Progressives Make Gains Respectable Showing For Liberty Union Socialists;
Radical-Capitalist Libertarians Fall Flat, By David Van Deusen
Thus far, one of the more interesting aspects of the 2014 Vermont election was the relative strength of the Progressive Party & and the respectable showings of the Vermont Liberty Union Party. The Democratic Party, in a year that saw record low turnout (43.7%), had a net loss of eleven in the VT House, and two in the VT Senate (and a surprisingly close contest for Governor). Even so, and even with voting patterns seemingly favoring the right, the Democrats retained a commanding lead in both the VT House and VT Senate. And while the Republicans made some gains (small in the big political scheme of things) the further left also did better than traditional election logic would seem to allow for.
The Progressive Party (who are essentially social-democrats and who firmly support single payer healthcare) saw a net gain in the Legislature (from eight to nine -six in the House, three in the Senate). The Progs, the most successful third party in the nation, also had respectable showings in a number of statewide races (LT Gov: Corren 35.81%, Treasurer: Schramm 17.64%, Secretary of State: Eastwood 14.71%). The Progressive backed candidate for Auditor (Doug Hoffer who, like Dean Corren, also had the Democratic nomination) saw returns that rival those witnessed in Banana Republics; 99.02% (Doug also ran unopposed).
The Liberty Union Party (which is aligned with the Socialist Party USA, and who represent a far left, squarely anti-capitalist political perspective) also did surprisingly well in their defeat. In fact this may be their best election (not including the few instances where they won an isolated municipal race) for the Party in their 40+ year history. The Liberty Union, although not winning any contest, received 7.94% for Treasurer (Murray Ngoima), 10.28% for Secretary of State (Mary Alice Herbert), and 3.95% for Attorney General (Rosemary Jackowski). In the Secretary of State contest, it is not surprising that they were uncompetitive with the Democratic nominee (and landslide winner) Jim Condos (74.57%), but it is almost shocking that they reached double digits and were competitive with the second place Progressive Party candidate (Ben Eastwood).
Beyond the statewide contests, the Liberty Union also captured 14.07% of the vote for Grand Island State Senate (Ben Bosley). Their two candidates for Windham County State Senate, Jerry Levy & Aaron Diamondstone received a respectable 5% & 4.63%. Not as impressive (but still better than past lows) was their 0.92% or 1,757 votes for Governor (Peter Diamondstone) & their 1.74% or 3307 votes for Lt Gov (Brown). Perhaps the Liberty Union’s relatively meaningful performance will inspire the Progressive Party to suggest an accommodation with the Party?
The fact that the Liberty Union did not run a candidate for Auditor (against Hoffer) may have been an act of good faith offered from one aspect of the electoral left to another. Or perhaps they simply could not recruit a candidate. Regardless, in a tight race, a few percentage points can be the difference between winning and losing. Splitting the third party left vote seems something less than desirable if a goal is to win. But then again, the Liberty Union cannot be accused of ever making a fetish of winning.
On the opposite side of the ‘third party’ equation, the Vermont Libertarian Party, despite relatively good media attention, articulate performances by Feliciano in the Governor’s debates, and a political buzz, failed to win major party status (which, among other things requires that one or more candidate receive 5% or better in a statewide race). The Party’s standard bearer (and only statewide candidate), Feliciano, gave voice to a free market capitalist alternative for Vermont, and ended up with 4.34% of the vote. While 4.34% marks the best statewide showing for a Libertarian candidate to date, it failed to be a breakthrough year. In the fourteen other races it took part in, like the Liberty Union Party, it failed to win any, and it finished last in each. Given the low turnout, given the that the participating electorate in this given year should have leaned more Republican and more conservative (ie older voters who tend to participate in off years, those motivated by distrust of pending government healthcare, etc.), it does not appear likely that the Libertarians will emerge as a meaningful political force in Vermont for the foreseeable future. Clearly Vermont is not ready to catapult from the most progressive state in the nation, to the most free market based in the nation.
Low turnout elections statistically favor the right. This was a very low turnout year (the lowest ever). The right (specifically the Republican Party) made some small gains. The further right (the Libertarians) failed to capitalize. On the left, the Democrats, perception aside, largely held the line. The Progressives made gains. The Liberty Union did better than expected. If this is the low water mark for voter participation, despite the discussions to the contrary, this would seem to signal looming trouble for the Republicans (and Libertarians) in 2016. Come 2016 voter turnout will likely be 60-70% due to a Presidential contest. If this is the best that the right wing can muster in Vermont, it is a storm easily weathered. The trick for the left is not to let a few noises in the woods spook them away from the path of real reform. Kill single payer, and kill new attempts at expanding workers’ rights, and come the next midterm election, perhaps more than half the people will once again choose to stay home. But then again, maybe the 40% who do vote will continue to move in new directions.
The great divide
Good observations. Thanks.
On the national level, it increasingly seems like we have gerrymandered, corporate candidates that almost entirely ignores regular voters and do everything for the money that funds them, and, on the other hand, citizen ballot initiatives seem quite human and reasonable – we want people to get married, smoke some pot, have access to health care.
There is a great divide right now. between real people and corporation-people. I’m not sure how we escape it, or if voting is the way to get it done.
Divided?
Since 1980 when voters put a Grade B actor into the White House, then a former CIA director, then a drug runner, then a cowboy, then a B&W celebrity, voting has not been my favorite mode for “change.”
Ironically, the often well-intentioned “fringe players” with better intentions has been a mere sideshow picking up a few crumbs of attention and results.
way out?
So how do we reverse that?
Keep voting for the two parties because others have no chance?
Vote third party only until things change?
Stop recognizing this government and start a new one?
"What condition my condition is in"
I might be able to offer a way. After all, I am known for and do specialize in simplifying complex subjects, particularly with concision.
My style for public outreach is deliberative and some parts are still in progress, preceding and dependent on a personal decision based on “what condition my condition is in.”
Think Again
Yikes.. divide?, I say rejection! So Mia Love from Utah, the first black Republican woman to serve in the House, Elise Stefanik of New York the youngest woman ever elected, and Tim Scott, the first elected black senator in the South since reconstruction, are all corporate hacks?
Why is Condos Giving Election Results to AP before Vermonters?
Why is Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos handing out election results to the Associated Press, AP, before Vermonter voters?
http://vtelectionresults.com
State Scott Milne 85,983 at 45.08%
Peter Shumlin 88,419 at 46.36%
but !!!
AP: Shumlin up 2,095 votes with all precincts reporting
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/05/vermont-governor-results/18515931
1 day ago … The AP total had Shumlin with 89,874 votes and Milne with 87,786 votes. … Post-
Election Day 2014 results for the Vermont gubernatorial race …
This indicates that Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos is seriously and willfully and intentionally withholding vote results from Vermont voters
while possibly getting a slick envelope of cash in the back room from AP Associate Press. If Jim Condos is taking cash for leaking information which should already have been given to Vermont voters, then that might be a highly illegal CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PUTTING A CORPORATION BEFORE VERMONT VOTERS.
This is how Corporations are controlling America:
This is how Corporations are controlling America, and I did state so in one of the only 2 candidate debates I was invited to challenging incumbent Democrat Peter Welch. There were NO news stories about this debate on CCTV http://cctv.org I stated that Peter Welch took a large check from a defense industry contractor, he denied it – I stated the story was in the Burlington Free Press – I was right – there were no news stories on this debate, it was basically black balled because I was right.
Here’s how it goes, pick almost any subject, and the story is the same.
(1) U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Congresswomen vote to give funds to the Pentagon.
(2) The Pentagon gives billions of dollars to defense contractors.
(3) Defense contractors give literally millions out of the billions to
Lobbyists who wine and dine the U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Congresswomen.
http://www.fec.gov Federal Elections Commission reports on donations
(4)The top paid people in the defense industry give money to PACs, political action committees who give the money to the U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Congresswomen.
(5) Your taxpayer dollars have just come full circle, from your paycheck, you paid your taxes to the I.R.S. which put them in the National Budget, and they ended up in the campaign funds of the U.S. Senators and Representatives to the U.S. Congress in the United States Congress.
(6) I call that campaign finance money laundering because you can follow the trail of YOUR taxpayer dollars into THEIR political campaign accounts.
(7) Solution? Charge them all with campaign finance money laundering.
Here’s another example, because this can be applied to most budget items.
(1) The U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Congresswomen vote to give billions of dollars to the N.I.H. National Institute of Health.
(2) The N.I.H. gives billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies for research.
(3) The pharmaceutical companies do what the defense contractors do, they give millions of dollars to lobbyists to wine and dine the U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Congresswomen, and
(4) The top paid employees of the pharmaceutical companies give donations to PACs political action committees which pay money to the campaign funds of the U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Congresswomen.
(5) Your taxpayer dollars have come full circle, from YOUR paycheck to the I.R.S. to the National Budget from which the U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Congresswomen voted to give your money to so and so, and so and so spent a great deal of that on Lobbyists and their employees paid into PACs political action committees.
(6) Why don’t we all scream (oh, and you know I love to scream)
CAMPAIGN FINANCE MONEY LAUNDERING because we can clearly see the trail of our taxpayer dollars dropped right into the campaign finance accounts,
which are bragged about, which contain millions of dollars for
U.S. Congressman Peter Welch, who was able to defeat me because
(a) I was excluded from the majority of Debates and forums,
which should be declared illegal in Vermont – wouldn’t that be really neat if Vermont were the first state in the Nation to make a law that all candidates have to be invited to all debates and forums? wow!
(b) U.S. Congressman Peter Welch BRAGGED about his million dollar campaign
fund from which much of it came from CORPORATIONS. http://www.fec.gov
I see that you've already
I see that you’ve already decided to run in 2016. Have you picked an office to run for yet? Here is the problem I have with your posts and campaigns. I saw you in the one debate you were in and contrary to your belief that Peter Welch was able to defeat you because you were excluded from the majority of debates, personally seeing you in that debate was what convinced me even further that I could never vote for you. I think it’s time for you to quit inventing excuses and take a long hard look at your continual insistence on running even when your numbers are so low. It’s not just because you’ve been excluded from debates and forums or lack funds. In fact my personal feeling when watching the Shumlin debate with all, and I mean ALL, of the candidates present, was that it made it very difficult to really get a feel for what Shumlin and a couple of the other real contenders messages were. There were just simply too many cooks in the kitchen and not all of them knew how to boil water. Yeah, I know it’s not the democratic way supposedly but I”m just saying that at least for this one voter it just made the debate seem pointless and a waste of my time. I won’t bother to watch any debates in the future where every person who has filed is present and accounted for. It wasn’t informative although I will admit it had a certain reality show attraction at times. Which is why the debate attracted national press.
Oh really? my response to Rosa Bonheur
Just what was it you felt I was wrong about?
Did you feel I was wrong to state that a natural gas pipeline should not be run underneath Lake Champlain because building it will stir up the water and make it muddy, while simultaneously one-third of Vermonters draw their drinking water from the Lake?
Or do you think your family and friends who may be part of the 1/3 of Vermonters who drink Lake Champlain water would really prefer to drink mud?
Perhaps you think I was wrong to state that motor boats shouldn’t be allowed in Lake Champlain because they drip drops of oil and gas, and oil and gas contain lead and should not be allowed in Lake Champlain because 1/3 of Vermonters draw their drinking water from Lake Champlain?
Or do you think your family and friends who may be part of the 1/3 of Vermonters who drink Lake Champlain water would prefer to have alzheimers,
ADHD and autism, which may be worsened by lead in the drinking water?
Perhaps you did not agree with me when I stated that business growth suffers because rules and regulations are made by un-elected administrators and un-elected officials who are not required to report Lobbyists who may be wining and dining them, or other non-transparent gifts being donated to them, because un-elected administrative officials don’t have to report like elected officials do.
Or would you prefer that Vermont continues to discourage new businesses coming here because elected officials are making laws that state that UN-elected officials can fill in the blanks and do all the real work of making the rules and regulations, resulting in a cancerous growth of suffocating rules and regulations inhibiting businesses?
Perhaps you didn’t agree when I stated we should have free online college courses?
Then, of course, you prefer a greater number of people who don’t qualify
for high tech jobs, resulting in fewer high tech companies coming to VT?
How about when I stated that we should have a state-wide referendum vote to
ask voters what percentage of their income they really want to pay for health care?
Did it upset you that I stated that F-35 strike figher jets do not belong in the most populated area of Chittenden County in Vermont, adjacent to the Burlington International Airport?
Why on earth do you think it was more important for you to “get a feel” of what “Shumlin and a couple of the other real contenders messages were” when my messages were just as important?
How am I any less real?
I will certainly do my best to overcome your prejudice against me, and I will definitely run in 2016.
Ms. Cris Ericson
What Will Change?
I’m not very enthusiastic about the American two party system right now since it’s hard to see how Obama’s policies differ that much from those of the Republicans. I realize that’s blasphemy but if you look at the big picture on issues like war, surveillance and spying, net neutrality, energy policy, and even health care, it seems like we’re doing mostly the same things. Bush started the wars, Obama continues them. We’re saber rattling with the Russians now too. Guantanamo is still open. American surveillance and police state are thriving. Obama’s health care program is Mitt Romney’s from when he was governor of Massachusetts. Fracking continues unabated. There are more low income people than ever and the wealth gap is wider. The FCC is still trying to pull an end run around millions of citizens who object to the abolition of net neutrality. Etc.
I’m sure the Republicans will try to do bad things and I’m assuming that Obama will have the decency to veto such measures should they get to his desk. If he doesn’t, in the spirit of compromise and getting along, then the person to blame will be him and not Republicans. The buck still stops with the president.
So I guess we’ll have to see how Obama plays it.
Schumlin
Not a mention anywhere of the Shumlin runoff?