Politico has this story about the Jill Stein for President campaign, with observations about how her campaign and the Gary Johnson campaign affect each other.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Politico has this story about the Jill Stein for President campaign, with observations about how her campaign and the Gary Johnson campaign affect each other.
Rick Lass Jill Stein Green Party campaign ballot access coordinator said exact same thing as Richard Winger in Counterpunch interview this week.
I’m sorry you don’t feel your words were characterized appropriately. But the email you sent me said: “I expect Johnson to be on in every state, and Jill Stein to make all states except Indiana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma.” In turn, I wrote, “Ballot Access News publisher Richard Winger told Politico Magazine in an email he expects Stein to reach 47 as well.” Seemed pretty straight-forward to me.
Who will get the more $$$ TRILLIONS ??? —
Stein from rich Elephants
or
Johnson from rich Donkeys
— to, guess what, DIVIDE and CONQUER for Trump or Clinton respectively.
Mr. Scher, the fact that you took the time to comment on here shows that you’re a decent journalist (most major news media journalists won’t give Richard Winger the time of day because they rarely cover third party politics). However, if you’re reading this, I’d like to say that I wish you hadn’t laid on the spoiler theory so much. Yes, a significant number of people believe in it and refuse to vote for alternative candidates because of it, but part of that is because the major news media, when they do report on third party candidates, almost inevitably do so from the spoiler theorist angle and thus give the idea credibility. Then voters refuse to vote for third party candidates because of this belief and thus turns the sad cycle of the decline of democratic elections in our country.
It would be nice if the major news networks would treat third party candidates as having every bit as much right to run their own separate campaigns as the Democrats and Republicans. That is how democratic elections flourish, when the ideas of the candidates are given consideration, not merely their chances of winning or who the people voting for them would vote for otherwise were they not in the race.
My original post should not have said that I was misquoted. I was quoted correctly. Also now that I have seen the Stein campaign contributions for May, in which she raised $166,992.77, I now again think it is likely she will be on in 47 states. So the Politico story is fine.
Joshua H. – Obviously third party candidates have a right to run and deserve coverage, which I tried to provide fairly. But we live in a first-past-the-post electoral college system, which requires every voter to be aware of the political ramifications of their votes or else suffer unintended consequences. It’s not a “wasted vote” that is cast for a third party candidate who is not polling well, but — assuming the voter would otherwise be partial to a major party candidate — such a vote carries political implications. Journalism should discuss what those implications are so people can cast thoughtful votes.
Richard Winger – phew!
Mr. Scher,
Every vote has “political ramifications”. Putting that label, that burden, only on voters for alternaive parties and candidates is really a fancier way of saying “spoiler” . . . of presuming that the “big two” parties are entitled to get all votes and win all elections. That assumption you mention is the bias here. (Including, BTW, the assumption that the consequences of voting an alternative are “unintended” — or that there are unintended consequences only for supporters of alternatives. For example, did those who voted for Obama intend that he send the US into more wars, claim the right to kill people worldwide without a trial, etc., etc.?)
I am pleased that “journalism” is starting to mention alternative candidates in polls. But until they are included as often as the traditional “big two”, and mentioned equally for their events and speeches and issue positions (not just “horse-race” coverage) . . . and until those who self-identify as D or R are asked, whenever the plurality who are neither D nor R are asked, which way they would really vote if their vote made the difference . . . those elements and others of the vicious cycle of bias will remain.
I read in your comments here that you are aware of the “ramifications” of your coverage, and so it is with hope that I urge you to think hard about what you can do to eliminate that bias.