Alaska Democrats need to support electoral reform

in 2002, the state Democratic Part campaigned against Instant Runoff Voting when it was on the state primary ballot. This was an incredible mistake.

Democrats in Alaska have got to support all measures which increase voter involvement and progressive energy in this state, and IRV would have done both without doing Democrats any real harm.

We have to be on the side of history.

We have to be on the side of the future.

I would like to call on Alaska Democrats to start a new petition campaign for Instant Runoff Voting and another to support casting our state's Electoral College votes proportionally instead of winner-take all.

We need to give people the space to create progressive ideas which we as Democrats can use and put into practice. Yes, IRV will create more parties, but Democrats need more parties, since small left parties are historically where we've gotten our best ideas.

Let's take a chance on glasnost, people.

A new series of progressive institutions would only be to the good for Alaska's Democrats.

so if you're a greenie or some other wacko fringe party that is something you could support...otherwise...fergetaboutit...

gone. People could cast a "practical" vote for a moderate candidate and a "principled" vote for what they really believed in. This would create new sources for new ideas. Democratic policies of any value have almost always come from outside the party, and we have weakened ourselves by helping evolve the present situation of elections between a strong ideological right-wing Republican Party and bland, timid, centrist Democratic Party.

With IRV, Bush would never have been elected in 2000. Wouldn't that have been a good thing, cleofus?

I do not support the platforms of the green party or the Independence party or the libertarian party or the moderate republicans so i could not support the "empower the fringes" bill...and if you want to bad mouth the democrats you've come to the wrong place...and you're talking to the wrong guy...and if you want to imply that I have no principals because I do not agree with you, well that's your business. I don't buy into your idea or your premises...

Lighten up, I'm not the enemy, Cleofus. I'm trying to give the Dems more life by increasing the political ferment and political interest.
The existing electoral system is permanently rigged in favor of the rich. Why on earth should Dems defend it when it guarantees that we'll keep on losing?

if you want to help the Democrats...register as one and support the Democratic candidate...otherwise yer on yer own...and remember...vote Democrat and vote often...

And I went to the state Democratic convention this year as a Kucinich
delegate and worked on the resolutions committee while I was there.

No flies on me, bro.

Why are you getting so paranoid about this?

It's not like we have anything to lose from electoral reform.

In this state, we're in the boneyard the way things are.

Change is good.

name calling does not advance your agenda one little bit...and besides...people are out to get me...

"change is good"....that is so profound...

but really Ken, not all change is good...that's just common sense...and if you think you're gonna change me over with platitiudes...well my advice to you is to not waste your time.

after the last couple of elections and even here with the greenie party shenanigans the last thing I'm gonna do is empower the greenies...the very last thing...

Nationally, and to a lesser degree in this state, the strategy has been to give no ground to Greens whatsoever(and this in a time when our party's rightward move did more to build up the Green vote than anything they could have done on their own)and then demand that Green voters support us anyway "if they damn well know what's good for them." the 2000 Presidential election results, and some of our statewide results, have proven that this approach does us no good.
And the national party wasted millions of dollars hounding Nader off ballots and attacking his supporters when it should have done the logical thing and negotiated with him(coming out for, say, electoral reform and a clear "get out of Iraq now" plank in exchange for Nader backing off in the swing states)while using those millions to register new voters.

Our relations with other progressive groups are toxic and self-destructive, and IRV(as well as the abolition of the Electoral College)would change that.

We need to set up the same kind of relationship with the Greens that the FDR Democrats had with minor left parties in the 1930's. Those parties would introduce ideas that were too "hot" for the Dems to support, show that the ideas themselves had widespread support(such as, for example, Social Security),and then the Dems would adapt them and put them into place.

The future lies, if you will, in coalition, not demolition.

(BTW, I shouldn't have said "paranoid". I'll avoid that from now on. While I'm avoiding that, would it be asking too much for you to stop questioning my motivations? On balance, we probably have a lot more in common than not.)


Precisely what "greenie party shenanigans" in Alaska are you talking about? There wasn't anything they did here, from what I could see, that was more unfair than Knowles insisting that Sykes be barred from the statewide public TV debate. That was a betrayal of the tradition that that debate is the one chance ALL candidates have to
speak to a statewide audience. You don't really defend Knowles stooping to that kind of hardball, do you? Especially since it did him no electoral good?

When it's reduced us to virtually nothing?

Does limiting elections to two parties really serve Democratic (let alone democratic)purposes here?

That's why I said "change is good." Fine, not all change is(the changes the DLC brought to the national party were good only for Clinton himself and have screwed every other Democrat)but I firmly believe this change would be.

Also, our opposition to the last IRV initiative made us look really, really bad, and it probably made the Greens that much more determined to try to take us out. With IRV, nobody would really take anybody out on the center-left to left side. In the end, it would bring us together in a grand progressive coalition. And a winning coalition is better than a losing "nonalition", or whatever you'd call the state of Democratic affairs now.

What's to be afraid of?

I think I'd like to hear it. Does KENI broadcast online(I'm in Juneau)?

the big dog is the man...what kind of dem are you anyway? you don't like clinton and you don't like tony knowles...and you talk like a greenie...

cleofus, I am a progressive Democrat who wants to unite all progressive forces in a coalition for victory. Electoral reform can do that.

Knowles didn't help the Democrats in this state. Yes, he got elected governor, but he didn't try to elect a Democratic legislature or even to weaken the Republican supermajorities there. He also blew what should have been an easy election victory against Senator Princess. And the thing he did with the debate was thuggish and inexucusable. I voted for him, but I knew after that that even if he did win, his victory would be meaningless. Can you truly disagree?

Clinton was only good for Clinton. He got two victories for himself and left the Democratic Party out in the cold. After 1994 he never tried to regain Democratic control of Congress and he cost the party hundreds of state legislative seats and a ton of governorships.

Why should Democrats feel loyalty to them?

Victory requires reexamination and change.

Victory requires a recommittment to progressive, grass roots politics, to a defense of working people, and to the removal of corporate luxury boxes from the national Convention sites.

We need to be a people's party again, cleofus. That's what I'm fighting for here.

Clinton and Knowles are now permanently men of the past. Forget about them, think of the party and the future.

We could have a victorious alliance with Greens and other progressives.

Electoral reform and progressive coalition politics can give us that.

Trying to destroy other progressives ends up destroying ourselves.

We have far more in common with Greens than we ever will with Ted Stevens and Don Young. Most Greens used to be Democrats, cleofus, and the right-wing Nineties policies drove them out. They were good people and we made them unwelcome.

And the result was defeat.

why is it we are the only two discussing this? look I understand your enthusiasm, but I would not like to see a greenie elected to anything...sure we probably have common ground...but some of the differences are profound...and i do find that some greenies have lied to me and to others...

so please excuse me if i just let sleeping dogs lie...really...

if you ever get to anchorage you can tune in at 5:40 am...it's actually not my show...I just produce it...sometimes i do speak but generally i just push the buttons and try to keep the computer from freaking out...newsradio 650 keni...

i think the host sometimes does a short feed to Fairbanks (maybe it's juneau)...it's called rick's rant...he's pretty conservative so i would think you would get pretty worked up if you heard him...i'm more commonly known as the only liberal in the building...but that's not true...there are a few of us...

I would love to go into details about why i dislike the greenies...but I don't really want to debate you...since i probably have a snowballs chance in hell of turning your mind on this...i know you can't change my mind...

I'm pro guns and pro development and pro hunting...i think people should hunt and kill whales in a regulated fashion...that's good eating...i think we should have more moose hunts as determined by the authorities...i believe we have to control the wolf population in areas where they are eating up all the moose...and I want to see more development in town...even if it means cutting into the green belt here in Anchorage...we need more roads and we need to build more single family dwellings...the greenies here in town have been blocking a lot of this for years...and don't me talking about developing bicentennial park for little league fields...the greenies acted like a bunch of babies...and the general population associated them with the democratic party...great...now people think the dems hate kids are are against baseball...or maybe we just value trees more than we value our childrens well being...just knock me down and set me on fire...i want as far away from the greenies as possible...

try to find common ground in that last paragraph! and don't talk shit about tony knowles...i supported him and voted for him and he's an OK guy...

well that's all for now...good luck on yer crusade to unite the greenies and the democrats...but with the extremists on the greenie side and the working class Dem's doing hunting, fishing and developing land...i really don't think that's gonna happen...the democratic mayor of anchorage is pro development too...now don't tell me you don't like Mark Begich either?

damn i have to stop writing now and pick up the wife from work and drive thru arbys....exit stage left..

but seriously have a great day and hope your mondays good too...

Actually, I like Mark Begich. I haven't met him, but his brother Tom and I have been friends since I worked on his mom Peggy's campaign in 1984.

And I've tasted moose and whale, and support subsistence hunting and fishing (and, obviously, a rural preference.)

And, while we disagree, I am grateful for your participation in this thread.

May we smash Republican dominance by some means or other.

May your takeout from Arby's always be hot and tasty. Good night.

I actually had the salad...but the wife and kids seemed to really enjoy the roast beast....

Now that you've popped up in this thread, O Blue One, what do you think about my basic arguement here?

I'll have to think about it. Here's one for ya -- what do you think are the chances of us electing a Democratic senator once Ted is gone? Can he REALLY think he's going to run again -- even if ANWR IS passed and he gets over his "depression"?

But I think it needs to be somebody we haven't heard from before.
A new face with new ideas.
Why, pray tell, do you think Ted wouldn't run even if ANWR went through?

He'd still be fifteen years younger than Strom Thurmond was when he was pried out of the Senate.

...but what do I know? I would think he'd be getting kind of tired of it all by now, but power is intoxicating, I guess.

I'm just not sure on the instant run-off thing. I don't know enough about it.