David Schwab sent this story (to contact.ipr@gmail.com ) from Northwestern University’s Meddill Reports:
“I think the largest barrier for young people getting active with the Greens is a lack of information,” said David Schwab, a recent college graduate and Green Party member. “The media doesn’t help by treating politics as a horse race between the establishment parties, but Greens have to do a better job of reaching out, especially to the younger generation that’s ready for some fresh thinking.”
Schwab and a group of other delegates at the Green Party’s National Convention last year formed the Young Greens of America in an effort to create a national network to bring together young Green activists and attract new members, particularly students.
“We felt that our generation is ready to hear the Green message, but not enough effort is being made to get it out there,” said Schwab, 23, who now works from Oslo, Norway as an online organizer for GreenChange.org.
A lack of communication appears to be at the heart of the problem in attracting young people.
Schwab is a frequent commenter here at Independent Political Report, where he goes by the moniker of Green Ferret.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Dale Sheldon // May 20, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“The media doesn’t help by treating politics as a horse race between the establishment parties.”
Presuming a conspiracy between media and politics is certainly cathartic, and perhaps even has a tiny speck of truth; but saying so still doesn’t win any elections.
I like to think (and I know this isn’t always a popular opinion) that none of this is because anyone is a conspirator (or an idiot). Follow me on this: The media covers the two established parties because that’s what people want to hear; that’s what people want to hear because those are the two they have to decide between; those are the two they have to decide between because it’s a two-party system; and it’s a two-party system because single-winner plurality elections always lead to a two-party system.
The fix isn’t to complain about (perceived? inaccurate?) media failures, but to cut out the legs of the giant by changing to an election method that doesn’t always lead to a two-party system.
“Young voters aren’t resigned to choosing the lesser evil for the rest of their lives.”
Neither were the young voters of the last generation. Or the one before that. Or before that. Or of 1909 or even 1809. But that’s what plurality (and before anyone else suggest it, instant runoff, too) forces on voters.
The only way out is to change the rules. Approval voting. Or score voting. Or proportional representation. Reach out to the younger generation, sure; but without a systemic change, it’s only a matter of time before they will be forced, like those before them, to choose between the lesser of two evils, and just like that another generation will succumb to a two-party system. Break the cycle; change the rules of the game.
*steps off soapbox*
2 Ross Levin // May 20, 2009 at 7:23 pm
No one was suggesting a conspiracy, at least in the article I read.
And what do you expect him to say? He’s an optimistic representative of the Green Party – he’s not going to say, “The voters of this generation are good for nothing and I hate them. They’ll probably just vote for Democrats and Republicans.”
Also, I don’t think it’s just plurality voting that works against third parties. It’s that plus ballot access laws plus gerrymandering plus incompetent election officials plus a number of other factors, including the media. People want to know all of their options – a lot of people in the media just think that there’s no reason to cover third parties, when there are actually plenty of good reasons.
3 Clay Shentrup // May 21, 2009 at 12:58 am
Get score voting (or at least its simplified form, approval voting), or live under the two-party duopoly forever. It’s that simple.
4 Donald Raymond Lake // May 21, 2009 at 2:13 am
The sad sad sad thing is that a lot of alternative voters sign up for a ‘third party’ and are originally not involved and are relatively content. Then they try to get more active. They discover the petty politics and counter productive efforts and end up being art models for ‘The Scream’ or ‘Home Alone’ posters!
5 Dave Schwab // May 21, 2009 at 3:19 am
Green Ferret here.
Dale – I’m with you on proportional representation for legislatures. I think instant runoff voting has shown itself to be a good system so far, and it is immune to the kind of strategic voting that approval and score systems are vulnerable to.
Ross – you’re absolutely right, we need to make all those changes and more to our broken electoral system. I also think that debate access is very important (and that there should be more debates).
Donald – one thing we hope to accomplish by introducing more young people to the Green Party is reminding Greens to focus on what matters – building the party, winning elections and making better public policy.
6 Dale Sheldon // May 21, 2009 at 8:12 am
Dave Schwab: Instant runoff has NOT shown itself to be a good system, at least not for third parties. It’s been used in Australia for years; do you know how many parties it has in its house?
Two.
IRV (despite what its advocates claim) isn’t immune to spoilers, it only delays them. And it’s being a spoiler that kills 3rd parties. Score voting (and approval voting) don’t have spoilers. It’s the only way. Really. (Catch my blog on this issue at leastevil.blogspot.com)
7 Dave Schwab // May 21, 2009 at 9:16 am
Does Australia use IRV for house elections?
Apparently the Australian Senate uses PR; and 7 parties are represented there.
Look at how IRV has worked in San Francisco and Burlington. People like it, and it gives all parties a decent chance.
I’m open to the possibility that approval would work better than our current system. IRV has been helped by the willingness of schools, political parties, and other organizations to use it for elections. Maybe once approval gets a track record, people will be more willing to try it for electing their government.
8 Dale Sheldon // May 21, 2009 at 10:34 am
Dave: Yes; one of Australia’s chambers uses PR (and has several parties), but the other uses IRV and has just 2.
As for Burlington, the Vermont Progressive Party was able to win elections under plurality too; IRV didn’t change anything, and it wouldn’t change anything in the rest of America either.
The story is similar in San Francisco: the one Green currently on the board was elected from a district that was electing Green candidates under the old plurality system.
So if you’re going to use SF and Burlington as evidence for IRV being good, then by the exact same argument plurality must be good, because it elects the SAME number of 3rd party candidates. And we KNOW plurality isn’t good enough, so that argument proves nothing. The only thing it shows is that Burlington and SF are exceptional locations, under either system.
I would love to get some pilot programs for approval (or score); that’s my current focus, and I would love to have more support; I think the theory and simulations point to a very good chance of having a real, positive effect. But IRV is no help to third parties, and isn’t worth wasting your effort on.
9 Ross Levin // May 21, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Dale, where are you focusing on getting those pilot programs going? I was thinking of trying something in my town because we have initiative rights, but I don’t know if it’s really an appropriate situation for approval or score voting.
10 Melty // May 24, 2009 at 9:37 pm
For voting methods, Instant Runoff’s the Trojan horse and we’re Troy. Approval’s the one to push for, at least for starters. Other than that, though, there is the ballot initiative idea to support for a real change in how government is done. Make Approval and initiatives happen at the municipal level.
11 Mark Greene // May 24, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Proportional representation of legislatures are a good idea, although nationally and probably in every state, it means changing constitutions. That’s not easy, especially when the legislators themselves, in charge of changing the constitutions, have not the slightest inclination to favor proportional representation since it would dilute their power. Third parties will have to win with the rules that are already in place, by and large, and that’s not impossible.
Along with blaming the media that richly deserves blame (and blaming the media is a good electoral strategy), third parties themselves will need to energize themselves by competing in as many elections as possible, even in those that are clearly not plausible to win. High visibility and showing that you are willing to compete wherever will build on a third party’s foundation.
Trust me, the first third party that competes in every single election in their state across the board will make gains. Too many third parties seem to be content with being effective think tanks, but competing is the key that will open up doors, and that’s the main electoral strategy that the Party of Commons is focusing on.
12 Mark Greene // May 24, 2009 at 11:46 pm
(grammatical)
Proportional representation of legislatures is a good idea ….
Leave a Comment