JILL STEIN IS WORSE THAN DONALD TRUMP

Perhaps you've seen the video of her bouncing around Facebook talking about how bad the two party system is and how we need to start voting our consciences. This is all nonsense and a terrible idea. I think this strain of thinking is the most dangerous thing out there to our country and our future. More dangerous than the Bushes and LePages and Trumps, because THIS is what makes THEM possible.

It's not a conspiracy, no one's out to trick you or manipulate you, the system is not "rigged" and I am not "the establishment" whatever that means. There is no two party system imposed on us. It's not in the Constitution, it's not a law, it's not written down anywhere. It exists because it EVOLVED based on the election rules that we have in the federal and state constitutions: basically, whoever gets the most votes wins. Countries with this kind of rule have two parties, countries with other rules have multiple parties. It's a fact, not my opinion, in political science it's called Duverger's Law. The two parties are a symptom, not the cause.

It is dangerous and factually incorrect to claim that we just need to try harder and vote our consciences to have third party victories in this country. That will never happen without changing the rules (through Ranked Choice Voting for instance). Without changing the rules, you will have spoilers and the WORST of two evils (ala George Bush and Paul LePage) running our states and country, not some miraculous third party takeover.

I know it's harder, and less emotionally rewarding, but the way to make real change while this system is in place is to work within the Democratic Party (as Bernie and Elizabeth Warren so wonderfully demonstrate) to shift the debate left and support the candidacies of other progressives in the Democratic Party. The real way to make change TO this system is to work for electoral reforms such as ranked choice voting. I suggest you do both at the same time.

Support for long shot third party candidates without changing the system FIRST does not change anything, and has the potential to destroy a lot. Don't let impatience and frustration cause you to use your sacred, all important vote (and voice) dangerously and destructively. If you have two realistic contenders in a political race you should absolutely vote for the lesser evil, not the long shot who shares your values more, because in American politics THERE IS NO SECOND PLACE.

Stein WILL lose, all she can do by running and all you can do by voting for her is to cause Clinton to lose, and if that happens, progressives and the country and the world have lost everything, and will continue losing precious, possibly irretrievable things for at least four years. Who knows how far back we could be dragged.

DO vote your fears, because they could come true. Maine of all places should get this by now.

To my fellow Bernie supporters - please take off your tinfoil hats

Dear Bernie supporters:

The best thing about Bernie’s campaign is that he ran as a Democrat, and the best thing that will come out of his campaign is you getting involved in the Democratic Party and especially the gritty work of local politics, as he is ever so intelligently suggesting. You checking out of politics, hating on the Democratic Party, or going off into left field with moon shot third party candidates is not only missing the point, but doing the opposite of what Bernie did, working against what he is trying to achieve, and generally being selfish and short sighted.

Pissed? Good. At least you’re listening. The first important thing to understand is that the two party system is not a conspiracy. It is a symptom and a byproduct of one simple Constitutional rule put in place by the founding fathers. Whoever gets the most votes wins. It was a dumb idea, but in their defense we were first at democracy and didn’t have the benefit of watching other countries do it wrong. Other countries have had the benefit of watching US do it wrong, however, and very few of them adopted that dumb voting rule. Here’s why.

While it sounds fair and simple and straightforward, “whoever gets the most votes wins” is a terrible way to decide elections. Because only one candidate can win, and that candidate only needs the most votes, not more than half of the votes, entire elections - ALL the power - can be handed to one person that most of the voters actually don’t like and don’t want to represent them. But this only happens when there are more than two candidates. When there are two candidates, whoever wins will de facto have more than half the votes. When there are three or more candidates however, it is possible for the winner to have 40, 30, even 20% or less of the votes and still win the whole damn thing. A majority can lose to a minority by splitting up their majority vote. Hence the concept of spoilers - candidates who basically share the same beliefs of the majority but peel votes away from the majority candidate resulting in a split vote, and the opposing minority side winning. Totally sucks.  

The two party system evolved to avoid the crappy outcome that can be the result of three or more candidates under that rule. The whole point of parties, the reason they exist, is to win elections. If the only way to win elections under the election rules you have is to get behind one candidate and make damn sure your side is not the side splintering behind multiple candidates, you’re going to end up with the fewest possible parties: two.

And since there are only two parties, each party needs half the votes plus a little more to win. Therefore, the parties are going to shift left or right as needed to claim their 50% + 1 of the electorate. No matter what the overall spectrum of beliefs in this country is, be it from communist to centrist Democrat, or from socialist to right wing nut job, our voting system will split us basically right down the middle and one party will claim either side. The spectrum changes, the names of the parties change, but it’s always two parties, from the beginning until now. That is why we have two parties, why our national candidates are so annoyingly middle-of-the-road, and why election results on the national level are usually very close.

Third parties crop up from time to time and make a go at it, but they are generally unsuccessful and fade away unless one of the two biggies collapses and there is a vacuum of power they can step into to become one of the two biggies. Other countries that have similar systems have the same problem. It’s math, not the man.

So, while it is frustrating and annoying that we only have two parties, getting angry at the Democrats is not productive. They can’t change it any more than you can. Democrats are simply the left side of the spectrum. When the overall beliefs and conversation in the country shifts right, Democrats shift right, because they have to in order to win more than half the votes and win elections which is - remember - the point of their existence. If the conversation shifts left, as it did thanks to Bernie, Democrats can shift left and still win elections, as Hillary Clinton is now able to do.

If you are unhappy with this reality, then seek to change the dumb rule, don't get angry at the inevitable byproduct of the dumb rule. The simplest fix is ranked choice voting, which changes the rule from "whoever gets the most votes wins" to "whoever gets more than half the votes wins." It eliminates the whole concept of spoilers, and the resulting incentives for two parties, opening up the field to independents and third party candidates. Instead of pointlessly railing against Democrats, why don't you volunteer for the ranked choice voting referendum effort in Maine? Here you go: http://www.rcvmaine.com. You're welcome.

If you have a beef with Democrats, let it be this - many of them, especially at the national level, are too focused on winning and aren’t brave enough about openly and eloquently stating a progressive vision for the future, which allows Republicans to control the national conversation. This causes the spectrum of beliefs in the country to shift right, causing both parties to shift right to hold onto their 50% + 1. Which is WHY we need politicians like Bernie, and other progressives to run in the Democratic Party and articulate that left vision so the country as a whole can shift to the left, forcing both parties to shift left. Eventually there may be a limit to how far left the Republican Party can shift, at which point it will collapse, leaving a power vacuum on the right side which will be filled by the Democrats, and the place on the left vacated by the Democrats will be taken by another even more left party such as the Green Party. Notice that’s still two parties, but the country as a whole is further to the left. It’s now a conversation between Greens and Dems instead of Dems and Republicans, as we are seeing in our more liberal cities. Voila.

This transition would be gradual and much easier if we had a better system that fostered third parties and allowed for partial wins and didn’t result in spoilers (such as ranked choice voting), but we don’t. We have this system, and it requires the nation as a whole to shift waaaay left before the Republicans collapse and it is safe for another party to step in without being spoilers. We aren’t there yet. I think we’re getting there, as evidenced by the Republican chaos this year, but we definitely aren’t there. The danger now is that third parties get impatient and run candidates in races they can’t win, and voters get impatient and vote for them, but not in great enough numbers to do anything but spoil the race for Democrats, and hand elections to Republicans. This is dangerous, because then a Republican has the power of elected office with which to control the all important conversation, and can shift their district - be it a few towns, or a state, or the nation - to the right.

Case in point - Paul LePage. A spoiler independent candidate by the name of Eliot Cutler split the left vote in 2010, and LePage won with less than half of the vote. We were a majority progressive state at that point with an unfortunate minority right winger representing us as a result of our dumb election rules. But then he spent four years spouting his ugly, hateful philosophies from the aptly named bully pulpit, and he got to us. In 2014 he won by a majority. He shifted the conversation right. Before 2010, no one cared about welfare fraud. It was a non-issue. Now, that’s all you can talk about to voters because Paul LePage has made scapegoating and hating on the poor our state sport. Democrats have to wage an uphill battle to change the subject and stop being on the defensive over welfare fraud and even begin talking about what a progressive future for our state would look like. In short, the independent long shot candidacy of Eliot Cutler screwed us for years to come by allowing a right wing Republican to control our state discourse and shift the entire conversation right.

Now, I don’t think third parties should cease to exist. I think they should exist, and build their organizations, and run in races they can actually win (as opposed to just spoil), and generally wait in the wings practicing their lines for the collapse of a major party or meaningful election reform such as ranked choice voting. Run for city council in liberal cities. Run for state rep in liberal districts. Run anywhere that it’s liberal enough that you will be one of two major candidates, not a third wheel peeling votes from another progressive and handing the election to a right winger. Do not run in swing districts. Such as the state of Maine. Or the country. Not yet, we’re not ready.

Back to Bernie supporters. My message to you is this: If Bernie was smart enough to understand these concepts, and run as a Democrat, why don’t you understand? If Bernie is now telling you to work within the Democratic Party to reform it and to support progressive local candidates, and to become one yourself if you can - why are you resisting that? If you truly support Bernie, then support his message and his work. Conspiracy theories and knee jerk cynicism and rebellious support for outsider third party candidates might feel good, but it isn’t what Bernie is about, and it isn’t what brings about true change. Bernie has spent his whole life working hard within the system, at boring things, without reward, to make this country a better place. True change comes from working within the system we have to make it better. It’s not easy, it’s not glamorous, but there is literally nothing more important.

Sure, the Democratic Party has some problems. But it’s the only viable organization for getting progressive candidates elected at all levels of government, and luckily it is somewhat - if not perfectly - democratic. So use that existing democracy to make it more perfectly democratic, as Bernie is doing. It is incredibly easy to climb the power structure of the Democratic Party because there aren’t a lot of volunteers for this somewhat boring but important work. If you want it, it’s there for the taking. Start with your County Democrats. Volunteer to be on the State Democratic Committee. There you go - now YOU'RE the establishment.

And don’t paint all Democrats, and all parts of the Democratic Party with one brush. Yes, we can all agree that DWS did a shitty job of running the DNC this election cycle. But the state Democratic Parties are separate from the DNC. The County Democratic Parties are separate from them. The town Democratic Parties are separate too. Each level runs in its own way, and the closer you get to local, the more accessible and grassroots it becomes until it’s just your socially conscious hippie neighbors running for office and trying to get other progressives elected. That’s what it IS, really. Listen to Bernie and take off your tinfoil hat and come to a local Democrats meeting and find out. We could use your help.