Gore or Nader? I was (very unhappily)
part of a "feminist" mailing
list who put a strangle-hold on anybody who spoke anything pro-Nader...To
all feminists: just because Gore & the Democrats are trying to lead you
on with the carrot of pro-choice, doesn't mean that he is for the betterment
of women. As an essay in the Feminists
for Nader site says: Working-class feminists,
poverty activists, or feminists who feel a loyalty to all women regardless
of class, are being put in an invidious situation here; asked to ignore
all other considerations, betray our loyalty to the working class and
the poor, postpone all our concerns about peace, justice, and planetary
survival, and vote the corporate ticket in order to preserve access to
abortion for what looks more and more like a privileged few among us in
either case. A larger privileged few with access to legal abortions, or
a very tiny privileged few with access to top-dollar illegal ones; is
this a difference that makes no difference? Or is the upholding of Roe
essential, no matter how restricted the numbers of women actually able
to exercise the legal right it protects? ... Today, when the Democrats
instruct women in how we should vote, the call is to narrow and specialize
our feminist agenda to one issue, to make that our only cause. We are
now being wooed as a single-issue special interest group, and the larger
polity be damned. But we have known
for decades that feminism is by its nature not a "special interest" politics,
but a consistent and inclusive political and ethical stance. Women come
in all colours, so racism is a feminist issue. Women bear the greatest
burden, suffer the most, in poverty and deprivation; so poverty is a feminist
issue. Women are consistently underpaid, sexually harassed on the job,
denied promotion, exploited; so labour rights are a feminist issue. Women
suffer most in war-stricken countries; peace is a feminist issue. Women's
reproductive systems are sensitive to persistent toxins; environmental
degradation is a feminist issue. Women make less money than men, and are
slipping into poverty faster than men; affordable health care and housing
are feminist issues. Women are mothers, or at least all mothers are women;
child care, child support, and quality of life for children are feminist
issues. There is hardly any
social justice issue that does not bear directly upon women and therefore
rightfully engage the attention of feminists. Even the corporate new world
order, the malfeasance of the IMF and World Bank, the machinations of
the WTO, all bear harder on women around the world; it is the women who
are locked into the sweatshops, exploited in the brothels, exported as
mail order brides. The prevailing GNP/GDP method of assessing and reporting
national wealth and productivity erases women's work and women's worth;
even the way governments do their book-keeping is a feminist issue. Feminists
have been writing and campaigning and struggling on all these fronts for
decades. And on all these issues,
the Democrats have failed and failed and failed again. They have refused
to treat women and women's rights as anything but expendable and irrelevant,
very low indeed on the priority list as compared to really important stuff
like corporate profit and political gamesmanship. We are being asked to
vote for people who have betrayed us time and time again. They got some
nerve, these guys. Anyway, what the Democrats
are asking of -- or demanding from -- women voters today is to forget
every feminist issue except Roe. If you vote for us, for the corporate
establishment, they tell us -- if you are good girls -- we will not take
Roe away. But you must not disobey your kindly masters by voting for that
other guy. (You know, the guy who actually has something substantive and
positive to say on all those other feminist issues, the guy who actually
takes women seriously enough to share the rostrum with one... and by the
way, who supports abortion rights as well.) If you disobey us, the not-so-kindly
masters will get into power and then you'll really catch hell.
There are so many more
great points. I urge you to visit Feminists
for Nader/La Duke...or the site. They say it a lot better than I do. Who really elects our
presidents? Not you or me! Just remember, a vote
for the lesser of two evils is still a vote
for evil. .
home . close
window .
For a few months, I have been hemming and hawing about which candidate to vote
for: Gore or Nader (of course I'm not voting Bush, I don't know why anyone would
unless they are making at least $100,000 a year, because those are the only
people who benefit from corporate Republicans like Bush...) For years I would
vote Democrat in the elections, but most especially in the Presidential elections,
because I was afraid of putting more Republicans into office (see my letter
on voting out of fear)....Even though I knew my
heart was with the Green
Party and the Green Party platform.
But this year, after so many Democrats have been doing everything just shy of
death threats to anyone pro-Nader/pro-Green, I have taken a closer look...
Why do we want
to vote Nader if he can't win?
Anyway, why do some people care, if we know that Nader can't win this time
around? You may have heard, but the only way for the Green Party to receive
matching funds and to be allowed in the Presidential debates is to receive
5% of the popular vote. That is why you need to vote Nader, even though he
won't win this time.
One other thing, the popular vote does NOT elect our next president. We still
have a system in place (which is in the two-party system's interest, that's
why it's never changed...) called the Electoral
College, which elects our president. Basically, a few people are chosen
in every state to be part of the Electoral College and it is THEY who choose
our president. It is THEIR votes that count. They are NOT OBLIGATED in any
way to vote according to how the people have voted. We've had a presidential
election already, where the people voted one way and the Electoral College
voted another. The popular vote was for Cleveland, but the Electoral College
voted Harrison. So, who did the U.S. have for a president? Harrison. Your
vote for Gore will not do as much as your vote for Nader, regardless.
As of Friday, November 3, 2000, polls have shown that of the 10 electoral
colleges, 1 electoral college is split between Gore and Bush, 1 is pro-Gore
and 8 are pro-Bush. (Hmmmm....who
picks these electoral candidates anyway?) This election was as close as
the election between Cleveland and Harrison, and we haven't had one this close
for 40 years. A huge voter turn-out is expected, though, your vote for one
of the 2 major parties doesn't do very much, since the Electoral College has
already decided...But you can help a 3rd party become a major force in the
years to come.