Historical Remedies

[Dan Robinson]

On 2000-11-30 hiaw...@efn.org said to dan...@efn.org
>What I want isn't really relevent. Given the 'winner take all'
>nature of electoral votes in most states, if Nader supporters
>hadn't voted for president at all, the proportions of the remaining
>votes would have been altered and, I believe, favored Gore with
>the electorate.

Could you give some for instance figures on that?

>}In the choice between Gore and
>}Bush I wouldn't have known whether to vote for the slightly
>}better one or the worse one and hope for a rebellion.

>I guess that comes down to what approach you feel has the greatest
>likelyhood of having any real effect on public policy. Counting on
>a rebellion is, from my perspective, such a long shot as to not be
>even a consideration.

Talking about long shots, as I've said before, the chances of my
individual vote actually effecting this election was
insignificant. But I can have a small effect on the political
status of my choice of candidate. If you check the popular vote
for Nader in Oregon, that last digit represents my vote (though
who can be sure these days), and it didn't hurt Gore in the
least. Worrying about the present election is the short-term
view. Looking to the future is the long term view.

As far as who "spoiled" the election, it turns out the electoral
system spoiled it for Gore, which is one of the things Nader
supporters are trying to change (not to mention general
corruption in the established system). It's the goal of each
candidate to spoil it for all the others. Nobody's entitled to
votes they didn't earn. Otherwise, how else will we get real
change? The illusion that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush is
part of the corruption.

(I messed up the quotes here and the paragraph breaks may be
wrong.)

>We had 12 years of republican adminstration with Regan and Bush, and
>Regan (and his cronies like Jim Watt) instituted policies which have
>arguably done the most environmental damage since the days of the
>lumber and railroad barrons in the last century. I didn't note any
>major rebellions springing up during the Regan/Bush years.

The smoldering embers are getting hotter.

>OTOH, while a Gore administration may not have put in place
>environmental policies as severe as some would like, he would have
>at least made *some* effort in that direction.

And he's demonstrated that so well!???

>In the first case you've at least bought time, and have a chance
>to work to make things better.

Buying time isn't enough when we're on the road to disaster with
no brakes. Sometimes it's better to crash the car.

>Frankly, I was appalled at the candidates chosen by nearly all of
>the parties this time around. Both democrats and republicans could
>have done better than Gore and Bush. The democrats shot themselves
>in the collective foot by bowing to the tradition that says if an
>incumbent VP wants to run for president, they *have* to give him
>the nomination.

I've wondered about the other side of that. When a president is
elected by the national populace, next term the party can choose
not to run him. Even if the people still like him, under the
present system, what chance does the people's former choice have
as an independent or with an alternate party?

>But Nader would not have been my first choice for a "green"
>candidate, either. Consumer advocacy is wonderful, but not
>necessarily synonymous with good environmental policy. Furthermore,
>he's a lousy politician, and -- unfortunately, perhaps -- lousy
>politicians don't get to be president under the present system.

I think we need to back people who support a new kind of politics.

Dan Robinson dan...@efn.org
Eugene OR 97401 www.efn.org/~danrob/

The first step in changing the system
is to be free of dependency on what is.