Before we get into a spat about the Department of Peace--an interesting proposal, but one that clearly had little support, even on the left--I hasten to point out that the post was about the success of the Greens to get on this year's ballot. I didn't mean to inadvertently turn this into a war thread.

You know, one thing that's been terribly understudied and under-reported (heads up, reporters!) is this question: If Nader's not on the ballot, or even if he is, how much support will Greenie David Cobb get?

It's been assumed by a lot of folks - Ds, Rs, and media - that if Nader's not on the ballot, Oregon goes from a 1-2% Kerry state to a 5-7% Kerry state. But, if Nader's erstwhile supporters just shift to voting for Cobb, it's entirely possible that we could remain in the 1-2% range.... or is Nader's celebrity not transferable to Cobb?

Brett--I don't think it would particularly hurt the parties if Greens and Libertarians got elected. You could actually make the argument that it would free them up to pursue a narrower agenda to which they actually have fealty, rather than their efforts to be all to all people. Of course, in the short run, it could swing balance in a tightly-controlled Congress. But having a few Greens and Libs in Salem might really free up conversation. (You could make the argument that it would add to gridlock, too. I'd be willing to see the experiment tried.)

Kari--my guess is Nader's celebrity isn't transferable. A lot of people who are willing to cast a protest vote for a known name aren't going to risk "throwing it away" on someone they've never heard of. (To head off a thread on wasting votes, let me say I don't think a vote for a minor party candidate is thrown away--but some past Nader voters might.)

Minor party blah blah blah.

Sorry folks, but the system is a two party system. We could debate whether this would be the best way to set it up were we starting from scratch, but the fact remains that it's already been set up and it is structurally and institutionally not gonna change. Congress would not be able to function (because of the rules, see) if any minor party got more than a minor office.

And, all the minor parties seem to be organized around only one issue: Greens = dirt-loving enviros; Libertarians = anti-all-government. These folks would do well to broaden their world view. They'd also do well to play within the party, where their chances of success on their particular issues are greater because the little issues become part of a bigger agenda that a wider group with more power has bought into and can push.

Kucinich played within the party, and I respect him for that. Nader didn't, and look how well it turned out.

All of which is not to say that you have to agree with everybody on everything. If I agree with about 80% of what the democrats say about 80% of the time, then that's my party, and it's up to me to push the party to accomodate whatever 20% I disagree with. Now don't get all haughty and act like you're too intellectually pure to pick a side. If you want to win, you have to play the game.

Sorry folks, but the system is a two party system.

Really? You mean constitutionally? News to me--someone ought to tell Jim Jeffords.

Okay, enough snarkiness. But I do think you're wrong on both the reality and the possibility here. The reality is that there's nothing wrong structurally--nothing that would prevent a healthy multi-party system--but there certainly is enormous instituational power the ruling parties have invested themselves with. It may not be possible to change things given that power. Of course, it may not be possible to change things in the FCC, the judiciary, or even the White House. What, better not to try?

The rules you identify could change if healthy alternative parties emerged--and certainly would, should such a thing happen. Or alternately, they could even stay the same. There's nothing to prevent two-party rule in a multi-party system. It would begin to appear unseemly, of course, which is perhaps why the two parties do their best to head up such a possibility at the ballot box. But I hardly think democracy is in danger.

As to the "single-issue" argument--it hardly bears refuting. The Libertarians, wacky as they sometimes appear, have a full-fledged ideology and platform. Throw socialists and greens in there, too. They are, in fact, far more coherent than the current two parties, who are so multi-issue it's not clear what the platform is. Bill Clinton put an end to big government, and George Bush put massive tarrifs on steel. How's this beneficial to the electorate?

You also ignore the history of third parties and their value to the political dialoge (though your dismissal of them is perfectly consistent with history). One example. Following the Gilded Age, the progressive party ran a few candidates for president, but never made a credible showing in terms of votes. But their populist rhetoric, in the face of increasing wealth consolidation, helped make it possible for reforms under FDR. If we limit ourselves to filtering the history of politics into only a struggle between two parties, we miss much of the real action. If no one supports third parties because nothing's "gonna change," we can pretty much guarantee that nothing will. The story of politics has many more important players than just those with a D or R after their names.

Politics, as an institution and governing force, is not the big wide world. It is a small segment, and it is a game. So while there is certainly room for varying shades of purple or grey or stirfry or hermaphrodites or whatever in the world at large, one is more likely to win at the narrow game of politics if one picks a side. And all those big wide world people, the electorate included, can and should do their best to include their particular shades into whatever side they pick.

I do honestly think that Congress is structurally set up as a two party system and wouldn't work otherwise. I remember learning something like this in law school, but I don't remember precisely what it was, and would have to do actual research (yuk) before I could point to any specifics, so you can take or leave that as you will.

There's lots of ways to govern and there's lots of different governments in the world. I'm talking only about getting people that I generally agree with in control of the one we have.

I'm also just feeling punchy today. You would be too if you had to deal with Nader petitions and listen to Greg Kafoury call all Oregon activists sellouts.

Congratulations to the Green Congressional candidates in Oregon 1 and 5, blah blah blah whatever.

But why just there? Because they read on a blog somewhere that Wu and Hooley were vulnerable? Or because the Republicans told them that was where they'd appreciate the help?

Would any Green within the sound of my post, care to tell me who their candidate is in Oregon 2 to take on Walden? What about Oregon 3 (Blumenauer) or Oregon 4 (DeFazio)? Or doesn't the Green Party think it can 'expand the dialogue' there, too? And if there's a positive answer to either of those questions, why didn't we get the full list from the beginning?

Needless to say, I find this announcement disingenuous at best. Or am I bad toad for openly confronting the implied threat to my representation?

I am a confused green. Several websites, most prominently the Pacific Green website, announce Teresa Keane as their candidate for US Senate, which is a largely uncompetitive race for Wyden vs. Al King and some Libertarian curmudgeon.

Does the PGP have a misleading and innacurate website or is Portland Indymedia experiencing integrity problems with its open-newswire posting?

And, to those who may suspect otherwise, Washington County Greens are not an extinct species, although I must admit I feel like a sole member out here.

John, you are the sweetest! But you just don't make any sense.

There are rules that govern Congress that aren't in the Constitution. Which is why they're called rules and not laws. And why the Constitution remains general and not administrative. And as in all bureaucracies, Congressional rules have become self-perpetuating such that they have essentially the force of law and the institution would cease to function without them.

Please don't dis the fine Jesuits at Georgetown University Law Center, what did they ever do to you? And while I do enjoy a good romp through the law library, I'm not gonna do it just for this, despite your warm words of encouragement and your desire to be supreme dictator. Oh, I'm sorry, what exactly are you in control of?

"Only morons hang in the East" says John Slevin.

John: Last I checked, the folks in Philadelphia are still looking for ya - since you bailed outta town without paying the Nader crew what they were owed. Not to mention the riot that ensued...

From the Philadelphia Inquirer: In the other legal action, Louis Agre, a labor lawyer and Democratic ward leader, said he would seek back pay for petition circulators, plus damages up to $500 per person. He said the suit would name Nader, his campaign committee, and John Slevin, the ballot-access contractor hired to run the petition drive in Philadelphia. Slevin did not respond to a message left on his cellular phone yesterday.

So, what were you doing hanging in the East?

<h2>Ah, nice to see John's gone troll on us. No blog is worth its salt unless it has one. Isn't that the axiom in the blogosphere?</h2>