An Election Spoiled? Only if the Major Parties Spoil It

 And so it begins. The quadrennial tradition to bring out the Spoiler argument before anyone is elected or even nominated. It's an old tradition and goes further back than you may think. At least as far back as Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. From History.com

"Although Roosevelt overwhelmingly won the most votes during the primaries, the Republican National Convention nominated the more conservative Taft to stand for re-election. A bitter Roosevelt broke with the GOP to form the Progressive Party, nicknamed the “Bull Moose Party” because Roosevelt often declared himself “fit as a bull moose.” The party advocated the direct election of U.S. senators, women’s suffrage, tariff reductions and social reforms.

Roosevelt and Taft ended up splitting the Republican vote, which led to an easy victory by Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt finished in second after winning six states and 27 percent of the popular vote. Taft was a distant third"

As is plain, the GOP shot off their own foot (so to speak). They could've won if they'd used any sense whatsoever. But, instead, they ignored a popular politician who then proceeded to garner the votes it was all too easy to predict he would. Why did they do this? Because they thought Taft was naive and would be easier to control. Taft wound up with just 8 electoral votes, sinking his party who could have chosen to look beyond their own graft but just could not do it. The same can be said for other candidates that are labeled with the epithet "spoiler". The major parties always have the chance to nominate a good candidate, to run on platforms (and records) that would give them an unshakable devotees. Instead they choose to run whomever they think will do for them what is profitable for whatever reason (such as "owing" their corporate financiers).

I am one of those people who voted for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein…twice. I also voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in 2008. Ralph Nader was the first person I heard speak who actuall opened my eyes to the reality of the 2 party voting (and ruling) system in the US and , as is common, I never even considered anyone in either major party again. There are a few things that are not common knowledge about the Green Party, and independent parties in general. Here, I will attempt to shine the light on at least some of the information that is not commonly known about the campaign and election process for independent and third parties, and the Green Party, in particular.

It is a misconception that the Greens don’t run anyone but a presidential candidate, Currently 136 Greens are serving in local elected office, who were elected to those offices. Another three have been appointed to elected office, and six more joined the Green Party after being elected.

The reason this is not more well known should be obvious. Until this year, the Green Party has gotten very little coverage in the media. Even when candidates are arrested for participating in various events that are important to that party, and many times important to the public who may be dissatisfied with the major party in which they’re registered, the media chooses to ignore them so everybody will say “they do nothing but come out every four years and spoil the vote for the REAL candidates”. The candidates that do get any coverage are those running for president, who are generally covered in order to mock them/blame them for what is perceived as “taking votes from the rightful candidates”. Truthfully, no one I know who voted for Stein would in any case have voted for Clinton, or Trump, for that matter. It is the height of arrogance to think that anyone owes any candidate their votes. Votes do not belong to a candidate, they belong to the voters. Candidates claiming a “loss” because someone exercised their right to reject those candidates that they see as unfit is a poor, but easy and effective, excuse for their own failings.

Like so much other information lacking in general knowledge is the answer to why Greens run a presidential candidate every time, and that reason is ballot access. In some states, ballot access is dependent on the vote a third party candidate received in the previous presidential election. In 2016, Greens were able to achieve ballot access in 44 states, which is a hell of a lot of work, and not an easy nor inexpensive process. Signature lists that have been gathered for access are routinely challenged in court. Third parties and independent candidates try to gather more signatures than they need because of this very practice. And you would be surprised at the nit picking reasons some are challenged. Things such as the wrong font on the signature forms, that the voter signed their names John Smith, when his driver’s license says John X. Smith, even though addresses and phone numbers are included, and that the petitions are submitted in a manila envelope and not “fastened in a secure and suitable manner”. Even if the challenge is overcome, the challenger still comes out ahead, having wasted the scant resources of money, man hours and time to comply with the 51 different ballot access procedures that are required by, and sometimes adjudicated by the very parties that are the challengers.Those resources could otherwise go to election of party members. It may be 

This brings me to one more thing people don’t generally take into consideration when assessing how committed, organized or serious Greens are, and that is that Green Party candidates don’t take corporate money. Ever. This is not the case with the Libertarians, to whom the Greens are frequently compared, nor of Mr. Kennedy. Greens fight, because they don’t want to abandon their principles. They fight hard, with one hand tied behind their backs, and shackles on their feet.their efforts are stymied any way the major parties (who make all election and campaign law) can conceive of.

And finally, if either major party candidate can’t get enough votes to get elected, maybe their party should choose better candidates or have better platforms. Many people just stay home rather than help elect people who don’t deserve it. 

Oh...and just as an aside, 300,000 Democratic voters voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. That beats the 97,000 votes Nader got by a long shot. Still, it was all Nader’s fault. There is so much more I could write but I am working with a reading audience that likes short bites of info. I hope this will help at least some people who want to know how things work, and why. If I do my job, at least some of them will question what they thought they already knew. I know that's how it started for me.

They Never Learn

 

I’m sitting here in my comfortable home, as are most white people (at least those of us who have a home). We don’t have to constantly worry about being blown up. We don’t have to worry that we will have no water to drink at any time in the near future. We don’t have to endure necessary life saving procedures and surgeries with no anesthesia. We don’t have to worry about rampant infections and lack of antibiotics causing constant and growing health crisis.  We don’t have to worry that our children will be murdered en masse by the thousands by a government supposedly policed (damn, I hate that fucking word) by the the United Nations and their agencies, the  World Court and the WHO, and the ICC (International Criminal Court).

I sit here, as do so many others in this country, watching with horror as our government...our government...abets and arms the perpetrators of these horrific crimes. We seemingly have no power to stop this absurd policy. No matter how many of us protest, how many times we protest, in what numbers we protest, in what frequency we protest, or how many ways we tell our government to just fucking stop killing children in our name, they just won’t. And there is a good reason for that. They know,every one of them, that they will face no consequences for which they will have to pay. (The GOP is complicit here as well, but I am dealing with the hypocritical Democrats in this piece.)

It seems as if we would’ve learned that lesson when our war criminal leader and his cronies waged a war that killed hundreds of thousands, if not more, of innocent people. Democrats don't seem to understand Israel's justification of the decidedly disproportionate reprisal (revenge, not defense, but I digress), with which the Palestinian people are literally being bombarded. Look no further than the shameful way we dealt with reprisal in the post-911 wars (and countries with which we were not at war). For 3000 deaths (no, I’m not saying that is inconsequential, deserved, or not devastatingly horrid), we did not orchestrate a precision strike against those whom we cited as being responsible. Instead, we waged an all out war on the entire population of Afghanistan. We also saw fit to drop bombs on Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, and Iraq. None of these countries had anything to do with the 911 attack. Yet, we murdered innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands, and that does not include the journalists, medical and humanitarian aid workers, or our own so often vaunted troops. All in all, the human cost was in the millions.

Source: the Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs-Brown University

In the case of Iraq, the pretext for war was just that—a pretext. There was no threat against our country; there was no national security justification. In fact, there was no evidence we had any reason to attack the sovereign country, devastate its infrastructure, kill its people, and leave it in dire straights to this day while our military built bases in their country. Justified by an excuse based on lies. Lies that were known to be lies, both by those who championed the war as well as by those who actually knew there was no truth to the lie of a nuclear threat. And those deaths? They didn’t even require reprisal. Iraq was simply a grab for oil , military strategy and profits for the MIC. All the losses we suffered in Iraq were caused by our government's clear violation of the U.N. Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of force.

At this point, loyal Democrats are smugly pointing their fingers at the GOP. Yes, the GOP certainly did concoct these wars, but a large percentage of elected Democrats actually went along with (or were taken in by) the lies. (Which is worse?) The Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq was passed by 81 (nearly 40%) of the elected House members of their party. In the Senate, over half of their party’s elected senators voted for the war. When their party took over the presidency, their beloved hope and change President Barack Obama actually succeeded in escalating and broadening the war (see the above listed countries. Yes, that was them) and failed spectacularly in closing the notorious Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp (one of his cornerstone promises. Men are languishing in that hellhole even today.) Not only this, but he refused...refused...to prosecute torture he admitted to knowing was committed, by whom it was committed, and by whose orders it was committed. His response to this? 

“We tortured some folks.”

 even as he let the perpetrators off with zero consequences. None.  The reason seems pretty evident. A conviction of the executive office would set precedent, which the Obama administration could ill afford to do for obvious reasons.

Do Democratic voters not see the parallel? Do they not understand why Israel thinks it can get around its own atrocities? They would have to be willfully blind, if so. The Israeli government is merely following our example; just like our overreach (such a neutral word for genocide), hell is once again being inflicted on thousands of innocent civilians, nearly half of them children. Children! Even while this atrocity happens, our fellow Americans who are of the Demcocrat persuasion (especially the liberals who should know better) harass, demean, and excoriate those of us who dare to speak up and who knew and told everyone these things. In fact, in my own experience (though it has been true for much longer), we have been telling them for years—for decades. Though many do realize the corruption, still this behavior only strengthens as they threaten to blame us if we don’t make sure their choice for leader of this country does not fail in his/her attempt to hold on to power.

Here is where they make a big mistake (as if they weren’t already making so many more). They assume that saying they will blame us if things go from bad to worse will get us to listen to them, or acquiesce to their demands. They are passionate proponents of adhering to one's conscience, of upholding one's principles. Until, that is, you disagree with them and give them concrete reasons you hold your views. Evidently, only their consciences count. Only their principles are worth following. Only their reasoning counts. Only they have the choice of voting for their prefered candidate. That is one of the rights of which we are so proud, and is foundational to our system of government. No one should be telling others how to vote, or should we be able to tell them how to vote? Perish the thought, they are the only ones who have that right as they prove every time they open their mouths to browbeat others for their positions. We do try to point out the realities of voting, even as we respect others' choices even though we know them to be contrary to the welfare of the majority of Americans. That is the thing. We are for rights for everyone, even if they don't agree with us. That should not even be a consideration.

Here is a news flash for all the liberals who like to howl that we are traitors, that we are stupid, and that we don’t understand the significance of their superior intellectual admonitions to bow before their sense of justice, strategy, and sheer unequivocal knowledge; we will not throw our conscience or our principles aside in order to advance their agenda. We never have, and we never will. They can blame whomever they like, but only have one Trump card, literally. That is enough to cover all corruption, all shortcomings of their politicians, all of the betrayal those same politicians regularly serve them. If they think anyone should actually vote for either major party's murderous, mendacious, thieving candidates, they are the ones who should be ashamed for doing just that, and are complicit in the crimes they facilitate and perpetuate.

The Horror, The Horror - The Chris Hedges Report

The Horror, The Horror - The Chris Hedges Report: Israel's genocidal attacks, which are killing hundreds of Palestinians a day, including some 160 children, have expanded to shelling the remaining hospitals in Gaza.

The Commission on Presidential Debates; Not an Independent Entity

 “We can help Green getting debate access by registering Green Party. If enough ppl registered as Green, the duopoly would have to include Green candidates.”

This is a comment I saw on a video featuring Dr. Jill Stein talking about her 2024 presidential campaign. I don’t know if this person is a Green Party member or not. I can tell you that I am not. I would register as Green if it was possible in my state, I have read the Green Party platform and do support both the platform and Dr. Stein, should she receive the Green Party nomination. That said, the comment above is not true. Yes, people should join the Green Party, as it will help grow an independent left movement. But it’s a common misconception that the Commission on Presidential Debates has to do anything.

To get a good read on the challenges of getting into the debates, let's take a look at the history of the CPC. The Commission on Presidential Debates was founded in 1987 by Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, who at the time were chairmen of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and RNC (Republican National Committee).  In statements to the New York Times, Fahrenkopf said that the newly formed CPC…"was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates", while Kirk said that he personally believed they should exclude third-party candidates because "as a party chairman, it's my responsibility to strengthen the two-party system". So, from the very beginning, the CPD was explicitly opposed to the inclusion of third parties in favor of their own parties. Previously, the debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters, who declined to participate further in the sponsorship of the debates due to demands made by the two parties to dictate the non-negotiable conditions of the debates. In 1988, they stated in their press release, “The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates…because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.” (Read the rest of the statement to see further comments made by the LWV).

In 1992, independent candidate Ross Perot was included in the presidential debates. But after having received 18.9% of the vote, he was purposely excluded from the debates in 1996. While the CPD had included Perot in the previous election with polling percentages of between 7-9%, after his surprise showing, the CPD decided to exclude Mr. Perot in a deal between the two parties. Perot’s campaign and the Natural Law Party filed lawsuits against the CPD. Among the allegations were that the CPD violated the law by selecting only the two major parties’ political candidates and that the CPD had violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Among the remedies sought were the inclusion of the Reform Party candidates (Mr. Perot’s ticket’s suit) and to enter a temporary restraining order and issue preliminary and permanent injunctions, preventing the CPD from staging the debates unless it selected debate participants using pre-existing, objective criteria and provided the court with a list of those criteria; or, in the alternative, to order the FEC, prior to the debates, to take action on the administrative complaint that contended that the CPD had violated FEC regulations (The NLP’s suit). The court combined the two suits and dismissed them both. Both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Appeals Court refused to recognize that any real harm was done to either party, as well as  ruling that the court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The Appeals Court also stated that if it were to enjoin the CPD from carrying off the debates or selecting participants, it might risk violating the CPD's First Amendment rights. They were more worried about the rights of the organization than of the individuals. In the subsequent election of 2000, the major parties decided to raise the percentages of third parties on the eve of the election to 15%. If this rule had been in effect in the 1992 election, Perot would have been excluded, although he ended up garnering 19% of the vote. Mr. Perot was the last third party candidate to participate in presidential election debates.

In the 2000 general election, seven candidates were on enough ballots to mathematically win the electoral college:

1. Bush-R 50 states + DC

2. Gore-D 50 states + DC

3. Harry Brown-L 49 states + DC

4. Pat Buchanan Reform Party, 49 states

5. Ralph Nader Green Party, 43 states + DC

6. Howard Phillips Constitution Party, 41 states

7. John Hagelin Natural Law Party, 38 states

Only the major party candidates were permitted to debate.

Similar results were handed down in two administrative complaints filed with the FEC in 2014 and 2015 by Level the Playing Field and its CEO, Dr. Peter Ackerman, the Green Party of the United States, and the Libertarian National Committee. The complaint included allegations that the Commission on Presidential Debates violated the debate staging provisions and a request for rule making claiming the use of a polling threshold is subjective and intended to exclude third party candidates. The FEC summarily dismissed their complaint and refused the request for rulemaking. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the FEC was not clear on the legal standard they used to reach their determination and referred the complaint back to the FEC, which (surprise) once again dismissed the complaints and still refused the rulemaking request.

In addition to the shenanigans by the FEC and the CPD, third parties are also on the losing end of laws passed by (you guessed it) the two major parties in Congress. Take, for example, the 2002 McCain-Feingold law. This law prohibits national parties from raising or spending money on state and local elections (though since Citizens United, the dark money flows like a fountain to major party campaigns). While this is really not a problem for the Democrats and Republicans because they have candidates on every ballot in every state and can handle raising money in-state, as well as many donors nationwide, this is not so for third parties. Small party candidates that regularly lack funds cannot get the money to run from their affiliated national party and cannot count on donors to make up the difference. This is even more of a problem for a party that doesn’t accept corporate donations (like the Green Party). Also, mainstream media is complicit in keeping third parties from getting their ideas and platforms before the American people, making an appearance in the debates even more important, and the stranglehold the major parties have on that arena all the more damaging. The courts, media, Congress, and party committees are all aligned against independent parties. It’s going to take a lot more to get an independent candidate on national debates than getting  people to register with third parties, though party membership is important in other ways and definitely worth pursuing. In some states, party membership plays an important part in gaining or keeping ballot access. Just don’t labor with the misconception that party membership alone will force the duopoly to include third parties in national debate. That couldn’t be further from the truth.