As of 9:33 PM, Allen is beating Webb by a narrow 7,600 vote margin. Meanwhile, 20,941 people are voting for Independent Green candidate G.G. Parker. Good work, guys!
« ¡Sandinista! | Main | Smells Like . . . Victory! »
Fuck You, GG Parker
07 Nov 2006 09:32 pm
Comments (62)
Where was it that the GOP put the Green up?(Ex)Santorumville, IIRC
The missing counts though are heavily in Petersburg and Richmond, which shold be safely for Webb and Prince William and Loudon counties, where the currently reported totals are for Webb. Allen's best hope among the uncounted is in Tidewater where Va Beach and Chesapeake are still only partially in, but he's only narrowly ahead in the current counts there.
LOL.
i wondered when that was going to come.
This post should be connected with the GG Allin movie Hated, but I'm not sure how.
Hated
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107086/
GG Allin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GG_Allin
indie greens aren't the same as the nat'l green party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Green_Party
This strip party holds a different platform from the Green Party in the respect that they claim to be fiscally conservative. They run on the tag line of "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Responsible." The main issue this party focuses on is transportation with the slogan "More Trains, Less Traffic." Their nickname is the "Indy Greens".
ah, all the better to split the center-left vote! LOL.
Yes, you may participate in the democratic process, but only if belong to a major party!
Ed seems to confuse the right to participate in the democratic process with the privilege of not being told to fuck off.
"
Yes, you may participate in the democratic process, but only if belong to a major party!
"
You have the right to your vanity "makes me feel good" vote. Other people have the right to mock you for being a moron and an enabler.
Let me guess, you're one of those people who thought invading Iraq was a great idea and the minor detail that known cokehead GWB would be heading the operation struck you as unimportant compared to the "big picture". As long as your heart is in the right place, screw the consequences and 600 thousand dead Iraqis.
how large is craig county? I notice it has 0 reported. it seems to be the only one that has not reported anything?
The greens are idiots who should be scorned.
Matt, I never understood your hatred of third parties. Unless a viable third party comes along in the next decade or two, this country is doomed. Your stance amounts to "third-party candidates shouldn't run." This to me, is absurd. I don't blame Nader for Gore not winning in 2000, even though if he had not run Gore would have won. I blame Gore for not beating Bush (and Bush for cheating.) And I loathe Bush.
How can you write posts saying a parliamentary system is preferable to ours while at the same time denouncing third parties? It doesn't square.
It's precisely because we have a zero-sum, winner-take-all system that inhibits a third party from actually making a difference. I'm all for third parties IF and when a parliamentary system comes about, but until then... FUCK OFF!
I dunno, if a candidate only gets 1%, I wonder how much of that is just error--voters pushing wrong button or punching wrong chad, or just plain being incompetant/illiterate.
People like Tom are why I don't vote.
Our electoral system is garbage. The Democrats suck. The Republicans are worse. Why should I go to the polls when the only two candidates who have a chance of winning are anathema to me? Hell, in 2004 my choices for president were a pro-war candidate (D-pretending to be pro-war) and a pro-war candidate (R-warmonger-in-chief). The most important issue to vote on in years, the first election after 9/11, and the only viable choices are two pro-war candidates? Yeah, that's a great system we got.
Maynard- I hope you've never voted for a democrat who supports the war in Iraq.
how do you know those aren't, for example, republican protest votes?
You can't find one good reason to vote, Mitch? Seriously? Wow. Great. You can just vote for one thing on the ballot if you want and write in or leave the rest blank if you don't like your choices. You know that right? Is it too hard to get off your high-horse long enough to raise your hand once every two years? Well-thought-out strategy there: don't vote and then bitch that nobody campaigns for your (non-existent) vote.
I voted for Nader in 2000. Does that make you happy?
Yes. It does. Just vote. I'm kind of in a tizzy about it because I recently learned that a very smart progressive friend of mine doesn't vote for reasons similar to yours and he lives in VA.
Also, full disclosure, I voted for Nader in 2000, too. And I welcome your opprobrium, blogosphere. I richly deserve it. So much shame.
Maynard: Allow me to disagree. Yes, ed, mitch, and mk should go fuck themselves with G. G. Parker's rusty poker once he's done with it, (can they wipe it off? No.) but I wouldn't bet on them having been all for Iraq. Instead, I'd bet on them driving Volvos, sipping lattes, and otherwise not needing to care if the minimum wage stagnates, pensions get cut, and poor teenagers are denied abortions. Would a perfect third party in a functioning parlimentary system be nice? Yes. Does that mean Ralph Nader deserves to ever again experience the simple joy of a solid bowel movement? No.
Even under a Parliamentary system, the clones of yourself that you elect would have to compromise to form a coalition and run the government. In our system we just make the compromise explicit before the votes are cast--in the primary or caucus. Not sure which is better--maybe the parliamentary system forces a better compromise because the compromise takes place after votes have been cast, or maybe our system does because you already know what the compromises are when you walk in to make the decision.
> indie greens aren't the same as the nat'l green party.
Yes but they ran the campaign as the national green party which was liberal and VERY anti-war. Like most green party voters they failed to see the big picture was if you want to be fiscally conservative and put and end to this war then you should have voted for Web..
I still think Webb pull it out regardless of an automatic recount or not.
I was just composing this exact same headline (and most of the post) in my head when I saw this cross my rss reader. Even though I live in Georgia (the small blue part that is John Lewis's district), I still consider Virginia home.
Your progressive friend is smart. I refuse to vote for candidates that I don't even come close to wanting to representing me, and since voting for a third party--ANY THIRD PARTY--is a waste of my vote (as Tom said), I don't vote. As long as everyone thinks voting for a third party is a wasted vote, third parties don't have a chance, so I will, in fact, fuck off and not vote.
I consider myself very informed politically. I realize politics is imperfect. I don't expect any candidate to hold most of my positions. I just want someone who doesn't make me cringe. The problem, really, is the winner-take-all system. It leads to very crappy politicians.
And to all the other posters: It's been 12 freaking years that we've been able to ascertain that democrats suck in action.
Mitch:
Do you also hate homework and mom & dad's totally cheap allowance and totally like unfair curfew? Of course you don't vote, you are obviously 14 years old.
At least you can look forward to joining the polity when you grow up.
Oh, and I don't care who you vote for. Just vote. People died to be able to vote.
Yeah, Fuck GG Allen! How dare a regular person run for office? If you're not one of the two corrupt groups, how dare you try to serve your country. You are shameful.
That's the first time I've heard GG Allin accused of being a regular person!
Less than 1% remaining to be counted. Less than 2,000 vote margin. Here we come recount!
Hey, Max. Before you make any more lewd suggestions, you should take a few things into account:
1) I'm not a Virginia voter
2) I've actually never voted for a third-party candidate, green or otherwise
3) I don't drive a car, Volvo or otherwise, and don't sip lattes (or anything caffeinated, for that matter)
I merely asked Maynard to be consistent, and you made several unfair assumptions about me and anyone else who voiced support for third-party voting. ...Which is exactly what Maynard did with his "I bet you were all for Iraq" nonsense. So glad y'all use the same tactics--easier to recognize you.
Man the commenters here get nasty.
Staying at home because you think nobody represents you is still kind of ... well... you do realize that this election is pretty important and that you can at least vote against the Republican, right? And that failing to vote for a Democrat is helping a Republican win?
Even if the Democrat doesn't represent you all that well, do you really think contributing to a Republican victory is going to get you a more representative candidate?
You can pine all you want for a parliamentary system, but that doesn't relieve you from the obligation to influence policy in the most effective way you can right now. I don't see how sitting at home means you didn't influence the election. You have the power to vote for change and instead you sat at home. You chose inaction.
People with supposedly radical ideas have a funny way of supporting the status quo.
mk: The Volvo was just a guess. But you're right--nasty comment, sorry. My point is simply that a frustrated rejection of the Democratic party is a luxury most people in this world (Iraqis, working class Americans) can't afford. We all of us want a better world--the question is, can we settle for progress, or do we insist on perfection?
I didn't even know a Green was running in VA. Now that I do, I'll definitely chime in with that "Fuck you" myself. I'm astonished that there are still some ignorami who don't quite grok the 2000 election. Fuckwits.
I am all for tarring and feathering third party voters, but ponder this: if McCaskill wins MO, still a possibility, it will be only because of 2% of votes cast for a Libertarian.
On the other hand, how a Libertarian can fail to vote for a party that offers some chance of ending with torture, snooping without warrants, war on drugs ... well, let's face it: it is better that GOP does not monopolize the brain-damaged vote.
Um, how can you say with any certainty that GG Allen's voters would have voted for Jim Webb? They could be, and probably are, protest votes against the horrible campaigns both candidates ran. Many of those could be Republicans who were turned off by Allen's demonstrated racism. Or Democrats who thought the military-minded Webb, who is basically a Republican, didn't speak for them. If GG Allen hadn't've been on the ballot, you might have seen that many votes go to write-ins. I mean, please, take your head out of the Kool-Ade. It's good the Democrats won, but there is something very sour about this whole election. Deal with it: Those 20K Virginians were the ones saying fuck you to party geeks on both sides.
Yes, yes, Mitch. Don't participate in a process that might taint your carefully cultivated purity. Don't soil your soft, lily-white hands with the sausage of real public service. Don't vote unless a candidate comes along that offers a perfect mirror for your preferred policies. The world may go to hell for want of another dirty, dirty vote for a dirty, dirty, flawed candidate like Gore or Kerry, but you can sleep the sleep of the pure and just.
/spit
I think a lot of Dems here are getting angry at the Greens when they should be getting angry at loyal Rethug voters and at their own party.
Leaving aside the willful ignorance and murderous spite that motivates people to vote for the party of Iraq and Katrina, let's examine some of the rationale behind the attacks on the Greens:
My point is simply that a frustrated rejection of the Democratic party is a luxury most people in this world (Iraqis, working class Americans) can't afford. We all of us want a better world--the question is, can we settle for progress, or do we insist on perfection?
Let's not forget that it was the Clinton administration who starved the Iraqis with a brutal regime of sanctions, and kept up the campaign of illegal bombing. And as far as Clinton's support of "working class Americans", I've got one term for you: NAFTA.
I'll definitely chime in with that "Fuck you" myself. I'm astonished that there are still some ignorami who don't quite grok the 2000 election. Fuckwits.
Um, before you get all intellectually superior on the Greens, I must remind you that the 2000 election was fucking stolen. So it was in 2004, and your precious Dem champion (who I voted for, God help me), knowing that the election was stolen, took his giant legal fund and his brave promises to fight for every last vote and shoved them up the arse of all the Dem voters. And don't dare breathe any snide horseshit about "conspiracy theory," because the facts are plain as day to anyone with the balls to glance at them (e.g. HBO's doc "Hijacking Democracy," which aired tonight).
I could go on by spelling out how a disturbingly significant number of Dem legislators either enabled or abetted the worst of the Bush administration's misdeeds, but that would be piling on. I'll just say this: as the election seems to have shaped up to give the Dems a little more leverage, perhaps all those of you who are heaping scorn on the Greens should save a little of that critical energy for the next two years. If the Democratic Party is worthy of such rabid loyalty, then perhaps you should devote your righteous anger to making sure they earn it. An impeachment or two would be a decent start.
Has it ever occured to any of you guys that there are plenty of people whose views don't track at all with either major party? It's not that "pox on both their houses" bullshit, where the Dem is much closer to my view but I vote 3rd party because the Dem isn't perfect. The Dems and Reps both have very weird, to my mind, combinations of positions, and my views don't match either party anywhere close to half the time.
I also don't understand the rabid animosity toward non-voters. There are plenty of reaons, good and bad, for not voting. It's really nothing to get pissed about if someone doesn't want to vote.
"horrible campaign both candidates ran"
I'm not sure I was watching the same race as you. But as an independant thinker, you probably notice more balance than those of us who aren't quite as smart.
And John S., I think you should go back and review Webb's campaign rhetoric before calling him "basically a republican".
If you didn't vote or voted for the Green candidate you helped get more US soldiers killed. Congratulations!
Maybe in the future you will start to think about the common good and your fellow citizens.
Not voting is irresponsible. Period. People who take the time to comment on blogs because they care about politics ought to have the minimal sense of civil responsibility necessary to get themselves registered and go participate in the process. People who don't want to vote are like people who don't want to pay taxes. They are shirking their responsibility as citizens. It really is that simple. I mean, do we care about this constitutional democracy or not? If you honestly do not care about the country or your community, then fine, don't vote. But don't NOT vote and try and pretend like you care. This is not a hard concept, people, and voting is not hard do to. Finally, keep in mind that within the last 50 years in this country people have been intimidated, terrorized, and ultimately murdered for trying to exercise their right to vote and help others to do so. If for no other reason, every American owes it to the memory these citizens to just get it together and go vote already. Jeez.
Before Greens get all high and mighty about their principals they should, perhaps, go back to their original charter and build a party from the ground up. Ran for for state assemblies and senates first. THEN congress. THEN senate and governor. THEN president. You can't build a party by storming the ballot and getting sympathy votes. And if you feel so strongly about it, run for your local office. My local ballots had very few greens. My state ballot was stuffed with them. What the hell? (And I did vote for one, just b/c the Dem in that slot was such a solid lock and the Green was a friend of a friend and apparently a swell, smart, dedicated guy, and it was a minor enough of a slot that it sort of fit into my philosophy. I'd love to campaign for him for local office.)
Webb is up by 11,000 votes! Almost an impossible margin for a recount to turn around! All is forgiven, GG Parker!
Aren't most local elections non-partisan anyway?
State Assembly, State Senate, and frequently DAs, County Supervisors, Mayor and City Council are partisan.
This tells me that in California , at least, some Greens agree with my ideas and are even winning, but almost none of them were on my ballot. Back of the envelope I estimate there are 300-400 such offices up for grabs in California today. So 60-odd potentially reasonable races is not quite trying to build a "base" first. Instead of chewing out Matt for expressing justifiable frustration given, say, impact on the War, one might do better to volunteer and campaign and run for these kinds of offices. Better yet, volunteer with community based organizations all term long and start plugging your candidate in the summer of 2007 with your new but rich local sociopolitical network.
Maybe you do, I don't know, but if you really want to build a party, that's it--not sympathy votes.
Remember that the standard deviation for the difference of two vote totals (in a close election) is about the square root of the population size. Out of 1.4 million or so voters, a 7600 vote margin is almost 6 standard deviations. Unless there's reason to suspect substantial foul play or irregularity, or there are some really heavily Republican votes yet to be counted, VA is looking pretty good.
Er, make that 2.4 million. So 4.5 standard deviations. Still quite a safe margin.
Well, follow the money--Green Parties all around the country have been funded by the Republicans, exactly to produce Nader 2000-like results.
Being a lefty is all very well, but circumstances have forced us into this United Popular Front Against Fascism thing--a Grand Coalition of Peter Beinert, Andrew Sullivan and everyone to their left. Strange bedfellows, and all that . . .
Time enough to worry about ideological purity when Bush and his cronies have been hooted off the national stage.
Sure, he has the right to tell people to fuck off, and people have the right to vote how they feel. In my opinion, the only wasted vote is if you cast it for someone you do not want to win because you let someone bully you.
The problem with the system as we have it now is that a Democrat and a Republican stand up and say "Hey! Vote for me because I am not that other guy!"
Hell with that, if you can't convince me to vote for you, don't expect me to vote out of fear or loathing. I thought that was the Republican's bailiwick anyway, no?
Webb was the most anti-war candidate running for a senate seat, so a vote for Allen or the Green was a clear vote to stay the course in Iraq. It couldn't have been more stark.
Back to the fray late, but still-
Max- thanks for the apology. I'm seeing similar apologies issued across the blogosphere this morning, and in the clear light of day I have to say I understand a little better where green-bashers, at least on liberal blogs, are coming from. While I still agree with Church on this one (well said!), on a blog when a major portion of the readership is probably pretty liberal, yelling about the repubs is pretty much preaching to the chorus; yelling about third-party voters is at least yelling at people more likely to be reading the blog.
As for "perfection" or "purity"- I'm certainly not one to suggest that the current green party (or any other third party, since there are about a zillion of 'em, particularly in presidential election years) is either of those. But I think a lot of people would argue that voting third-party does promote progress, albeit in a sometimes dangerous way if your ultimate goal is getting repubs out of office.
For you civics class crazies who are so angry about us "protest non-voters" but don't want to change the political system from it's current pathetic two party there is a simple solution. If you'll just place "none of the above" on every ballot, then I'm sure myself and mk and Mitch and too many steves will register our disgust by voting instead of staying home.
Just thought I'd note that G.G. Parker is a woman, since there seems to be some confusion.
Consumatopia's got it: the mathematics of the electoral college dictate that we will always be stuck with just two national parties. Third parties will necessarily be limited to local races or relegated to a spoiler role. This is no secret to Greens, who don't at all mind helping Republicans: in their minds, they are working to destroy the Democratic Party, as they are well aware that one of the two existing major parties must dissolve before a new one can take its place.
Thanks, Nicholas and keatssycamore, for being voices of reason.
I want troops to die? I am for the war? I am a Volvo-driving, latte-sipping yuppie? Some of these comments were funny, really funny. I marched against the war--at a time when the proprietor of this website was for it, if memory serves. I don't own a car (live in NYC) and I have never had a cup of coffee in my life (I've tried to but the stuff is way foul). I don't even have a laptop, so how can I be a Starbucks wacko greenie? Most of the people accusing me of being spoiled and acting superior probably make more money than I do. My vote for Nader was a protest vote.
Maybe if the Democrats hadn't voted for the war and for torture I would have a higher opinion of them.
I was wrong about VA. It was late and I went to sleep right after writing it. If I had been voting anywhere in that state, I would have voted for Webb. Here's the rub: I would go to the polls if the races I was voting in were not predetermined, as every major race has been for me, probably for my whole voting life. In a winner-take-all system, why should I go vote for Hillary? Does is matter? (NB: I would never vote for Hillary.) Does the margin of victory for Spitzer being one higher matter to him or to anyone? This is the inherent problem with the zero-sum system. It's not that I don't recognize that voting is a great right. It's simply that I'm pragmatic, and I don't see going down the voting booth when I know it won't matter as useful in any way.
For you civics class crazies
Yes, some of us are proud that we learned something about the ideals of citizenship in 5th grade. Explain to me again why disgusted rejectionism of civic participation is your best expression of the ideals that have you so disgusted with the system?
If you'll just place "none of the above" on every ballot, then I'm sure myself and mk and Mitch and too many steves will register our disgust by voting instead of staying home.
Sigh. Don't you get it? It's YOUR responsibility to DO SOMETHING. It's not our responsibility as voters to cater to your immature whining about how things aren't just perfectly the way you would like them to be. Every ballot I've ever voted on has space for a write-in. Again, this is something they teach you about in 5th grade.
But, you say, my write-in vote doesn't matter in the mean old entrenched two-party system. And I'm not suddenly in shape to win marathons after taking up jogging this morning. It's important, to the country and to you as a citizen, to have the self-discipline to go to the polls and register your vote, especially when you don't want one of the "approved" choices.
I know, I know, it's so corny to be passionate about things like citizenship. If you can't be bothered to do the most basic things expected of a participant in the system, then dont' expect those of us who do to take you seriously. Your "protest" is about as compelling as that of the kids in my hood who protest capitalism by sleeping in the park and begging for spare change on the street.
oh spare me the sanctimonious nobility of third-party voters. of course you nimrods are free to vote for whomever you choose. but expect the rest of us to push back and point out what a bunch of fucking morons you are when you midwife GOP political control.
heighten the contradictions may be music to an undergraduate philosophy major's ears, but it sounds like pure bullshit to me. console yourself w/ the moral high ground if allen clings on to power, but know that you've made it that much easier for bush and the republicans to continue moving their greates hits package of domestic surveillance, immoral wars, and class warfare forward.
see, despite describing myself as an FDR liberal, I find this myopic obsession w/ 3rd parties to be utterly puerile. and I'm not convinced the democrats are irrelevant: they just won an election of historic proportions and their platform I agree w/. if I want it tweaked at the margins, there's no need to take it outside the family.
and I too hope ralph nader never again knows the simple primordial pleasure of a good bowel movement. not that he ever did.
1. Most of the votes for the Green came from people who would otherwise have stayed home. I used to cover politics, and can tell you this from observation. So the Green votes weren't taken away from Webb in any real sense.
2. There is something laudable about people who don't vote on immediate issues, but instead try to take the long view that building a third (or fourth, etc.) party is more important than the possibility that a single election might be affected by a third-party candidate's run. Far-sightedness and long-term ambition are good things.
Two groups of people tend to vote for third party candidates: younger voters who, over time, will tend to vote for major party candidates, and voters who are disillusioned with the major parties. A significant number of voters in both groups would probably not vote if the third party candidate were not in the election. It's irrational to pretend that the votes for a third party candidate would inevitably have gone to one of the major party candidates if the third party were not in the race.
I feel like there's just as much "sanctimonious nobility" here coming from democratic voters as third-party voters. If not more.
Yet another great example of why instant runnoff voting would benefit voters. There were several House races where the Democrats won by less than the number of votes cast for the Libertarian candidate. With IRV, there is no need for "strategic" voting, voters can more accurately cast votes in ways that accord with their beliefs.
Comments closed November 21, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
So the local naderites are out. Where was it that the GOP put the Green up?
Posted by Gracchi | November 7, 2006 9:39 PM