bam@bnlux0.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) (01/16/90)
In article <419@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes: >From article <1624@bnlux0.bnl.gov>, by bam@bnlux0.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin): >>...<list of 5 "ballot" parties in NY>... >... This is no record. I've seen ballots in Illinois and Iowa that had ... Sorry. Allow me to clarify: The NY five (D, R, Cons., RTL, Liberal) are state-recognized "parties", with ballot status that is "permanent" until the next Gubernatorial election. Other "parties" (called "independent groups, rather than "parties"," in the NY Election Law) frequently do appear on the actual ballot, but must do so by meeting onerous petition requirements for every candidate. This year, LP was was logically [and appropriately] column "I" in NYC, but since there were fewer than nine columns on the machine, it shared the physical column with one of the socialist splinters. Past maximum in NY state was probably over 20. Each of the ones you list have appeared in NY. In fact, Demopublicans routinely set up independent groups to get themselves a second line (such as "Down with LILCO" (electric Co.) or "Taxpayers against Drugs"), presumably so that loyal Republicrats may vote for them in good conscience. In 1991, it is possible that the New Alliance will achieve this status, by getting over 50K votes for Gov. NA is the group that got 42% in an Assembly race; they are suing the News Election Service, which ignored their votes and pretended that the reelected incumbent split all of the votes with the Conservative (who really only got 2%). NY LP (at yesterday's State Com. mtg.) has decided to run a candidate for Gov.,, and will attempt to get ballot status next year. >Back to the original point of this discussion: If you don't vote, I'd >count that as a vote for the status quo. ... So would I, and so do the politicians, the press, and the public. Abstention simply does not convey the message that some posters want it to. >Of course, you will have to compromize if you do this. ******** NO, YOU DON'T! ********* >You'll never find a person who is 100 percent in agreement with you. Supporters of a candidate make no pretense of complete agreement. So what? I've NEVER had to disguise my principles in campaign work (for 4 different parties), and never would! Of course, I'm far more comfortable when there's a \libertarian to support. A sufficient reason to work to gain votes for a particular candidate in a particular election, is that you believe that his election will improve things (according to your values). Politics being "the art of the possible", liberty can only be improved by a series of steps (small or large). As long as growth of liberty is monotonic, it's still worth supporting. Missing such opportunities -- on the excuse that one is are optimistically waiting for a miraculous step-function to occur someday -- is self-deluding; it is also detrimental to liberty, in practice. >... you compromize a bit and get some influence on ... I disagree, entirely. And I believe you spoke without thinking carefully about this. In no way should such actions involve a compromise of principles! /BAM (Bruce A. Martin)