"Strategic Voting"; a Populist's friendly advice to Greens
Leonard Evens
>
> Many posts are around showing the wisdom of voting
> for "the-best-man-for-the-job" candidate rather than for the
> "lesser-of-two-evils" candidate -- or,more precisely, "the-
> evil-man-with-the-best-chance-of-defeating-the-greatest-evil"
> candidate. Voting the best man (woman) for the job is the
> only foolproof way for of Democratic participation in representative
> government to work. It is the one way that cannot be manipulated
> and exploited my master game theoreticians to work against
> the interests of those who vote to effect the common good.
> Voters are just not smart enough to outthink the statisticians,
> Cray computers, game theorists and behavior psychologists
> that the billionaire ruling claste can match against them.
I think this is yet another example of paranoia as political
analysis.
Anyone who thinks Democrats of any ilk want Nader and the Greens
to get federal financing in 2004 should have his head examined.
However, preventing that is not a big goal right now.
Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats are fighting to have
some say in our government after next January. We want to elect
Gore, and if we could do that by encouraging five percent for
Nader we would forget about 2004 and do it. We want to elect
Gore because we prefer his policies to Bush's and we know
Nader is not going to get elected, so how he compares with Gore
is irrelevant to us.
But we certainly don't want to go through the same nonsense in
2004. Unfortunately, we have little control of that except
appealing to common sense.
The paranoid approach is certainly appealing. It certainly seems
that we are at the mercy of impersonal forces which control our
fate and there is little we can do about it. I certainly understand
the urge to rebel against it. But people should realize in this
case that the reason only Gore and Bush are possible choices to
lead the nation has more to do with the way we select the
president. If we had a parliamentary system, it would be entirely
different, but we don't.
The increasing importance of money in political campaigns has
certainly corrupted our politics. But practically speaking,
the only thing to do about it in the immediate future is to
get MeCain-Feingold passed. This will be very difficult with
Republican control of the Senate in the hands of Trent Lott,
but we came pretty close. With a change of a few seats in the
Senate, it may be possible to pass it. But Bush would probably
veto it, and Gore will sign it. Moreover, a Bush Supreme Court
could easily overturn any campaign reform legislation that a
future Congress would pass. One can deduce that from the
positions of present members of the Court and likely Bush appointees.
>
> But is "Strategic voting" a solution?
>
> Please consider:
>
> The "Strategic Voting Idea":
>
> The strategic voting strategy initiated some of the "progressive
> leadership" involves having Greens not vote Green in states
> where their vote might change the electoral vote outcome (from
> Gore to Bush) in exchange for an establishment Democrat voting
> Green instead of Democrat in a state where the Greens have no
> chance of affecting the electoral vote.
>
> The official (outward, ostensible) rationale:
>
> Strategic Voting will 1) maximize the chances of a Gore outcome
> over a Bush outcome, while still, 2) registering a numerical
> vote for the Green party to make a statement and 3) still
> qualify the Greens for Federal matching funds for next time.
>
> Here is what is really happening:
>
> I. The CFR-WTO-globalists using the progressive labels within
> the Democratic Party care nothing about environment or social
> justice -- but they want the Greens to have the Federal
> Matching funds for the Presidential Race in 2004. Why? If
> they are loyal Dems, it does not make sense. If they are
> environmentalists within the Democratic party who think
> the Democrats will have a more sincere pro-environment
> platform and slate next time, it still does not make sense.
>
> Then what does make sense?
>
> The global-establishment pseudo-progressive Dems (Clinton, Gore,
> and others) want a Green Party with matching funds four
> years from now because they know 1) that a rich Green Party
> will draw away real environmentalists from the Democratic
> Party during the candidate-selection season in 2003-4. THis
> will give them a strong hand to put in another transnational-
> investment-banker-serving stooge (like Clinton, Gore) --without
> meaningful oppostion. (In the same way Bush got th3e election
> because Buchanan with Reform Party Fed Funding drew away
> the GOP populist gras roots that would insisted upon a
> non-establishmentarian GOP candidate.
>
> In short, they want to use the Greens next time to dilute
> the candidate selection process in the Democratic primaries
> and caucausing.
>
> They want something else too. They want to sterilize the effect
> of Green voting -- so that it will not have the leverage of
> a spoiler in the next election-- i.e., so they will not
> have to answer the argument: "We didn't listen to our
> environmentalists and social-justice activists last time
> and we lost because of it, so we'd better give them more
> input this time." Instead, they will argue for ignoring
> the Greens saying: "We manipulated them into nullity back
> in 2000, we can do it again now in 2004. We'll just use
> the old "lesser-of-two-evils" argument on them again and
> get them to sterilize their votes through "strategic voting"
> so they can make another symbolic statement and again get
> their money, they went along last time, they'll do it again."
>
> And they would be right.
>
> (see another message below, Alan)
>
> Dick Eastman
> Yakima
> U.S.A.
> Every man is responsible to every other man.
>
> Blinders are up. Eyelids scaled.
>
> Only three issues between them, but under distracting
> packaging positions are identical poisons.
>
> See for yourself:
>
> S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y
>
> Real Goal: To divert hundreds of billions of future
> earned-income withholdings away from the
> treasury of our government--where it could
> national debt etc.--and putting those funds
> in the hands of the globalist financial elites
> -- a tremendous new source of "other people's
> money" for them to play with, leveraging theft
> of assets around the world; destroying more
> national economies to capture political and
> economic control.
>
> This money will be diverted to build up
> the establishment's partner in the
> "global plantation," the People's Liberation
> Army of the Beijing Princelings. We already
> have suffered the largest transfer of industrial
> capital in history--tantamount to theft of our
> worker productivity, our labor competitiveness
> at a decent wage rate, our national
> self-sufficiency, economic security, standard
> of living and the better-world-of-tomorrow
> we once were headed for.
>
> In a word: Theft. Bush and Gore and the economic powers
> will force this impoverishment upon their
> victims. (Bush isn't aware of his real purpose;
> Gore, like Dr. Moriarty, is better informed and
> so is caught in lies from time to time.
>
> M E D I C A L R E F O R M
>
> Real Goal: American medicine, still the best in the world,
> remains what it has been and what has made it
> great-- middle-class small-business enterprise.
> The deviant elites want that 14 percent of the
> U.S. economy exclusively in their own portfolios--
> and make no mistake about it, the oligarchs are
> not entrepreneurs, they are monopolists and
> "insider manipulators" of rigged speculation
> (think of Mrs. Clinton's hundred-million-to-one
> commodities-market "killing" on her "first time out"
> (ever wonder why this lesbian Zhouist-Trotskyite
> chose New York for her Senate run?)
>
> Giant corporations, "lean and mean," and extremely
> profitable for establishment owners will be the
> goal-- Medicine will become merely a machine for
> supplying investment bankers, transnational CEOs,
> of the ruling families with financial power--
> and to maximize that pool of leveragable funds
> they will clear the way for euthanasia, the
> right to suicide, and the psychological environment
> that will make such extremities "relatively"
> desirable.
>
> In two words: Monopoly. Murder. Bush and Gore each promises
> to deliver. The wrapper each has spun to conceal
> the establishment's real goal differ like boxes of
> laundry detergent, one bright orange and one bright
> blue,each containing the identical very very harsh
> product.
>
> E D U C A T I O N
>
> Real Goal: Federal Standards (Outcomes) with financial penalties
> sufficient to destroy any school board and school
> district if they do not comply. (Vouchers are merely
> a device force private education under dictation)
> --for the purpose of psychological control.
>
> No longer will the parents concern that their child
> develop their own potential and interests; no longer
> will the local communities needs for a well-informed
> independent-thinking liberally educated citizenry fit
> for self-government be the goal. The transnationals
> want "yes-men" who can be ripped out of one slot,
> quickly retrained, and inserted into another slot,
> with all the costs born my the local taxpayers and
> Federal Wall Street borrowing. (The Foundations--
> which in reality are the political arms of the
> oligarchs disguised as benevolent social-welfare
> institutions--have already used their money and
> their stooge "experts" to take over the goals of
> education from those who really have in interest
> in our children's personal development and our
> nation's commitment to enlightened representative
> government.
>
> Let me share part of a letter from a man who serves
> this system yet agrees about its essential nature:
>
> "I'm a network administrator at a school district who censors
> the Internet and reports on users e-mail and web habits, among many
> other things. I can see my little system of users and administrators,
> how they react to students running credit card scams from school.
> They censor more instead of making more responsible and informed
> users. Censorship rates right up there with prohibition as an example
> of how to make a problem a bigger one. We can't be making all these
> decisions for people they have to learn for themselves, mistakes are
> invaluable. How will our society ever become responsible for itself
> if the Gov't makes the decision of what's appropriate
> and what's not. What did the War On Drugs do except waste money
> and inflate prices for the cartel." (unquote)
>
> In no outcomes based-curriculum in the nation
> is supply and demand taught to students or the
> simple principles behind Pavlovian and Skinnerian
> conditioning! The goal is docile "niggers" (a
> term for a sub-human economic class of any race--
> simply the servants of the global plantation, e.g.,
> the new-coolies of the Beijing Princelings are
> niggers in this sense. American blacks are
> definitely not -- the establishment has drugs and
> jails to handle them. (Donšt be dainty about the
> term while passively accepting the reality of this
> degradation of humankind.
>
> In few words: "Universal niggerization" through psychological
> conditioning and "establishmentazzi" indoctrination.
> Control of the machinery of socialization and education
> must be monopolized from the controlled center if a
> free people are to be made to relinquish power and wealth
> to their betters.
>
> I earn nothing from newsgroups. I have no website.
> I am a clerk at a video store. My wife is a part-time
> nurse. We have no other source of income. I belong to no club,
> church, association or party. My only friends are apolitical my
> neighbors, my daughter's friends, my co-workers at the video store,
> the Jehovah's witnesses who come to my door, some grocery clerks,
> and about six news group discussants not allied with me except on
> an idea by idea basis. My family has no political traditions:
> (drunken sailors, bootleggers and school teachers on my father's
> side; Sicilian immigrants on my mother's; and a wife from Michigan
> small-farmers educated in a one-room school house up to
> high school. I have no political standing in my community.
> In short, I am only writing because I believe that what I say
> is good for all of us, for our families, for the human race.
>
> Dare to look directly and unflinchingly at the matter.
> You have been sold lies. You do not have to be "turned-off
> by the choice" Nor are you constrained to vote the candidate
> with merely the establishment-declared "best chance" of
> defeating the "worst choice." (Both choices work only for
> the establishment, remember.)
> These lies grip this nation and is ruining the world.
>
> Parliamentary democracy does not work unless people
> vote their true "best ma for the job" every time. Rather than
> the man with the democrat label or the Republican label. And
> not the evil with the best chance of beating the greatest evil.
> (Have you ever asked why the "bi-partisan" lesser-of-two-evils
> is identical to the "greater-of-two-evils" in all of the critical
> particulars, that is in all the critical-but-undiscussed particulars
> that matter most: China, WTO, NAFTA, middle-class decline,
> wealth concentration, political centralization, monopoly centralization,
> asset drain, FED monetary policy, debt slavery and the loss of true
> popular sovereignty?
>
> Voting the "best man" is the only foolproof ethic for representative
> constitutional limited government by the people.
>
> VOTE AGAINST THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL TYRANNY OF THE KLEPTO-OLIGARCHS.
> VOTE FOR EITHER NADER, PHILLIPS, BUCHANAN, OR BROWN.
>
> We can throw the election into the Congress if neither bi-partisan
> wins a majority of the electoral vote. Reach the hairdressers and
> the burger flippers and ghetto porch-sitters and it will be
> done. SO THAT, AS THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES, THE HOUSE WILL CHOOSE
> THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATE WILL CHOOSE THE VICE PRESIDENT--
> with total discretionary power which the people lost before the
> primaries began.
>
> There's no difference between Bush and Gore. They are merely
> packaged differently to appeal to different blocks of the duped.
>
> This post is your "anti-bi-partisan-tyranny" flyer if you have no other.
>
> Dick Eastman
> Yakima
> U.S.A.
> Every man is responsible for every other man.
>
>
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208