Tim's brother Andy is here, visiting from the U.S., which has been just fabulous. He's as excited and curious about the election. We talked about setting multiple streaming stations with all our computers. I think I need to stock up on some snacks liquor for mixed drinks too to sweeten the anticipation. Though the boys seem to prefer beer.
This is my first U.S. election to participate in actively. I am, after all, what some call "a new American." I have always followed politics and elections, more and more intensely the older I get.
As many of you, my readers, already know, I did not cast my precious vote for either of the anointed candidates because I feel that, most importantly:
1. Neither truly represents my values.
2. Neither has proposed legislation that adequately addresses the changes that I believe are needed in domestic and foreign policies (such as ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; cutting military spending; vowing to support the creation of a green economy based on truly renewable resources, not coal, nuclear power or offshore drilling; doing away with Bush's destructive education reform, No Child Left Behind; and creating a universal -- read single-payer -- health care plan).
I am well aware of the risks and the arguments against voting for a third party candidate. I know that at this point, the way elections are run and publicized, none of the third party candidates have a chance of winning. But I have given this phenomenon a lot thought over the years and feel that:
1. Voting one's values is the most morally sound thing to do.
2. The argument of voting out of fear of "the other" candidate winning doesn't hold much water anymore. Especially since the last presidential elections were won by the Democrats who cowardly didn't challenge the election-fraud-skewed results and questionable court rulings.
3. The Democrats, on a national scale, haven't proven that they deserve the progressive vote (tacit and outright support of the Bush administration policies, such as the USAPATRIOT act, War on Terror, increased Pentagon budget, and the Wall Street bailout).
4. Voting for a third party candidate is a small step in helping to open up the system.
5. Voting for a third party candidate whom I deem to be more progressive sends a strong message to the Democrats that they are not meeting the needs or gaining the trust of the progressives.
And if anyone counters my choice with 'the race card,' well, my answer is that I actually voted for a candidate who happens to be a person of color AND a woman. She is a former congress person, Cynthia McKinney. And I'm proud of my choice. This woman has the guts to stand up to some scary people: she has questioned the Pentagon papas about where huge sums of missing money have gone, she has rightly raised some difficult questions about 9/11, she has been a true people's advocate and she has paid dearly for her gutsiness. She was smeared in the press, dismissed as shrill and crazy, and was followed by the secret service in attempts to intimidate and silence her.
So, to sum up, before I spend all morning writing this, though I know my candidate will only get a miniscule percentage of the presidential vote, I feel good about having voted in alignment with my values. Still, I'm anxious to see what happens tomorrow. Scores of my friends are excited about the prospects of Barack Obama becoming the next president, so I'm curious to see what happens. Election fraud and voter intimidation and disenfranchisement are already wreaking havoc, so the reactions, if any, of the various candidates to those will also be interesting. See election problem reports here, here and here.
2 comments:
OK, Tereza, your point #1 has my back so far up that I can't sleep, so here I am with the computer back on in order to talk back.
Here's the deal: by saying that voting for the specific platform of a third-party candidate is "the most morally sound thing to do," you are implicitly saying that voting for a major-party candidate is morally lacking.
I don't feel immoral about this.
Look, here's the difference between the American two-party and European multi-party democracy: European-style governments hold elections, and then form their governing coalitions. In the United States, we form the coalitions first, then hold the elections. In neither system are you ever going to get an administration that reflects your own beliefs especially closely, because you have to accept compromise with all of those other people who live in your country. Whether you make those compromises within, say, the Democratic Party, or whether you make them afterwards, when the Constitutional Democrats and the Christian Democrats and the Socialists and the Greens all get together and trade their horses, is pretty much immaterial.
Minority parties in the United States have a role, an honorable role, but they are more about pageantry and the dissemination of the minority brief than they are about governance. If that's where you want to put your energy and your vote, bless you. But you really don't get to claim the moral high ground in doing so; there's a system in place that manages the country's democratic process, warts and flaws and all, and there's nothing remotely dishonorable about engaging with and within that system.
Very secondarily, the argument of voting out of fear of "the other" candidate held all the water in the world. I rejoice that the election is over and the point is now moot. Aren't you just a little pleased, too?
Michael:
If you re-read my statement, you will see that I did not say that "voting for the specific platform of a third-party candidate is 'the most morally sound thing to do.'" I said that "voting one's values is the most morally sound thing to do."
What I said is that I believe that it is each voter's responsibility to support a candidate who best represents the voter's own views. In my case, the vast majority of Obama's political stances drastically differ from mine, and thus I found another candidate whose values I shared to vote for. It simply felt like the right thing to do and I wish more people had done the same.
I have heard and read the opinions of many liberals who disagree with almost every stance on every major issue with Obama, yet voted for him. If they had supported a third party candidate who better reflected their views, that third party could have
1. gotten matching funds
2. become more visible
3. become a healthy threat to the Democrats who take liberal/progressive voters for granted by pressing them to concretely address issues progressives care about like: the protection of civil liberties, creating an infrastructure around renewable resources, establishing laws regarding living wage, pushing for peace, single-payer healthcare, and deep education reform...
Or they still could have voted for Obama, but should have pressured him more, leading up to the election, on the stances -- of which there are many -- that he shares with his right wing counterparts.
Now, of course I understand that the U.S. electoral system is pretty much a two-party game. That is an obvious point. The fact is that the Democratic party is very far to the right of any of the other groups that you say would naturally form a coalition on the left. And I am not alone in feeling that. Large numbers of people would agree with me (I've been reading a lot about this).
Therefore, I support efforts to steer the Democrats to the left to distinguish themselves more from the Republicans -- or at least to press the Democrats to address the voters on the left -- and to, in general, open up the government to truly reflect views from people across the full spectrum, if for nothing more than so discussion and deliberation around legislation can take place with a more diverse representation of voices.
At this time, the few truly progressive voices in congress feel shunned and intimidated (as I mentioned and supported w/ links in my post). And that is wrong. That is not true democracy. And while our Democratic party votes overwhelmingly with the right wing, the American working people are getting left behind, kicked out of their homes, buried in debt because of no or poor health coverage... And the victims of U.S. wars are dying by the thousands (or hundreds of thousands, as is the case in Iraq).
And, based on my understanding of his platform, I don't feel that on any of these issues, Obama will provide the change that is needed.
There is a lot that could be done to make the election system more democratic in the U.S. One of those things is instant voter run off. Another is to change how campaigns are done - for example by requiring media conglomerates to give ALL candidates free air time, as they do in Europe. I plan to get involved in changing how elections work. Voting for a third-party candidate is, to me, only a small step towards the vision I have for America.
Post a Comment