[Marxism] Ted Glick for Proportional Representation

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Surrounded with many reservations, this is a very weak and cautious 
first step indeed. But at least it is a beginning.

The way to do this is to make a clean break with any form of 
"winner-take-all" electoral system. PR needs clear emphatic campaigns 
to force individuals and organizations to join a campaign for more 
effective electoral democracy. Instead of the "wait and see" tone that 
Glick sets, he should be bolder and initiate a campaign to bring this 
to the Atlanta Social Forums and other progressive assemblies.

It is time to bring real content to the democratic demand of One 
Person—One vote.

The reply to those who cry "spoiler" is to call on them to support 
Proportional Representation for legislative offices and Instant Runoff 
Voting for executive offices.

Meanwhile, successful "spoiler" campaigns are the most effective tools 
that progressives have.

from Brian Shannon
__________________


By Ted Glick
Published July 4th 2005 in ZNet

It's a shame, on this 4th of July weekend, that the independence 
movement, political independence from the two corporate-dominated 
parties, is not as strong as it should be. The need is crystal clear. 
The Democrats continue to demonstrate, again and again, that they 
cannot be counted upon to consistently oppose the regressive and 
destructive policies of the Republican Party. What resistance they put 
up is occasional at best. More often they take Republican-lite 
positions out of fear of offending their big money donors or fear of 
standing up for principle.

Many activists and leaders in the broad progressive movement understand 
the severe limitations of the Democrats. Why then aren't more people 
joining the Green Party, the Labor Party or some other alternative 
political formation? Why aren't we seeing the kind of people of 
color-led independent political movement that developed in the 1980's 
via the Rainbow Coalition?

The winner-take-all political system, I would say, is the primary-not 
the only, but the primary-reason. Because of it, many progressives feel 
that if they want to advance positive legislative reforms or defend 
against negative ones, they have to supportpeople who have a decent 
chance of being elected to office and who are at least more vulnerable 
to organized political pressure, which will usually be Democrats.

If we had a proportional representation (PR) system, the system used by 
most of the world's electoral democracies, it is certain that 
alternative parties would grow stronger. Under PR, a party that gets 5% 
of the vote gets 5% of the seats in the legislature. If it gets 15% it 
gets 15% of the seats. Such a system completely undercuts the "spoiler" 
dynamic that hurts parties like the Greens in partisan elections, as 
does Instant Runoff Voting, an electoral reform that is picking up 
steam all over the country.

Hopefully, some day in the not too distant future, we will bring PR to 
this country. Until that day, an independent political movement that 
wants to have a real political impact must be creative and flexible 
when it comes to the tactics it uses. Otherwise, it risks degenerating 
into a small and ineffective party of true believers rather than a 
truly mass party able to articulate the demands of the people because 
it is connected to them in myriad ways.

Two years ago, in mid-2003, I put forward what I thought was a 
reasonable, creative tactic for the Green Party to use for its 2004 
Presidential campaign: a "safe states strategy." The essence of it was 
that while getting on the ballot in as many states as possible, the GP 
Presidential campaign should focus the campaign in the states which 
were pretty much "safe" for either Bush or for the Democrat, states 
where past voting results made it likely that there would not be a 
close contest.

This tactic made sense to me for two main reasons. One was the strength 
of "Bush must go" sentiment among progressives, including within the 
Green Party. Using this tactic, the Greens could run a campaign in a 
way which would minimize the possibility of it increasing Bush's chance 
of winning.

The other reason was because such a strategy held the most promise of 
getting the largest possible GP vote. Safe states rarely receive visits 
from the Dem and Rep campaigns. A GP Presidential visit would likely 
garner more press attention as a result. In addition, an aggressive 
message could be articulated to progressive-leaning voters: don't waste 
your vote; we all know the likely election winner in this state; send a 
strong message by voting for a candidate and party that is closest to 
the values and principles you hold.

Many people, both Greens and non-Green independents, saw the wisdom of 
this tactic. Others, mainly Greens and a few socialist groups, were 
critical of it, some bitterly and loudly. As it ended up, the Green 
Party chose a Presidential candidate, David Cobb, who adopted a 
different strategy, a "smart growth" strategy. That strategy 
prioritized building the Green Party with a secondary emphasis on 
running in such a way as to help get Bush out. Cobb's campaign did 
include some of us who supported "safe states."

Do I think that the Green Party should use a "safe states" approach in 
2008? Not necessarily. A tactic is something used at a particular time 
and place because it makes sense for that particular time and place. It 
might make sense, or it might not, to repeat it in the future.

What are some of the factors that should go into a determination of 
what the Green Party or, perhaps, an alliance of the Green Party with 
other groups, does in 2008?

One key factor will be the strength of the consciously independent 
progressive political forces. For example, there is a U.S. Social Forum 
planned for about a year from now in Atlanta, Ga. If that event turns 
out to be massive and successful, that will be a statement about the 
growing strength and unity of the independent progressive movement. The 
dominant perspectives of those at that Forum on the 2008 question will 
be important.

Also important will be the relative strength of the Green Party itself 
by 2007. 2004 was an extremely difficult year for the GP. Between the 
strength of "Bush must go" sentiment and the decision of Ralph Nader to 
run as an independent, it was an accomplishment for the GP to emerge 
more or less in one piece after November 2nd. It has been regrouping 
and rebuilding ever since. The success of that process, as well as the 
GP's success in building stronger ties to the broad progressive 
movement, will be key factors.

The extent to which leaders of labor, the African American, Latino and 
other people of color-based movements, the women's movement and other 
progressive constituencies take concrete steps toward political 
independence will be important. Since the election, for example, a 
number of leading African American progressives have made public 
statements critical of the Democrats and in support of independent 
political action. If those who have made these statements move to give 
them organizational shape and build grassroots bases, this will be a 
critical and positive development.

And finally, it will be important to consider the experiences and 
thinking of those progressives who are right now operating within the 
Democratic Party but who are strong on the issues and are willing to 
work with progressives outside of the DP, those who have put allegiance 
to the issues above allegiance to the party leadership.

Of course, there are those in or around the Green Party who believe 
that, come hell or high water, the Green Party should run what was 
called in 2004 an "all out" Presidential campaign in 2008. That could 
end up being the right thing to do, but it seems to me that whatever 
decision is finally made, it will be a much wiser and sounder decision 
if care is taken to consciously work with, listen to and take into 
account the thinking of the many non-Green progressive allies. Under a 
winner-take-all system, it is not enough to proclaim independence. Our 
tasks in the USA are much more complex and difficult.

http://www.fairvote.org/index.php?page=53 for more articles and 
explanations of Proportional Representation




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism