In light of BMG’s endorsement of Jill Stein (and before that too) and Grace Ross’s generally well-received performance in the debates, there has been a lot of discussion about the merits of supporting progressive candidates who are not Democrats. Some folks have expressed a willingness to vote outside their party, for reasons ranging from policy to protest, while other folks have said that they will never vote for someone who is not a Democrat.
A common response to the issue is that the Greens should simply join the Democratic party and help push a progressive agenda from within.
OK, I’ll bite. Why?
First, without asking your neighborhood Green, why do you think, in a political system that is dominated in this state by Democrats, some people feel the need to work outside of the Democratic party?
Then, particularly from the naysayers, I would like to hear affirmative reasons why people who have voluntarily chosen not to affiliate with the Democratic party should now choose to do so.
Ive never been a party loyalist. I was raised Republican and only became a Democrat in adulthood, when talking to friends, I realized how off-base the Republicans are on so many issues. But Im registered Unenrolled because I figure that Id vote for a Republican if the right one came along. That seems less and less likely. I voted for Weld because he supported gay rights and to avoid a Silber governorship. But thats the last time I went that way. I am likely going to vote for Jill Stein. Im no Constitutional expert, but I dont think its written in stone that we have to have only Democrats and Republicans. As they morph themselves into other creatures in their effort to win votes, some real, fundamental issues are getting left behindas Grace Ross keeps pointing out. Why not vote for parties that represent those issues we care about? Thats also why Im leaning toward voting for the fusion ballot.
<
p>
Jill Stein wont win, but voting for her, or leaving it blank, is the only way to send Bill Galvin the message that not everyone is pleased with the way hes doing his job. Hes more likely to notice the percentage she gets rather than bother to ask of all who voted, how many chose not to vote for him. Plus, he might think blank votes mean the nonvoters think hes doing just fine rather than they are displeased.
<
p>
I think theres a great benefit to bringing new voices into government, but when the Democrats have almost total control, you cant do that. How many incumbents ever face a challenger? Democrats dont like challenging other Democrats. Im sick of no choices on the ballot. Why bother to print them and to vote if there is no choice? Take John Rogers in Norwood. This year he faced his first challenger (in the primary) ever. Ever. In 14 years in office, an office he inherited from the guy he worked for. How is this democracy? Well it is if no one bothers to run against him.
<
p>
That said, because politics has become so divisive, third parties run the risk of biting off our noses to spite our faces, if you will. The reason to join the Dems is to consolidate power rather than dilute it. But in the process you have to sell some of your soul, your issues. These days, its worth it to beat the Republicans, but I dont think it benefits us in the long haul.
<
p>
Fortunately, this year, Jill Stein isnt taking anything away from Democrats. Shes just giving them some real good food for thought. And I dont care how poorly Grace Ross does, shes clearly not taking any votes away from Deval Patrick and shes contributed tons to the debate. If Tom Reilly were on the ballot instead of Patrick, she’d get my vote. Even Christy Mihos isnt taking anything away from Kerry Healeyhes not the reason shes drowning. And he sure has been entertaining!
<
p>
I just cant see voting Democrat because of party loyalty. Sure the Democratic party has a long and venerable history, but it cant rest on that and must always know that its next vote depends solely on its current policies. I would like to see the party give me reasons to join it rather than just be a way to avoid Republicans. Thats why I like Patrick so much.
This is why I’m voting for Question 2 this year. Minor parties are beneficial (IMO) in that they bring up more issues and slightly crack the duopoly of power. They are detrimental because sometimes they cause Nader in 2000 situations.
<
p>
Minor parties- especially ones that don’t lie on exactly the same political range- being able to endorse major candidates would allow influence in close elections without spoiling. Similarly, withholding endorsement or running their own candidates would speak to their feeling towards the candidates available. A viable Libertarian party, while rightly considered right-wing, could reject authoritarian GOPers. A Green or Liberal Party could reject a Lieberman-type.
Short of proportional representation, the only serious answer to this dilemma is Instant Runoff Voting.
<
p>
Imagine — being freed up to rank your choices, and thus being freed up to vote your values, vote your issues, vote your dreams. Imagine not voting for lesser-evils simply to stave off electing Republicans. Imagine not voting out of fear. Imagine filling the political discourse with the spectrum of beliefs that are now shut out of the political conversation, and the result that will have on voter turnout. People might come out of the woodwork for candidates like Mihos and Ross — and then their second-choice votes would count towards someone more likely to win. And who knows, maybe we’d start electing some independent voices so that the full spectrum of values actually gets represented in our government. Plus the eventual winners would, by definition, win with majority support. Imagine that!
Then why do we have a fusion initiative on the ballot and not IRV? Perhaps it’s because the people who want fusion were willing to go out and get the thing on the ballot, while the people who want IRV write to blogs and complain about Democrats?
“I’m voting for Question 2 this year. Minor parties are beneficial (IMO) in that they bring up more issues and slightly crack the duopoly of power.”
<
p>
Then why are the minor parties of this state against Question 2?
Although there are many reasons not to vote Democrat-only in Mass., probably the most glaring one to this Independent is the stranglehold the Democratic Party has on every level of government in this state. It’s a little creepy. Okay, it’s really creepy.
<
p>
I used to be a registered Democrat and there was a time I wouldn’t even consider a non-Democrat. At times, I even voted for Green candidates (until they merged with the Rainbow party and seemed to be overwhelmed with too many teeny issues and lost focus on the big ones I cared about). Now, I just can’t do it. I can’t join and support a party that is so insular and intolerant that there seems to be no room for diverse views.
<
p>
Yes, I know. The Democratic Party positions itself as the diverse and tolerant one. I saw that twenty years ago; I don’t see it now. Especially in this state.
<
p>
I believe government functions best with balance, and the absolute lock the Democrats have on almost all aspects of Massachusetts politics tips the scales way out of whack. We’re losing good jobs to more business-friendly states, we’ve got a massive bloated government that’s grossly inefficient, and there are myriad issues that need to be addressed. I don’t believe the Democratic Party is solely to blame for all that, but I don’t believe having a Dem in every seat in every office on every level of government is the solution, and we’re pretty darn close to that in Mass.
I’ve got a few good reasons for Greens to join the Democratic Party:
<
p>
Deval Patrick
John Bonifaz
Pat Jehlen
Tim Schofield
Denise Simmons
<
p>
Greens should join the Democratic party so that they can vote for these candidates in the Democratic primary.
I foolishly included Denise Simmons on that list. She is indeed a stellar progressive within the Democratic party, but she’s only been a city council candidate, and thus not subject to a primary. If she were ever to run for something like state rep., I hope that Greens in the district would join the Democratic party so that they could vote for her.
Why join the party though when you can vote in any party’s primary and remain unenrolled? You just go up to the person handing out the ballot, say “I’m voting in the democratic primary this time, please” and they mark you down as democrat for the day. Then then next year if you feel more strongly about getting a moderate republican candidate than in selecting out of a group of democratic candidates, you can vote in the republican primary. In MA the way the law is set up I see no reason for anyone to declare their party affiliation except maybe as a matter of self-identification.
So you can vote in the caucus.
<
p> – Dan
If it weren’t for the “wacko fringe” who voted in and ran as delegates in the caucuses, Deval Patrick would never be where he is today. The Democratic Party machinery had already annointed Tom Reilly. It was the progressives and grassroots people who got out there and caucused who gave us Deval Patrick.
<
p>
if you remember when ralph ran his presidential campaign back in 2000, many left-minded people were all confused and upset that the things that he was doing and saying might end up hurting al gore. And what nader kept saying was; you don’t get it – we’re running AGAINST the democratic party.
<
p>
too many people think that the greens are a farm team for the democratic party. (and a lot of republicans wrongly presume that the libertarian party is just a contrary faction within the gop). But a lot of third party candidates and supporters will tell you they are running AGAINST the other parties. Why is that so hard to understand?
Why were people confused when grace ross criticized deval patrick? She’s running AGAINST him! the same dynamic exists vis a vis mihos-healey. (‘doesn’t christy know he’s hurting healey!?!)
<
p>
The idea that third parties are there as proxies for the major party nearest their philosophy has to be gotten over.
<
p>
take this example; healthcare. the democratic party in massachusetts has controlled -and i mean controlled- the legislature forever. and what significant healthcare reform did they pass? nothing! if it weren’t for romney, what would have happened in regards to significant reform? nothing! now, i’m not saying that the new healthcare legislation happened without effort from the dem’s, i’m just saying if left to their own devices, the democratic leg would have just (as johnny most would have said) fiddled and diddled the issue for another twenty years.
<
p>
but if polled, who would i say is better in theory on healthcare? well, probably the democrats. but if polled how good of a job they have done, i would say pretty close to terrible. so as a progressive, should i just try to satisfy myself with ‘close to terrible’, remembering that the democratic party in massachusetts have had nothing stopping them from making sweeping reform? especially when they know the chances of me bolting for the republican party is about nil.
<
p>
or do i deserve an alternative?
<
p>
.
Yes, you are right. The Democratic party did nothing for healthcare — not just here, but nationally as well.
<
p>
The first thing you have to answer is — are you going to do something about it? Not just vote — are you going to work for it? If so, then you should do what ever is the most effective.
<
p>
I think there are two possible effective strategies.
<
p>
(1) Stay non-partisan and join a healthcare lobbying group. There’s more than one choice — you can pick one that matches your preferred plan. I think they do a good job of educating, researching, framing, etc. I think they do a bad job at executing a winning electoral strategy, but what they do is valuable and needs to get done.
<
p>
(2) Join and change the Democratic party. Electing Deval Patrick is the biggest gain for that the single-payer movement has ever made and they did almost nothing to make it happen. Instead, a lot of activists, who happen to believe in single-payer, made the decision that even though Deval isn’t saying that he is going to bring single-payer to MA, we feel he’s open to it. I’ve heard him say in public that he thinks we will get there eventually. That might not be enough for some people, but if we have single-payer in the next decade, this is why (because progressive democratic activists got Deval elected).
<
p>
And you could always try to join and change the MA Republican party. They are going to be 100% out of power and a small group of hard working activists could absolutely take them over. I imagine that that could come from the far right, but imagine some kind of populist Teddy Roosevelt (anti-Corporate, pro-Gun, Conservative in the original sense) — Maybe the right candidate can make the GOP argument for single-payer. Who knows?
<
p>
In any case, a bad strategy would be to join the Greens. That’s what you would do if you wanted to rant about the Dems but not actually fix the problem.
I am a progressive Dem who is trying to change from within. I do it because it works. To be blunt, supporting Greens will get you nowhere. If you think Jill Stein getting some votes is going to change Bill Galvin by “sending him a message”, I think you are wrong — but if you want to vote for her — go ahead.
<
p>
My feeling is that Jill Stein should right no be in the State legislature, and would have been if she had become a Dem when she ran. Utimately, I think it makes a difference who governs and I think Jill should be governing — and if she had to become a Dem to do that, then so be it.
<
p>
I am voting for Bill Galvin (and I was a Bonifaz supporter, donater, delegate, etc) to send Jill Stein a message — BECOME A DEM AND GOVERN — instead of basically accomplishing nothing as a Green.
Thanks.
To Noho-missives, lightiris and pablo (and all others who share their opinion):
<
p>
You clearly feel strongly about Greens going “nowhere”, but I have a hard time believing that the hundreds of Greens running for office around the country are all so delusional that they would devote their time, energy and personal welfare for no reason whatsoever. So, please, take a look at my original questions and respond. I am really interested in your opinions, but please try to convince me with something other than a “become a Democrat or else” argument.
I’m not saying to become a Democrat or else. If you get one thing from my post, please understand this — move the Democratic party to you, not the other way around. The way you will do that is by joining, persuading, doing the work, rising in the ranks and ultimately leading.
<
p>
If Jill Stein were a Democrat she would be on the track to congress. Think about how great that would be for the country. In a very real sense, the Green party has wasted all of our time and resources and has deprived us of some great voices and leaders.
<
p>
How long has the Green party been around? It’s been on the decline for the last 5 years. The only reason they are running so many candidates is to try to get their party designation back. If they do or don’t — it won’t matter — they aren’t building anything that can last, and we won’t hear from them again until they try again. It’s a diversion — it’s fun, but won’t matter.
<
p>
What is working is what thousands of Bay Staters who worked for Reich, Tolman, Kucinich, Dean and many others have done. Join the party, join local committees, organize for the caucus, run for office within the party, organize, work, work, work.
<
p>
What is happening in the Deval Patrick campaign is not a blip, a short-term phenomenon. This have been carefully planned by activists all over the state. I am part of http://www.progressivedems.org, but there are other groups as well.
I appreciate your further explanation.
I’m really disappointed in the Green. The way the team looks at Doc Rivers, it’s clear he does not command their respect. I’m just waiting for Ainge to pull the plug, not that he’s distinguished himself, most recently with the surprising acquisition of Sebastian Telfair at the point. Ryan Gomes? Two rebounds last night.
<
p>
Can it be this bad that the Green long for Jim O’Brien — a coach to obsess over defense, let guys compete for minutes on the basis of their defense?
Charley, very practically, how and where would Greens be sufficiently welcome to the Democratic Party to actually get power to exercise?
<
p>
For instance, if Grace Ross were a Democrat, she would never have been elected a delegate to the state convention in June, let alone be a candidate for Governor. Had she run for State Representative or Senator as a Democrat from Worcester, which Democrat would she have been encouraged to challenge by this forum or any other?
“if Grace Ross were a Democrat, she would never have been elected a delegate to the state convention in June, let alone be a candidate for Governor.”
<
p>
Come on. I’m sure people with views very much like Grace’s got elected as delegates. Is she too far left to win a Governor’s race? Very possibly. Is she too far left to be a Dem at all? Heck no.
<
p>
Offhand, I don’t know Worcester County as well as I should. Perhaps we can address that to the collective wisdom of the board.
Without rehashing past election outcomes, Ill tell you what my problem is with the Greens in general.
<
p>
First: reality. Putting aside the philosophical reveries designed to discredit the status quo, the reality is that this nation is a two-party nation. We have Democrats and Republicans, two parties with very different philosophies both on the role of government as well as what makes a fair and just society. Now as I say that, I will say that Im not interested in one of those not a dimes worth of difference arguments that inevitably devolve from these discussions. Suffice to say, however, Im a Democrat. I believe in what the Democratic Party has stood for in the past and what it stands for now. These core principles are very different from what the Republican Party has stood for and stands for now. There. Thats settled.
<
p>
Now, the positions that the Green Party generally takes are virtually indistinguishable from those of the Democratic Party. Im going to assert that as a given. If a discussion on the minutiae that differentiates Dems from Greens is of interest to you, Ill bow out. If you can accept that assertion, then lets move on. The Greens historically have railed against the Democratic Party machinery. Greens perceive an inability on the part of elected Democrats to hold fast to their principles, a dishonesty when it comes to fiscal accountability, and a hypocritical indifference to environmental matters. We hear over and over the canard that we need a third party because the two major parties are corrupt and unresponsive in general, and that we need the Green Party specifically because the Democratic Party has lost its wayor something like that.
<
p>
Anyway, because the Greens are generally aligned with the core principles of the Democratic Party, my question is why dont they work within the Democratic Party to effect the meaningful change they think would be advantageous? The answer to that question usually has to do with integrity and intractable corruption, reasons I find fairly self-serving, erroneous, sanctimonious, and unproductive. Indeed, the reason the Greens dont want to work within the Democratic Party is that they view themselves to be purer in their purpose, ideology, and vision. Okay. Theyre allowed to think of themselves that way. And that wouldnt be such a bad thing if they were willing to build their party from the ground up, but thats historically and currently not the case. Greens generally run for the highest offices without ever having been dogcatcher and selectman. Thats a problem. I want to see a legislative record. Now, are there some candidates in both parties who can pull that off? Yes, but, in general, the answer is no. Im of the personal philosophy that no one starts at the top. I want to see a candidates record of putting his/her votes where his/her rhetoric is. I want to see the fruits of public service in elective office. Greens dont want to do that.
<
p>
That said, lets assume for the sake of argument that a Green candidate is elected to Congress or the State Legislature. There is also the notion that theres power in numbers. Real life stuff. A sprinkle of Greens doesnt wield power; being aligned with either the Dems or the Repubs is power. If prospective Green candidates want to effect real change, they need to get involved in the Democratic Party apparatus, run for lowly office, demonstrate a commitment to legislative effectiveness and delivery, and make a pitch to move the Democratic Party in ways the Greens find advantageous for voters. I and many other progressive Dems are interested in fielding progressive candidates and holding the feet of Democratic officials to the fire of principle and values. That can only be done inside the party. And the only way to do that is to get involved.
<
p>
The Greens may continue to tilt at windmills with good ideas and dedication until the cows come home, but it will be for naught. Were they to expend that energy working inside the Democratic Partyin sufficient numbersthey would begin to realize the change they seek. Then people like me, people dedicated to the core principles of the Democratic Party who are also often in agreement with Green candidates, can vote for them. Until then, no.
I appreciate it.
<
p>
Allow me to offer one, albeit specialized, counterexample: Bernie Sanders, to whom the Vermont Democratic Party deferred this year. Assuming that Greens were to begin running for lower offices, why should they not look to Bernie as a reason for staying outside of the Democratic Party?
from my understanding, caucuses with Democrats and is so closely aligned with Democrats that they didn’t even bother to run a candidate against him for Jeffords’ seat. Why? Because he works with them, not against them. He doesn’t trash them. He simply is a socialist. That circumstance is rare and requires mutual respect. I don’t believe that level of respect is typically the case.
“Greens generally run for the highest offices without ever having been dogcatcher and selectman. Thats a problem. I want to see a legislative record. Now, are there some candidates in both parties who can pull that off? Yes, but, in general, the answer is no. Im of the personal philosophy that no one starts at the top. I want to see a candidates record of putting his/her votes where his/her rhetoric is. I want to see the fruits of public service in elective office. Greens dont want to do that.”
<
p>
and i take it that deval patrick gets a pass on this one?
If any Green had Deval’s resume, then yeah, he/she’d be qualified. Being elected is not the only qualification — indeed, there are many elected officials who aren’t qualified for statewide office.
Read more closely, please.
<
p>
<
p>
Yes, Deval Patrick is obviously one of those “candidates in both parties who can pull that off.”
<
p>
Hello!?! In case we haven’t noticed, progressive Democrats are on a winning streak.
<
p>
Finneran? Gone. Replaced by a progressive Dem who won in a contested primary.
Phil Travis? Gone. Progressive Steven D’Amico won a four-way Democratic primary.
Vinny Ciampa? Gone. Taken out in a Democratic primary by progressive Carl Sciortino.
Mitt Romney? Gone. Deval Patrick won the primary and is on a roll to win by 20+ points on Tuesday.
<
p>
What we don’t need now is some misguided movement to split the progressives. We need progressives in the Democratic party to run, to collect signatures on nominating petitions, to vote in Democratic primaries, to take control of town or city Democratic committees.
<
p>
We don’t need any more Ralph Naders splitting progressive votes to elect George W. Bush.
We have three aces in our hand. Lets not discard them in some misguided hope that we are dealt a royal flush.
The electoral victory is only the start, so however gratifying and hopeful those victories are, the real issue is what happens in, say, the next two years in the fully Democratically controlled State House. So, please allow me to ask you what are your progressive priorities for the coming session.
<
p>
My short list, in no particular order, would be:
<
p>
(1) Reinstitution of Clean Elections
(2) Fair taxation (which means constructively raising taxes on people in higher income brackets)
(3) Real universal health care
<
p>
If these three things were to be enacted by the legislature, and presumably signed by Deval Patrick, then the progressive Democrats would deserve the accolades of all progressively-minded folk, including Greens. But until this happens, with a long history of veto-proof Democrat majorities in the General Court, I believe there is some justified skepticism out there.
<
p>
What would have to happen (or not happen, as the case may be) in the next two or four years for you to change your mind about the value of these victories?
Those three things might not happen, but many good things HAVE happened and I don’t remember a green party official ever being so much a single vote for them.
<
p>
The point you’re missing is that if we want them to happen it will be because of the progressive Dems, not the Greens.
<
p>
I have worked with many Greens. They are individuals I like a lot but they are not realistic about the work it takes over time to make progress.
<
p>
I’m sorry if the Greens can’t tell the difference between Carl Sciortino and Marie Parente simply because they are both Dems. But we Progressive Dems have a pretty good handle of the difference and are working to add to our numbers… in Democratic Primaries!
<
p>
We’re in the minority and working toward more influential numbers. The Greens have not added a single name to the list progressives. They are wasting their time.
One night when phone-banking for Patrick, I spoke with a voter who told me wanted to vote for Grace Ross–though only if Patrick was doing very well in the polls.
<
p>
His reason was to make a statement–“Patrick is not left enough.”
<
p>
There were lots of things I might have said, but I only suggested that one couldn’t and shouldn’t take any polls for granted (which seemed to make an impression), and thanked him for being frank with me.
<
p>
I would say here, though, that votes from would-be GRs for Patrick also make a statement: that their votes are in play, and that Democrats may earn those votes by championing genuinely progressive reforms (as Patrick has done, though I agree that he is not particularly left-wing).
<
p>
The alternative statement is that there is probably nothing a mainstream candidate can do to win the votes of those who will vote for Grace Ross anyway, “to make a statement.”
<
p>
In the calculus of politics, then–what issues to develop and run on, what constuencies to reward and cultivate–the priorities and sensibilities of those voters will count for nothing.
<
p>
Which would be a shame.
Of course, the Working Families Party, which wants to emulate many of the smaller New York parties and steer the Democrats in their direction, supports in practice the Proposition.
<
p>
As a Libertarian, fusion does not appear to do my party any good, because we are equally distant from the Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans disapprove of gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. Deval Patrick wanted to limit gun purchases to one a month and seems to be amenable to tax increases. Why should I find either of these people acceptable?
<
p>
Furthermore, fusion appears to increase the likelihood of gaining political party (major party) status, and, as the Greens are perhaps eventually going to notice, for a small party major party status is a very bad thing for ballot access.