Publish to Newswire
Add an EventProp A is Revolutionary Electoral Reform
Your Vote Counts - Vote Tuesday and Forward This Article to All Progressive Voters
Source: SF Green Party
Prop A will be very close and every vote will count towards this important victory as well as the many other important issues on the ballot Tuesday.
Prop A will also be a huge boost for progressive and liberal voters. Because conservative turnout increases about 15-20% in proportion to progressive turnout during the December runoff, having the entire election in November will make sure that progressive voters are counted equally to conservatives. Also, allowing voters to rank their choices (first, second, third) will allow voters to vote for who they really want rather than the "lesser of two evils." If their first choice vote has too few votes to be in the running, their vote will still count, towards their second or third choice.
This is why downtown business groups have been going to war against Prop A. A flurry of last minute mailers have used such manipulative techniques as showing Chinese tanks rolling into Tianamen Square and equating this with Prop A, claiming that Prop A will take away the right to vote. Unfortunately, much of the public is not informed about Prop A and mailers like these will have a significant effect. We need to counter this effort with our vote in order to insure victory.
There are also many other important issues on the ballot. Prop G, if passed, will ban all new billboards in San Francisco. Jeff Adachi is running against Machine candidate, and goddaughter of Willie Brown, for the important position of Public Defender. Prop D will finally put the planning process back in the hands of the Board of Supervisors, and out of the hands of the mayor. The Green Party and Democratic Party Central Committee will be voted on as well, determining the future of these influential political organizations.
Please make it to the polls this Tuesday, March 5, and forward this to all progressive San Francisco voters you know.
Also, please check out our full list of endorsements at sfgreenparty.org as there are many other important issues that aren't listed here.
Donate
$135.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Second, just because the Greens (might) have ulterior motives (who doesn't?), does that necessarily mean that Instant Run-Off Voting is a necessarily bad idea itself? Quite franly, and I consider myself an anarchist, I think IRV is an essential and very welcome idea. Why? Becuase as an anarchist, while I seek to replace the state with a society based on mutual aid and voluntary cooperation, I see no reason why some electoral politics and reforms should simply be rejected. In fact, even though the immediate aims of even a local election, such as a municipal district like San Francisco do not encourage overthrow of the capitalist state, they can create minor changes in conditions that allow ordinary people to organize to do so.
Consider: The CURRENT system often results in costly runoff elections. IRV would do away with those. What anarchist wouldn't welcome less money spent by governments on furthering the existence of governments? Furthermore, like it or not, the CURRENT system is much worse. Studies have shown that in run off elections, far fewer people vote and those that do tend to be much more conservative, i.e. much more statist in their outlook. Meanwhile, those who believe (wrongfully or rightfully) that improvemnets to their situations in life can be made by voting for what they consider to be progressive candidates just stay home.
What many anarchists fail to comprehend is, that while it's indeed true that most people's decision not to vote is a clear sign that they recognize (or at least sense) the fundamental flaws in the so-called "democratic" (i.e. statist) system, most of those people don't do anything else. In otherwords, most people are not voting, but it's not because they're conscious anarchists. It's not even because they're apathetic. Most people don't vote because they are completely and utterly demoralized. Demoralized people are no more likely to become anarchists than they are to vote Green. I would argue that the opposite is also true. If people are less demoralized, even enough to consider voting, they might also feel empowered enough to get involved in political campaigns. They might meet anarchists in the course of those campaigns. They might decide to become anarchists as a result of meeting other anarchists.
I can say with some assurance that most people who don't vote are also not spending their time reading Indymedia web-pages. Most of them are probably watching "Survivor" on their TVs.
Finally, perhaps you could enlighten folks about the shortcomings of both the Greens (they certainly are not explicitely anti-capitalist) and the elctoral system. HOW does it perpetuate capitalism? Show us, don't just tell us. Otherwise you just sound like a sectarian clown.
They have nothing to do with the teachings of Emma Goldman, Alex Berkman, Kropotkin, etc.....
If they are the anarchist revolution, expect nothing to change.
As a fellow anarchist, I am quite frustrated by attitudes such as yours. First of all, your language leads me to believe that:
(a) You believe that all visitors to IMC are revolutionary (they aren't);
(b) All visitors to IMC are anarchists (they aren't); and/or
(c) All anarchists believe as you do (they don't).
You make bold assumptions that just don't jibe with reality. I've noticed similar behavior among a lot of hard-core anarchists over the past eight years or so. The fact is that not all anarchists are vegans, live in collective or co-operative housing, believe in consensus process, or consider voting a useless excercise. Furthermore, Indymedia is not just for anarchists, though it may be run by anarchists. You don't know what the audience of this site really is until you conduct a comprehensive and scientific study. Have you done that?
Again, let me point out that though I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, such as it is, it still sounds sectarian and self-marginalizing.
The average activist in the US knows and cares little about the European Greens (which, by the way, are not a monolithic force. Just because the Greens in Germany split over the use of military force in Kosovo does not mean that Greens in Italy did, for example).
I suspect that the average Indymedia user is not so maximalist to suggest that any strategy that doesn't involve instant mass insurrection and abolition of commodity relations is somehow just the left wing of capitalism. In fact, most anarchists don't think so, and I have no reason to argue with that. In fact, I am quite convinced that maximalist thinking is a strategic and philosophical culdesac.
Rather than alienate Greens, left-liberals, and mildly socialist users of Indybay (who might be won over to more militant positions if treated with some respect) by publishing sectarian rants, don't you think it more useful to explain yourself? Don't just assume that 95% of of Indymedia users "already know better". They may not. And for that matter, you may not either, so there! :-)