Are third-party votes a form of institutional racism/sexism?

[LoZoccolo]

Think about it - one could argue that the third party voters might not personally hold racist or sexist views, but might uphold institutions that are by allowing them to be perpetuated through their futile gestures.

[ultraist]

1. Third party votes, in and of themselves are not "institutionalized racism"

Yet, any one who votes for conservative policies that perpetuate institutionalized racism and sexism, and against progressive policies, is a supporter of racism/sexism.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Humor me

and explain a bit what you mean. Examples? I'm not following you and I'm sure it's my ignorance..but enlighten me.

[bloom]

69. I think the Republicans are all about institutional sexism and racism

The Democrats are only insomuch as they go along with the Republicans/corporations.

[wtmusic]

2. Oh come on

Third party votes are that and nothing more.

A futile gesture is one that blames a third party because there are zero compelling reasons to vote for the other two.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. But there ARE compelling reasons to vote for the other two.

If 70,000 people who didn't vote or voted third party in Ohio voted for Kerry, how could you possibly not argue that things would be very different right now than they are under Bush? That alone is a compelling reason to pick one or the other.

[wtmusic]

21. This always ends in the same philosophical debate of

pragmatism vs. idealism, and one that is not necessarily grounded in reality from either side.

For example, I'd question your assumption that things would be "very different right now" had Kerry won (had Kucinich or Dean won, maybe). I'd argue that the reason Kerry did as well as he did had a lot to do with * being a total fuckup. So maybe we should blame * for not being a worse president.

I'm extremely tired of this "play along" crap. I campaigned for Dean and would have voted for him had he been on the ballot.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Your logic makes no sense at all.

I'd argue that the reason Kerry did as well as he did had a lot to do with * being a total fuckup. So maybe we should blame * for not being a worse president.

Given that your two choices were Bush and Kerry, if you could admit Kerry would even just be marginally better (which, if you post on DU, it's impossible NOT to admit that), should you have not voted for Kerry?

[wtmusic]

23. Thanks!

I did vote for Kerry. But Dean was a far better candidate than Kerry and if he had run as a third party candidate I would have voted for him. I don't give a damn about polls, and anyone with a conscience shouldn't either. That's why there used to be political upsets, and also why there aren't any more.

What would be so different right now had Kerry been elected?

[LoZoccolo]

31. "What would be so different right now had Kerry been elected?"

Ask the people in New Orleans.

[calico1]

38. How about civil rights, the environment,

the situation in Iraq, faster, responsible action in NO, the Supreme Court for starters. You honestly believe that Bush and Kerry or Bush and Gore are the same thing? :eyes:

[wtmusic]

56. Not the same thing

I'll give credit to New Orleans. Kerry would have saved hundreds of lives, possibly billions of dollars in property. Kerry wouldn't have been able to get a liberal judge confirmed, so he would have nominated someone not too far away from where Roberts is now. The situation in Iraq would be virtually the same.

Again, I voted for Kerry. Things would have been better. They'd be much better with Dean.

[WildEyedLiberal]

89. But Dean WOULD'VE been able to nominate a liberal judge?

Explain that one to me :eyes:

Also, please explain how Iraq would be better under Dean but not Kerry. Dean, as you are well aware, I'm sure, has stated that we cannot begin to remove troops from Iraq yet.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. What do polls have to do with this?

Did polls preclude Dean from running as a third party candidate? No, fundraising did. Because as a third party candidate, you can't possibly raise enough money to mount a serious challenge in our current system. Until you change that, there is no reason whatsoever to vote for a third party candidate unless the one candidate that is closest to your ideology (and one of them ALWAYS is closer than the other) kicked your dog. I'm sure there are literally one or two other reasons, but there aren't many. Anyone with a conscience and half a brain would vote for the guy that has a chance to win that comes closest to their ideology because if you do not vote that way, you are putting the person who is furthest from your ideology with a chance to win one vote closer to winning. How, exactly, does cutting off one's nose to spite your face really work again?

I'm not sure what political upsets have to do with anything, but there were never THAT many upsets. Politics is not college football. And even when there were upsets, usually it has to do with something other than the two candidates involved, such as a ballot initiative or the bubonic plague.

What would be so different? That's a laughable question. But I'll give you one really easy answer off the top of my head - John Roberts would not be nominated for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Instead, someone a hell of a lot closer to your ideology would be. And if you think that's a small matter, you need your head, and your conscience, checked.

[wtmusic]

54. blah blah blah

right back where I knew this argument would end. "Under our current system, you need to vote for someone you don't really believe in...there's no reason whatsoever to vote for someone you do believe in..."

I'll tell you why that argument is full of shit. Why vote at all then? Your one vote didn't matter, and neither did mine. So I'll draw the line at voting for someone who I think would be the best president, you cast the full power of your one vote for whomever you wish :eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. One vote doesn't matter?!?!?!

Are you fucking kidding me?? Has your head been in the sand for the last 5 years?!? Wow, that has to be the single most ignorant thing I've ever read. Have fun on ignore.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. You MUST be joking.

"What would be so different"??

John Roberts. New Orleans. "Brownie". John Bolton.

JUST for starters.

Please check this "dime's worth of difference" bullshit at the door, thanks.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. No. Life is not Black OR White.

When you vote for a third party, you give power to that party's ideas and platforms. For example, Ross Perot made a huge issue out of national debt. This forced Clinton to (successfully) address it during his terms. But, and this is important, you must vote your convictions, not make protest votes. Protest votes, including staying away, are wasted votes. A vote for the best alternative that comes closest to your beliefs and policies is a true vote, regardless of which party that might be.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. ask the voters for Ross Perot... n/t

[LoZoccolo]

5. I'm talking about left-wing third-party votes; I thought you knew. n/t

[ultraist]

7. You mean those voters that take away just enough votes so Dems lose?

;)

[calico1]

32. My thoughts exactly. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I think that's a bit harsh.

I think racism/sexism are things that require a specific intent. You aren't being racist or sexist if your intent is to merely not prevent racism or sexism. Inaction or futile action does not make one racist or sexist unless that in and of itself purposefully causes harm. It doesn't affirm that you aren't racist or sexist either though.

[LoZoccolo]

9. That's why I'm calling it institutional and not personal.

But Nader found it easy to dismiss the Congressional Black Caucus, something that's easy for him to do.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/nader.caucus

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. But what institution would you call racist?

Is it the institution of the United States of America, which allows third parties to be run and voted for? No, because the party system does not preclude people of any race. You could, in theory, run a different party for every race, or even two parties (one liberal and one conservative) for every race. The fact that few of them could ever win would not be institutional racism, just sheer demographics.

Are the third parties themselves institutionally racist? Some are, most definitely. Is Nader's? No, Nader is just insane. He's not running specifically to syphon votes from Democrats in order to keep a race of people down. He just is truly deluded into thinking his actions are going to make some kind of difference when there is absolutely, positively no way his presence alone is changing anything.

[LoZoccolo]

16. You usually can't point out a single institution in these scenarios.

It would be like trying to blame one single agency for the disproportionate number of African-Americans victimized by the flood when it's a lot of factors working together with no intentional architect...really "blame" doesn't necessarily even play into institutional racism as a concept of trying to find out who causes it, it usually just is. Who's responsible for letting it continue is another question.

[Outer_Limit]

72. It was MEMBERS of the Black Caucus

not the entire caucus in that meeting. Nader didn't dismiss the CBC as you say. There were other members of the black caucus that did not agree with the sentiments expressed by their colleagues toward Nader.

[LoZoccolo]

80. OK, MEMBERS of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Everyone should go back and reread my message, but substitute "MEMBERS of the Congressional Black Caucus" for "Congressional Black Caucus". But if you do, it's unlikely to really change it's meaning.

[Outer_Limit]

82. Well, it actually does

You implied that he dismissed an entire group, as if the CBC was in unison on that issue, which is simply untrue.

[MadHound]

8. Gee, is this the tune you were singing when a third party vote

Helped Clinton get into office in '92? Because if it wasn't for Perot, it is likely that Clinton wouldn't have won.

Besides, what is it that you have against people exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights of voting for whom they please, and for running for office in whatever manner they please? What, you think we should scrap the Constitution? Do you realize that if it wasn't for the influence of third parties in this nation, we wouldn't have those two pillars of the New Deal, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance?

Get a grip, stop living in the past, and stop demonizing people for exercising their Constitutional rights. What's next, bashing free speech?

[LoZoccolo]

12. No, I thought you people would know what I was talking about. n/t

[MadHound]

14. Oh, so third party votes are only bad when they hurt a Dem

But they are absolutey great when they hurt a 'Pug, hmmm?

Gee, it stinks to high heaven of hypocrisy in here, fancy that.:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

17. For people victimized by the Republicans, yes. n/t

[MadHound]

27. Wow, just wow

We demand consistency from the right, and scream bloody murder at the hypocrisy they exhibit, but hypocrisy is just fine with you when it benefits the Democratic party.

Unbelievable friend, simply unbelievable. How you hold two such diametrically opposed concepts in your head without it exploding is absolutely amazing. I would suggest you drop such hypocrisy from your mind set as soon as possible, it makes life a lot easier.

[LoZoccolo]

29. It's simple: I want the Democrats to win and the Republicans to lose.

And I expect that people who suffer under Republican policies do as well. If that's "inconsistency", well, so be it. I think I can prefer one scenario over the other, as people generally do when they go to vote.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Scrap the Constitution? No. But we should change it.

I think third parties are incredibly important, but under our current system, they are not feasible.

Right now, we try to find answers to gray questions with a black and white party system. It's nearly impossible to find compromise these days because everything is all or nothing.

I think we need more of a proportional representation system that would allow and encourage third parties to run and win. All they do right now is allow someone diametrically opposed to the ideas of the third party that is running to win the election.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. There's a difference.

Has there ever been any indication that Clinton was funding Perot?

The far right was funding Nader, and Nader was accepting their funding, and Nader helped split the Dems.

So while 3rd parties are not neecessarily, in and of themselves, racist they can certainly be used by racists and anti-progressives to create a racist result.

[MadHound]

26. Umm, you are confusing your presidential races

We're talking about the '00 race, where Nader was running on the Green ticket. There was no evidence that Nader was taking any right wing money in this race, for all of the cash was being filtered through the liberal Green party. You have confused this with the '04 race where Nader ran as an independent, and though he did indeed take some money from the right, his impact on the '04 race was even less than the negligible impact he had in '00.

[LoZoccolo]

30. The 2004 money still confirms his utility to the right wing.

Regardless of where the money came in 2000, his spoiler role gave the right-wing this idea to prop him up in 2004 for a possible repeat.

[Outer_Limit]

73. The right-wing didn't prop him up. Its quite clear

that Nader is his own man and does as he wishes. The man had basically no money when compared to the vast amounts of cash available to the D and R nominees. No TV ads, minute media exposure, sparse ballot access, exactly how was he propped up?

[LoZoccolo]

79. Nader was propped up with ballot signatures and donations.

I shouldn't have to tell you that Nader doesn't need to be anywhere near as powerful as the Democrats and Republicans to tilt the election, but I just did anyways.

I also shouldn't have to tell you that you can do a Google search on "ballot signatures Nader Republican" to find information about Republican efforts to get Nader on the ballots, and "donations Nader Republican" to find information about Republican funding for Nader's campaign, but I just did anyways.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60340-2004Jul18.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

Maybe I should be upset that you probably just wasted my time asking a question you likely already knew the answer to, but at any rate, maybe it's worth it to show people that Nader defenders aren't aware of how they're being used as pawns by Republicans.

[Outer_Limit]

81. There is no need to tell me anything

An election involves exchanges of ideas. Nader brings up issues that the political establishment won't touch. If that tilts votes two or away from him so be it. People have a right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Which states did Nader actually ACCEPT signatures from Republican front groups? The washington post article states that Kevin Zeese would consider it as a last resort. If in fact he did use signatures from a front group for a particular state ballot I would not support that. However, what I find far worse were the active efforts by others to keep him off of the state ballots through coercion and frivolous litigation.

As to the second article, republicans and dual party contributers contributed far more money to Kerry's campaign than Nader's. According to your standards, Kerry was propped up then too by the other side.

[LoZoccolo]

86. This conversation is getting ridiculous and I'm ending it.

When you're having me explain things which are obvious to most people here and should either be clear to yourself, or easy for you to find out yourself, it's a waste of my time.

[paulk]

76. Clinton would have won without Perot

what you claim has been debunked numerous times here on DU

from the "Daily Howler"


Occasional report—Where does spin come from?

TRIPPED AT TAPPED: We constantly hear it on kooky-con radio, but there it was in yesterday’s Tapped! In the latest installment of “Spin Marches On,” Garance Franke-Ruta typed this:
FRANKE-RUTA (6/28/05): President Bush has had persistently low poll numbers for some time...Recently, he's received his lowest ratings yet. Still, he's polling in the low- to mid-40s, and it's worth recalling that his father had a job approval rating of only 34 percent in mid-1992, before his electoral loss to Bill Clinton. Even with such very low Bush Sr. numbers, Clinton was only able to garner 43 percent of the vote nationwide, and might well have lost the race had it not been for Ross Perot's third-party candidacy.
Omigod! Clinton “might well have lost the race had it not been for Ross Perot!” It’s recited like scripture on kooky-con radio. Now, Tapped is reciting it too.

Readers, where does spin come from? “Clinton won because of Perot” provides a good case study.

Let’s start with some actual data. If Perot hadn’t been in the 92 race, would Bush the elder have beaten Clinton? The exit polling was abundantly clear, and it was widely reported. On November 8, 1992—five days after the election—E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post. Headline: “Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:”
DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot's presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.
The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot's absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush "margin" without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

The VRS polled more than 15,000 voters. On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:
DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.
An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

We all know exit polls are imperfect. But these are the actual available data about the preferences of Perot voters. Nor was this exit poll kept secret. One day after the election, the AP sent the news far and wide. (Headline: “Perot's Voters Would Have Split In a Two-Way Race”):
ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.
The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

The data were widely reported—except in the Washington Times, of course. Which brings us to the heart of our question—the question we’ve asked for seven years.

Where does spin come from? In today’s world, spin often comes from kooky-con hacks—and ends up getting recited by liberals. No, the Washington Times never forced its readers to see the data about Perot voters. But soon, the paper was printing letters from kooky-con fabulists—this bit of invention, for example:
LETTER, WASHINGTON TIMES (11/14/92): There is no doubt that Ross Perot drew voters who would otherwise have voted for one or the other of the traditional party candidates. Judging from exit polls and from observing (as best one could) the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison, a reasonable conclusion would be that Mr. Perot drew more from Mr. Bush than from Mr. Clinton, by a ratio of at least 6-to-4 (though the would-have-been-Bushers in the Perot column could have been a good deal higher).
But for the purpose of discussion, let's use the 6-4 ratio and divide up the Perot vote and apply it state by state to Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton.

Thus, we see that Mr. Perot cost Mr. Bush the following states: Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Nevada, Montana, Kentucky, Georgia and Colorado with a total of 87 electoral votes. Mr. Clinton still wins in the Electoral College, but his margin there shrinks to 283 to 255.

In terms of popular vote, Mr. Clinton ends up with roughly 51.4 million to 49.7 million for Mr. Bush, a much tighter contest than was shown in the results with Mr. Perot included. And if my 6-4 breakdown was overly generous to Mr. Clinton—as I suspect it is—we would have come very close to a dead heat or a Bush victory.

J— R— B—
Arlington

The writer was drawing a “reasonable conclusion” based on his observations of “the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison!” Yep! Based upon careful TV viewing (and a bit of wishful thinking), the writer decided that, absent Perot, we might have seen a flat-out Bush win. The exit polling said that Perot could have affected only one state—Ohio. But the writer “suspected” a 6-4 ratio would be quite good to use. Soon, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Georgia and Colorado were falling to Pappy Bush too.

Even with all this confabulation, JRB only said it would have been a close race absent Perot. Clinton might have won anyway, he conceded. Soon, though, other such analysts abandoned such scruples. For years, it has been conventional wisdom on kooky-con radio that Ross Perot cost George Bush the election. Now, we get to read this drivel right in the pages of Tapped.

Where does spin come from? This matter provides a good case study. To the extent that we have actual data, there is no indication—none whatever—that Clinton would have lost to Bush if Perot hadn’t been in the race. But so what? Within weeks, kooky-cons began to conjure, and their pleasing stories quickly spread. And uh-oh! Fiery liberals kept hearing their story. Thirteen years later, they repeat the tale too.

We hate to pick on Franke-Ruta; indeed, we believe we saw this claim in another liberal forum in the past few weeks, although we can’t remember where. But this episode shows us several things about our modern World of Spin. First, kooky-con fabulists never tire of inventing pleasing stories—pleasing claims which spread quite widely,recited by kooky-cons everywhere. And second: For reasons completely unknown to us, many of our fiery young liberals still aren’t “hip” to this part of our culture. We’ve told them daily, for the past seven years—but some of them still resist such “jive.” Calm down, grandpa, they indignantly say—and soon, they’re reciting kooky-con tales themselves. For years, Rush had to lead the parade on this tale. Now, he has Tapped out there helping him.

Young and foolish, they’d rather recite this kooky cant than accept our incomparable teachings. When will our fiery young liberal elites get a grip on the world they now live in?

JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS: Applying his 6-4 voter breakdown—a ratio excessively generous to Clinton—JRB conjured the popular vote had Perot not been in the race (see above). In his first review of the polling, Dionne tried to do the same thing:
DIONNE (11/8/92): In the nationwide popular vote, Clinton's margin over Bush would have been about the same without Perot in the contest.
In the actual vote, Clinton won 43.7 million popular votes to 38.2 million for Bush and 19.2 million for Perot.
According to the VRS estimate, without Perot in the race, Clinton would have won 51.4 million to 45.6 million for Bush. Total turnout would have been smaller, because many Perot supporters said they would not have voted if the independent had not run.

“Clinton’s margin would have been about the same?” How did Dionne make this glaring mistake? Simple! That letter hadn’t yet appeared in the Times, so Dionne had no access to the writer’s observations about “the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison.” In short, E. J. jumped to conclusions without all the data. Thirteen years later, right there in Tapped, Franke-Ruta avoids his mistake.

[Xithras]

19. By that logic, Democracy itself if institutionally racist.

If voting for anyone other than the most progressive candidate is a signal of institutional racism, then you could easily extend that argument and state that the institution itself, which is designed to make the "non racist/sexist" candidate compete for his or her seat, is encouraging racism and sexism. After all, it allows votes to be taken away from the progressive candidate, thereby encouraging racism and sexism. If we could just do away with that pesky voting thing and APPOINT the most progressive candidate we could find, we could do away with one of the most fundamental forms of racism and sexism in our nation.




(yes, I am being sarcastic).

Truth be told, I simply vote for the best candidate. That's usually a Democrat, but has included everyone from the Green Party, to Libertarians and even a couple of Republicans. You could call voting for anyone other than a Democrat "racist", but I could cite dozens of instances where our own party has allowed sexism to continue and ignored racism. When the PARTY doesn't respond the way it should, its members are under no obligation to support it. Personally, I'm not even all that averse to the thought of splitting the party if we can't get the DLC wonks to stop using the party to benefit their corporate cronies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. The two major parties pandering to racism and sexism is responsible.

The Republican's is more overt than the Democrats, but the only slightly veiled racism and sexism of "moving to the center" is the real culprit.

[Terran]

24. Um...

No. :eyes:

[txaslftist]

25. No. WTF?

[izzybeans]

28. ?

:freak:

[info being]

33. There is an obvious concerted effort to slander 3rd parties today

Has the DNC put you up to this?

[LoZoccolo]

35. No, you can see I've been doing it for a long time.

You can do a search on my name and "Nader" and see my posts from over a year ago on the topic.

It is not a concerted effort so much as we're seeing one of the reasons for not voting for Nader in 2000 that his followers liked to sweep under the rug appearing today. This is an obvious circumstance that a lot of us are aware of at the same time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. No, my brain did.

[meganmonkey]

34. Yes. In fact, third party votes are the root of all evil in the world

because there are only allowed to be 2 categories and everyone must fit into one of those categories with their whole being. If they cannot fit, than they are obviously pure evil, and anyone they vote for would be too, by definition.

:P

[LoZoccolo]

36. It's not a matter of having to fit into one of two categories. n/t

[meganmonkey]

44. Yes, actually, it is -

I was being facetious in my previous post, obviously, but you know damn well that people who have voted for a left-wing third-party candidate are not doing so to promote sexism and racism.

I could just as easily argue that voting for Democrats does the same, because it allows the continuation of the status quo, a system in which Democrats wimp out and the Repukes run all over them and destroy our democracy.

As someone who voted for Nader in 2000 (in a 'safe' state, btw), I did it because at that time I could not in good conscience vote for Gore. I did not fit in one of the 2 boxes, and I refused to force myself into one. It was either that, or write in my mother's name for President which I did the first 2 times I voted. I have to sign off DU now for a few hours...

Peace.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. Would your vote have been different if you live in Florida?

[meganmonkey]

65. That's really hard to say. I don't know what I would have done if that

were the case.

But I would like to point out that Gore won Florida, at least in the sense that he received more votes than Bush did. The problem was not Nader, and blaming him just provides cover to the cheating bastards that keep stealing our elections. A lot of people like to say that if Nader weren't in the picture, Gore would have won by a big enough margin that they wouldn't have succeeded in stealing it, but that is mere speculation. If 2004 taught us anything it is that they will continue stealing elections no matter the margin until the whole system is revamped. They are perfecting the crime as more and more unauditable machines are purchased throughout the country.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

84. Gore did not win Florida.

At least not in the way it mattered, which is to say, who actually got the electoral votes. You can cry theft all you like, but it does not change what happened. It shouldn't have been that close in the first place.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Their intentions don't matter with regard to institutional racism. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. No, and what you say is why we need to have the SYSTEM changed.

Because, unfortunately, what you said is exactly how the system is shaped right now.

[Armstead]

37. No

They're a vehicle for those who are fed up with the two parties. It's called democracy.

[LoZoccolo]

39. So are Klan rallies.

The Klan has free speech too, and the right to speak their political agenda and even run candidates for office, but that doesn't mean they're not racist. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

[Solon]

43. Logical fallacy alert!!!!!

You point to a specific group, the Klan, and then say, truthfully, that they are racist, but in the OP claim that the ENTIRE idea of voting for third party is racist. Hypocrisy anyone? Oh, and BTW, what was the first major party in the United States to call for the abolishment of slavery again, oh yeah, a THIRD PARTY, at the time of course. Too bad they are the reactionaries nowadays, also, one last note, what was the first political party in the United States to call for equal rights? If I remember correctly the SPUSA, another third party, that mostly collapsed thanks to red-baiting back in the 40s and 50s.

Oh, and speaking of which, look at the Black Panther party on Wikipedia, very interesting stuff on yet another (racist) third party.

[LoZoccolo]

46. You don't understand my argument. n/t

[Solon]

48. So basically your saying that...

by NOT arresting all klan members on site, even if said rallies break no known property laws, like vandalism, means that the First Amendment supports Racism, gotcha. Is the ACLU a racist institution by its very existence?

[LoZoccolo]

57. That's not what I'm saying.

Look at it in the context of the message I was replying to. The poster came close to implying that it was not institutional racism because it was democracy. I'm saying the two things are not mutually exclusive; people can exercise their rights under a democracy in a racist way. I am not making an argument against democracy because of that, though.

[Solon]

64. I was more or less, responding to the context of your original post...

Your generalization of third party voters is unfair and idiotic, to put it plainly. Particularly in cases of local politics, but even in state or possibly even national politics, someday. Racists can and will vote, in democratic institutions, for other racists in racist parties, like the Knights Party, the new political arm of the KKK, to give an example. However, that does NOT give you leave to say that ALL third party voters support institutional racism, however indirectly, by not voting Democratic candidates for all offices.

To give an example, not everyone votes a straight party ticket at vote time. In some areas of the country, if, after adding up the politics of the candidates of choice for Alderman, the closest to your politics is somone from the SPUSA, then vote for them, that doesn't mean they are supporting a racist institution, far from it in fact. The SPUSA candidate doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the Presidency, at least not at this time, but for local offices, sure, and they won some. Other cases include affliations and organizations, both in and out of political parties that endorse candidates from the Democratic Party, like the DSA. Nothing in this example means that they are simply protest votes or "throwaway" votes. For Presidential elections, I can understand the angst, but even Joe Lieberman couldn't earn a vote from me. That's the point, really, candidates have to EARN the vote, they shouldn't be handed it on a silver platter for being the lesser of two evils.

[Armstead]

66. So if the Democrats are ineffectual is that racist too?

By your logic, the inability of the Democrats to become a majority party is also racist and sexist, because they also enable the perpetuation of Republican rule.

[LoZoccolo]

70. Not really.

That's taking the idea too far. A third-party voter knows one choice is more effective than the other; ineffectual people usually get there by mistake.

[Fescue4u]

49. huh?

No. Voting is not racist.

[Karmakaze]

50. This whole thread is based on the FALLACY that...

3rd party votes are what cost the Dems the election. This is simply not true. What cost Dems the election was the number of Dems who voted for Bush.

Off the top of my head, something like 1% of registered Repubs voted for the Dem, whereas something like 11% of registered Dems voted for the Repub.

If you think the 1% of Dems that voted 3rd party had a greater effect than the 11% of Dems who voted for Bush, you are certifiable.

As for registered independents the majority voted for the Dem, by a larger margin than voted for 3rd party.

So that leaves one inescapable fact - the Dems who voted for Bush cost the Dems the election.

Its that damn simple.

So quit blaming the 3rd parties and ask yourselves why so many DEMs seem to think Bush was better.

[LoZoccolo]

58. They both can be factors. n/t

[Karmakaze]

74. Yeah, but one is orders of magnitude worse - can you guess which?

But once again, here is ANOTHER thread blaming people who had every reason to vote third party while TOTALLY OVERLOOKING those that should have had no reason to vote for BUSH.

Yep, blame the Greens, blame Nader, hell blame ANYONE but the people actually responsible.

Sounds familiar.

[LoZoccolo]

78. The order of magnitude doesn't matter.

I'm discussing the fact that people who should have done one thing went and did another thing. Whether other people should have done another thing might be a factor as well, but they're unlikely to be on this board, and don't excuse the first group who should have done one thing and went and did another thing.

[bicentennial_baby]

51. what's that i hear?

oh, a broken record...over and over and over and over and over... :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

59. I have come up with several different angles.

Also, I no longer threaten to jail Nader when I am elected president.

[Qibing Zero]

53. So, do you normally troll this hard,

or are the fish biting exceptionally well today?

[LoZoccolo]

60. A troll wouldn't encourage voting Democratic. n/t

[Qibing Zero]

62. Well that answers my question.

Troll on.

One hopes you don't let the bullshit you're spewing grow disease and infect you in the end.

[LoZoccolo]

63. I don't understand that. n/t

[Karmakaze]

75. Would a troll try and split allies and turn them against each other?

You bet.

[LoZoccolo]

77. They might do that.

That's why I take posts by Nader voters and other splinterists with a bit of caution, especially when they are shamelessly using illogic. Famous FReeper troll seventhson was known for accusing John Kerry of stuff for being in Skull & Bones, and also Wesley Clark of being involved in something that ended up in Haitian men growing breasts, and also he would get people to waste their time arguing with him about stuff like whether or not an RFID tag was intentionally made in the shape of a swastika.

[QC]

88. Oh my, seventhson and the Haitian manbooby caper!

Memories....

It was amazing how many people fell for such a transparent troll as seventhson.

[WildEyedLiberal]

90. He "confirmed" what they wanted to believe about Kerry, Clark, et al

How does that make the "actual" DUers who hoo-ahed and cheered on seventhson any better than the troll himself? And yet, many here still foam at the mouth when you call them on their divisive anti-Democratic party bullshit. If it looks like one and it smells like one... :freak:

[LittleClarkie]

61. Did you have to pack a lunch first?

M'god that was a long way to go.

Sometimes I think you have good points on issues. This is not one of those times.

Hello, and welcome to democracy. People can vote how they damn well please, and often do.

[PsychoDad]

67. When I vote 3rd party

It's because the Demopublican and Repocratic parties (Pretty much the same anymore, with a few exceptions) don't have a candidate who's views or record I can vote for.

[Joebert]

98. Bingo.

I vote for the candidate that is most likely to actually do what I'd do if I had the power.

PS: Great name. Al Bundy is the man.

[Dastard Stepchild]

68. Huh?

I've seen a lot of third party voter comments, but this one has left me a bit stumped. I'm afraid I don't follow.
What racist or sexist institutions are being upheld by a third party voter?

[LoZoccolo]

71. Republican control of the government. n/t

[1932]

83. Did you know that countries with fringe socialist third parties in europe

have the highest rates of economic development? Third parties -- especially very liberal third parties -- are very good for economies.

[LoZoccolo]

87. They don't have the electoral system we do. n/t

[1932]

97. Maybe we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater

Maybe we should focus on fixing the electoral system rather than discouraging third parties by calling support for them racist, or whatever you're trying to imply.

[Douglas Carpenter]

85. please

I vote Dem all the time (yes even for DLC dems in general elections when there is no better electable alternative)unless there is that rare situation of a genuinely electable more progressive alternative.

I suggest that we win in the market place of ideas.

A REAL progressive Democratic Party that fights for ordinary working people and stands up to the elites and against military adventurism would not have to worry very much about third parties.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

91. That's a ridiculous notion out of hand.

Let's apply your rationale to a possible scenario in the 2008 Presidential election. Let's say John McCain decides to run as an independent. Though there is no way he could win the GOP primary, he would definitely swing at least 15-20% of the Republican vote his way. A Democrat would likely win the election as a whole, despite possibly not coming close to winning 50%, or even the required 270 electoral votes. Is THAT winning the marketplace of ideas? Hell no.

Let there be no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of those Republicans would otherwise have voted for the winner of the GOP nomination. Only about 5% at maximum would have possibly not voted or voted, say, Libertarian.

Now, if there were some kind of counterweight to McCain, say if Howard Dean were to run as a third party candidate against the party (not gonna happen, but just suppose). THEN you could truly judge which idea is best. But that scenario is about as likely to happen as George Bush nominating Dennis Kucinich to the Supreme Court.

If you truly want a marketplace of ideas (and for the record, I do), we need to change the system such that third, and more importantly, fourth parties have a chance. It needs to be a proportional representation form of government, not unlike what England and most of Europe have, where leaders are forced to gain the support of multiple parties in order to rule.

In our current system though, there is absolutely no place for a third party, except as a spoiler.

[neuvocat]

92. Um...

I guess so, but the same could be said for parties that embrace platforms of diversity.

(Apologies to anyone who may have said this already.)

[Marr]

93. Why do DLC sell-outs think they own the progressive vote?

[LoZoccolo]

94. This thread is not about that. n/t

[Marr]

95. Yeah, I know. It was about calling names and trolling.

[LoZoccolo]

96. For the second time, trolls don't encourage voting Democratic. n/t

[The Magistrate]

99. Locking

Flame-Bait.