[Announce-DAN] [IPPN] It's the Electoral System, Stupid!]

["getmelissa@uswest.net" <getmelissa@uswest.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: indpol@igc.org [mailto:indpol@igc.org] 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 7:57 PM
To: ippn-announce@topica.com
Subject: [IPPN] It's the Electoral System, Stupid!
 
Future Hope column #20, November 2, 2000
It's the Electoral System, Stupid!
 
This is the third title that I've come up with for this column in the
last two days. The first one was, "A Rift Whose Time Has Come." The
second was, "Two Dates in November." But I've decided to put the main
point of this particular column right up front. Why are progressives
divided, confused, bitter and/or at each others' throats as we come down
to the wire towards election day? It's the electoral system, stupid!
 
What has become of the coalition of trade unionists, young people,
environmentalists, fair trade campaigners and others which stunned the
country and the world last November 30th through mass action in the
streets of Seattle on the first day of the World Trade Organization's
meeting? It's the electoral system, stupid!
 
And why is it likely, as this column is being written, that the election
day results, whatever they are, are going to exacerbate tactical and
strategic differences within the overall progressive movement? It's the
electoral system, stupid!
 
Don't get me wrong: I have no illusions that all of us who call
ourselves "progressive" really see things in the same way. Those who are
attacking Nader as if he were the anti-Christ and speaking of Gore as if
he were the reincarnation of Martin Luther King, Jr. may have similar
views as the Nader movement on a number of issues, but in the final
analysis, when push comes to shove, they're more concerned with not
rocking the boat than with doing the right thing on those issues. They
genuinely deserve Nader's appellation, "frightened liberals." 
 
But there are many, many more people who will be voting for Gore who
share many of Nader's views and who are, without question, long-term
allies of those of us, myself included, who will be voting for Nader
(and I'd be voting for Nader whichever state I lived in).  
 
Those of us who are crystal clear on the bankruptcy of the two-party
system need to be able to distinguish between these two groups. It's a
question of reliable and unreliable allies. We need to continue to work
with the reliable allies, maintaining cordial or friendly relationships,
finding common ground across the board in the coming months and years as
we fight against either Gore or Bush on the issues. We also need to
interact with the unreliable allies. Sometimes it will be to criticize
them for their timidity and fear, their willingness to sell out
principles and basic beliefs under the guise of "realism" and "practical
politics." And sometimes we will find ourselves in situations, usually
short-term, where we are working together.
 
If we are ever going to get to the kind of broadly-based and effective
pro-justice party, or alliance of parties, that can seriously contend
for power, we need to learn how to distinguish between these two types
of allies. Noting what they are saying now, and how they say it, about
Gore and Nader is one way to make those distinctions. Class, culture,
nationality, gender, sexuality, age, income-these are other
considerations. Past histories of principled, or not-so-principled
activism, are another way.
 
We need to make these distinctions because we need to internalize some
lessons from the experiences of the last several months. One of the most
significant lessons is that as long as we are forced to compete
electorally under a winner-take-all system, it will be extremely
difficult to build up the critical mass of electoral victories necessary
to sustain our incipient third party movement.  
 
The U.S. electoral system is a throwback to the past. The vast majority
of countries in the world use some form of proportional representation
(PR) in choosing government representatives. Under such systems parties
are represented in government roughly proportional to the number of
votes they receive. It's common sense: governments that are truly
democratic should represent the entire electorate, not the 51%, or
whatever it is, which votes for the winner. 
 
We need to come off of this November, 2000 election building up some
steam to unfold a Pro-Democracy Movement. At the top of its agenda
should be work at local, state and national levels to educate the public
on this and related issues, like same day voter registration, easier
ballot access, and voting rights for ex-prisoners and immigrants. We
need to mount local campaigns to change electoral laws from
winner-take-all to PR or Instant Runoff Voting, either legislatively or
through an initiative campaign. The summer of 2001 should become
Democracy Summer, with hundreds of young people and others participating
in a national campaign to reach out widely on this set of issues. 
 
Some may object: this is too technical, not a survival issue, not "sexy"
enough. People won't respond.
 
Similar arguments were made 10 years ago when campaign finance reform,
especially public financing of elections, was hardly on anyone's radar
screen. I remember being at a meeting on the Gulf Coast in southern
Mississippi organized by Randy Kehler, Gwen Patton, Ben Senturia and
others in the Working Group on Electoral Democracy. They had invited an
impressive cross-section of progressive activists from around
the country to a weekend retreat to discuss whether or not this issue
had any possibility of resonating with people at the grassroots, and if
so, how. Today, public financing reforms have been enacted in four
states, there is a major national organization, Public Campaign, working
with groups all over the country to expand upon those victories, and
John McCain almost won the Republican nomination for President on the
strength of this issue. 
 
Proportional representation, including instant runoff voting, is an
issue whose time has come. Let's not be stupid anymore. As we work on
the survival, justice and other democracy issues, let's also be about
the work of changing the electoral system which continues to divide us
and make us feel much weaker than we are. There is extensive support for
a genuinely progressive political agenda in this country. Whoever we
vote for on November 7, let's undertake the work following the election
that will allow that support to achieve practical results in the future.
 
Ted Glick is National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive
Politics Network (www.ippn.org) and author of the recently-published,
FUTURE HOPE: A Winning Strategy for a Just Society. He can be reached at
futurehopeTG@aol.com or P.O. Box 1132, Bloomfield, N.J. 07003.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/6/_/794163/_/973245345/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   announce-dan@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: announce-dan-unsubscribe@eGroups.com