamentalist about democracy.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Fair Elections and Full Representation in the US

"Stealing Democracy"

Spencer Overton's New Book Supports Key FairVote Reforms

In his new book Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression, George Washington
University law professor Spencer Overton examines electoral problems in the U.S. from a systemic perspective, explaining how "politicians use an invisible matrix of election rules, practices, and procedures to shape the electorate and determine political outcomes." Overton champions a number of core FairVote reform proposals including universal voter registration, proportional voting and citizens assemblies to address election reform issues in a fair and public manner.

This book serves as a powerful reminder that voting in the U.S. is not a constitutional right; instead, it is too often treated as a privilege that is protected unequally through a patchwork of state and local election practices.

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=5

Fair Elections and Full Representation in the US

by Robert Richie and Steven Hill

Nearly all elections in the United States are based on the winner-take-all principle: voters for the candidate who receives the most votes win representation; voters for the other candidates win nothing. A growing number of Americans are working to replace such "semi-representation" with full representation. We have immediate opportunities -- at local, state, and national levels -- to join the vast majority of mature democracies that have adopted systems of proportional representation.
Proportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. In an election for ten seats, 10% of like-minded voters win one seat, 40% wins four seats and so on. Whereas winner-take-all awards 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of seats.

PR would likely increase voter participation, represent more women and promote fairer representation of racial minorities -- particularly significant given the Supreme Court's assault on the Voting Rights Act. PR lessens the impact of campaign cash by allowing candidates to win with lower percentages of votes and focus on their base of support rather than expensive swing voters.

Most dramatically, PR gives voters the power to break up the two-party monopoly. Consider the impact of a progressive minor party that could actually elect candidates. Right now, 49 out of 50 states don't have a single minor party representative in their state legislatures. With PR, that would change. In a multi-party system grounded in PR, frustrated Democrats and independent voters would have a positive alternative to supporting "the lesser of two evils." A party winning just 10% of seats could help progressives build coalitions, broadcast their ideas to a bigger audience and check any conservative drift of the Democratic Party. Note that the German Green Party regularly wins seats and influences policy despite having never won more than 10% of the national vote.

There is no guarantee that progressives would outdo conservatives in winning over the majority, of course, as all PR provides is a more level electoral playing field. But the winner- take-all monopoly facilitates "divide and conquer" strategies that can split a potential majority coalition of progressives with such wedge issues as gun control, gay rights, race and abortion. With electable choices across the spectrum, a multi-party system would show where the American people really stand. Certainly the political center of most of Europe -- with enviable policies on health care, welfare, workers rights and the environment -- is where many American progressives would love to be.

http://www.progress.org/propor.htm

[citizen snips]

52. Socialism?

Socialism has been polarized too much in US for them to actually win anything.

[The Magistrate]

53. Locking

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.