My letter to Kerry: Why should I give you my vote? (and how to get it)

[GreenPartyVoter]

Dear Senator,

As I look over your record and your stand on current issues, I am dismayed. Are you really offering me an alternative to George W. Bush in most areas? With the exception of women's choice and the environment, you seem to be offering only a modified version of Bush's current and proposed policies. But I don't want Bush's policies, which is why I am desperate to get him out of office.

I will be completely frank and tell you that I would prefer, in this instance, to vote for Dennis Kucinich this fall as he is closer to my views on most subjects than you are. Not because the Greens are not offering a terrific choice of candidates--they are. But I know how the system works and right now only the DNC is truly in a position to dethrone King George.

So. Here is what I truly want to know. Will you fight for REAL election reform from the Oval Office so that people who want to vote for a Green or a Socialist or a Libertarian or what have you can not only cast that ballot, but cast it knowing that it has a chance of actually being worth something other than a vote of conscience?

Senator, the changes I would really like to see take place in this country's electoral system are:

CLEAN ELECTIONS: No more extra clout for moneyed special interests. No more elected officials spending more time on the trail fundraising than in their office working for the people who put them there in the first place. Every candidate has the same amount of money and airtime. All are on equal footing rather than subject to the golden rule of "He who has the gold rules".

OPEN DEBATES: Voters can't be expected to vote their conscience without first hearing from all of the valid candidates. This means letting in all of the qualified candidates, not only the Republican and Democratic ones.

ELECTION HOLIDAYS: for federal elections, with extended polling hours so that all people who want to vote have the opportunity.

REGULATED VOTING MACHINES: There has to be accountability and a legitimate paper trail. And we need to bring the job of counting the votes back into the public sector and set the system up so that there is complete transparency.

RANKED VOTING: Voters should be expected to vote their conscience, not for the lesser of two evils. The current system shuts out so many candidates and minimizes the options and power of the voter at the ballot box. At this time many people are clamoring for Instant Runoff Voting. However, it still has a "spoiler" effect, so that instituting it could still result in a Green causing a Democrat to lose (or vice versa) Condorcet voting seems to be a better and more fair alternative for a ranked voting set up.

REFORM THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Institute ranked voting here as well, and consider changing the weight of votes for smaller states since, despite its intent to protect less populous areas, it has instead become a reflection of the popular vote. (Have you noticed how candidates and the media do not focus much attention during campaigns on the states with few electoral votes?)

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION: It’s time to put an end to gerrymandering and “protecting” incumbents. It's time for the Congress to be a mirror of America's electorate. We know for a fact that the bulk of Americans are not wealthy white people. Where are the poor Latina congresswomen? Where are the middle class African American Senators? (I know this last request will be the hardest to institute, but surely you can lay the groundwork for switching to this type of set up at least in the House.)

For more information on these reforms, please visit my website. http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/

Senator, I wish you the best of luck in your election bid. I hope that by November I will have heard enough from you to make me place a checkmark by your name because I want to vote FOR YOU instead of AGAINST George W. Bush.

[skooooo]

1. Why are you even on DU?

If you're not convinced Kerry is better, than vote for Bush! (or Nadar, which amounts to a vote for Bush).

Sheesh!! Sorry if this seems like a flame, but if you're a Greenie and want to promote Greenie things, go somewhere else.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. are you kidding or are you just stupid?

this isn't a board for just Democrats. Besides, electoral reform and greater democracy is something all people of any party should strive for.

[skooooo]

3. Then why don't we let Republicans post their tripe?

[IronLionZion]

33. Republicans do post here

I'm not going to name names but they are not all right-wing freepers.

[Guaranteed]

73. What, you disagree with what this guy is saying?

Or do you disagree with Kerry?

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Election reform is not a "greenie thing". It's an American thing.

Our election system is screwing every average joe and jill, including Dems.

And, FYI, there are plenty of Dems who are concerned with Kerry's stance on certain issues too. Again, not just a Green thing.

And I am on DU because I still have a lot in common with many dems, despite the fact that I chose to affiliate myself with a different party. I certainly have more in common with them than I do Repubs.If we want to make a change in this country and haul it back from the clutches of the right-wing extremists, the folks on the left are going to have to work together.

Finally, elected officals work FOR US. They represent US. We are SUPPOSED to voice our opinions on how we think things ought to be handled. That is the point of our constitutional Republic, or at least, it was.

[skooooo]

5. I agree...

...but if you think cherry picking a few issues and holding your vote hostage upon the chance that Kerry will get your letter and address each of your issues exactly like you want is going to help anything progress, I think you're wrong.

I'll just shut up, I guess. I just get irritated with posts like this -- even though I agree with your individual points. If you don't vote for Kerry, you may not even get the chance to fight for the things that you want in an environment that is open to those changes.

So, proceed at your own risk, imo.

And f*ck Nader.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Fast food politics.

I have a whole laundry list of things I want. But the only thing that matters is getting Kerry elected and changing the direction of the country. My list can wait.

[skooooo]

13. Exactly...

...and I don't expect Kerry to come along and fix it all. If you want to change things, you have to start the process yourself. Having Kerry in the WH will just make things easier.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Actually, I'd already planned to vote for Kerry

in an AGAINST BUSH way anyway. But I would really rather honestly vote FOR Kerry.

Either way, he has my vote but I will be happier about it if he shifts his stand on some issues. (And I am hoping that he is talking up being a moderate in order to get some swing votes but planning on moving leftward once in office. *crossing fingers*)

[skooooo]

18. ....well, give it time and read what he says..

I doubt that he would be against any of the points you raise. Honestly, on the political spectrum, I'm probably closer to Kucinich -- although, I say that without being really knowledgable about Kerry. I heard Kucinich during the primary and liked him alot, but I didn't even think twice about getting behind him because I knew he wouldn't stand a chance at winning the election. Sad, perhaps, but I'm a pragmatist.

Good luck to you.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Thanks. I know what you mean. I like Dennis too, but am resigned

to voting for Kerry.

At least he is all for taking care of the evironment. That's a good start.

[skooooo]

23. yes and...

....sorry I snapped. I was a little full of chocolate at the time.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. *lol* Now me, I get snappish when I DON'T get chocolate

:P

[MAlibdem]

85. well, this guy does have an ABB avatar

I think this was constructive criticism, and I value a LOT more than other things I've seen here that lack substance other than "Kerry sucks" and "ABK" etc.

[G_j]

19. suggestion

read the letter again,
The person never once threatens to withhold their vote from Kerry.

quote: "I want to vote FOR YOU instead of AGAINST George W. Bush."

It is a well written letter and asks completely legitimate questions.
Are you saying that we are not to even ask questions of our candidates anymore?

And did I actually hear you suggest that the poster vote for Bush???

..."seems like a flame"?
no, it IS

[skooooo]

22. true...

...it was an emotional reaction on my part. In my defense, I had just finished eating a peice of chocolate cake was was a little fiesty. Still, I don't want to see the Greens keep Kerry from winning.

[Kanary]

34. I hope you still have some of that choklit cake to share

'Cuz I'm in need of it's soothing properties. :)

Actually, while I understand your fear, I would like to remind you that jumping on people is the quickest way to turn 'em off.

You might want to think about that as you're cavassing for Kerry.

Kanary

[skooooo]

36. ok already

...

[Kanary]

37. me too

[Madrone]

54. Uhhh... I just cast my delegate vote for KUCINICH

And I'll be staying right here at DU with or without your "consent", thank you very much.

[Zhade]

57. From DU's "About" section:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

[sangh0]

84. You highlighted the wrong part

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals

IOW, if you're not going to work with "us" to achieve our shared goals, then it doesn't matter which party you belong to or how progressive that party is.

[Forkboy]

61. Why are you?

If you can't understand this post than this is the wrong site for you,not him.

[LWolf]

88. ding ding

[freetobegay]

6. IMO the green party's problem is this

They want to start at the top and work their way down. I hate to be the burden of bad news, bit it doesn't work that way. You want to have a voice in the process. Grass roots would be a start get local people elected, get state reps, then shoot for Congress, fill up some seats there. If you think you are going to capture the Presidency without doing this, I still have a bridge in Brooklyn I have been trying to sell.

[sallyseven]

8. Pay attention to what Kerry

is saying and not what you think he is saying. Kerry is very supportive of the environment and you don't know how he will address the rest of your questions. He needs to be in place to do anything. george bush will win if there are people out there that only see a narrow picture. The US is not perfect and we are not perfect (close but not cigar) but anyone is better than g w bush. Kerry is my guy and I am happy that he is my senator.

[freetobegay]

10. Did I miss something here?

Why is this directed at me?

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. *lol*

You really think Greens haven't been running at every level of election out there?

Come on, of course we know all about working from the ground up. But we do have to run a presidential candidate in order to keep our party alive. We didn't make this rule up, don't blame us for that.

[freetobegay]

17. How many greens are in the U.S. House?

The U.S. Senate? State Capitols? I am asking a serious question here.

I don't make the rules either, but I want to be President of Microsoft, what are my chances of starting at the top?

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. They can't get in there under our current system and you know it

You have to buy your way in there. Over half the incoming comgressfolk after the last election were MILLIONAIRES.

I live in a state which has voluntary clean elections and also has the only Green elected to and serving in a State House. See the correlation there? We won't see many Greens, Socialists, Libertarians, Natural law cadidates etc elected into anything higher than local offices without some major election reform.

[Nimble_Idea]

25. because they annoy alot of people

and people don't vote for annoying people

and it's funny, SEATS have to be bought? yet run for president and you think green will win? sorry, thats the LARGEST PRICE to pay to be president. your just locked in illogic aren't you.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. No, I don't think a Green will win under the current system

I don't think any third party and few Independents can win under this system. I am not locked into illogic, but this nation is locked into an either/or choice for leadership. 2 choices is really not enough for something so important.

[mydawgmax]

69. It requires constitutional change.

I agree that two parties aren't enough. Ideally, governing coalitions could be formed. The electoral system makes the two party system a mathmatic necessity.

[freetobegay]

26. I think you don't see them elected

Because the votes are not there. Don't get me wrong I am not knocking the Green Party. I think they can serve a valuable purpose.

But you have to start small get the grass roots then you will have the money for the other elections we have spoke of then theres the shot at the Presidency. I'm sorry thats the only way I see it happening.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. I know what you are sayin, but the money will never be there

because we won't take money from corporations. That kills our chances off right there.

And no, I don't think we ought to be pragmatic about it and take the money, because then we wind up with exactly what we have now: lobbyists runnign for and winning major seats and therefore writing all of our policies in the name of big business.

We can definitely reform our election system. No where does it say we have to do it the way we do it now. And the worse things get the more people will want something different and therefore support changes. (Maybe not the ones I have outlined per se, but some way of evening out the playing field.)

As to what people want, we have now way of knowing that. Previous elections don't necessarily reflect what the electorate wants. For example, I am voting for Kerry in November. The result could be that he gets a mandate for his policies. But what if tens of millions of other folks checked off his name because they were protesting against Bush, not supporting Kerry? Do you see what I am saying? We can't tell what the people wanted because one answer can be interpreted in a number of ways.

With ranked voting we would know far better what politicians and policies the electorate really supports. And with finance reform we could knock out the money advantage that tends to put well-connected Repubs in office. (Just look at the $hrub's war chest. It's absolutely disgusting how much money he has to throw at this campaign. Can you imagine waht good thingsw we could have done with it instead? :( )

[freetobegay]

29. All I can add is what comes first the checken or the egg

You won't take money to become powerful to get the votes to get elected to get the system changed.

So how do we change it? I am with you I just don't see how to affect changey with your logic.

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. Because

there are dems and repubs in office who support the changes as well. And the changes can also come about directly by the people. (That's how we got clean elections in Maine, on a referendum.)

It is happening, very slowly, but it's coming.

You've got John McCain and others pushing for finance reform. You've got folks like Bev Harris shouting from the rooftops that the elctronic voting system is seriously messed up. You've got folks like former Seantor John Anderson pushing for Open debates.

There are a lot of strong voices out there pushing for change, and not just from the left side.

We have to beat the corporations out of office. We just can't afford to let them make policies for us anymore.

[no name no slogan]

41. Not true-- Greens already serve at many levels

In Minnesota, we have Greens serving in many levels of elected office. There are Greens on the city councils of both Minneapolis and Duluth-- both fairly large cities.

In some precincts of Minneapolis, the Greens and Dems ARE the two parties, as there's no Republican opposition. Contrary to the myths spread by Repubs and Democrats, the Greens ARE running candidates at all levels, and winning races, too.

The main reason that Greens run candidates for ALL offices is simple: matching funds from the state and feds. To retain major party status in Minnesota, your party's candidate MUST win at least 5% of the vote in a statewide race (governor, US senate, or president). If not, you LOSE your state and federal matching funds. No candidate, no free $$. It's that simple.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Yes, let's remodel the kitchen while the house is burning down.

I don't disagree with your points, but job1 is to get Kerry and Democrats elected so we stop the destructive domestic and international agenda of the Bush Republicans.

Once we put the fire out, we can start fixing the house.

[Frances]

11. Good point

I grew up in segregated Alabama. I think Bush has a very good chance of being reelected and that I will be living in the same climate of fear and intimidation and repression (economic, social, psychological) that I grew up with.

If Kerry is elected, at least we will be free to argue the issues.

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. Remodel the kitchen??

The issues named in the original post are no kitchen remodel, they are the very frame of the house itself, to use your analogy. But not only are the Republicans trying to burn it down, the DLC termites are eating it from the inside.

[LandOLincoln]

30. Fine. Tear down the fort just as the barbarians are cresting

the hill.

That's a real good plan. I like that. Takes the moral high ground. Fuck reality. What'd reality ever do for me?



edited for pith

[sandnsea]

32. No, the Naderites are the termites

With both the Republicans and the Naderites attacking the house, there isn't going to be anything left to salvage. That's the point.

[ibegurpard]

49. You don't have to worry about termites

you're doing a bang-up job of destroying your own house.

[Forkboy]

62. ayup

[Hippo_Tron]

58. You got that from Arianna Huffington, I take it...

But nonetheless, still a GREAT analogy.

[Guaranteed]

74. If the house is crappy in the first place, why not just let it burn down?

Then use the insurance money to build a new house!

[Skip Intro]

12. Important issues, but -

In 2004, after seeing what the bush regime is has done, what their future goals are, and knowing what they're capable of in achieving them, one issue rises above all the ones you named. And that issue is the protection of, I believe the survival of our nation. And how could you better satisfy your wish to vote your conscience than to vote for the rescue of our nation from its current mortal threat?

Kerry wasn't my choice during the primaries, and there are many things to be worked out afterwards, many things you mention, and a lot of assessing where we are now and where we need to go, but you don't put a patient on a self-improvement program before you remove the immediate threat of his/her cancer.

In 2004, there is one overriding reason for you and me and everyone who loves this country and hopes for its future to vote for John Kerry - HE'S NOT GEORGE BUSH.

[Kanary]

35. Your letter, GreenPartyVoter, is in the spirit of our Founding Fathers

It clearly, and calmly, asks the questions, and puts forth your hesitation. This nation was founded on the idea of citizens questioning their leaders. We've lost that, and it shows.

It's certainly too bad that there is such a knee-jerk reaction to any questioning of a leader. I doubt seriously that if you were to ask this of Kerry in person at one of his appearances, that he'd be terribly bothered by it. If he's truly a student of American history, he knows the value of pushing our leaders for what we want. That's what they're there for.

I hope his supporters start to realize they're doing more harm than good in attacking voters.

Kanary

[skooooo]

38. eerrgg!

"Questioning the leader" is not the point, and we've been through this.

[Kanary]

39. Actually, it *IS* the point

Yes, we've "been through this" ad nauseum...

One can't even post a question without getting the "Vote for Bush, then".

Good way to shove people out of the party.

Kanary

[skooooo]

40. Ok, well I'm not going to get into it..

...with you. If you go back and read what I wrote, you will see my point, and it's not about squelching questions, it's about picking and choosing issues and holding votes hostage. The original poster and I have made peace, so why keep going?

Have a nice day, we'll meet again under better circumstances and I'm sure we'll enjoy talking to one another. I'm done with this thread.

[no name no slogan]

42. No candidate "deserves" anyone's vote

No candidate is entitled to any one person's vote-- s/he must earn it.

Yes, it's true that many of us will vote for Kerry because he's NOT BUSH. However, that may not be enough to give us victory come November.

People would much rather support and vote for a candidate-- not just against the other guy.

Not being Bush may get you 45% of the vote, but not being Bush and being FOR something else will get you 55%+ of the vote.

[John_H]

43. If I were Kerry, this would be my answer.

Even though anyone contemplating a vote for a lying, megalomaniacal, power mad, Wal-Mart-stock-holding, union-busting hypocrite is probably beyond the reach of reason, you're faced with the following choice: Vote for the only guy who can beat bush or enable bush by voting for him or by witholding a vote from me with a vote for nader. If enough people vote for Bush and Nader, Bush will become president.

Since most people are smart enough to understand that a vote for Nader enable bush, i believe I will win. So please keep in mind that if the far-far left supports Nader in this election and I win,guess what? If you'd like input to the policies the United States governmet, welp, you can just run along and ask ol' Fidelty Ralph, cause I'm going to tell y'all to go scratch.

Bye,

[GreenPartyVoter]

44. I sincerely doubt Kerry would answer the letter in that manner

But thanks for saying that I am not smart and that my opinions don't mean a thing. I appreciate that.

[Kanary]

46. If Kerry's going town to town with that message

He'll go down.

I certainly hope he's more professional than that.

Kanary

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. If Kerry replied to my letter like that....

...I'd sincerely tell him to go fuck himself.

Obviously some of his supporters show their arrogance on a daily basis around here. Let's hope Kerry doesn't.

Furthermore, given Kerry's votes (and obstinations) of the last three years, and his support of neocon agendas in Iraq and Israel, he's not the best guy to be pointing out Nader's faults.

[Old and In the Way]

53. Gee, John, you're being quite the statesman in that response.

I'd reply-

Go ahead, hold the gun to your head and threaten to blow yourself away if I don't agree to your particular ransom. Stop bothering me with your whining letters....I represent the needs of 250MM Americans and I don't have time or the inclination to meet everyone one of your demands. This election isn't about your needs. If you don't like my positions, vote for someone who reflects what you want in a President. Stop wasting my time with silly demands, if you want it "your way", you have 2 choices: (1) Run for POTUS yourself or (2) head to Burger King...and take the safety off if you plan to carry out that threat.

Sincerely,

JK

[GreenPartyVoter]

65. Well, last I checked it was the boss who makes the decision on who to hire

and what requirements should be fulfilled by the employee. The potential empoyee doesn't call the shots, the boss does.

And guess what, WE are the bosses NOT the politicians. So yeah, John Kerry is going to have to work to get my vote. I wouldn't hire just any old unqualified person off the street for a job in my own business. Same goes for the position of POTUS.

[Old and In the Way]

71. " I wouldn't hire just any old unqualified person off the street "

I see, John Kerry's not qualified. Right.

[GreenPartyVoter]

75. He doesn't necessarily have the qualifications I am looking for

as far as policy stands.

[Forkboy]

63. Thank God you're not Kerry

[no name no slogan]

67. Okay, then what's in Kerry's portfolio?

Lemmee guess.....sweatshop-owning companies, "sin" companies, big oil, big manufacturing, union-bashing retailers, tech companies that send jobs overseas....

Sorry bub, but nobody in politics is a pure as freshly driven snot. Kerry's probably got as much blood money (probably even more, given Theresa's $$) as Nader does.

Please continue your bashing of Kerry questioners as usual...

[Kahuna]

45. A Green telling a Democrat what to do. Ya'll crack me up with that.

:+

[GreenPartyVoter]

47. So I take it if you have Repub Senators and Representatives

representing you, you don't bother to contact them with your concerns about issues because you are from a different party? Under those circumstances I assume that only republicans are allowed to voice their opinions to their elected officials until such time as a democrat takes office and then the dems will write and call in and the repubs will shut up?

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Doesn't work if your congressman lives in a safe district

My congressman lives in a district where the runoff was between him and another Republican. He got some 98% of the vote last time around. Granted he's now running for the senate so if I did write in to him he would have a reason to listen to me, but before then he really had no reason to.

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. Kerry would be better off listening to Greens than neocon shitbags

like Marshall, Beers, etc.

[ibegurpard]

48. Excellent letter

Just excellent. I wish I could say that I thought it would make an impact. As for the mental midgets whose minds close like traps when they see the word "Green," just ignore them.

[w4rma]

52. You want to change the Democratic Party? Join the party and change it from

the inside, imho.

Starting petty infighting wars with threats, after the general election candidate has already won the primary doesn't help, imho.

Instead, work from the inside of the party to convince the rest of us that you're correct.

[Kanary]

55. Nobody owes anybody "convincing"

Change happens in many ways. Some choose to push for change from the outside, and some from the inside.

BOTH are valid.

That's the beauty of freedom.

Kanary

[GreenPartyVoter]

66. I'm not asking the DNC to change.

If they want to be the party of moderates, more power to them.

The whole point of my letter was to ask Kerry to work to restructure our election system. That's in the interest of all people regardless of party.

[freeforall]

56. Excellent letter GPV

You state your case well and have valid points.

I hope he starts stating his position on issues more clearly and shows the people why they would not vote for anyone else.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Question for Green Party voter

Aren't you the last bit concerned about Supreme Court Nominees? Rove v Wade hangs in a 5 to 4 balance. If one liberal or swing justice retires or dies, Bush can appoint a pro-life justice and Rove v Wade will be overturned. Don't you think it's worth putting up with four-eight years of Kerry to protect a woman's right to choose for the next 30 years or longer?

[GreenPartyVoter]

64. Yes, I am concerned about the SCOTUS

As I said futher up in the list I am checking off Kerry's name one way or the other, but right now it's because he isn't Bush, not because I am behind what Kerry wants to do in most cases.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Thank-you, I have much more sympathy toward your cause

When you say that you will be checking off Kerry even though you don't like him. I get VERY concerned when I hear very intelligent liberals claim they are voting for Nader. It makes me wonder how such smart informed people don't realize how bad another four years of Bush will be for our country. And although I am personally a very enthusiastic Kerry supporter, I agree that there are some more liberal positions that he should take. Once he becomes presidnet, I will be right there with you guys encouraging him to take those positions. And once again, I do agree with many of the positions you stated above. I'd like to have an election system where House districts aren't gerrymandered to the point where it's dominated by one party for many years. I'd like to have a system where the president can't be elected without the popular vote. I'd like to have a system where it is easier to overthrow the government if we don't like it. I'd like to have a system where multiple parties are represented. But the fact is that all of these are HUGE changes and would require multiple constitutional ammendments and more importantly a change in the entire mentality of the way our government operates. Right now, we are in danger of loosing democracy as we know it all together. It is REALLY not the time to be pushing for a multiparty system. When Kerry brings back some level of stability to the government, then we can talk about fundamental reforms. But now is simply not the time.

[no name no slogan]

68. It's a good point, but not entirely relevant

David Souder was appointed by Shrub's daddy-- and he's one of the court "librals". Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Ronnie, and she's a "moderate"-- not nearly as big a reactionary thug as Scalia or Rhenquist.

Eisenhower and Nixon also appointed a lot of justices who later turned out to be pretty liberal, too. IIRC the justice who wrote the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade was an Eisenhower appointee.

There's absolutely no guarantee on how a justice will behave in the SCOTUS.

And even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it does not automatically end Choice in this country. Abortion laws simply revert back to the states for review and administration-- much like gay rights do today.

Yes, it would be a huge loss if Roe v. Wade were overturned, but it would not be the end of the world.

[VOX]

70. "if Roe v. Wade were overturned,...it would not be the end of the world"

"The world" (and our freedom to live reasonably well in it) is being killed off by degrees by the right wing, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade would mean the incalculable loss of a woman's freedom to have the federal government out of her life and choices. This very might well mean the end of the world -- certainly of life --for many women.

Hopefully, you have read about the type of radical, right-wing judges that * has been trying to appoint to the district courts -- lifetime appointments in "feeder" courts to the SCOTUS. Times have dramatically changed since Reagan and Bush I.

Just look what the SCOTUS did in 2000 to the recount in Florida -- very much along partisan lines.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. True, but...

You have a MUCH better shot at getting a pro-chocie justice on the court when you try to get one on the court. Once Roe v Wade is overturned, the GOP will start trying to pass more federal abortion bans. They'll do more crap like they did in the PBA act where they say they are banning one type of abortion but are really banning several types. And it will be completely illegal in states with conservative legislatures/governors.

[balanced]

72. You said that

"With the exception of women's choice and the environment," as if these were small issues. And what about judicial appointments? And what about taxes/jobs/deficits?

And your question: "Will you fight for REAL election reform from the Oval Office so that people who want to vote for a Green or a Socialist or a Libertarian or what have you can not only cast that ballot, but cast it knowing that it has a chance of actually being worth something other than a vote of conscience?"

What does this mean? I'm sure that Kerry wants to do away with the electoral college. I am not sure whether he wants to move to a parliamentary system, which I would favor, and which would make it more likely that Greens and others could have more real power. But if you believe this is possible under our constitution, I definitely have some great canyonlands property in Northern Arizona that I will sell you--cheaply. And I believe in federal funding of elections. None of these things can be accomplished. Not even close.

What is possible: changing the current programs in ways specified by Kerry, et al. And this would even be problematic unless democrats do better in congressional races. If this is not enough, if Kerry's proposed changes are not enough, then vote Green or whatever. But, if the past is prologue to the future, Kerry will be the big loser in terms of votes--probably by 2 to 1.

[GreenPartyVoter]

76. Already answered as far as Scotus

And his stand on taxes/jobs/deficits/Israel/cleaning up the corporate sector are not quite what I am looking for.

Doing away witht the electoral college is not necessarily the answer to our troubles. I live in a less populous state. Under a popular election only system, candidates will not bother visiting the more rural areas.

As you may have noticed, we have amended the Constitution before. It's not as though it is set in stone. Also, Kerry should not be more worried about the DNC than he is about the state of the American government in general.

And yes, Kerry is going to have a heck of a time of it even making minor reforms on anything if the Repubs keep hold of the Hill. :( Hence the reason I am voting Dem for all federal offices this time around.

But the point is that the electoral changes I have outlined would benefit the country in the long run. We need to be electing the best possible people into office, not the richest ones. By evening out the playing field we'll see a broader segment of Americans entering into office, and they won't be beholden to their campaign contributors.

In other words: Election reform means we'll elect better officials. And better officials means better policies.

[balanced]

80. You said that

"In other words: Election reform means we'll elect better officials. And better officials means better policies." Agreed.

The democrats haven't figured out yet that the states control the federal government to a very large extent. We don't have very good candidates and platforms at some state levels.

States control (1) the constitutional amendment process; (2) the Senate, since a state gets two senators no matter what the population (and remember that if it weren't for the filibuster, the Senate/States would control the federal judiciary); (3) the redistricting process for the House; (4) the electoral process, unless scumbag Scalia steps in. These are vital processes.

I think that the right wing extremists realized that states control our government decades ago and have taken steps to control the statehouses. They have done a very good job, indeed, at the grass roots.

[GreenPartyVoter]

81. This is why DeLay has made such a fuss about the

redistricting back home in Texas. :^(

And the dems here in Maine made a bit of a misstep when they pushed to redistrict the one Green in the house out of his district. It angered a lot of the Greens I know and made them that much more partisan, which is too bad because we really need to be wresting control back from the Repubs rahter than fighting with other progressives.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. I hope we start gerrymandering Louisiana...

Governor is somewhat of a DINO by national standards as are many in the legislature but they do create a dominant democratic party in Louisiana. Even if it means that we only add centrist dems, it's still better than Republicans.

[GreenPartyVoter]

87. I know what you mean

but I still hold a faint hope that we can get rid of the need for gerrymandering one day.

[zulchzulu]

79. It gets down to two choices: More Bush or No More Bush

Some of the issues you mention could at least be addressed with someone like Kerry in the Oval Office.

If the Chimp remains, not only do you have more attacks on the environment, women's rights, civil rights, worker's rights, healthcare reform, education reform, more wars, more Halliburton profits, a more imposing Patriot Act, a completely right-wing-deciding Supreme Court and other issues, you have absolutely no chance whatsoever to bring any of the issues you mentioned anywhere near the table of discussion.

Simply put, it's Door Number One for the Chimp or Door Number Two for real change and an open ear for more progressive engagement in our country.

If you vote for a Green or other third-party candidate for president this fall, you're only kidding yourself.

And you voted by default for Door Number One.

[mzmolly]

82. You make some good points.

:hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

83. Thanks! :) Now if someone would just publish it...

[LWolf]

89. Good letter.

There is nothing wrong with communicating to the candidate you hope to vote for about your take on the issues.

There is everything right about it.

As a voter, you have the right to expect someone running for office to consider your POV on the issues.

Especially if you are casting a vote for that person.

A good closing point; a checkmark next to Kerry's name may not be a vote FOR Kerry, but AGAINST GWB. I'd like to vote FOR someone, and I too hope Kerry will be that person. If not, I'll check his name to vote against GWB.