[SfN] ELECTION TUESDAY (fwd)

[daria karetnikov]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 22:07:54 -0600
From: Steve Scala <sjscala at students.wisc.edu>
To: Mike_Scala at woodsind.com, lndecarlo at students.wisc.edu,
     tdmccook at students.wisc.edu, scala at purdue.edu, jdschutte at students.wisc.edu,
     mdscala1 at juno.com, staphie13 at aol.com, bmblavat at students.wisc.edu,
     dfmunsey at students.wisc.edu, valgal704 at aol.com, ayantis at du.edu,
     kamorrow at students.wisc.edu, mtlochner at students.wisc.edu,
     mchoffmann at students.wisc.edu, HANDRO2881 at aol.com,
     arbusch at students.wisc.edu, mike.scala at TAP.com, eawalz at students.wisc.edu,
     karetnik at students.uiuc.edu, mmalcom at students.depaul.edu,
     jcwilder at students.wisc.edu
Subject: ELECTION TUESDAY

Hello All,
         Tuesday is election day and it is crucially important that we all 
get out to vote.  Of course, Ralph Nader is not likely to win, but this 
election could be a turning point in American politics.  If Nader receives 
5% of the vote, the Green Party will receive federal matching funds 
equaling about $12 million-about 24 times the amount that the Green Party 
had this year, with which they still were able to accomplish very 
much.  This could set off the steady growth of the Green Party as an 
alternative in American politics, able to put up strong candidates in many 
different elections, not just the race for president.
If "a vote for Nader is truly a vote for Bush" as they say, this is Al 
Gore's own fault.  He could have put forth reasonable views on the death 
penalty, late-term abortion, a living wage for workers here and abroad, 
expansion of international markets in a more equitable manner, campaign 
finance reform, gay rights, national defense, the environment etc., etc., 
but instead he tailors his views to fit opinion polls and the corporate 
interests interests to which he and Bush are beholden.
What's more, in a political system in which two monolithic parties, which 
are quite similar to each other, control who has enough funds and support 
to be elected to any kind of public office, any would-be public office 
holder is forced to compromise his/her views to fit into the two dominant 
paradigms.  One may argue that this is one of the principles upon which are 
constitution is founded - compromise, coalition building - but what seems 
like a better assessment is that the two party system ultimately stifles 
divergent ideas in a very undemocratic matter (e.g. Nader, who had 
legitimate support, not being allowed to debate Bush and Gore[this is one 
very small example]).
There will always be reasons to support the status quo in each election and 
vote for "the lesser of two evils," whether reproductive rights (whose fate 
is debatable in a Bush administration), the environment, or whatever is the 
issue trumped up to scare people into voting for the candidates of the 
establishment.
In this election I urge you all to vote for Ralph Nader - if the system 
continues as it is now, the damage in many areas and the system itself may 
be beyond repair in the future.
-Steve.

p.s.  The Congressional races are very important too.  A democrat-dominated 
house or senate would be able to severely restrict Bush, if elected.

p.p.s.  Don't let the supreme court/reproductive rights issue scare you-if 
reproductive rights are ever threatened, I, along with most of the 
population will be in Washington protesting.  The American public would 
simply not allow it.