 The
Reverend Al Sharpton is correct when he says that there
will be a shock when we witness
his vote-getting abilities in the upcoming presidential
primaries. I predict that he will get 90% of the black vote and
larger
than expected numbers of votes from other groups as well.
I find it
laughable that his popularity with any group of black voters – southerners
are usually mentioned – is questioned. Even more amusing is the
idea that Carol Moseley-Braun could possibly take votes from
him. A person who answers every question by saying, “I come from
a law enforcement background” is no match for Al Sharpton.
In its October 2,
2003 issue Black Commentator correctly described the Reverend Al Sharpton
and Representative
Dennis Kucinich as “two civilized men among the barbarians.” Neither
of the two civilized men has a chance of getting the Democratic nomination,
much
less the presidency. As much as the idea brings forth righteous fantasies,
Al Sharpton
may be wasting precious time by running for the Democratic nomination.
He can be far more effective as a third party candidate, but with an
important
twist.
Unfortunately for Sharpton, the political system in our country is
rigged in favor of a two party system in presidential elections.
The Electoral
College
insures that third party candidates can only play the role of spoiler.
I wrestled with this very issue three years ago. I did not want George
W. Bush to win,
but I was not enthusiastic about Al Gore. Thanks to Clinton’s “triangulation” and
blurring the lines between Democrats and Republicans, the Democratic Party
no longer stood for its core values of promoting fairness. Al Gore is a very
smart, capable man, but being saddled with the after effects of eight years
of triangulating and lacking Clinton’s charisma (who doesn’t?) he couldn’t
get enough votes in enough states to avoid the electoral college debacle that
led to the Bush administration. He also didn’t know that Florida Governor
Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris had scrubbed thousands
of likely
Democratic voters from the rolls in Florida.
I wanted to register my dissatisfaction with Gore but I didn’t
buy the argument that there is no difference between the Republicans
and Democrats.
Some who
advocated that argument have now repented in
the face of the Bush administration’s grotesque hyper-capitalism
and imperialism. Republicans in the House of Representatives have
announced
a plan to lower corporate
taxes. No wonder former Naderites have gotten religion. I believed
that there was not enough difference between the two parties, that
the Democrats had become
too close to corporate interests and were not sufficiently combative
in fighting for the most vulnerable Americans. But I had no illusions
about which I preferred
making lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.
My agony was relieved when I realized that the Electoral College
gave me an out. Because of the Electoral College, our votes count
only in the states where
we reside. My vote counted only in New York and New York was looking
good for Gore.
Every state has a number of electors equal to the number of its
United States Senators, two, and Congressional members allotted
on the basis
of population.
The numbers may change with census figures and subsequent redistricting.
Whoever wins the most votes in a state wins all of its electoral
votes. We should ignore
poll results which even if accurate only reflect the popular vote.
Democrats should have a new mantra for 2004. “It’s the electoral
votes, stupid.”
There are a total of 538 electoral
votes among the 50 states. The candidate who wins enough states
to reach 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. George W. Bush
is President
today
because he won Florida, or so they say, by a mere 500 votes. Because
the Electoral College is a winner take all system it doesn’t matter
if the victory is wide or razor thin. If Bush had won by just 2 votes
he
would
still have
won Florida
and had enough electoral votes to be pushed over the top.
Al Gore had an enormous lead in New York State in every poll.
Bush and the Republicans had conceded the state to him. Gore’s huge lead in New York gave
me an opportunity to vote for Nader without helping Bush. Gore ended up winning
by a 25% margin, one of the largest of all the states he won. The same logic
applied in states where Gore had no chance of winning. A Democrat in Texas
couldn’t help Gore. A vote for Nader did no harm in that state.
The electoral college makes it possible for Sharpton to run as
a third
party candidate
without harming the Democratic nominee in those states that Democrats
either never
win or win by large margins.
An Al Sharpton third party strategy in selected states would
have another important effect. He could raise issues ignored
by the
Democrats and Republicans, such
as the problem of rural poverty. He could talk about the loss of
manufacturing jobs in the south and the exploitation of natural
resources in the
west.
Can you imagine Sharpton campaigning in Billings, Montana?
I can. Montana residents were the victims of one of the worst
corporate
frauds in American history.
Montana Power went out of the business it knew best, providing
reliable electricity at low rates. The CEO and other executives
were sweet
talked by Wall Street
crooks, that is to say investment bankers, into the telecommunications
business and fell into the fiber optic boondoggle.
The result has been layoffs, soaring electric rates, and lost savings
and investments a la Enron. Al should definitely campaign in
the Republican stronghold of Montana.
A selective third party strategy would give the Sharpton
the opportunity to go back to his activist roots and shed
light
on ignored problems
in this country.
Back in the 1980s Sharpton led marchers to paint large X’s on
the doors of known drug locations in New York City. He could
now march
on crystal
meth
labs in Nebraska. He would do more than expose drug locations;
he would expose the
fact that white communities also have problems that are not addressed
by the powerful.
One of the many problems with the Electoral College is that it
not only allows but encourages the Republicans and Democrats
to ignore
huge swaths
of the country
and thus important issues as well. Because New York was conceded
to Gore we never saw a presidential campaign. Neither did
Texas, California
or most of
the southern and western states. Sharpton could raise issues
that matter in every part of the country. South Dakotans would
hear
discussions
of whether
price supports for agriculture are truly helpful to their state.
North Carolinians could see a candidate decry the existence
of hog “lagoons,” lakes
of manure created by enormous hog farms that are destroying
the environment and damaging
the health of thousands. Because those two states are solidly
in the Republican camp they exemplify the injustice of the
Electoral
College
system that
forces candidates to abandon them in favor of swing states
that make or break a
presidential campaign.
If Sharpton stays in the Democratic race it will be a repeat
of Jesse Jackson’s
experience in the 1980s. We will have a candidate who excites
us but who in the end will come up short. He will do
better than
expected,
he
may win a few
primaries, but he will not be considered as a vice presidential
candidate or be given an important role in the party.
Al Sharpton will certainly shock the conventional wisdom
of the punditry. But it ought to be in a way that will
shake the
system
to its core by energizing
millions of Americans whose concerns go unheeded. He may be
a spoiler, but he may spoil the ambitions of one George
W. Bush. So run
Al, run. Run to Fargo,
Pascagoula and Salt Lake City too. Margaret
Kinberley’s
Freedom Rider column appears weekly in  .. Ms.
Kimberley is a freelance writer living in New York City. She
can be reached via e-Mail at [email protected].
You can read more of Ms. Kimberley's writings at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/ |
