What's the best Calif vote, to oppose the 2-party system? Green, or other

3rd Party candidate that I personally agree with more than I agree with Camejo (the Green candidate for governor)?

I feel torn about this. Part of me wants to vote for a socialist, and part thinks that voting for Camejo is the best thing to do. I am most in agreement with the socialist, but like Camejo too. Camejo will certainly get the most votes of any 3rd-party candidate. Thus, contributing to his total might more efficiently help generate awareness of the inadequacy of both major parties. This, it can be argued, is a more desirable result than my casting a vote for a superior candidate who will, nonetheless, probably get only a few hundred votes statewide.

PS - Please confine suggestions to the specific terms of the question. I'm not asking about voting for the Democrat. If the Democrats had wanted to win the race, they would have run a campaign that deserved to win. Since they didn't do that, I'm naturally assuming they're not interested in my vote.

as a protest to the two-party system. Voting yes will just help Arnold win. The most important thing is to vote...whether that's Dem, Repub, or any other party.

I probably should have mentioned that.

then you're voting strategically...not for the candidate that best represents your views. Right?

I can't talk, though, since I'm voting for NO/Busty :cry:

supporting the candidate who best represents my views. BOTH have their merits. (And, as I noted, I agree about voting 'No.')

that you might as well make your voice heard for the Socialist.

If EVERYBODY who doesn't vote for AHH-nold or Bustamante votes for Camejo, he still won't do that well.

The best vote is the one that upholds democracy. Therefore, it will be contextualized by a "no" vote on the recall.

Third parties must insist upon the integrity of the electoral process.

Not to keep repeating myself or anything. :-)

and donate money to your third party.

What happened in 2000 probably sent the Green party back farther than if Nader had only gotten .5% of the popular vote. Being open to the accusation of causing the defeat of Gore has created a lot of unneccesary disgust at the Green party. Had Gore won, people would only look back fondly on Nader's participation and would be more open to voting Green at all levels. Now the Green party bears the stain of having contributed to Gore's loss.

Giving in to propaganda is not a good way to proceed. Also, you don't show how voting for Bustamente is supposed to help any third party. Please clarify.

erence go to a farther left candidate, like Camejo, people will blame Camejo and heap scorn on the Greens and think of the Greens as an obstacle to democracy.

Even Camejo has said that he understands if his supporters feel that it's necessary to vote for Bustamante to make sure the Republicans don't win.

because it's not about reality, it's about having a scapegoat.

...that results in Arnold's victory.

There are many ways to give in to propaganda, and fear of a smear campaign was the specific element you were presenting as persuasive.

If I were in California and received the argument that I should vote for Bustamante because Democrats would treat Greens poorly if he lost, that would make me laugh out loud. Take a look around you, for goodness sake.

Another poster made a far stronger case, citing the future possibilities for election reform. That, and not threat of losing such great camaraderie, is likely to get through to people.

and the stain of non-democrat Democrats who can't deal with criticism, ESPECIALLY when they're unable to gain a mandate on their own and blame a pro-Democrat consumer rights advocate for their losses.

Nader elevated the Green party with what he (and they) did in 2000. And he made people aware that there is dissension with the status quo of the vaunted two-party system.

Bustamante, and then start pushing for a runoff voting system. 3rd parties, empirically, cannot succeed in a winner-take-all voting format. they thrive in other types of voting systems.

Arnold will clearly not allow alternative voting schema, whereas one could see a Dem doing that.

with Republicans in the 2-party monopoly. They wouldn't back voting altenatives in a million years.

the difference is the base. the dem base consists of a large bloc of people who favor a breakup of the duopoly. so while the politicians may not lean that way themselves, they have to answer to that bloc of people. republicans don't give a hoot about us, so they'll always block significant voting reform movements.

this is why, e.g., dems passed some campaign finance reform (which hurt their chances).

Then, since it's a plurality election in the 2nd part, vote for anyone you wish other than Ahnold or McClintock. Because there are many multiple candidates, the strategy is more friendly to third parties than the strategy needed to put a Dem in the White House.

I would say, in this case, vote NO, then vote your true choice. The large number of candidates is good for third parties.

But, in November 2004, it's very important to vote any Democrat (ABB), as any third party candidacy will hurt efforts to remove *shrub. Do not vote Green in 2004! If there were a large, viable third-party candidacy on the right that could take votes away from *shrub, I might say differently. However, there isn't, so third-party votes will hurt efforts to defeat *shrub.

If I were you I'd vote no on the recall and then whatever third party candidate best fits your ideals. If there is a signifigant 3rd portion of the votes going to third parties it will have the same effect as if it all went to Camejo.

...

That rings true, now that you put it that way. Thanks!

Don't do anything to enable the Republicans to complete this power grab out there.

if you vote Green or any other minor candidate, you'll not be protesting the two-party system. You'll be facilitating a one-party system.

Just my umble pinion -- from the otehr end of the country -- but you asked

I hope you are voting No on the recall regardless
of who you vote for on the second half.

In fact, that is one of my BIGGEST problems with Camejo -- he is urging a "Yes" vote on the recall, which I see as opportunistic & unprincipled. Needless to say, many of his other positions are socially very progressive. But it does bother me that he's urging a Yes vote.

The socialist candidate, OTOH, is urging a No vote.

They meet voters needs. We don't need tricks or jive to help losers.

win is not because either one meets voter needs. They win because the system is restricted to TWO MISERABLE alternatives, NEITHER of which cares at all about meeting voter needs.

That can actually win votes. Its hard to hear you with your head.....

you lose all on your own?

Why to vote for Davis or Bustamante rather than Camejo

I challenge ANY Green to prove that Camejo can do better and actually GET his programs passed in Sacramento

We live in a state with some of the MOST liberal labor protections in the nation. Davis has repeatedly signed legislation to KEEP it that way. Even if Bush PASSED the overtime law it would NOT apply in California where we HAVE protected the 8 hour work day and we are NOT a right to work state.

People here who are injured on the job still get to CHOOSE their own physician after 30 days of control by the carrier. The benefit of that is that one does not have a doctor beholden to the carrier for business shortchanging them on their disability. Arnold will surely work towards repealing that since that is what INSURANCE carriers want.

These are things to vote for...can a SINGLE GREEN tell me Camejo could get MORE cooperation given the HUGE influence agriculture and law enforcement have in this state even WITHOUT campaing contributions? What do they think Camejo will be able to do? Govern by FIAT?? It's NOT gonna happen.

Davis legislative record on Green and labor and equality issues:


GREEN ENERGY POLICY

Today, non-hydro renewable energy provides a greater percentage of California’s power supply than it does in any other state in the nation.
Created an $850-million energy conservation program – the largest in state history.
Expressed his support for increasing statewide usage of renewable power from 12 to 17 percent by 2006. Provided more than $350 million in budget funding for the development of renewable power.
Directed the new California Power Authority to make a steady increase in the use of renewable power a priority.
Provided more than $47 million in incentives for the purchase of zero
SMART GROWTH

Closed a loophole allowing developers to subdivide large properties, circumventing environmental and zoning laws.
Signed legislation requiring major new housing developments to identify a source of water prior to construction.
Signed legislation to promote cleanup and redevelopment of urban brownfields.

CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Unveiled a new plan in 2002 to expand the existing Childhood Lead Poisoning Program.
The Governor provided support for clean-up of hazardous substances at school sites and to evaluate air quality in portable classrooms.
Broadened air quality standards to evaluate health risks to children (in addition to adults).
Signed the Healthy Schools Act to reduce pesticide use in schools.

ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY

Setting the national standard for environmental justice.


Governor Davis established some of the toughest environmental health laws in the nation to regulate toxic mold, Chromium 6, and arsenic.
Signed ground-breaking environmental justice legislation, setting the national standard for long-range planning and environmental guidelines.

COASTAL PROTECTION

An unprecedented commitment to California’s coast.
Governor Davis has provided $107 million to clean up coastal pollution and reduce the number of beach closure days.
Signed legislation strengthening beach and coastal protections.
Filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Interior to block additional offshore oil drilling.
Vetoed the “Rigs-to-Reefs” bill which would have allowed oil companies to leave decommissioned oil platforms in place.

WATER QUALITY

California is the first state in the nation to meet certain federal clean water standards, using an innovative approach addressing both inland and coastal pollution in one program.
Supported and actively campaigned for Proposition 13, which earmarks $1.9 billion for water supply reliability, safe drinking water, flood control, and water conservation projects.
Signed the toughest water quality enforcement law in the nation requiring mandatory penalties for pollution.
Negotiated with U.S. Department of the Interior to address California’s water supply, water quality, and ecosystem restoration needs through the CALFED Bay-Delta program – the nation’s most comprehensive water management system.
$21.3 million in the 2001-02 budget for water quality efforts, including reducing pollution from dairies and storm water.
Governor Davis ordered the phase-out of the hazardous fuel additive MTBE, and petitioned the U.S. EPA to grant a waiver allowing California to bypass requirements for oxygen in gas, on the grounds that it would be counter productive and add unnecessary cost.
Provided $13.5 million in the 2001-02 budget to preserve and restore wetlands around Lake Tahoe.

Overtime Expansion

The Industrial Welfare Commission, whose members are appointed by the governor to reflect the interests of the public, labor and business, extended overtime to hundreds of thousands of workers in California who never before received it. Overtime was extended to the construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries.

Raising the State’s Minimum Wage

California’s minimum wage earners received a pay increase. Governor Davis approved an increase in the state minimum wage from $5.75 to $6.25 effective Jan. 1, 2001. An additional $.50 increase was approved effective Jan. 1, 2002.

Caesar Chavez Holiday

Honoring the founder and long-time leader of the United Farmworkers of America, the governor signed a bill declaring March 31, as Cesar Chavez Day in California. The bill, establishing the first paid state holiday in the nation to recognize Chavez, also requires the development of a curriculum to teach children about non-violence and economic justice, and encourages students to participate in community service activities through AmeriCorps and the California Conservation Corps.

Farm Worker Housing

Mindful of those workers who drive the economic engine of California’s Central Valley, the governor signed legislation that provides $500,000 in tax credits to builders of farm worker housing, another bill that increases family services for farm workers and their families and improves the safety of farm labor vehicles.

Child Care

The governor approved measures that expand the resources necessary to retain qualified child care employees in state-subsidized centers, and that require the state to develop recommendations for playground safety requirements at licensed child care centers.

Labor Law Enforcement

The governor signed legislation strengthening labor law enforcement and increasing penalties for employers who do not pay wages to their workers, and approved a measure that strengthens employment protections for people with disabilities.

Binding Arbitration

Governor Davis approved a binding arbitration process for firefighters and law enforcement employees that preserves the rights of these employees while offering consistent protection of the public.

Workplace Safety

Governor Davis approved increases in funding for Cal/OSHA to improve workplace safety, targeting employers with the highest proportion of fatalities, injuries, illness and workers’ compensation losses.

Young worker safety

The governor approved a statewide young worker health and safety resource network, which will increase the ability of young workers and their communities to identify and address workplace hazards for protecting young workers from on-the-job injuries/illnesses.

I might add that since I was IN PUBLIC HEARINGS in Sacramento for MOST of the labor law issues, I challenge ONE GREEN to demonstrate that a single ONE of those ISSUES was championed by a REPUBLICAN rather than a Democrat since so many CLAIM there is NO difference

No the greens will say..but a contributor of Davis' polluted and he didn't lock them up....I agree that was a mistake however A) the amount contributed was OVERBLOWN, b) the perpetrator got heavily fined and there was NO evidence that DAVIS had anything to do with obstructing justice in the matter.

Arnold is taking AIM at CAL EPA..because of the TECH and DEFENSE industries, this state deals with approximately 170 toxic chemicals that other states do NOT address. I CHALLENGE A SINGLE GREEN TO PROVE THEY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER with a full HALF of the legislature being Republican for Davis first term.



Oh and one more thing..the thing that cracks me up the most
are people who support Howard DEAN and Dennis Kucinich saying Gray Davis is TOO conservative. Read the above and you will see why...Davis increased women's rights and INCREASED the minimum wage and INCREASED union participation in the state while taking on OIL, DEVELOPERS and INSURANCE CARRIERS AND THE FERC. Ideologically Davis is CLEARLY to the left of both of them but just doesn't seem to resemble Che Guevara enough for some people's tastes...Nevermind that he is governor for a state with 35 million people and half of them are bigots that think every problem we have is because of mexicans (while they eat Taco Bell)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=471020

RichM does not speak of Davis' accomplishments, or lack of accomplishment. RichM does not share your commitment to the system as you have helped to create it. I can only assume, having read Rich's original post, that his question was based on the idea that he would not be voting for Bustamante (he said he was voting NO on Recall in a subsequent post) and wanted to have a discussion about which person should get his vote (province of RichM, btw) based on criteria not tied to Davis, Bustamante, or their accomplishments.

Now, this lends credence to your assertion about coalition building by certian members of the left, but they still have their opinion. You demand a certain fealty to the cause when that stricture in in denial of the freedom you espouse with your liberal ideals.

On some of your major assertions, I can hardly believe you're serious!

On the minutiae of, say, workplace safety legislation, etc., I can't begin to argue with you. Partly, you were personally involved in some of the hearings, & partly, you present so much stuff that it's very unwieldy to grapple with the whole thing on a point-by-point basis.

But at the level of major generalizations, you're saying that Gray Davis is ideologically TO THE LEFT of Dennis Kucinich? You can't expect me to really buy that. He probably is comparable to Howard Dean, but not to Kucinich.

And at the top of your post, you argue that "can a SINGLE GREEN tell me Camejo could get MORE cooperation given the HUGE influence agriculture and law enforcement have in this state...?" Isn't this a bit like arguing that we always should vote for entrenched politicians already in the pockets of major state lobbies, because they're in better position to "get something done?" IOW, this argument seems to lead to the conclusion that the more payoffs a politician takes, the more he deserves to be kept in office!

Is there a comet in the sky? Get yourself a new pair of sneakers and stand up to the Democrats. Since they have no interest in winning they most certainly don't deserve your vote. Pass the Kool-Aid. We will beat those Democrats.

Stopping the ridiculous GOP power grab. If you are using this election to advance any other agenda, then you are legitimizing the injustice that is being done. You are "piggybacking" your own agenda on top of the disgraceful GOP recall.

If you oppose this sort of illegitimate power grab, then there is only one way to vote: No on recall, Yes on Bustamante.

I don't want DU used as a vehicle to split the progressive vote. There is too much at stake. I'm locking this thread.

Skinner
DU Admin

Vote your hearts desire on the ballot part. Neither Camejo nor the Socialist stand a chance so what the hell, knock yourself out.

What is important is that the growing numbers that do so year in and year out might actually have an effect some day.

Don't punk out and not vote your conscience!.