Political Science and the Myth of the Independent Voter

Judging from their commentaries and quotes in the corporate media, American political scientists are among the most reactionary supporters of the Republican-Democrat two-party state and duopoly system of government.  Yet, despite their decades long advocacy for the dictatorship of the Republican and Democratic parties – as evidenced by the many studies that followed from the American Political Science Association's influential document, "Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System" in the early 1950's –, American political scientists do not even have a satisfactory working definition of what a political party is, as I demonstrated in a post on stasiology this past summer.  Interestingly, it appears that some political scientists are beginning to question what passes for conventional wisdom among their peers.

One long standing point of consensus among political scientists is that Independent voters do not exist.  For some background on this issue, see any number of past posts here at Politea:

• Dispel the Myth of the Myth of the Independent Voter from August 2009
• On the Myth of the Myth of the Independent Voter from December 2009
• Debunking the Myth of the Independent Voter from November 2010
• An Anatomy of an Anti-Independent Hit Piece from April 2011
• A Conscientious Objection to Political "Science" from August 2011

In a new post at The FreeStater Blog, Todd Eberly, an assistant professor of political science at St. Mary's College of Maryland, makes a point that should be very familiar to regular readers here at Politea in a post entitled, "The "Myth" of the Myth of the Independent Voter."  Excerpt:

much of the research on independent voters considers partisanship in a single election and rarely follows the same voters across multiple elections. When voters are followed across elections, the focus tends to be on presidential elections . . .

Are Independents independent in name only? No, not really . . .  In a 2009 article in Electoral Studies, political scientist John Petrocick argued, “Leaners are partisans. Characterizing them as independents underestimates the partisanship of Americans…” Indeed, Petrocik penned the foundational research on leaners in 1974 and his conclusions that leaners were every bit as partisan as their more partisan counterparts has influence much scholarship since. But a recent conference paper by Drew Kurlowski identified significan flaws in Petrocik initial work. Research that I have been conducting suggests independent partisans are far more independent than Abramowitz, Mellman or others realize.

Most studies of partisanship often consider the views of leaners at a given point in time or their votes in a specific election or examine the stability of partisan identification by merging all partisans – Strong, Weak, or Leaning – together and measure macro-level party identification. These measure do not take into consideration the temporal nature of partisan attachment and the propensity to change party affiliation over time . . .

But the larger question really pertains to the size and stability of a governing coalition over time. For a President or a political party to succeed they must have a stable electoral coalition. If independent voters are the fastest growing segment of the electorate and if they are truly independent, then Democrats and Republicans need to worry about the rising number of independent partisans. But if folks like Mark Mellman are correct, then the parties can ignore the threat of the independent voter.

A review of ANES data from a panel survey that included 2000, 2002, and 2004, shows that independent Democrats and independent Republicans (roughly a third of each party) are much less attached to their party than either Weak or Strong partisans over time . . . 

Mellman and others are correct - independent Partisans do vote much like their Strong Partisan counterparts in a given election, but the ANES panel data suggests that a significant share of independent Partisans (between a quarter and a third) may well have a different partisan stripe by the next election cycle.

Fully 11% of the electorate are Pure independents, another 30% are independent Partisans (about 18% Democrats and 12% Republicans) and between 25% and 30% of these independent Partisans switch self-reported party affiliation and 25% to 45% change their party vote from election to election. At the very least, this suggests a 25% voting bloc that is quite volatile, quite independent - in a country where our presidential elections have been decided by margins of 7 percentage points or less since 2000 and the difference between the national two party vote share in House elections has averaged about 5 percentage points since 1990.

Independent voters are no myth, they matter, and (when you include among them independent Partisans) they absolutely sway elections. Indeed, the present and highly competitive political era in which we are living is a direct result of a decrease in partisan attachment among a growing number of voters. 

Read the whole thing.

People Before Parties: Politics and Electoral Reform Group Releases Recommendations for Electoral Reform at #OWS

Two weeks ago, I relayed a number of recommendations for electoral reform being considered by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street in NYC, in which I have been active.  This past Sunday, the group came to full consensus on the proposal, which has now been posted in full on the group forum at NYCGA.net.  That document is published here in its entirety.  Please distribute widely.


People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform
A proposal of the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street

Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service.  They engage the intelligence, good will, and real interests of the people.  Free and fair elections ensure that citizens can control their own political destiny, and make genuine contributions to society through sound self-government.  Free and fair elections can remedy myriad ills and counteract the abuses of a government that has come to prey upon the resources and spirit of citizens.

The centralization of political power in the hands of two narrow political factions at all levels of government is neither democratic nor republican. Lawmakers representing these factions have rigged our electoral system to ensure their continued monopoly on public office in the United States.  No party system whatsoever is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been transformed into government of the people, by the parties, for entrenched interests.

Whatever our political differences may be, surely on this we can agree: our government does not represent the interests or will of the people. It is time to institute free and fair elections in the United States.

A vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed.  Americans are not apathetic.  They have been demoralized by a forced choice between two corrupted political parties. The two-party system is incapable of providing adequate representation for the many diverse interests constitutive of the American electorate. This is a crisis of democracy and representation. It is a crisis of government.

In the federal system, the states are the laboratories of democracy. We urge the people of states, localities, and General Assemblies nationwide to begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, to open our political system to the millions of people who go unrepresented by the entrenched factions.

We call for experimentation with reforms to create a level playing field for all voters and for all candidates for elected office – whatever their party affiliation may be, or whether they have none at all –, and to curtail the influence of corporations and narrow political factions over our system of government.

We recommend experimentation with (in no particular order):

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their own voters.  A bipartisan commission is not a non-partisan commission.  Independent council and computer drawn districts can remove partisan bias from the redistricting process.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  It is time to expand the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government.  Proportional representation has been used in the United States in the past to break up party monopolies.  It can be implemented again.

• Expansion of franchise.  Laws that restrict the right to vote should be repealed.  Those who are denied the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised. Participation can be encouraged through simple reforms such as election day voter registration.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment.  Fortunately, the people need not wait for officials to implement laws limiting their own terms.  The people can impose term limits at any election by voting for alternatives to the representatives of the entrenched factions.

• Ballot access reform.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates, which are common in all fifty states, should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A public election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses or conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda and to recall any elected official.

• Vote counting.  Electronic voting machines are produced, operated and serviced by a small number of corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.  Unless there are significant controls to protect against the rigging of such machines, hand-counted paper ballots should be re-introduced into our voting systems.

• Holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.  Election day should be ruled a holiday to encourage voter turnout.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an instant runoff between the top four candidates from the primary in the general election. Countless other possibilities.
This list is not exhaustive.

We urge assemblies across the country to deliberate on reforms that can help break the ruling political monopoly in government through free and fair elections, and put people before parties. We urge the people of states, localities and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reform and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.
-------
This proposal was developed by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street between September and November 2011. It contains input from well over 100 individuals who attended group meetings in Liberty Plaza as well as many others from across the country who influenced the proposal through online discussions.  The document was produced through a collaborative writing process.  It was approved by the Politics and Electoral Reform group with full consensus support on November 6, 2011.

How to Organize the Nonvoting Majority?

From Rich Tafel at the Huffington Post:

2012 is emerging as another anti-incumbent election year. However, swinging back and forth between two parties won't bring the change voters seek.  Instead, it's time for the frustrated American electorate to dump our two-party system. . . . multi-party democracies are the norm, not the exception, around the world.  In fact, there are only five two-party democracies in the entire world.

Jamaica is one, the only nation to declare financial default in 2010. Another is Japan, which has the highest debt to GDP ratio in the world, standing at well over 200 percent. Are you seeing the pattern of fiscal trouble and two-party systems?

It is a great irony that a country preaching freedom of choice offers only two real choices for our political participation.  If Americans were told to choose between two cars, shirts, colors or family sizes, we'd rise up in revolt against such Soviet dictates. Tell us we have only two parties, however, and we accept it as though any alternative is unimaginable.

The two parties don't reflect the views of our citizens. . . . The problem is that our political class, funded by the same donors, controls the system that works for them. Though the two parties bicker and attack each other, they join forces in protecting their two-party monopoly.

Advocates of independent and third party alternatives to the two-party charade often argue against the myriad ways in which the Democrats and Republicans have rigged our political system to consolidate power in the hands of the two-party machine at all levels of government.  Yet, despite the many discriminatory hurdles that have been erected against them, third party and independent candidates for office can often be found on ballots across the country every election season.  If so many Americans are so dissatisfied with Republican-Democrat party government, why do they continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans?  Of course, the majority of Americans don't, opting not to cast a ballot than cast it for a representative of the major parties.  However, so long as they refuse to actively support alternatives, we will all continue to be held hostage by the dwindling minority of Americans who, inexplicably, still support the Republican and Democratic parties.

If the majority of Americans don't vote, that likely means we all know a lot of non-voters.  Maybe it is time to take them to task. 

Ranked Choice Voting and Its Discontents

Ranked choice, or instant-runoff voting, is probably the best-known alternative method to the plurality voting system.  It is supported by reform groups like Fair Vote, Independents, third party advocates – Greens in particular –, and even independently-minded Democrats and Republicans.  Ranked choice has already been implemented in a number of cities across the country, from Maine to Minnesota to California.  San Francisco is set to hold its first mayoral election under the new system.  At Divided We Stand, the Dividist takes a critical view of the process.  Excerpt:

As a direct consequence of our new public financing rules for the mayoral race in San Francisco, we now have a cavalry charge of 16 candidates running for mayor . . . As Ron Popeil might say - "But that's not all!" At no extra charge we will now throw all sixteen candidates into the mix-master of our first ranked voting / instant runoff election for mayor. On November 8th, all San Francisco voters will cast three votes for mayor in rank order of preference. "Rank" being the operative word in that sentence. . . .


Who knows what kind of a gawd-awful mess will come out of this election? Recall that in Oakland's 2010 ranked voting mayoral election, candidate Jean Quan had 10 points fewer first choice votes than Perata in the first vote count. I am talking about - Her Honor Jean Quan, the current mayor of Oakland, who had 10 percentage points fewer first choice votes than the loser Don Perata.

The simple fact is that most SF citizens have no friggin' clue about the ramifications of ranked voting/instant runoffs. While the voters may not understand it, be assured the candidates who would otherwise have zero chance of winning a plurality in the election or a majority in a real runoff know how exactly how the voting system can be gamed.

Net net - As a voter it is more important to decide who to exclude from any of your three votes for mayor than it is to pick who you would prefer to see win as your first choice. In fact you may be better off ranking your favorite as your second or third choice. This is Game Theory Gone Wild. We might as well be drawing lots to pick the next mayor . . . 

Fortunately, for those who are not fans of the instant runoff, ranked choice is not the only alternative to plurality: there are alternatives to the alternative, so to speak, such as approval voting and range voting. 

CA: State Legislature Set to Ban Write-in Voting in General Elections (UPDATED)

One lesser-noted aspect of the top two open primary system is that it requires the prohibition of write-in candidates in the general election run-off.  If anyone could wage an upstart write-in campaign following the primary, it would completely undermine the apparent goal of the top two system as such, namely, restricting the number of candidates up for election to just two.  The hasty manner in which the law implementing top two in California was passed resulted in a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the state's elections code.  Today's column at CAIVN lays out the situation in the Golden State and takes a look at a newly-amended law that would ban write-in candidates and write-in voting in all general elections covered by the top two system:

A little-known provision of the law implementing California's top-two open primary system banned the counting of write-in votes on general election ballots.  The State Senate is now considering legislation that would prohibit write-in candidates and write-in voting at the general election for voter-nominated offices. The write-in ban is currently being challenged in court.

How many write-in votes were cast in the July 12th Special General Election for US House in California's 36th Congressional District?  No one knows because they were never counted.  As I reported here at CAIVN in July, the implementation of the top-two open primary system resulted in a contradiction between two sections of California's elections code, one which states that voters may cast write-in votes in all elections and another which states that some  write-in votes shall not be counted.

Section 15340 states that every voter may "write the name of any candidate for public office . . . on the ballot of any election."  However, the law instituting the top two system placed a separate section on the books which prohibited the counting of write-in votes in general elections covered by the new primary process.  Section 8606 states: "A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted."  As such, section 8606 is unconstitutional.  Article 2, Sec. 2.5 of California Constitution requires that all votes must be counted: "A voter who cast a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted."

Today, the State Senate is scheduled to vote on AB 1413, a bill that would address this inconsistency by banning all write-in candidates from the general election ballot for voter-nominated offices and removing the space for write-in votes from the those ballots.  The bill under consideration in the Senate is substantially different from the one that was initially  proposed in the Assembly and passed through committee.  AB 1413 was introduced into the legislature on March 14th by the chair of the Assembly's Committee on Elections and Redistricting, Paul Fong.

As originally written, the bill would have provided for minor changes to the state's campaign finance laws by amending aspects of the Political Reform Act of 1974.  In this form, it passed through the Assembly and to the State Senate floor and was on file to be considered in the Senate this week.  However, on the Friday before Labor Day, the bill was amended and effectively rewritten by Assembly Member Fong in a manner that significantly alters the state's Elections Code, addressing the inconsistency noted above, among others.

Under the newly-amended and rewritten bill, section 15340 of the Elections Code, noted above, would prohibit write-in votes on the general election ballots for voter-nominated offices: "Except for a voter-nominated office at a general election, each voter is entitled to write on the ballot the name of any candidate for any public office."  In conjunction with this change, section 8606 of the Elections Code, noted above, would prohibit write-in candidates from running in the general election: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may not be a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office."  The bill would further provide that the space for write-in votes be removed from all general election ballots for voter-nominated offices.

California election law has provided space for write-in candidates on general election ballots for partisan office since 1891, according to ballot access expert Richard Winger.

Assemblyman Fong may well have been spurred to action by a pending lawsuit against a number of provisions within the Top Two Primary Act.  On August 24th, Chamness v. Bowen moved from the US District Court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  A write-in candidate for the July 12th Special Election for CD 36 is seeking to intervene in the suit to challenge the disenfranchisement of write-in voters and write-in candidates.

The standing plaintiffs in the suit are challenging the law's party preference ban – which prohibits candidates who are not affiliated with a party officially recognized by the state from stating their party preference on the ballot –, as well as provisions that prohibit candidates from describing themselves as 'Independent' on the ballot.

Fong's amended bill systematically replaces the phrase "party preference" with the phrase "party affiliation" throughout the Elections Code, and explicitly repeals a provision that equates the term "Independent status" with "No Party Preference" (i.e. section 325).

The title descriptions of the bill seem to demonstrate the absurdity of the amendment process in a manner that borders on high satire.  The original title description of the bill read: "An act to amend Sections 81008, 83109, and 84211 of the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974."  It is now officially known as:

"An act to amend Sections 81008, 83109, and 84211 of the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974. An act to amend Sections 13, 300.5, 332.5, 334, 337, 359.5, 2026, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2154, 3006, 3007.5, 3205, 7100, 8002.5, 8025, 8040, 8041, 8062, 8068, 8081, 8106, 8121, 8124, 8141.5, 8148, 8300, 8600, 8606, 8803, 8805, 8807, 9083.5, 10704, 10706, 12104, 12108, 13102, 13105, 13107, 13206, 13207, 13212, 13230, 13300, 13302, 15340, 15402, 15560, and 19301 of, to repeal Sections 325, 7000, 9084.5, and 15451 of, to amend and renumber Section 6000a of, and to repeal Chapter 0.5 (commencing with Section 6000) of Part 1 of Division 6 of, the Elections Code, relating to elections."

UPDATE: According to Ballot Access News, the California State Senate's Election Committee has now called for a hearing on the newly-amended bill ahead of any vote.  If you feel strongly on this issue, Richard Winger is urging folks to contact Assembly Member Fong and the State Senate President Darrell Steinberg.  Follow the links for the contact info.

UPDATE II: According to Richard Winger, who has been following developments regarding this bill very closely, no hearing was held on the measure today, and the legislature has wisely decided to put off consideration of the bill until next year, thus allowing more time for hearings and public debate.

The Misguided Case Against Voting

A lengthy article by Stan at Feral Scholar makes the case against voting and calls for a boycott of future elections.  Excerpt:

I want to convince as many people as possible to quit voting altogether.  I for one am registered to vote now in the State of Michigan; and I intend to go to every major election to stand outside the polls with a sign that says, “I am not voting because the choices are intolerable.” I hope a million others will join me in 2012 to do the same thing; but I doubt they will. Those who care enough to think about voting at all are already in the minority; and of those the majority remain convinced that elections might fundamentally change society.

This is wrong for all the right reasons. People who are unhappy with the status quo and who want to change it for unselfish reasons – and there are many of these people from across the political spectrum – are genuinely motivated by their good will. They simply don’t understand yet that the most important choices are made by flows of cash before a single voter has a say in these so-called elections. They don’t understand that the most important topics related to changing our society are excluded by both parties, censored by ruling class media, and that these excluded topics mask the substantial agreements between the putative opponents. They don’t understand that elected officials have very little power once in office, or that the system is now designed to prevent anyone in office from having power in any critical realm sufficient to make changes in the relative power of the rich and the rest.

The only exception to that, in my opinion, is the ability of the President of the United States to stop wars and end the forward-deployed US military presence overseas. No candidate who advocates this with any seriousness will get past the first gate. If she does, I’ll break my promise and vote twice for her.  The reason it won’t happen is that any candidate that doesn’t give behind-the-scenes reassurances will face a tidal wave of money.

The piece goes on to argue against against lesser-evilism, and against the idea that voting within the context of the reigning two-party state is capable of delivering necessary reforms due to concentration of money and power within the machinery of the ruling parties.  The article considers the idea of supporting third party and independent alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans only to dismiss it out of hand:

What if you run a candidate from a different party? Most, but not all, political junkies know that the US has very strong laws that prevent ballot access by third parties. Each state has its own separate laws, but all of them make it very difficult to get on the ballot as a third party; and the history of third party runs is so embarrassingly difficult, that most voters who agree with the positions of the third party candidate will fall back on the fear-based utilitarian practice of choosing the lesser-evil who is “electable.”

Democrats vote against expanded ballot access as ruthlessly as Republicans do. Everyone who is in office got there with support from the party’s bureaucratic apparatus, which each one knows how to navigate, and they are not going to enable future challenges from the outside. Both parties would have plenty to fear from expanded ballot access. Because expanding access nationwide would entail 50 separate statewide campaigns, each challenging a system of long standing party-interest group codependency and patronage, this becomes an uphill struggle. In states where Greens and Libertarians have gained access, the states have made them re-petition every four years, starting from scratch, to get back on the ballot.

The flaw in this argument is immediately apparent.  In the guise of fomenting opposition to existing power structures, it dismisses avenues by which those power structures can be opposed on the basis of talking points favored by those who benefit most from the existing system.  It is indeed difficult for third party and independent candidates to gain ballot access across the country, but they do it all the time!  Last year, there were hundreds – if not well over a thousand – ballot qualified third party and independent candidates just for the offices of governor, US House and Senate.  If even a fraction of the non-voting majority were to head to their polling stations on election day and cast their ballots for a third party or independent alternative to the stooges of the Republican and Democratic parties' corporate puppet masters, those candidates would win in a landslide.  If you cannot support the Democratic or Republican parties, Democrats and Republicans do not want you to vote.

False Choice

So long as we vote for Democrats and Republicans, we're all getting screwed:

Are Voter Initiatives and Ballot Propositions Coming to New York?

From Ballot Access News:

On June 7, the New York State Senate passed S709, which proposes a change to the New York State Constitution. It would create the initiative process in New York, for statewide laws, and also for local government. The vote was 47-15. All of the “no” votes were Democrats.

Now the bill goes to the Assembly. If it passes there, because it is a proposed constitutional change, it must pass both houses of the legislature again in 2013. Then the voters would decide in November 2014 whether to pass the idea.

The statewide initiative is a gateway for virtually any election law reform that has popular support. If New York state had the initiative process, the voters could probably qualify a proposed initiative for redistricting reform, or ballot access reform, or reform of the restrictive laws that don’t permit voters to switch parties before a primary unless they make the switch during the year before the election.  It will be interesting to see if Independent Voting, formerly known as the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, and before that the New Alliance Party, will support S709. That group is very well organized in New York city. Virtually all the “no” votes in the Senate were New York city Senators. The bill would require a statewide initiative to obtain a number of signatures equal to 5% of the last vote for Governor. Currently that number is 232,709. 

Voter initiatives and ballot propositions are a double-edged sword.  On the one hand, they allow voters to implement reforms that lawmakers are unwilling or hesitant to support out of narrow self-interest or political cowardice, ex. independent redistricting reform or rational reform of drug laws.  On the other hand, however, the initiative process can be hijacked against the public interest since all it requires is that one have enough money to gather signatures and wage an aggressive media advertising campaign in favor of a given measure.  For a critical view on the initiative process, see the lengthy essay on the historical use and abuse of voter initiatives and ballot propositions in California from the April edition of the Economist – for a  thumbnail sketch, see this CAIVN article from a few weeks ago.

Despite the potential risks, shouldn't we support any measure which puts more power in the hands of citizens and voters over and against professional politicians and entrenched party interests?

The Alternative Vote Referendum and the Dilemmas of Popular Political Commentary

On Thursday, voters in the United Kingdom will be heading to the polls to cast their ballots in the so-called Alternative Vote Referendum to decide whether they will maintain their current first-past-the-post plurality voting system or whether they will implement an alternative voting method, namely, ranked choice voting, to choose their representatives for the House of Commons.  The referendum was scheduled as part of the coalition agreement between the Conservative Party and the third party Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election.

Needless to say, since then countless articles have been published explaining the differences between the two voting systems and arguing for or against the measure.  Groups and individuals who favor ranked choice have resorted to ever more creative means to convince their fellow voters to cast their ballots in support of the reform.  A relatively new Youtube video tries to explain the difference between FPTP and AV in terms even people from the internet can understand.  It's title: "Is your cat confused about the referendum on the voting system on the 5th of May?"



Apparently, however, even this was too complicated for the astute political observers at CBS News.  Bailey Johnson's The Feed relays the video above and comments:

(CBS) - Americans are somewhat spoiled when it comes to voting. Our solid two-party system and relatively simple first-past-the-post voting style stands in contrast to other political systems. In Britain, voters are having a referendum on May 5th to decide whether to stick with their brand of first-past-the-post or an alternate voting system.

Voting. Electoral reform. Politics. It's all so confusing! Is there any way we could explain this complicated referendum with cats? Well now, we can.  Now that makes sense. Readers looking for more information on the up-coming referendum should check out The Guardian's coverage on the issue. As for us, we think we get it now. Vote Reform Cat! Or something... maybe we should watch the video again.

Is it even necessary to point out the absurd and thoughtless contradictions inherent in these few lines?   When confronted with this sort of attitude and discursive tone, popular at mind-numbing websites like Gawker and Wonkette, I am often reminded of studies which investigate the conflicts faced by American high school students.  In recent years, a number of reports have detailed the dilemmas of high-achieving African American and Latino youth.  From Mercury News in 2008:

Sandra Romero and Bibiana Vega do their best to shrug off taunts from fellow Latino classmates at Del Mar High School in San Jose.  The 17-year-old seniors are called "whitewashed." Mataditas - dorks. Cerebritas - brainiacs. They're told they're "losing their culture" - just because Sandra has a 4.0 grade-point average and Bibiana has a 3.5. The put-downs are clear: Smart is not cool. And too many Latino students are choosing cool over school.

From the Boston Globe in 2009:

There was a time in Myriam Piquant's young life when she refused to admit she was smart. So she kept quiet about her good grades to her neighborhood friends. In elementary and middle school, she didn't let on to fellow students about where she lived (Mattapan) or her cultural difference (Haitian), or her goals in life (lawyering). . . . .

Youth trend specialists say groups like the Du Bois Society are part of a rising counterculture that is aiming to break the stigma among black kids that being smart is uncool.

If only there were similar organizations dedicated to breaking the stigma, all-too-common in  mainstream media and popular political commentary, that being smart is not cool.  Fortunately, for those among them who are interested in seeking help in this regard, they might consider perusing this WikiHow article on "how to be cool and smart at the same time."  Perhaps, then, folks like the CBS News observers above might at least have the sense to follow Mark Twain's sage advice: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Neither Workable nor Sustainable: the Ideology of the Two-Party State and Duopolist Doublethink

Among Democrats and Republicans, the two-party state and duopoly system of government provides the absolute horizon of politics as such.  From this perspective, independents and third parties can suddenly appear in a menacing formation at that horizon, but for the most part they disappear beyond the committed duopolist's line of sight.  The ideology that sustains the two-party state has numerous internal blind spots as well.  Reflecting on the well-documented civic ignorance of the American public, Matthew Yglesias writes:

I’m never that upset about reports of Americans’ widespread civic ignorance. The nature of our party system means that a voter can really only express a very crude kind of thumbs up or thumbs down preference at the ballot box, so it’s not clear to me how a more nuanced understanding of the world would actually effectuate itself in terms of policy change.   But this is one of the reasons why I worry about the lack of accountability in our system. . . . . if things go well, then at the margin this helps incumbents. If things go poorly, then at the margin this hurts incumbents . . . That’s not necessarily ideal . . . but it seems workable and sustainable.

In other words, the two-party state thrives under the conditions of public ignorance.  And, as a supporter of the two-party state, Yglesias is effectively content with high levels of public ignorance because it is a condition for the reproduction of the two-party state.  On this view, the more informed a voter is, the more frustrated he or she is likely to be by the forced, false choice between the Republican and Democratic parties.  If things "go poorly," as Yglesias puts it, and a given voter is motivated to cast a ballot against his or her sitting representatives, the only choice within the two-party frame is to support the representative of the other major party.  Needless to say, this is not considered a viable option by most eligible voters, judging from the high re-election rates of incumbents and the high level of public discontent with the Democratic and Republican parties.

Rather than cast a ballot, the wide majority of eligible voters simply opt not to vote in the wide majority of elections.  Thus, in addition to public ignorance, low voter turnout is likely yet another condition for the reproduction of the reigning two-party state.  Of course, there are minor reforms that would improve significantly upon the "very crude kind of thumbs up or thumbs down preference at the ballot box," such as range voting, but incumbent lawmakers are hesitant to support such reforms for obvious reasons.  Interestingly, though Yglesias states that the current party system is workable and sustainable, he goes on to argue that this is not in fact the case.  He concludes:

What doesn’t seem sustainable to me is the system we’ve been evolving toward in which a legislative minority is able to block action and then reap the rewards of any policy failure that results. This feature of our institutional set-up, much more than public ignorance, threatens to wreck the “market” for sound public policy.

We are thus provided with a classic example of duopolist double-think.  For this supporter of the two-party state, the current party system is workable and sustainable, but it is in fact neither workable nor sustainable.

NY Greens Make the Case for Proportional Representation and Instant Runoff Voting

The Green Party of New York has begun an effort to push for proportional representation in the Empire State, spearheaded by Howie Hawkins, former Green Party candidate for governor.  From the Green Party NY:

Howie Hawkins, the former Green Party candidate for Governor, urged Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo to make Public Campaign Financing and Proportional Representation the centerpieces of a broad ethics reform package that should be adopted during the first weeks of the legislative session.

“We need Public Campaign Financing to end the pay-to-play culture that dominates the State Capitol, as witnessed by the ongoing scandals with the State Comptroller’s office and pension funds. Now is the time to finally stop the sale of lawmakers to the highest bidder. And while we strongly support an independent Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission to end the partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts, we want that commission charged with drawing up multi-member districts to implement Proportional Representation, which is the electoral system in almost every democracy on this planet,” said Hawkins. . . .

The Green Party supports proportional representation for legislative bodies in order to fully represent the diversity of political views among the voters. Candidates of the various parties would be seated in the legislature in proportion to the percentage of the vote each party receives. “The single-member-district, winner-take-all system now in place entrenches a two-party system of one-party districts that over-represent the plurality and completely exclude all political minorities in every district. Very few of these districts are competitive. Most are controlled by the majority party. Votes for minority parties are seen as pointless and turnout is low. Under proportional representation, every vote counts toward electing representatives one favors and turnout is high,” Hawkins said.

For executive branch elections such as Governor and Attorney General, the Green Party supports Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) where voters would rank candidates in order of preference, and a candidate would have to have a majority rather than a mere plurality to be elected. If no candidate had a majority on the first round, the lowest ranked candidate would be eliminated and their votes re-allocated to the voter’s second choice. This process would continue until one candidate had a majority. IRV is used for elections in many US cities, including San Francisco and Oakland, California; Mineapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; Memphis, Tennessee; and Portland, Maine.

Despite the known drawbacks of Instant Runoff Voting - see, for instance, this helpful post at Least of All Evils - IRV continues to be the favored proposal of many third party and independent advocates of voting reform, despite the clear advantages of approval and range voting over IRV and plurality.  Check out the Center for Range Voting.

In Good Times and in Bad: the Presidential Vote and the Third Party Tradition in the United States

At FireDogLake, diarist inoljt has republished an examination of the third party presidential vote which first appeared at The Politikal Blog last May.  The piece contains a number of interesting charts and graph.  Inoljt writes:

Presidential election results are often pictured through electoral college maps, a useful and simple tool. Looking at the competition of the two parties throughout time provides a quite interesting exercise. Certain states turn blue, then red, then blue again. Others stay the same color. One election the map is filled with red; the next election blue makes a comeback. And on and on it goes.

This is in fact quite deceiving. What the electoral college does not show is the history of third-party challenges to the two-party system. In 1992, for instance, presidential candidate Ross Perot finished with 18.9% of the vote – yet not a single state in the 1992 electoral college showed his third-party run . . .

Let’s take a look, then, at the macro-level trend. Here is a graph of third-party performance throughout the entire history of the United States, since popular voting first started. (The picture here is a small thumbnail of the real graph, which can be found here.)

Inoljt comments:

The data here is also fairly inconclusive. Strong minor party candidacies seem to come and go in no particular order. There are long periods where they get less than 1% of the vote, and times where they regularly break the 10% barrier. To be frank, I was expecting to find a more discernible pattern – say, a strong minor party performance every four or five cycles.  [Emphasis added.] 

Ironically, Inoljt's surprise could have been expected.  It is considered common knowledge among political scientists and mainstream political observers that the rise and fall in the popularity of third party and independent politics over time is effectively dependent upon the state of the economy.  In good economic times, or so the reasoning goes, the public is content, and so the electorate is happy to support the major parties in power, while in bad economic times public discontent results in stronger opposition to the major parties in power.

While this line of argument may seem reasonable to economic determinists and vulgar materialists, the fact is, it is simply false, and suggests that the political scientist or commentator in question just doesn't know what he or she is talking about.  At the same time, however, these individuals are not entirely at fault since American historians and political scientists have devoted so little attention to the third party and independent political tradition in the United States.  Long time readers may recall a series of Poli-Tea posts from late 2009 which took a look at a number of academic articles on the third party and independent tradition in the US.  The third post in that series considered an article by Hirano and Snyder which provided an overview of the scientific literature on the third party and independent political tradition.  H&S write:

Another claim in the literature is that third party electoral success is linked to the state of the economy (Stedman and Stedman, 1950). However, the evidence for a connection between short-term economic fluctuations and third party electoral support is mixed at best . . . The evidence seems more consistent with the conclusion in Herring (1965) that “third parties are bred in prosperity as well as depression.” (p. 19.)  [Emphasis added.]

The Case for Strategic Third Party Voting in the New York Gubernatorial Race (Updated)

In every election, among those who cast their ballots for the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties, there are no doubt a large percentage who do so against their better judgment and even against their own will.  These voters go by many names.  Sometimes they are called defensive voters, who cast their ballots for the candidate of one major party so as to defend against the election of the candidate from the other.  Others are lesser-of-two-evils voters, who assert that casting a ballot for a third party candidate is "throwing one's vote away." Some are strategic voters, who would rather support an independent or third party candidate but are plagued by the same worries as the defensive voter or the lesser-evilist, and so on.

Though I am, of course, a proponent of third party and independent politics in and for itself, in New York's gubernatorial race, a strong case can also be made for what we might call strategic third party voting.  There are likely very few people who have any doubt what the outcome of this contest will be.  Democrat Andrew Cuomo leads his nearest rival, Republican Carl Paladino, by twenty to forty percentage points, according to recent polls. As we approach election day, Democrats have little to worry about and Republicans little to hope for.  In other words, the dynamics that motivate defensive voting in favor of the major party candidates are simply not in play in this race.

As I wrote last week, if you support Democrats because you still believe the myth that they stand for the interests of the middle and working class, that they provide a viable opposition to Republicans, that they stand for social values and justice, there is no question that you should vote for Green Party gubernatorial candidate Howie Hawkins.  On the other hand, if you support Republicans because you still believe the myth that they are opponents of big government, that they stand for individual rights and liberties, and that they provide a viable opposition to the Democrats, there is no question that you should cast your ballot for Libertarian Party candidate Warren Redlich.  Given the state of Democratic-Republican party politics, only the most intellectually dishonest progressives, liberals, conservatives and libertarians could argue with these basic points.  However, ideological and philosophical reasoning aside, there is also a strategic reason to support the Green and Libertarian candidates for governor.

If the Green and Libertarian party gubernatorial candidates receive more than 50,000 votes, the Green and Libertarian parties are assured ballot access on all New York ballots for the next four years.  Without an assured ballot line going forward, Green and Libertarian candidates for any office would have to engage in a daunting petitioning effort, potentially having to gather thousands of signatures, just to ensure that they appear on the ballot.  However, if the Green and Libertarian parties are assured a ballot line, the ballot access hurdle is substantially lower, requiring petitions with dozens rather than thousands of signatures.

Many people who are sympathetic to the third party and independent critique of the two-party state and duopoly system of government often argue that alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties must be built from the bottom up, beginning at the local level, and they are thus hesitant to support third party candidates for higher offices.  However, in New York as in many other states, the Democratic and Republican parties have structured ballot access law such that the optimal political strategy for any third party is to wage difficult campaigns for higher offices they are unlikely to win, in the hopes of assuring ballot access and thus facilitating the efforts of later candidates for lower offices. 

According to the certified ballot of the New York State Board of Elections, this year there are upwards of forty different races in which a Democrat or Republican is running for office unopposed!  In dozens of other contests, voters will be faced with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican, which, as we all know, is often effectively equivalent to having no choice at all.  Unlike the Working Families Party or the Conservative Party, the Green and Libertarian parties are highly likely to run their own candidates for office rather than simply rubber stamp those offered up by the Democrats and Republicans. 

A vote for the Green or Libertarian candidate for governor of New York is a vote in support of political choice and competition.  If you are a progressive or liberal who would like to see more liberal and progressive challengers to the reigning two-party state over the course of the next four years, you should cast your ballot for Howie Hawkins, the Green Party candidate for governor.  Similarly, if you are a conservative or libertarian who would like to see more conservative and libertarian challengers to the reigning two-party state over the course of the next four years, you should cast your ballot for Warren Redlich, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor.  Or are you satisfied with the state of New York State?

Update:  I contacted Richard Winger of Ballot Access News to make sure that I had my facts straight regarding ballot access law.  Via email, he agrees that the Green and Libertarian parties would indeed be in a far better position if they qualified for a ballot line, and adds: "They could then run statewide nominees with no petition at all.  But their district and county and municipal candidates would need petitions to get themselves on primary ballots."  [Emphasis added.] 

Toward a Taxonomy of Duopolist Talking Points: Countering the Ideologues of the Two-Party State

As election day approaches we are likely to see proponents of the two-party state publish more and more articles railing against third party and independent voting, against third party and independent candidates for office and against third party and independent politics as such.  Any thoroughgoing analysis of the ideology that underpins the two-party state and duopoly system of government would eventually have to produce a taxonomy of the duopolist ideologue's arguments against third party and independent political activism.  Longtime readers of Poli-Tea might recall any number of posts detailing the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the most common arguments put forward by partisan Democrats and Republicans to dissuade others from building a viable opposition to the tyranny of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.  For example:

• the historical argument states that because many third party and independent candidates have been unsuccessful in the past, they will never be successful in the future
• the tautological argument states that third party and independent candidates will never win an election because we have a two-party system
• the spoiler argument presumes that a vote for a third party or independent candidate is a wasted vote
• the procedural argument states that third party and independent candidates cannot win elections because the rules of the game are rigged against them
• the hysterical alarmist argument states that there is no time to build a third party or independent political movement because if we don't vote for a Democrat or Republican in the next election, we're all going to die
• and so on . . .

It might be rather interesting to construct a psycho-political profile of the duopolist ideologue from these various arguments.  One might easily conclude, for instance, that the proponent of the two-party state is:

• an historical determinist, a fatalist even;
• incapable of independently-minded critique of the antiquated institutional forms that dominate our politics;
• a reactionary eager to prop up the ruling party-political establishment;
• always on the lookout for a means of rationalizing his unwillingness or inability to declare his independence from the politics of the two-party state;
• a perennial political apocalypticist, without a historical sense
• and so on . . .

It may be helpful to keep these potential traits in mind when countering the ideologues of the two-party state.  The onslaught of 2010 is already in full swing.  Let's consider but two examples.  At the Orlando Tea Party, Judson Phillips demonstrates that this tea party group has effectively betrayed its historical namesake and allowed itself to become an appendage of the ruling political establishment.  Phillips' article does nothing more than regurgitate the talking points of the duopolist ideologue.  He writes:

within the tea-party movement there is a small but loud group calling on members not to vote Republican, but instead to vote for a third party, such as the Constitution Party or the American Independent Party. Those who call for tea-party people to vote for these third parties point out that the Republicans cannot be trusted. The last time the Republicans were in power, they were as bad as the Democrats. They are absolutely right . . .

Unfortunately, we have no alternative. . . . this is America. We have a two-party system. . . . For those who still support these third parties, let me point out that none of them has ever elected a senator, congressman or governor. I am not sure they have even gotten someone elected as dog catcher. . . . This year, we need to stop the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis of fiscal evil. We do that by electing Republicans.

In the space of just a few hundred words, Phillips manages to hit no less than three of the arguments listed above:  the tautological argument (it's a two-party system), the historical argument (third parties have failed in the past) and the spoiler argument (a vote for a third party is a vote for Pelosi).  According to our profile, then, might one not conclude that Phillips is a reactionary historical determinist who is incapable of independent critique of the two-party state?  Moreover, Phillips reveals the difficulty of determining whether the ideologue of the two-party state is motivated by ignorance or malice.  He states outright that no third party "has ever elected a senator, congressman or governor."  Of course, this is patently false.  There have indeed been third party and independent senators, congressmen and governors.  Phillips is either completely ignorant of the matter at hand, namely, US political history, or he is consciously engaged in a dishonest and deceitful effort to rally support for one faction of the ruling political class.

For an example from the other side of the duopoly divide, take this recent article by Robert Parry at Consortium News, entitled "The Teach-the-Dems-a-Lesson' Myth."  Parry writes:

If my e-mail inbox is any indication, many American progressives plan to use the Nov. 2 election as an opportunity to “teach the Democrats a lesson” by either not voting or casting ballots for third parties, even if this contributes to the expected Republican (and Tea Party) landslide.

The thinking seems to be that the loss of the congressional majorities will punish the Democrats for accepting half-measures and compromises on issues from health care and financial reform to job stimulus and war. The Left’s hope apparently is that the chastened Democrats will then shift toward more progressive positions and be more assertive.

However, modern American political history tells us that this strategy never works. After the four key elections in which many progressives abandoned the governing Democrats – in 1968, 1980, 1994 and 2000 – not only did Republicans take U.S. politics further to the right, but the surviving Democrats tacked more to the center and grew more timid.

Parry's piece is thus an extended variation on the historical argument.  However, his choice of historical precedents is rather revealing.  Parry chooses to compare the 2010 elections with those of 1968, 1980, 1994 and 2000.  But only one of the latter is a so-called mid-term election, 1994.  In his discussion of the other three elections, Parry obviously focuses on the dynamics of the presidential race under consideration.  The flaw?  This is not a presidential election year.  Parry is a member of the cult of the executive that views all political antagonism and struggle through the prism of presidential politics.  In a response to Parry's piece, Digby from Hullabaloo provides us with an example of the type of pop-political psychology that is dominant among supporters of the corporate parties.  She argues that the opposition between Republicans and Democrats can be understood as some sort of metaphysical opposition between "the lovers and the fighters":

The two political tribes in America attract different kinds of people. Let's call them the Lovers and the Fighters. (I think you can figure out who's who.)  The majority of people in those tribes tend to react to pain differently. When the fighters feel pain they instinctively hit back. When the lovers feel pain they instinctively withdraw . . .  [etc.] . . .

Parry clearly lays out the case in his piece that this technique of "teaching the Democrats a lesson" has resulted in failure over and over again. They learn the opposite lesson we are seeking to teach them every time. And I guarantee you that once again, the lesson they will learn from this upcoming election will not be that they weren't liberal enough. 

What is striking about the latter passage, however, is how similar Digby's point is to that of Phillips above.  Phillips agreed that it is "absolutely right" to assert that "Republicans are as bad as Democrats," but concluded that "we have no alternative."  Similarly, Digby recognizes that attempts by liberal and left-wing activists to move the Democratic party in their favored direction have "resulted in failure over and over again," and that the Democrats will likely learn the "wrong lesson" once more.  But still, Digby continues to urge support for Democratic candidates. 

The likes of Phillips and Digby are equally incapable of liberating themselves from the ideology of the two-party state and both labor under the delusions propagated and promulgated by that very ideology.  Digby continues to believe that Democrats are the "liberal" party despite all evidence to the contrary, and, she presumes that she is a liberal despite the fact that she supports the Democrats, who, she agrees, are complicit with Republican in "taking US politics further to the right."  On the other hand, Phillips continues to believe that Republicans are the "conservative" party despite all evidence to the contrary, and, he presumes that he is a conservative despite the fact that he supports Republicans, who, he admits, are "just as bad as the Democrats."

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  the Democratic Party is not "liberal" and the Republican Party is not "conservative."  They cannot be.  They are the vehicles of the ruling corporate-political class in its ongoing war against constitutional government and the people of the United States.  If you support the Democratic Party, you are not liberal.  If you support the Republican Party, you are not conservative.  If you support the Democratic or Republican party, you are a reactionary supporter of the reigning corporatist state, and are providing popular cover for the ruling political class.  In other words, you are part of the problem.

You're the Dog that Gets Beat: Declare Your Independence from the Two-Party Charade

In response to the liberal Democratic blogosphere's almost unanimous derision of Thomas Friedman's Sunday article suggesting a strong third party presidential candidate in 2012, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight today argues that the "odds against a third party bid are not as long as they seem."  He writes:

I suspect these analysts are being too dismissive of the possibility of a “serious” third-party run of some kind in 2012, and that Mr. Friedman’s prediction has a reasonable possibility of coming true.

Silver then goes on to provide no less than fifteen reasons in support of his position, and emphasizes four of them:

Voters have extremely low opinions of both major parties — much lower than in the period from 1992-1994, when electoral constituencies were being re-shuffled and when Mr. Perot lost his bid. . . . The Republicans might field a particularly polarizing presidential nominee. Sarah Palin, in particular, were she to be nominated, might have trouble achieving 50 percent of the vote, even if Barack Obama were still fairly unpopular. . . .  There is one major issue — the national debt — that neither party has much credibility on. A candidate who presented a “serious” plan to balance the budget could possibly gain traction that way. . . . The Citizens’ United decision makes it easier for a third-party candidate to raise large sums of money from corporations.

In addition to the fifteen points provided by Silver, one could add many more.  It is also worth mentioning that, though the discussion here revolves specifically around the prospects of a third party presidential candidate, many of the factors that would create a hospitable environment for a strong third party presidential candidate would do the same for third party and independent candidates at the Congressional, state and local levels.

It is no surprise that the liberal Democratic blogosphere would overreact in such a fashion to Friedman's article.  Friedman himself is despised among this contingent, often with good reason.  More importantly, however, Democrats are among the least independent thinkers and voters of any partisan or ideological bloc in the United States.  They are most likely to believe all or most of what they see or read in any news source and they are least likely to consider voting for an independent or third party candidate for any office.  Faced with the record of the current Democratic legislative majority and presidential administration (not to mention those of the past), these duopolist dead-enders still think the answer is "more and better Democrats."  They really do believe, against all the evidence, that the Democratic Party stands for something other than the consolidation of power in the hands of political and economic elites and the expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  They are like badly abused dogs, and in this they resemble nothing so much as die-hard partisans of the GOP: no matter how many times they are driven out to the middle of nowhere and left for dead, they always happily limp their way back home to the party, wagging their tails in the false expectation that, this time, they will not receive yet another beating.

Fortunately, not all folks who would lean toward the Democrats are so deluded by the ideology that sustains the two-party state.  At Counterpunch, Richard Anderson-Connolly has composed "A Voter's Manifesto" aimed specifically at "rejecting the lesser-of-two-evils trap."  The piece begins:

Our climate of anger, disgust, and helplessness has produced three quite different exhortations regarding the election in November. All are understandable yet ultimately inadequate because they fail to recognize that the current economic disaster is nothing but the logical culmination of a political sickness rooted in the two-party system itself. If the objective is to prevent corporate rule then the most reasonable strategy in November is to cast a vote for a multiparty democracy. Other approaches merely tinker with the imminent expiry of what remains of American Democracy.

He makes a strong case for voting reform and supporting third party and independent candidates, and concludes:

we must reject the trap of the lesser-of-two-evils. Democrats are moving us toward corporate rule just as surely as the Republicans. If two cars are both driving toward a collapsed bridge one should hardly be excited about getting inside the vehicle that is traveling more slowly. Democrats who refuse to see the magnitude of the oncoming crisis, or who see it but do nothing to reverse course, have no moral claim to our votes.

We can make sense of our times only be recognizing that the root of our problem is a two-party system that has been completely captured by the economic elite. The solution will not be found by picking the best choice among the available options but rather by transforming the system into a genuine multiparty democracy. Therefore a vote in November for candidates who support voting reform is the most reasonable strategy for preventing corporate rule and for renewing our democracy.

On the issue of voting reform, see also David L. Wetzell's new article, "Toward a Winner-Doesn't-Take-All Electoral System."

Dear Democratic Voters, Follow Obama and Biden's Advice: Consider the Alternatives . . . Green, Socialist, Libertarian, Independent etc.

Clearly concerned about the so-called "enthusiasm gap" between likely Republican and likely Democratic voters, the White House has effectively begun a new campaign to shore up support for Democratic candidates among the party's most vocal activists, and, by extension, its base.  The explicit message of this campaign is highly counter-intuitive, at least at first glance.  Its slogan: "Consider the Alternatives!"  The message is difficult to ignore: in the White House echo chamber, the Vice President echoes the President echoing the Vice President.  As ABC News reports:

At a fundraiser in Manchester, NH, today, Vice President Biden urged Democrats to "remind our base constituency to stop whining and get out there and look at the alternatives. This President has done an incredible job. He’s kept his promises."

The remarks, made to roughly 200 top Democratic activists and donors, recall comments President Obama made last week to “griping and groaning Democrats…Folks: wake up. This is not some academic exercise. As Joe Biden put it, Don’t compare us to the Almighty, compare us to the alternative.”  [Emphases added.] 

Take a moment to consider the implications of the fact that the most prominent officials of the majority party are literally imploring Americans to "Consider the Alternatives." Of course, in the Orwellian language that is appropriate to the bizarro world of Democratic-Republican party politics and government, the statement "Consider the Alternatives" means exactly the opposite of what it says.  The implied message is immediately apparent: there are no alternatives, or rather, there is only one presumed alternative, voting Republican, but the presupposition is that this is simply not an option and therefore not an alternative.  But how does a partisan of the corporate parties understand the message?  At The Reaction, Michael Stickings writes in a letter to the Vice President:

What's with telling the Democratic base, your base, to "stop whining"?  Sure, I get your point -- as inartful as it was.

If you put Democrats up against Republicans, and if Democrats are compared to "the alternative," the choice should be clear, and Democrats, suffering from a lack of enthusiasm, should step up and do what needs to be done to prevent the Republicans from winning big this November.

In a two-party system, you've only got two choices, and often that choice is simply the least bad of the two. Is that what you meant? If so, and it would seem so, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of Democrats, hardly an encouraging message to be sending.  [Emphases added.]

Given the subtitle to The Reaction blog, namely, "liberalism unbound," it is highly ironic how succinctly this passage demonstrates the liberal Democrat's mental imprisonment by the ideology of the two-party state.  The reactionary ideologue of the two-party state thinks he has a choice when in fact there are no alternatives.  Indeed, partisans of the two-party state are so enthralled by the ideology that maintains it, they see two choices where in fact there are no alternatives.  

The good news is that there are numerous alternatives to the false choice between the Democratic and Republican parties that has been forced upon us by the ruling corporate-political class.  From a principled liberal or progressive perspective, independents, the Green party, the Socialist parties, even the Libertarian party, represent a superior alternative to the reproduction of the reigning two-party state.  If you call yourself a liberal or a progressive, but you support Democrats, in what sense are you a liberal or progressive?  By your actions you do nothing but provide popular political cover for a primary faction of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.

There Should be a Revolution Every Two Years: Are You the Dog who Returns to Its Vomit?

According to one common interpretation of Thomas Jefferson's maxim that there should be a revolution every twenty years, Jefferson was not in fact stating the necessity of a violent and bloody uprising once a generation, but rather underscoring the revolutionary aspect of representative, democratic government.  If the scoundrels can simply be voted out of office, there is no need to hunt them down and string them up from the trees in front of their office.

But under the conditions of the two-party state and duopoly system of government, voting the scoundrels out of office is a virtual impossibility, as the scoundrels are firmly in control of both the Democratic and Republican parties.  The two-party system has effectively reached a stage at which neither of the ruling parties offers a viable vehicle for the representation of the people's interests.  The more quickly the Democratic and Republican parties exchange majority and minority status, from one election to the next, the more certain we can be that voters recognize the major parties are simply incapable of representing our interests.   Bob Morris writes at CAIVN:

The upcoming midterms are shaping up to be a train wreck for Democrats too. Something similar happened to Republicans in 2008. Scanning blog posts from conservatives just after that election is instructive. Some were wondering if the Republican Party could survive such a defeat. Yet, just two years later, the Republican Party is seemingly resurgent. I say "seemingly" because huge shifts in voter sentiment like this in such a short period show that voters are increasingly unhappy with both parties, and searching for answers. Clearly, this could be an opening for the development of third parties with real clout. It's happened before.

And it can happen again.  In an article for Op-Ed News, Curt Day calls for a third party and independent revolution this November:

That is right, we can start to overthrow our government this November! How? We can dethrone it by voting out both the Republican and Democratic parties! Though we cannot vote out either part this election, it can be a start. Why vote out both parties? Considering our past, whenever we vote for either of the two main political parties, we act as what was described in Proverbs 26:11: "Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly."

Think about it. Either the Republicans or Democrats create a mess. The voters respond by voting in the other party. Then that party either maintains the mess or makes it worse. So the party that created the mess tells us that they have the solutions to our problems. And so we, like sheep, follow their voice and vote them in again. And this cycle continues on and on. Thus, the American voter becomes the fool who refuses to change and thus repeats his lunacy.

If you vote Republican or Democratic, you are the dog who returns to its vomit for yet another helping.

Nothing to Fight Over but Personalities and Trivialities

The two-party state and duopoly system of government is today virtually antithetical to constitutional government: Democratic-Republican party government represents a crisis of democracy and representative republican government.  In an opinion piece at the Maryland Gazette, Blair Lee provides a rundown of the situation following the primaries in the Old Line State:

In Afghanistan, voters dodged Taliban rockets and death threats, waited hours at polling places and dealt with widespread fraud. Yet, voter turnout was 40 percent. Maryland's Election Day was peaceful, sunny and went off without a hitch, yet voter turnout was only 24 percent, the lowest on record. . . .

I believe, voters stayed away in droves because there wasn't much to vote for. Thanks to gerrymandering, closed primaries, one-party government and the power of incumbency, a vast number of candidates, including the comptroller and the attorney general, ran unopposed.

In the races for the General Assembly, 120 candidates ran unopposed, including a majority of the incumbent state senators. And 78 percent of the incumbent local County Council members and county commissioners were safely re-elected.  Where spirited primaries offered voters real choices, turnout went up. For instance, Baltimore's brutal state's attorney's race boosted the city's turnout from 15.1 percent in 2006 to 21.5 percent this year.

But in most counties the closed primary system eliminated real ideological choices, resulting in like-minded Democrats running against like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans running against like-minded Republicans. In these closed affairs, devoid of issues, the candidates had nothing to fight over but personalities and trivialities.

MA: Surge of Independent Candidates Enter Final Campaign Stretch

In the Patriot Ledger, Nancy Reardon profiles the surge of Independent candidates for elected office at all levels of government in Massachusetts. Last year, of course, it became well known nationwide that registered Independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans in the Bay State. Now the question is whether they will put their votes where their mouths are when given the choice to support Independent candidates or to continue to cast their ballots in support of Democratic-Republican misrule. Reardon reports:

Statewide, 65 non-party candidates will be on the November ballot, positioning themselves as the voter’s alternative to the two-party system that most all of them depict as government’s number-one problem. They’re running for nearly every office from county commissioner and state representative to U.S. congressman and governor. . . .

“This could be the year we actually elect three or four or five candidates,” said John Valianti, a self-described independent activist who earlier this year won state approval to have “Independent” be a political designation, an official title shy of party. The Marshfield resident lost a 2008 state representative race, to Democrat James Cantwell.

Valianti and a group of 10 South Shore-based volunteers are helping unenrolled candidates campaign and get their names out. He’s predicting wins this year, and more to come.

“At the grassroots level, this independent thing could really be happening,” he said.

But those not affiliated with a major party face an uphill battle. Their opponents have an organized political apparatus behind them, which means a widely-established network of volunteers, a percentage of reliable votes and – perhaps most glaringly – fundraising power.

Read the whole thing.

Evil is as Evil does: the Lesser Evil is the Enemy of the Greater Good

As I noted the other day, desperate Democrats are resorting to political histrionics in their efforts to convince voters to support the Democratic "lesser evil" over and against their Republican counterparts in their bipartisan conspiracy of dunces. In Colorado, embattled Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes has taken Democratic-Republican political theology to a new level, effectively declaring that his campaign is a fight against evil as such. From the Boston Herald:

A defiant Dan Maes told a group of conservatives gathered in Durango on Thursday that the political process is surrounded by evil.

"I love that you opened with prayer because this is not just political war, folks, this is a spiritual battle," Maes said in remarks reported by the Durango Herald.

"There is evil out there. When I interact with some of these people, I can feel the evil. They’re not evil people, but evil finds its way into the system. And we must stand and fight this to the end."

Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down a full transcript to determine the entire context of these remarks. Nonetheless, Maes apparently does not grasp the irony of denouncing the "evil of the system" from his position as a gubernatorial candidate for one of the two primary political factions which constitute that very system. Perhaps Maes' rhetorical excess was necessitated by the triviality of his assertion. Or maybe he really does believe that the best way to fight the devil is to declare one's allegiance to Satan. This is, after all, one of the primary tenets of Democratic-Republican political theology. They make the lesser evil the enemy of the greater good.

The choice in favor of evil, whether the result is support for a Democrat or a Republican, may actually go some way toward explaining the lack of accountability in Democratic-Republican party government. In a discussion of Immanuel Kant's conception of autonomy in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Guyer recounts one of the German philosopher's arguments on the nature of evil and wrong-doing. He writes:

because no human being is simply unaware of the demand of morality - that is implied by the 'fact of reason' - acting immorally never comes from mere ignorance of the moral law, but rather from deciding to exempt oneself from this obligation.

Does this not perfectly explain the way in which an individual such as Maes can not only denounce the political system of Democratic-Republican party government as evil, but also assert that he is engaged in a fight against the evil of that system even though, as a Republican, his candidacy explicitly represents the reproduction of the evil that defines the system? One might take this line of thought a step further and argue that carving out exemptions from the demands and obligations of morality and reason is the defining characteristic of Democratic-Republican party government. Sadly, this point is so obvious it needs virtually no elaboration. It is succinctly encapsulated by the maxim which states that "if the president does it, it's not illegal." In theory, the latter is not true, but under the conditions of Democratic-Republican party government the evasion of accountability is a matter of course, even on matters of such grave importance as illegal wiretapping, torture and war crimes.

Fortunately, not everyone in Colorado will have to suffer a choice in favor of the evil that is Democratic-Republican party government when they cast their votes for governor. Prominent Republicans in the state have already opted in favor of the greater good over and against the lesser evil and thrown their support behind Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo. Grassroots libertarian-leaning groups, on the other hand, have come out in support of Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate Jaimes Brown. From the Highlands Ranch Herald:

When Liberty on the Rocks — which Langford describes as a free-market, free-mind, Libertarian party — was founded in 2008, the group had trouble finding candidates to run for office. Two years and many meetings later, the Denver-based group has chapters in Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Gelnwood Springs and Lakewood, as well as nationwide. Langford heads up the Denver Tech Center Chapter.

“Two years ago we were struggling for candidates, and we have virtually a full ticket this time,” he said. “People are coming out of the woodwork this time.” Langford says he will vote for Jaimes Brown, of Centennial, who is this year’s Libertarian gubernatorial candidate.

Given their options, for conservatives, libertarians and probably many other folks in Colorado, the choice in favor of the lesser evil between the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates is in fact a choice to exempt oneself from the obligations and demands of morality and reason.