Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Please Support CounterPunch’s Annual Fund Drive
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We only ask you once a year, but when we ask we mean it. So, please, help as much as you can. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Will Greens Abandon IRV?

 

The Blob is coming. That amorphous ever-changing thing that swallows up whatever tries to live on its own is coming after Greens. But waitlookis it really the Blob? Or is it the Democratic Party?

The Green warrior waves his weapon to slay the hideous slime-creature. On it is scratched “IRV.” Is the Green dropping the weapon? The 2004 election says, “Yes.”

The demand for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) has been a key element in building the Green Party as an inde-pendent political force. If there is an actual or de facto abandonment of IRV, entry of Greens into the Democratic Party is only a matter of time. IRV means that voters get to rank order their preferences. In the 2000 election, people often explained that with IRV, they could rank Ralph Nader first, Al Gore second and whoever third. If Nader was not one of the final contestants, their vote would transfer to their second choice, Gore.

Between 2000 and 2004 the Democratic Party let out a non-stop whine that the Greens had “spoiled” the election. One of the rarest answers that Greens gave to this attack was that if the Democrats would work to im-plement IRV, they would have nothing to fear in future elections. Of course, with a few exceptions, Democrats have no interest in implementing IRV. Many are well aware that IF Ralph Nader were allowed in presidential debates and IF there were IRV, Nader would win a huge number of votes, perhaps even more than the Democrat.

Democrats would rather lose races to Republicans than give the Green Party the chance to replace it. This is what Greens should have been saying. Instead, a large portion of Green leaders caved in to the Democrats and echoed the argument that their major goal should be preventing the election of Republicans.

In the middle to late 1990s, many Greens used to say that they hoped that they would spoil elections because this would be the only way to push Democrats into working for IRV. After 2000, this argument was noticeable by its absence. It was replaced by a Pollyannaish fantasy that if the Greens would be nice to Democrats then Democrats would support IRV. As if Democratic bosses wanted to do anything to the Green Party other than ex-terminate it.

The election of 2004 set the precedent: if polls predict a close race for president, the Greens should bow out. This logic means that if Greens predict that a state-wide race for Governor or Senator might be a toss-up, they should not run a candidate, no matter how awful the Democrat is. And the same logic keeps Greens out of tight local races. It means that Greens should focus on races where their participation will not hurt a Democrat or run in races where candidates do not declare their party. In other words, other than those highly exceptional locations (such as San Francisco) where Greens can win, they should expend the greatest energy when they are the most irrelevant.

If the Green Party accepts that it should not run a candidate when the Democratic Party shrieks at it, what is it to do? One option is fusion, which means a party can nominate the candidate of another party and the candidate appears on the ballots of two parties. Greens could pretend to be an independent party functioning as an append-age of the corporate Democratic Party.

If this happens, some Green newcomer who does not carry the baggage of rationalizing political twists and turns is likely to ask, “If we only run candidates when the Democratic Party tells us we can, if we nominate the same candidates as the Democrats, and if we work for Democratic candidates we don’t nominate, why don’t we admit that we are Democrats?” The “safe states” emperor can fuss and fume about “Green values,” but his nakedness is exposed.

Many Greens-for-Kerry are falling into the same Democratic Party black hole that co-opted US progressives since before their grandfathers were born. They may claim to be Green for a few years (or a few weeks), but either they or their successors will not be satisfied with their pragmatic mug yearning for votes as a Democrat while their wump is still dragging the Green Party down.

If Greens are going to build a genuine political alternative they will have to rediscover IRV. They will have to loudly proclaim that the Democratic Party is costing itself elections by denying voters the right to rank order candidates. Otherwise…

What do two Greens say to each other as they start to disappear? “See you inside the Blob.”

DON FITZ was Coordinator of the 2000 Eastern Missouri Campaign for Ralph Nader and is editor of Synthe-sis/Regeneration: A Magazine of Green Social Thought. He can be reached at: fitzdon@aol.com

 

More articles by:

Don Fitz is on the Editorial Board of Green Social Thought, where this article first appeared. He was the 2016 candidate of the Missouri Green Party for Governor. His articles on politics and the environment have appeared in Monthly ReviewZ Magazine, and Green Social Thought, as well as several online publications.    

October 17, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
When Saudi Arabia’s Credibility is Damaged, So is America’s
John Steppling
Before the Law
Frank Stricker
Wages Rising? 
James McEnteer
Larry Summers Trips Out
Muhammad Othman
What You Can Do About the Saudi Atrocities in Yemen
Binoy Kampmark
Agents of Chaos: Trump, the Federal Reserve and Andrew Jackson
David N. Smith
George Orwell’s Message in a Bottle
Karen J. Greenberg
Justice Derailed: From Gitmo to Kavanaugh
John Feffer
Why is the Radical Right Still Winning?
Dan Corjescu
Green Tsunami in Bavaria?
Rohullah Naderi
Why Afghan Girls Are Out of School?
George Ochenski
You Have to Give Respect to Get Any, Mr. Trump
Cesar Chelala
Is China Winning the War for Africa?
Mel Gurtov
Getting Away with Murder
W. T. Whitney
Colombian Lawyer Diego Martinez Needs Solidarity Now
Dean Baker
Nothing to Brag About: Scott Walker’s Economic Record in Wisconsin:
October 16, 2018
Gregory Elich
Diplomatic Deadlock: Can U.S.-North Korea Diplomacy Survive Maximum Pressure?
Rob Seimetz
Talking About Death While In Decadence
Kent Paterson
Fifty Years of Mexican October
Robert Fantina
Trump, Iran and Sanctions
Greg Macdougall
Indigenous Suicide in Canada
Kenneth Surin
On Reading the Diaries of Tony Benn, Britain’s Greatest Labour Politician
Andrew Bacevich
Unsolicited Advice for an Undeclared Presidential Candidate: a Letter to Elizabeth Warren
Thomas Knapp
Facebook Meddles in the 2018 Midterm Elections
Muhammad Othman
Khashoggi and Demetracopoulos
Gerry Brown
Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics: How the US Weaponizes Them to Accuse  China of Debt Trap Diplomacy
Christian Ingo Lenz Dunker – Peter Lehman
The Brazilian Presidential Elections and “The Rules of The Game”
Robert Fisk
What a Forgotten Shipwreck in the Irish Sea Can Tell Us About Brexit
Martin Billheimer
Here Cochise Everywhere
David Swanson
Humanitarian Bombs
Dean Baker
The Federal Reserve is Not a Church
October 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Climate Crisis is Upon Us
Conn Hallinan
Syria’s Chessboard
Patrick Cockburn
The Saudi Atrocities in Yemen are a Worse Story Than the Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi
Sheldon Richman
Trump’s Middle East Delusions Persist
Justin T. McPhee
Uberrima Fides? Witness K, East Timor and the Economy of Espionage
Tom Gill
Spain’s Left Turn?
Jeff Cohen
Few Democrats Offer Alternatives to War-Weary Voters
Dean Baker
Corporate Debt Scares
Gary Leupp
The Khashoggi Affair and and the Anti-Iran Axis
Russell Mokhiber
Sarah Chayes Calls on West Virginians to Write In No More Manchins
Clark T. Scott
Acclimated Behaviorisms
Kary Love
Evolution of Religion
Colin Todhunter
From GM Potatoes to Glyphosate: Regulatory Delinquency and Toxic Agriculture
Binoy Kampmark
Evacuating Nauru: Médecins Sans Frontières and Australia’s Refugee Dilemma
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail