Socialist Parties on the Balot

[Riot]

Before throwing away my US electoral mail-in ballot, I saw that there were a number of self-proclaimed Socialist and Communist parties on it. Never heard of most of them, so did some brief research, which didn't turn out all that promising. Seemed mostly like Social Democrats or single-issue candidates who are collecting many of the votes that would have gone to Bernie Sanders. Have others done more research into this, and can speak more authoritatively on the quality/authenticity/value of these US self-proclaimed 'socialist' and 'communist' parties?

[John Nada]

They're all crap. Socialism in the US is currently in a sorry state. The subjective factors aren't going to magically improve if one of the electoral socialist parties gets some more votes. None will get the coveted 5% threshold for state funding, and they'll probably just change the law after anyway.

[Antiochus]

If I remember correctly they changed the debate participation threshold from 5% in 2000 to 15% currently, lol. I wonder if the USSR did some cringy similar thing ('you can run for elections if you poll above 15% in all SRs simultaneously) what level of outrage would emanate from the US.

[Riot]

If I remember correctly they changed the debate participation threshold from 5% in 2000 to 15% currently, lol. I wonder if the USSR did some cringy similar thing ('you can run for elections if you poll above 15% in all SRs simultaneously) what level of outrage would emanate from the US.

I just verified and you are correct, the threshold is 15%. If the USSR would have done something similar during the peak of nuclear proliferation the US would have most likely considered that the easiest justification they'd have at their disposal to convince the intelligentsia en masse to condemn the Soviets in two steps: first as bloody fisted communists, and second by turning communism in peoples' minds into inherently an anti-democratic dictatorship, 100% synonymous with terms like 'anarchist', 'socialist', and even 'liberal'.



They're all crap. Socialism in the US is currently in a sorry state. The subjective factors aren't going to magically improve if one of the electoral socialist parties gets some more votes. None will get the coveted [1]5% threshold for state funding, and they'll probably just change the law after anyway.

Yes, the electoral socialists are our brothers and sisters, but that doesn't mean we agree with them in terms of tactics or even overall strategy. Mass participation isn't so much a matter of voting -- though that could be part of it as our organizing progresses -- but primarily a matter of the fight for the democratic control of the workplace and fundamentally one's (collectively) own labor.

[John Nada]

Yes, the electoral socialists are our brothers and sisters, but that doesn't mean we agree with them in terms of tactics or even overall strategy. Mass participation isn't so much a matter of voting -- though that could be part of it as our organizing progresses -- but primarily a matter of the fight for the democratic control of the workplace and fundamentally one's (collectively) own labor.Most of them, I'd probably agree with 70-80%. I just don't think any of them currently have a viable strategy towards revolution. I don't think using the Presidential Election is an effective recruiting tool, in spite of tradition and Lenin's view on elections in bourgeois-democracies. The money and members gained vs effort is likely not really worth it(compared to similar resources put into supporting things like BLM or NoDAPL). Socialist parties aren't meant to be like the Democrats or Republicans, which are more electioneering machines than mass parties. They're supposed to be mass workers' parties with active democratic participation of the members. Really the focus should be primarily local at this point.

Besides getting 15% in several polls to attend the Presidential Debates, there's http://www.voanews.com/a/finance-debate-rules-make-3rd-party-us-president-unlikely/3321360.html You do have to get 5% of the popular vote to get public funding, besides that 15% for the debate. And if you want to see which states the socialist parties are even on the ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Other_th ird_parties_and_independents None of the socialist parties(SPUSA/WWP/PSL/SWP)) are going to come close to 5% combined. The Green Party might though. But it's more like a protest vote.

[Blake's Baby]

I'd say the one group that might have some sort of decent view of a future society (not necessarily how to get there) would be the World Socialist Party of the United States. They're a companion party of the World Socialist Movement, formed on the basis of the positions of the SPGB. They may be wrong about elections but they aren't class-traitors.

http://www.wspus.org/

But John Nada's right, even the Greens are only expected to poll about 2% from the last info I saw, unlikely that any socialist or even 'socialist' group will get anything like that.

[Sewer Socialist]

elections are a dead end. socialist candidates usually revert to populism and hoping to ride that into office dieting an economic crisis. once there, the options are limited to managing capital, and they usually lose support once that becomes apparent. "there is no alternative

in the us, this is especially futile, and it's much more effective to demonstrate, participate in unrest, etc. even for reforms, they usually only come after a disruption of the daily machinations of capital.

if i bothered to vote, it would probably be for someone who mocks the system rather than a party's half-assed platform of demands and self-aggrandizing newspapers; vermin supreme comes to mind.

[The Idler]

As BB has mentioned WSPUS are actual socialists unlike the rest and would stand for elections if they were a larger organisation.

[mongo]

results from the SPARK, michigan = Working Class Party WCP (linked to Lutte Ouvriere in France = Workers Fight)


U.S. House - District 12 - GeneralSoutheast, DearbornMichigan - 251 of 305 Precincts Reporting - 82%



Name

Party

Votes

Vote %



file:///C:/Users/m/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif

Dingell, Debbie (i)

Dem

186,817

64%




Jones, Jeff

GOP

85,103

29%




Walkowicz, Gary

WCP

8,457

3%




Bagwell, Tom

Lib

6,851

2%




Calewarts, Dylan

Grn

4,021

1%






November 09, 2016 - 02:53AM ETU.S. House - District 13 - GeneralPart Detroit and subsMichigan - 412 of 427 Precincts Reporting - 96%





Name

Party

Votes

Vote %



file:///C:/Users/m/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif

Conyers, John (i)

Dem

164,273

75%




Gorman, Jeff

GOP

36,703

17%




Hayden, Tiffany

Lib

8,642

4%




Johnson, Sam

WCP

8,003

4%







et Baltimore David Harding
8% mais il était le seul opposant :)
COUNCIL DISTRICT 14


CANDIDATE

PARTY

VOTES

PERCENT






Mary Pat Clarke

Dem

13,823

92%






David Harding

Ind

1,249

8%




results for board of education in Michignan "evolved a little for the best

Republican McMillin, Tom 1,887,771 23.43%
Republican Snyder, Nikki 1,851,347 22.98%
Democratic Ahmed, Ish 1,612,427 20.01%
Democratic Austin, John 1,814,300 22.52%
Libertarian Boman, Scotty 190,244 2.36%
Libertarian Hall, Bill 119,230 1.48%
US Taxpayers Adams, Karen 133,390 1.66%
US Taxpayers Levesque, Douglas 52,633 0.65%
Green Grigsby, Derek M. 63,209 0.78%
Green Wells, Sherry A. 118,296 1.47%
Working Class Hering, Mary Anne 213,932 2.66%

bye bye