Jill Stein, a past gubernatorial candidate and a great civic advocate, is running for Secretary of State under the Green-Rainbow banner. We have some big problems in Massachusetts with lobby-bought public officials, Open Meeting Law and Public Record Law violations, and voting-booth irregularies. She targets these and other issues with her Got Democracy? reform platform.
As a plaintiff who has twice sued Boston City Council for Open Meeting Law violations, a frequent appellant of politicians’ Public Record Law stonewalling, and a close observer of last year’s local election shenanigans, I have first-hand experience with these problems.
Look at the states internet lists of donors [http://www.efs2.cpf….].
Look how many contributors dont even give the required employer affiliation. This hides influence-buying that costs us all a lobbying surtax the extra cost lobbyists shift to us for transportation, energy, health care, etc.
Check her out [http://www.jillstein…].
…is a vote for the Greens to spoil an election in 2008 or 2010, period.
<
p>
John Bonifaz, whom I supported, ran against Bill Galvin in the primary, and got 17% of a more liberal electorate. Jill Stein is likely to do worse than that (unless she picks up a bunch of Republican “anyone-but-a-Democrat votes, and even then she has no hope of winning).
<
p>
Given that she is going to lose, the only question is whether she will get enough votes to put the Greens on the 2008 and 2010 ballot. If she succeeds, get ready for them to run spoiler candidates against Democrats regardless of how good the Democrats are.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you’re truly concerned about spoiled elections, you should be four-square behind Instant Runoff Voting. Unless you want to make it illegal for more than 2 candidates to run for office, then we’ll have spoiled elections as long as we have plurality voting. Instead of blaming the “spoilers” who dare to exercise their right to run for office, blame the antiquated system that allows spoiling to happen at all. And blame those in our Democratic Party who continue to ignore H2784, H2785, H2952 that would implement IRV.
But supporting spoiler candidates before we have IRV in place makes no more sense then driving your car into a river because it’s such a logical place for a bridge to be built.
If they didn’t run, then we there would be a lot less pressure and reason to implement IRV. So it’s a Catch-22. If they do run, they’re blamed for spoiling. If they don’t, then IRV may never be implemented to allow them to run without spoiling. So you’re proposition is unfair.
Hmmm, an argument that Greens will be spoilers. I’ve heard that one before, though saying that they’ll be future spoilers is an interesting twist. Trouble is, it’s not supported by any historical facts in this state. Can you name one election in which a member of the Gren-Rainbow Party has been a spoiler in Massachusetts?
<
p>
Don’t say Nader, because whatever you think of his role in 2000, there is no way that you can argue that he was a spoiler in this state. Gore won by a huge margin, despite Nader getting a hefty chunk of the vote.
<
p>
In 2002, Jill Stein got about 3% as a gubernatorial candidate–less than Romney’s margin over Shannon O’Brien. She was not a spoiler, but she contirbuted mightily to the quality of debate and to the issues discussed.
<
p>
In 2004, the Greens ran some candidates for state rep, often putting up good fights against unopposed Democratic incumbents. They primarily ran against conservative Dems who lacked Republican challengers. One woman did run against progressive Alice Wolf for some bizarre reason, but she was crushed in the election–hardly a spoiler. Particularly when Wolf had no other opposition.
<
p>
And that same year, the Greens ran David Cobb for President. His small fraction of the vote certainly didn’t keep Kerry from winning the state.
<
p>
And now we have 2006. Green-Rainbows are running for Governor, Lt. Gov, Treasurer, and Secretary of State. Are they in any position to spoil any races? No. The Republicans aren’t even strong enough to run candidates in all four of those races, for cryin’ out loud. Many people, on this site and elsewhere, have priased what Ross has brought to the debate. And now Stein is offering people a place ot lodge a vote against Galvin’s deceitful, shameful tactics.
<
p>
Yet you say that in 2008 or 2010, the Greens are going to be spoilers? How do you figure that?
If you want to defeat a DINO, like State Representative Brian Wallace, you unite progressives in the Democratic party. Splitting the progressives into two parties gives aid and comfort to the DINOs, and makes it more difficult to reclaim the big party. I voted for Bonifaz in September, but in November I’m with Galvin.
<
p>
<IMG SRC="http://www.mass.gov/…
DINO of the week
State Representative Brian P. Wallace
At the risk of dating myself, I recall how progressive George Bachrach won his state Senate seat–by running as an independent in the general.
<
p>
He could not have won in the primary, where for years progressives mutually clobbered each other and let the conservative incumbent walk away with it.
<
p>
IRV would have changed that equation, maybe, but we didn’t and don’t have it.
<
p>
(BTW Bachrach did not pull a left-wing Lieberman and declare as an independent after losing the primary–he anounced his independent candidacty early on. And he was a Democrat in the Senate. And, I think the state and the party and his district were better off for it!)
<
p>
Pablo’s argument against “splitting the progressives into two parties” would seem to apply more to what often happens in primary elections, or in general elections in which there is a candidate to the right of the Democrat. Not the case with Galvin-Stein.
There is a stark difference between running as an independent in a specific district versus splitting the progressives between two recognized parties.
<
p>
If we have learned anything in the past two years, it’s that progressives can challenge the political establishment and win. Many rep races, and now the governor and LG races, are going to strong progressives who have taken control of the party, run, and win.
<
p>
We would still have Vinny Ciampa in the statehouse if Green-Rainbow enrolled progressives were ineligible to vote in the Democratic primary.
If you want to defeat a DINO, like State Representative Brian Wallace, you unite progressives in the Democratic party. Splitting the progressives into two parties gives aid and comfort to the DINOs, and makes it more difficult to reclaim the big party. I voted for Bonifaz in September, but in November I’m with Galvin.
<
p>
DINO of the week
State Representative Brian P. Wallace
How in any way does it support a progressive cause to vote for Bill Galvin, even with all he’s doing here? You’re sending him a clear message–If he ices out his Democratic opposition, he’ll have votes no matter what he does, even with no Republican opposition. Do you think that he’s somehow going to be accountable to you because you throw your vote away to him?
<
p>
If for some reason you can’t bring yourself to vote for a Green-Rainbow, better to leave the line blank.
I don’t want to give the Green-Rainbow party a permanent line on the ballot. I also don’t think that Jill Stein knows very much about being Secretary of State or has any interest in the job. She is not on the ballot to win the election, or to present ideas about making the office more efficient. She is on the ballot to get a permanent line for her party. I don’t support that cause.
<
p>
Besides, in my dealings with her, I don’t think she is a very nice person.
You don’t find Jill Stein friendly, so you won’t vote for her? Is this because of all the good times you’ve shared with Bill Galvin? Or is it just a double-standard for a small party?
<
p>
But thank you for being up-front about the fact that you’re just trying to keep the G-R Party off the ballot. I personally don’t share that goal, and I particularly don’t think that it overrides the need to widen the debate and to keep conservative Dems like Bill Galvin accountable when primaries don’t.
<
p>
I imagine that some folks on here agree with you, but I’m confident that many also agree with me.
Nah. Look, no question that Jill Stein is smart. However, her governor campaign was sucking down $5 contributions from Republicans to qualify for public financing, while email-bombing any progressive who had the gaul to suggest that the biggest beneficiary of her campaign was W. Mitt. She makes Muffy look nice.
As a life-long Democrat, and as someone with almost twenty years experience in electoral field organization who wasted many a wretched hour as an elected Democratic Ward Committee member, I am really fed up with Democrats who blame their failures on the Green Party.
<
p>
It’s pathetic.
<
p>
Either you nominate a good candidate or you don’t. Either you run an effective campaign or you don’t. That’s it. The whole idea of “spoiler” candidates is a myth invented by sore losers. O’Brien wasn’t “spoiled” by the then nearly invisible Green Party candidacy of Jill Stein. O’Brien lost it all on her own. The same goes for Al Gore on the national level. He didn’t lose because of the Greens. He lost because he ran a wimpy campaign that downplayed his strengths and dispirited his base, and because the Republicans cheated shamelessly.
<
p>
Face it, political parties are only as valuable as the consistency of the candidates they put forth and the subsequent field support they provide. On these two scores, the recent history of the Massachusetts Democratic Party is crummy at worst, wildly erratic at best. As Walsh’s current (and excellent!) campaign for Patrick demonstrates, concerted person-to-person grassroots work can trump both early money and big party pre-connections. I mean, where were all these earnest purists when Draisen, Roosevelt or Reich were casting about for support?
<
p>
This whole “Democrat or nothing” attitude is especially ludicrous here in Massachusetts (esp. Boston) where the party’s hegemony is so long established that all the folks who would normally be the most likely right-wing Republican prospects routinely run as Democrats simply because that’s the only game in town. For instance, should I, as a Democrat, feel guilty for supporting Green/Rainbow city council candidates like Felix Arroyo or Chuck Turner when I could have voted for a putative Democrat like Dapper O’Neil? Of course not – they’re the best progressives in the room!
<
p>
This is all a great advertisement for Prop 2’s fusion idea. Jill Stein is smart, nice, hard working,respectfull of her adversaries and (most importantly) devoted to the ideal of electoral reform, including Instant Run-Off Voting, and expanded access to the franchise. Galvin? Well… no.
<
p>
If we want to strengthen our party, we should tend our own garden, not waste time peeing on someone else’s. And if the best Democrat is a Green, then so be it.
<
p>
Yes for Jill Stein.
<
p>
Yes for prop 2.
I submitted the above comment as someone who voted enthusiastically for John Bonifaz. I know the guy – he lives in my neighborhood. And I think he was hands down the best candidate. But come on… as a lawyer, activist and policy thinker, Stein swamps Galvin on every level. If you’re afraid of ballot line competition, Pablo, what does this say about your confidence as an advocate and/or organizer. Kicking an adversaries off the stage just makes us look weak and insecure and is not a very effective way of winning a debate, or an election.
thus demontstrating that she should not ever hold elective office.
And you dismiss the entire party because? Please don’t tell me that it’s because of positions taken by individual members of the party, unless you also dismiss the Democrats because of the views of prominent party members like Phil Travis.
I have explained why elsewhere.
<
p>
Those weren’t just some individuals; they were the leadership. If Howard Dean or Phil Johnston made comments like that, I would indeed not vote for Democratic candidates because of their choice to be affiliated with them. In fact, I won’t vote for Republicans unless they explicitly disavow the positions and statements of their party. Weld and Celucci did, especially Weld, who essentially ended his political career by doing so. Romney and Healy rather pointedly have not.
<
p>
Even if, as was suggested in response to that last post, the party leadership was changed, perhaps because of the views of the former leadership, the problem demanded a noisy reaction by the present slate of candidates. Instead, there has been much in the way of explaining it away or ignoring it outright.
<
p>
Add all this to the fact that these folks are manifestly bad at the job — politician– that they are seeking. Even if it is true that they would like to see government with a “progressive” agenda, their plan for acheiving this seems to be specifically designed to dilute the “progressive” vote as much as possible. At best they are self righteously fooloish, at worst, they are dupes of the right wing.
<
p>
My politics are generally moderate, but I am willing to vote for a candidate, as I will next Tuesday, well to my left, or to my right, if that candidate seems actually capable of doing a good job. But not a Green Rainbow.
Thanks to purplemouse, whom posted a reply that I just noticed to my earlier comment on this, I can recant any benefit of the doubt offered to present GRB candidates. They are undoubtedly unfit for office.
Another wee hour goof – Stein is a doctor, of course, not a lawyer. I have to stop typing after midnight. mea culpa.
Then explain to me why the Greens were aggresively running someone against Paul Wellstone in a tight senate race. Explain to me how Ralph Nader could say there’s no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Explain to me why Rick Santorum was so enthusiastic in trying to get the Green candidate on the ballot for US Senate in Pennsylvania.
<
p>
You can’t work for progressive values by dividing the progressives. In Massachusetts, you can win and you do win when progressives work together to win Democratic primaries.
<
p>
I love the progress we are making in moving the Democratic party in Massachusetts to support progressive values. In 2008, I want to focus on ridding our party of DINOs like Baddour, O’Flaherty, and Brian Wallace.
<
p>
Why are we stuck in a war in Iraq?
Why do we have a huge deficit?
Why did we cut taxes for the wealthy?
Why are oil companies setting energy policy?
Why is the federal government attempting to privatize public education?
Because 931 people in Florida or 7283 people in New Hampshire voted for Nader instead of Gore.
Uncle Ralph Wants You! More than 100 U.S. troops dead during October. The fourth deadliest month for American troops since the fighting began in March 2003. 2814 U.S. service men and women dead. 21,000+ U.S. wounded.
Pablo, what are the progressive values of which you speak? Most progressives I know would include real democracy (not just Democrat-cy) in those values. Yet you appear to be advocating for what would be, in essence, a one party state here in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Yup, here on Halloween, you are using the same fear tactics employed by Kerry Healey and George Bush in their efforts to retain their political power. Fortunately, the electorate here in Massachusetts and around the country may finally be seeing through these tactics. But you, as self-described progressive, feel it necessary to have your own bogey man.
<
p>
Would I have been happier with Al Gore as President for the past 8 years? Heck yes. Does that mean that Al Gore was the perfect candidate in 2000? No way. He was flawed in many ways – witness the fact that he could not even win his home state of Tennessee. Nader presented an alternative view on many issues that some people felt compelling enough to support. Perhaps they are the true progressives.
<
p>
The role of third parties is crucial, even if the major parties (and some of their supporters) would rather have them go away. Deval Patrick is a better candidate for the contributions made by Grace Ross in the gubernatorial campaign. Bill Galvin, by comparison, does not want to hear about alternative views, refuses to debate, and is counting on on folks like you to reelect him with nary a word of dissent. While Patrick has embraced democracy, Galvin – the steward of our election system – has, ironically, not.
Ralph Nader never said there was no difference between the two major candidates. Who fed you that nonsense?
<
p>
As for Wellstone, please keep in mind that ours is a decentralized party. We may field a candidate against John Kerry, but we didn’t field anyone against Kennedy did we?
<
p>
Your party’s leaders and politicians are generally not supporting progressive values in this state and never will.My politics revolve around this state. I’ve never had much respect for the national Green party – but work my tail off for the Green-Rainbow Party because it is the sole and only party (even among other Green parties) that shares my values.
For the record, Councillor Arroyo is, has always been, and will most likely continue to be a Democrat (with the big D). Though a committed progressive, he believes it is important to work within the Democratic Party.
I would note, however, that Felix is not so insecure or doctrinaire as to reject opportunities to work in coalition with members of other progressive parties. I was under the impression that he had actively solicited support from the GRP, as did Frank Jones in his unsuccessful council bid a few years beforehand
Yes, he certainly remains flexible and he is far from “insecure” about his place in the political debate.
<
p>
He has worked closely with the GRP and its members – especially Chuck Turner – in his time at the Council.
<
p>
He has also endorsed Question Two (fusion voting) which has been largely opposed by the GRP but supported by the Working Families Party and other third-party advocates.
The Greens are on the ballot regardless. See my long post elsewhere.
Why wouldn’t you want to give the Greens a line on the ballot? If we are a democracy, why shouldn’t we allow all parties to be on the ballot?
To call any candidate or candidacy a spoiler is to assume the arrogance that Democrats and Republican own votes and for anyone to dare run against them is like stealing something that is rightfully theirs. Sorry, but that’s not democracy.
<
p>
And if Democrats are afraid of losing seats to candidates other than Democrats because other people actually want to vote their conscience, well then take the veto proof majority the Democratic party has in the General Court and pass instant runoff (or rank choice voting). Until that happens Democrats have only themselves to blame for losing any election to candidates who are better representatives for progressive values (such as Stein) than their own candidates (such as Bill Galvin).
I cannot in good concience vote for someone who is allowing Diebold voting machines in our state.
you were supporting Stein here on BMG before that came out. So I don’t know where that statement comes from…
Just as with Bonifaz, I will be supporting the non-Galvin candidate because Galvin has done something immensely stupid to make me do so. I couldn’t support him in the Dem primary because of his apparent lack of concern on voter’s rights and other issues.
<
p>
Well, we lost the Bonifaz challenge handily and I don’t know much about Jill Stein except that in my opinion, her record and experience doesn’t even parallel Bonifaz’s. However, I as a knowledgable Dem citizen know that Diebold machines are not OK. Princeton showed very clearly and dryly that this is absolutely true. Yet SoS Galvin wants to introduce this machine here?!? This shows me that either (if I give the benefit of the doubt) he’s just too busy doing something or other and that he didn’t take the time to do his homework, or he doesn’t really care, or he is actively looking to use hack-able, vulnerable voting machines with a “paper trail” that is suspect at best.
<
p>
Personally, I’m totally fine with the optical scan system we have at present. I have been to a few vote counts and the ballots spit back out are few. They’re also quickly counted and verifiable. The machines have been brought in to “aid the handicapped” due to Americans with Disabilities issues, as I understand. However, I would bet anything that knowing physically handicapped people are just people, they would rather use the assistance of a poll worker than of a system which has been verified to be vulnerable to corruption.
<
p>
Electronic voting with only an electronic paper trail scares me. I see no issue with the optical scan system we have now, at least here. But I take great issue with deciding to use a system that has been shown to have issues in multiple elections over the last 6+ years. FL in 2000 and OH etc. in 2004 showed that the places where these machines existed were coincidentally the places where the most issues occurred. Nuff said.
<
p>
Galvin has upset me enough previously to support his Dem opponent. He lost. He has since upset me again, so much so that I will support his Green/Rainbow candidate. Bonifaz lost, Stein will lose. However, Galvin will receive no vote that I cast until he gets the SoS office out of the doldrums and starts making real changes. I hope the dissatisfaction with his performance is reflected in non-Galvin votes enough to let him know that we are not satisfied with the job he’s done.
I will be looking forward to it. He lobbied the state legislature to curtail equal marriage rights.
The only way to actually unite progressives is through IRV. If you’re worried about 2008, that’s even more of a reason to put energy into implementing it ASAP. There’s absolutely no reason why it can’t be accomplished by then.
Even democrats should still EARN their support from loyal Dems. Galvin has done ANYTHING BUT.
<
p>
I want him to get a message. And I want competative races, or else we’re just gonna get the drek for candidates like this guy. Competition makes us stronger, or else we fall by the wayside like we deserve.
<
p>
I will NOT be voting for Galvin. He has gone too far in violating the principles I care about.
The statement that Stein can put the Greens on the 2008 and 2010 ballot is incorrect.
<
p>
“Green-Rainbow’ will appear on the 2008 ballot, just as ‘Green-Rainbow’ and ‘Libertarian’ are appearing on the 2006 ballot, regardless of how many votes Stein receives.
<
p>
The votes Stein receives may make her party a ‘Political Party’ rather than a ‘Political Designation’ (you need 3% of the vote for a statewide office or 1% of the registered voters), but that affects who may sign your nominating papers, whether you have a primary, whteher the state runs your party’s internal organization, and whether you are on the motor voter form, not whether your party is legally on the ballot.
<
p>
Candidates can run as the candidate of. e.g., ‘Green-Rainbow’, regardless of whether your party is a Political Party or a Political Designation.
<
p>
Actually, if Stein gets her 3%, the number of Greens on the ballot in 2008 will fall, because, once you become a party, members of other parties, e.g., D R L etc cannot sign your nominating papers. This change enormously increases the difficulty of getting on the ballot. For this reason, I vigorously discouraged effects to run a member of my party (I am a Libertarian) for a statewide office.
<
p>
Also, once the Greens are on the ballot, annoyed Democrats can readily use the primary process to knock every single Green other than the Presidential candidate back off the ballot during the primary election. You run a sticker campaign for your Democrat in the Green Primary, and make sure enough Democrats are registered ‘Unenrolled’ [independent] to vote in the Green Primary. Then vote for our candidate who will doubtless get a plurality and can then ether take the nomination and run as a Green or decline the nomination and leave the ballot line blank. If you were unaware of this process of state law, note how Congressman Conte once ran as a Democrat as well as a Republican, and how one candidate of the Mass High Tech Party running for State Rep was knocked off the general election ballot in (iirc her) own primary.
<
p>
For full details, http://www.cmlc.com/…
<
p>
Also, if Stein gets her 3%, that has consequences for 2008, not 2010, under current law.
<
p>
As a practical matter, the most noteworthy feature of Massachusetts legislative elections this year is that they are fake elections, fake because only one candidate is on the ballot for each race, in a great majority of cases. In my own District, we are having fake elections for Governor’s Council, State Senate, and State Rep, fake because in each case [assuming the newspaper got the lists right] the Democrats in question are running unopposed. I’m sure they are all nice people.
I seem to recall when she ran for governor that if she had gotten a certain percentage of the vote then something something. Does that hold true in this race as well?
I believe at least one Green-Rainbow candidate for statewide office must receive at least 3% of the vote in this election to qualify for a ballot line in 2008. Stein did this for governor in 2002. G-R Treasurer candidate James O’Keefe got 8% in ’02 and will probably do the same again this year.
<
p>
Galvin’s refusal to debate Bonifaz during the primary campaign shows he thinks he’s ABOVE things of that nature. He does not own that office. Oh and the Diebold thing.
<
p>
I consider myself a progressive voter (not necessarily beholden to the Dems) and I will be supporting the following:
<
p>
Gov/Lt. Gov: Deval Patrick & Tim Murray
Atty. General: Martha Coakley
Treasurer: James O’Keefe
Secretary: Jill Stein
Auditor: Rand Wilson
I agree with you on all of those, except I’m still undecided on the Treasurer race. I gave Tim Cahill a vote in the primary for his endorsement of Deval’s tax plan, and he seems to be good at his job for the most part. I know Jamie O’Keefe, and know he is also a good moderate Green-Rainbow, and the emphasis on investing the state’s money in socially responsible way instead of just focusing on the best rate of return is a very important issue, but I know he was only reluctantly a candidate because of family committments and only would as part of a slate, and unlike Jill Stein, I don’t believe he neccesarily is interested in actually serving in the job. The need for a “protest vote” in this race seems unimportant, as Jill’s campaign will clearly be far surpassing the 3% needed for ballot status, and I’m ending up just like I am on Question 2: I’ll probably vote for Jamie, but I’m not sure I mind either way…
Galvin refused to debate Jill Stein too, despite the fact that it was the general election. I’m not going to be a hypocrite.
<
p>
You refuse to debate, you lose my vote. Period.
How about writing in lightiris?
I already cast my vote =p
<
p>
Darn.. I should have written in John! blah.
Doesn’t it hurt to be beyond persuasion?
For all you people that complain about Galvin hey Jill Stein ISNT GALVIN and that right there should be enough to qualify her for the race. Voting for Galvin is completey counter intuitive and you have no right to complain when your vote endorsed his polices. But its a democracy, I fully support your right to vote for any candidate you want, BUT by voting for Galvin you lose your right to complain about him for the next four years, since there was a very valid alternative you blindly choose to ignore due to a little G next to her name.
The MetroWest Daily News, which just endorsed Deval Patrick, has endorsed Green-Rainbow Party candidate for Secretary of State, Jill Stein. The story follows below.
<
p>
What does this have to do with the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office? OCPF is an independent agency which is not overseen by Galvin.
<
p>Second, candidates are only required to ask for the occupation and employer of those who give $200 or more in a calendar year.