During a discussion at the Winnebago Labor Council’s Workers Memorial Day Dinner Saturday night, Rep. Mark Pocan stated that an Assembly Republican-sponsored IRV bill was pulled due to the results of the 54th Assembly race.
The pull was blamed on the results of 2004’s 54th Assembly contest. In this, the Republican, Gregg Underheim was re-elected by less that 50%.
Many, myself included, said that the fact that the liberal/progressive vote was split is the main reason for Underheim’s re-election. In fact, I made the comment that because Palmeri ran as a third party in a two-party system, he helped pass the Republican agenda (for the record, while I did believe that, my comments to the A-T should have been less pointed – and I apologize for that).
After the election, Palmeri asserted that implementing IRV would be the only way to make voting fair. I personally disagree, but I am for any candidate needing over 50% of the vote to win – I prefer a run-off between the top 2 candidates, as is done in Louisiana.
Here is the irony – in a rant on his website, Palmeri invited “those Oshkosh citizens taking nasty, cheap shots at Dan Carpenter and myself” to “become an activist to reform Wisconsin’s elections,” because, “The bill is stalled in committee and will not pass unless citizens demand it.”
Yet, now it is Palmeri’s race that is causing the bill to stall.
Also, this is a way to point out what the Republicans already know: Unless the Progressives work together, we will never get out from under their rule. We can talk about everyone’s right to run (for the record, no Dem I know has said that someone does not have the right to run as a third party, if you do, you should know that there will be consequences), but unless we work together to field the best candidates, we will continue to lose ground.
According to Rep. Pocan, this is why the Republicans have pulled this bill. They realize that they can keep the 54th seat, if we continue to split the vote.
5 comments:
Touche! There is nothing progressive about ignoring electoral math.
The people who voted green would not have voted democratic, and visa versa, to say that a third party member was a spoiler just shows your ignorance and lack of will for true change. You call democrats progressives that is a label they have not earned. I here no democrats howling because of tuition hikes, nor are democrats pushing for true campaign finance reform, nor legalizing of marijuana, nor pushing for a living wage, nor are they pushing to remove a corporates right to do business if they do not operate in the public interest, I can go on and on. No you do not have the right to call yourselves progrssives.
I have a tale for you, this story is short but pertinent. Maybe this time it will be different said the abused wife about going back to her abusive husband. End of story, this tale is the same for people who continue to blame third party candidates for a broken democracy. The former tale is especially pertinent when describing voters who continue to vote democratic. These voters are comfortable in their fantasy that the democratic party is for the people, never mind that there is very little difference in overall policy. Maybe this time it will be different. The reason this country such a horrible mess is because democrats and republicans constant catering to the business community. Our elections at the state level and federal are no different then the elections the communist parties would have each year. In the old soviet union, one could either pick a liberal communist party member or a more conservative party member. So it was with the last local election. One could either pick a democratic corporate lackey or republican corporate lackey. Or maybe just maybe someone could pick a person who would put government back in the hands of the people and out of the hands of business.
Do you really think that power lies in the hands of the republican party, or do you think that true power lies squarely in their corporate sponsors who play each candidate like a marionette.
Frank Mccandless
Psst. Frank- the Green voters in the 54th Assembly race voted for Kerry and Feingold. Look at the numbers. They actually voted for bigger establishment candidates. Palmeri received more votes than Cobb did statewide in WI. It is not party driven but personality driven. Nader was about Nader (or else he would have run as a Green in 2004 to build the party) and Palmeri was about Palmeri.
I believe Jef's point was that it does no good to split the left leaning vote/progressive vote in a district with a 9 term Republican. What has been achieved if he is still in office yet 54% of the district opposed him? What point has been made?
I say again we did not split the progressive vote, the so called progressives who voted democratic are progrssive in name only they still do not have the courage to vote their convictions. Again my second point is that the democratic party is not a progrssive party.
frank
But Frank, Gregg Underheim remains in office even though the majority wanted someone else. That means TABOR, cuts in Senior Care, no minimum wage increase, and attacks on reproductive rights. What was accomplished by this exercise in self-righteousness? The district is a 50% Republican District. Any splitting based on "convictions" ensures election of a Regressive candidate. What is progressive in ignoring that? why do you think Underheim ran ads in support of Palmeri at the end of the campaign (or why the GOP ran ads for Nader in 2000 or got him on the ballot for 2004)?
And my point was that the Greens/voters who supported Palmeri also supported establishment candidates Feingold and Kerry. Why didn't these voters vote their "convictions"? Because they understood that the electoral equation at the national level.
The local assembly democratic candidate supported raising the minimum wage to the highest level proposed, expanding affordable health care to all working people, alternative sentancing for non-violent drug offenders, campaign finance reform, and closing corporate loopholes and tax fairness all while playing inside the constrains of a budget deficit.
The Green candidate may have supported these things as well, but he also supported freezing tuition and fully funding medicaid, shared revenue, etc,(proposals which add money to the budget). The problem is that the state was short $1.5 billion. Jim Doyle is not everyone's favorite, because he chose to fund health care to low income seniors and families at the expense of university students. But these are the real choices elected leaders have to make. If Green Party or progressive means saying and supporting whatever you want without having to think about costs or tax burden, than the democratic party will never be your party. But at least run a candidate who is honest about these choices.
MW
Post a Comment