Socialist vote for Mayor of Los Angeles reaches record high

[KurtFF8]

Source (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/06/socialist-vote-for-mayor-of-los-angeles-reaches-record-high/)


from Ballot Access News (http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/06/12/socialist-vote-for-los-angeles-mayor-in-2009-is-highest-since-before-world-war-ii/)
Socialist Vote for Los Angeles Mayor in 2009 is Highest Since Before World War II
June 12th, 2009
Los Angeles elects its Mayor in the spring of the odd years that follow presidential election years. The Socialist Workers Party has run a candidate for Mayor in all Los Angeles elections, starting in 1945, except that it didn’t run in 1997.
At the March 3, 2009 election, the Socialist Workers Party again ran a candidate for Mayor. Also, the new Party for Socialism and Liberation also ran a candidate for Mayor. The two candidates, together, polled 2.01% of the total in a 10-candidate field. Although that may seem to be a small percentage, it is the first time that socialist candidates for Mayor of Los Angeles, together, have polled that much, since the 1930’s.
Socialist Workers Party percentages for Mayor of Los Angeles have been: 1945 .21%, 1949 .38%, 1953 .73%, 1957 1.38%, 1961 .47%, 1965 .07%, 1969 .05%, 1973 .35%, 1977 .19%, 1981 .23%, 1985 .16%, 1989 .41%, 1993 .35%, 1997 no candidate, 2001 .16%, 2005 .48%.
The 2009 results are .90% for James Harris, Socialist Workers candidate; and 1.11 for Carlos Alvarez, Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate. The 2009 election had 10 candidates, 3 of whom had Spanish surnames.
–

Filed Under: Socialist/left parties (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/category/socialist-parties/)


While 2.01 percent isn't really that good the obvious point is the "relative to previous elections" fact here.


While it's clear that socialism is becoming more and more an acceptable term in the US, this still demonstrates that we have quite a lot of work ahead.

[Manzil]

What percentage do you need to receive to retain your despot (if that's how it works stateside)?

[Zeus the Moose]

What percentage do you need to receive to retain your despot (if that's how it works stateside)?

It's not. In some states you do need a "filing fee" to get on the ballot, it's not returned if you get a certain percentage of the vote.

However, ballot access law varies greatly from state to state. There is the general trend of such laws being more severe for third parties (which started as a way to prevent socialist and communist groups from using elections as a platform for their ideas), but the specifics run a wide range. And there are different qualifications for different offices.

In Colorado, for example, a third party presidential candidate just needs to pay $500 to get on the ballot. In New Jersey, the candidate needs 800 signatures, and in Pennsylvania the candidates need somewhere between 20,000 and 70,000 signatures (as the number is based on a percentage of how many people voted in the previous state-wide election.)

It's fairly ridiculous.

[Manzil]

Ha ha, oh my. I remember reading about the difficulties Ralph Nader and others had during presidential elections. I thought at least it was a consistently shit system, rather than completely arbitrary.

Well can anyone tell me what the situation is in California? Or L.A., if it varies.

[Pawn Power]

They are still basically insignificant as far as elections go. Why waste time/resources on running an election campaign?

[FreeFocus]

While I won't say this is a bad development, 2.01% is the best the genuine left in the US can do, in the most left-leaning state in the country?

And look at the numbers at the height of political activism, the 1960s and 1970s:

1965 .07%, 1969 .05%

It's either the left is terribly bad at organizing (this same pattern repeats across the country), or leftism isn't compatible with American society, worldviews and goals. If you need a hint, it's the latter, although our organizing leaves much to be desired.

[Revy]

While I won't say this is a bad development, 2.01% is the best the genuine left in the US can do, in the most left-leaning state in the country?

And look at the numbers at the height of political activism, the 1960s and 1970s:

1965 .07%, 1969 .05%

It's either the left is terribly bad at organizing (this same pattern repeats across the country), or leftism isn't compatible with American society, worldviews and goals. If you need a hint, it's the latter, although our organizing leaves much to be desired.

The three socialist tickets in 2008 combined got the worst percentage of combined socialist campaigns since 1888, 120 years before the 2008 election!

the SWP ticket in 1972 got about 97,000 votes. the SWP ticket in 2008 got about 7,000 votes. the SLP also managed to get a lot of votes in its tickets during that period.

[MilitantWorker]

About the "socialist vote" in these local elections:

Ok, and so what?

There are much better signs that the international working class may be on the movement than this electoral bullshit.

[the last donut of the night]

You can never bring socialism into government by votes.

[Revy]

Furthermore, if a socialist is elected Mayor, there is not much they can do to bring about socialism. They can use it to bring about very progressive reforms. At best, I think a revolutionary socialist being elected to a position like that can use their position to help spread revolutionary ideas and their power to support working class strikes and revolts.

[Communist]

>>You can never bring socialism into government by votes<<

Basically the purpose for socialists to run in bourgeois elections is to increase awareness. Campaigns also can lend credibility to political parties.

>>Why waste time/resources on running an election campaign?<<

Same reason as above. It's absolutely true that the extreme expense in both time and resources doesn't always make sense though. Arguably, in some instances, handing out fliers at demonstrations and outside capitalist rallies (if you can get away with it) - where personal engagement can happen, is just as if not more effective than a 10 grand campaign.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Campaigns also can lend credibility to political parties.

Campaigns also, and historically have proved much more successful to, lend credibility to the democratic mystification and the bourgeois electoral circus.


Furthermore, if a socialist is elected Mayor, there is not much they can do to bring about socialism. They can use it to bring about very progressive reforms. At best, I think a revolutionary socialist being elected to a position like that can use their position to help spread revolutionary ideas and their power to support working class strikes and revolts. On the contrary, being elected mayor rules out the possibility of performing these tasks. The Sparts make this argument in their 'Marxist Principles and Electoral Tactics (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/index.html)' (my emphasis added):


... [A]ssuming executive office or gaining control of a bourgeois legislature or municipal council, either independently or in coalition, requires taking responsibility for the administration of the machinery of the capitalist state.

Even though I think their argument re. 'revolutionary parliamentarianism' and the possibility for revolutionaries to use legislative bodies of the capitalist state as 'revolutionary tribunes' is incorrect, if one wishes to stay within the framework of Leninist electoral tactics, I think this is the inevitable conclusion.

[Zeus the Moose]

While I'm somewhat loath to admit it, the Spartacist League does make a very interesting point. I'm not convinced of their perspective that even running for executive office is a capitulation to reformism, but I definitely see problems ahead if socialists actually win these executive offices. It's also a good note of history to realise that most of the mayors that came from the Socialist Party in the first half of the 20th century were generally on the center or right wings of the SPA. Personally, I think running for legislative office is much more fruitful, in terms of electoral process, being able to put forth "progressive" legislation, and using the election/position as a bully pulpit for revolutionary socialism.

Interestingly, this is a fairly new position by the Spartacist League. Back in the 1980s, one of their members ran for mayor of New York City, and since the Internationalist Group (the most recent split from the Sparts) does not hold this position on executive office (at least as far as I know), my guess is that this change of position happened during the mid 1990s at the earliest. It also seems to be aimed primarily towards the Socialist Workers Party, whose intervention in local elections seems to be almost entirely running for executive offices.

[mikelepore]

The two candidates, together, polled 2.01% of the total in a 10-candidate field.

Combining two parties in this statistic isn't a valid measure of anything. Since they nominated separate candidates, each detracts from the other, any gain for one party is a loss for the other party, and the total is meaningless. If several parties would agree to nominate the same candidate there would be a cumulative effect.

[Revy]

The Sparts also make the point near the end that it's absurd to think of elections only as a "propaganda opportunity" and to deny a position if elected. It's basically a slap in the face to the working class, to make them get out there and support you, while you say you wouldn't ever take power if you won.

It seems though, that attempts to look "revolutionary-than-thou" are more important to some than actually considering revolutionary strategy and what is logical and what isn't. PSL members can attack the SP for participating in elections while it does the same (while we both fail miserably at getting a substantial number of votes), even though we have almost exactly the same position. We have never run in elections with the expectation that we would win, but we have given the workers assurances that we would like to win if given the opportunity. For that we are the worst of "social democrats" or "reformists"? No, we are following in the tradition of Marxists, even of men like Lenin, and upholding that legacy requires more than mere dogma or labels.

So no, to believe elections to be only a propaganda opportunity betrays the whole purpose. I would rather a party not run in elections and build its support along a similar line, than tell workers that it just wants to be out there for a PR stunt. Which provokes thoughts in would-be voters like, "well, this person doesn't even want to win! I'll vote for this liberal bigwig to keep that conservative one from getting in..."

Either elections are worth the time and money or they are not. This may seem like a confused rant, and I'm not even sure where it's going. I'd just like to end on this note, there is like some huge ass cognitive dissonance going on. There is an over-reliance on elections as a tactic, but at the same time, an almost vicious rebuke of its potential. Perhaps we need a strategy which emphasises other tactics as well. I am not the best in that regard, I still fail at organizing one little local, that I am ashamed of myself. But I am not going to be running out there, running for Mayor, or City Council, or the state legislature (too young for Congress), without actually having built the party where I live.

[Zeus the Moose]

Similar story about the Detroit mayoral election: http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/08/06/socialist-vote-for-detroit-mayor-is-highest-percent-since-1951/

It will be interesting to see what the NYC mayor election turns up, especially considering the comparatively good coverage that Frances Villar has been receiving. No matter what, it'll be a far cry from the days the SPA had its base in New York City, but hopefully these trends will continue.

Still, my previous point about running for executive offices only still stands, somewhat. In this election cycle, I think the only the SWP and Socialist Action are running for legislative seats. My own party is somewhat guilty in this regard of only running for an executive seat this election, though it is an "off year," so the fact that socialist organisations are running candidates at all is encouraging.

[n0thing]

Oh god. If the SWP gets into office, they'll probably put the socialist cause back another hundred years.

[9]

It's either the left is terribly bad at organizing (this same pattern repeats across the country), or leftism isn't compatible with American society, worldviews and goals. If you need a hint, it's the latter

So what do you suggest, then? Throwing in the towel?

[Asoka89]

While I won't say this is a bad development, 2.01% is the best the genuine left in the US can do, in the most left-leaning state in the country?

And look at the numbers at the height of political activism, the 1960s and 1970s:

1965 .07%, 1969 .05%

It's either the left is terribly bad at organizing (this same pattern repeats across the country), or leftism isn't compatible with American society, worldviews and goals. If you need a hint, it's the latter, although our organizing leaves much to be desired.

It's a result of the electoral system and our "open primaries"

best thing for the working class is to be INDEPENDENT agents of class power--- unions, coops, etc etc slowly overtime... a party may come out of that.. in the mean time there is nothing wrong with running radicals through the Democratic ticket (open primaries) as a secondary education campaign.

The US system is a party system without parties

[Die Neue Zeit]

There should be a demand raised specifically to eliminate the "open primary" system. I believe my closed-list, recallable-by-parties PR demand does that.

[Revy]

Asoka, the Democratic Party has no use for "radicals". Generally, those who claim to be socialist and want to work within the Democratic Party are really not radical at all.

As for open primaries, many states have closed primaries. A party system without parties? I am not sure what that exactly means.

Socialists who have illusions in the Democratic Party, rather than transform the Democrats end up being transformed by the Democrats instead. The Schachtmanites for example, started out as Trotskyists, ended up as social democrats who supported the Vietnam War.