|
The
Case For Unity
June 22, 2001
by Jonathan Lilienkamp
Sunburn cream stings when it's put on. Cold medicines have
the flavor of artificial cherry and feces. Alcohol hurts when
placed on a cut. It is hard to get excited about moderate
Democratic presidents. Then again: Sunburn medicine reduces
the soreness from the burn. Having a cold is miserable. An
alcohol sting is less painful than an infection. Republican
presidents equate to a halt or regression of progress. (One
need only look at the last few months to see the capacity
for danger in this.) In each case the cure is, in fact, far
better than the "disease".
I am a liberal Democrat. I prefer Democrats on the left,
and typically vote for the most liberal candidate in primary
and caucus situations. Personally, I always come home to the
Democratic Party in presidential elections no matter how moderate
the candidate might be. Why? Because I enjoy winning. I may
not have all of my wishes fulfilled. Some of my goals at least
will on the agenda if the Democrat I vote for wins. In all
likelihood, I'll get the reverse of what I want if a Republican
comes into office-and agenda that completely opposes my viewpoints.
Below I make the case against casting your vote for a third
party presidential nominee. By discussing a few realties,
this study proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that third-party
presidential vote is a wasted vote at best, and terribly counter
productive.
First lets dispel the myth that it is possible to be elected
as a third party presidential candidate. Electing a third
party presidential candidate is impossible. Period. If you
believe otherwise, and feel that I am just uttering "the two-party
mantra", then please consider this: no third party candidate
has been elected in over 170 years. That's right - 170 years
(my research stops at 1832, so this figure may be larger).
To provide proof, let's look at the elections involving third
party candidates from 1832 to president. Listed below are
the years that third party candidates who garnered at least
1% of the vote ran for president, the candidate that ran,
and the actual winner of the election.
Year 3rd
Party Candidate Winner
1832 William
Wirt Andrew
Jackson
1840 James G. Birney John
Tyler
1844 James G. Birney James
Polk
1848 Martin Van Buren Zachary
Taylor
1852 John Hale Franklin
Pierce
1856 Millard Fillmore James
Buchanan
1860 John Bell Abraham
Lincoln
John C. Breckinridge
1872 Victoria Woodhull Ulysses
S. Grant
1880 James B. Weaver James
A. Garfield
1884 Benjamin Butler Grover
Cleveland
1888 Alson J. Streeter Benjamin
Harrison
Clinton B.
Fisk
1892 James B. Weaver Grover
Cleveland
John Bidwell
1900 Eugene V. Debs Theodore
Roosevelt
John Wooley
1904 Eugene V. Debs Theodore
Roosevelt
Silas Swallow
Thomas Watson
1908 Eugene Chafin William
H. Taft
Eugene V.
Debs
Thomas Watson
1912 Arthur Reimer Woodrow
Wilson
Eugene Chafin
Eugene V.
Debs
Theodore
Roosevelt
1916 Allan L. Benson Woodrow
Wilson
Arthur Reimer
J. Frank
Hanly
1920
Eugene V. Debs Warren
Harding
1924 Robert LaFollette Calvin
Coolidge
William Z.
Foster
1928 Norman Thomas Herbert
Hoover
Verne Reynolds
William Z.
Foster
1932 Norman Thomas Franklin
D. Roosevelt
Verne Reynolds
William Z.
Foster
1936 Earl Browder
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John Aiken
Norman Thomas
William Lemke
1940 Earl Browder
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John Aiken
Norman Thomas
1944 Claude Watson Harry
S Truman
Edward Teichert
Norman Thomas
1948 Claude Watson Harry
S Truman
Edward Teichert
Farrell Dobbs
Henry A.
Wallace
Norman Thomas
Strom Thurmond
1952 Darlington Hoopes Dwight
D. Eisenhower
Douglas MacArthur
Eric Hass
Farrell Dobbs
Henry Krajewski
1956 Darlington Hoopes Dwight
D. Eisenhower
Eric Hass
Farrell Dobbs
Henry Krajewski
1960 Eric Hass John
F. Kennedy
Farrell Dobbs
1964 E. Harold Munn Lyndon
B. Johnson
Eric Hass
1968 Dick Gregory
Richard M. Nixon
E. Harold
Munn
Eldridge
Cleaver
George Wallace
Benjamin
Spock Richard
M. Nixon
E. Harold
Munn
Gus Hall
John Hospers
John Schmitz
1976 Gus Hall Jimmy
Carter
Lyndon LaRouche
1980 David McReynolds Ronald
W. Reagan
Ed Clark
Gus Hall
1984 Earl Dodge Ronald
W. Reagan
Gus Hall
Lyndon LaRouche
1988 Earl Dodge George
Bush
Jack Herer
James Warren
Lenora Fulani
Lyndon LaRouche
1992 Earl Dodge William
J. Clinton
Isabell Masters
Jack Herer
James Warren
John Hagelin
Lenora Fulani
Lyndon LaRouche
Ross Perot
1996 Earl Dodge William
J. Clinton
Harry Browne
Isabell Masters
James Harris
John Hagelin
Monica Moorehead
Ralph Nader
Ross Perot
2000 David McReynolds
George W. Bush
Earl Dodge
Harry Browne
James Harris
John Hagelin
Monica Moorehead
Pat Buchanan
Ralph Nader
Success
Rate: 0%
(Source:
Third
Party Presidential Candidates)
Note that even past presidents could not get elected as third
party candidates. Why is it so hard to get elected as a third
party candidate? Two words provide the answer: Electoral College.
Though there are third party candidates (listed above, such
as George Wallace and Strom Thurmond who managed to win electoral
votes. They obviously did not win enough to do any good. Third
Party candidates need "upsets" in enough states to garner
270 electoral votes. How likely is that? If you need to, look
again at the list above. A college level course in statistics
is not required to understand the evidence it presents. When
you cast your vote for president, please remember the president
is selected through the process of a republic, not a democracy.
This is an important distinction from the other races you
vote in. Like it, or not, the fact is undeniable, the evidence
is irrefutable. The system is geared to a two-party presidential
race.
Okay, so you know your candidate won't get elected, but it
really isn't a wasted vote, is it? By voting third party you
send a message! Yes, third party votes do send a message,
but it isn't received with the same meaning it was sent. It
may be meant as "hey, listen to me!" But often, when votes
are bled off from a friendlier candidate and the candidate
loses, what good is the message then? It comes out more like
"I am willing to completely sacrifice my agenda if my agenda
cannot be met completely."
In many ways it is no different from the Biblical story
(1 Kings 3:16-28) where two women argue over a child. The
solution posed entailed cutting the baby in half, and giving
part to each mother. This represents exactly the message of
a third party presidential vote. Is that what you really want?
Because that is, in effect, what you are achieving. By cutting
the political baby in half, we assure one thing: Failure.
It sends another message as well. It says, "you can forget
about my vote, no need to represent me at all". If the left
supported the moderate candidates, by showing up at the polls,
and by voting Democratic, the Left of the party receives inherently
more voice. But if the vote totals from the left aren't present,
then you are forcing the party in the other direction. If
the left won't vote Democratic, then the Democratic Party
has to go to the center to win. The Democratic party has to
go with what supports it. If the left doesn't vote, or votes
third party, the Democrats cannot depend on the votes from
that spectrum of the party. We can push to the left and "get
back to our roots" when the roots start voting. Otherwise,
we lose.
Far be it for me to tell anyone to vote against his or her
conscience. But please be sure you are willing to live with
you conscience and the consequences. I simply ask that reason
be employed. Whomever wins the presidential race for the Democrats
has to be able to sustain an open and inviting party, even
to those on the our right of our party. We are different brands
of progressives, but we do pull in the same general direction.
For presidential elections, we need majority support in a
majority of states. We are not going to get that unless we
have broad and accepting appeal.
The time to push for more liberal (and even third party candidates)
is in local elections. This includes, but is not limited to
Governors, State legislatures, and Federal legislatures. Democracy
rules these elections the are not constrained by the rules
of a republic. These are where regional tastes are represented.
In the states were the Democratic Party is moderate, elect
a moderate governors, representatives, etc., and where the
Democratic Party is liberal, elect liberals to office.
If we cannot learn from the mistakes of the Republican right,
we are going to suffer the same consequences. For example,
you may not like Zell Miller on all of his votes, but I am
sure you like the one he cast for Daschle as the Majority
Leader. If Senator Miller is as liberal a Democrat as Georgia
can keep in office, then I'll take him. Consider another possibility:
Senator Barr? Then again, Minnesota can elect Senators Wellstone
and Dayton. Democrats there have enough support to put forth
a more liberal-minded candidate. Understand the distinction.
We need to find common ground between those who vote in Minnesota
and those who vote in Georgia when it comes to the republic
system involved in the presidential election. Simply put,
if we don't - we lose.
So what can we do?
Understand that we need to find someone acceptable to some
degree to all Democrats or those who would vote for the Democrats.
Whoever the choice is, be assured he/she will not share your
entire agenda. The need for cross regional broad appeal requires
this. Understand that the all or nothing strategy typically
results in nothing. (Just ask Trent Lott about his success
as majority leader in 2001.)
Elect the most liberal local officials you can, but be willing
to sacrifice to get a Democrat from any part of the progressive
political spectrum into the White House. If we cannot find
unity in the most basic way, how are we going to be unified
enough to resolve the tougher issues? It is my hope that we
can turn a successful Democratic party more leftward, but
we must get the wheels rolling first.
View
All Articles
|
