By Brian Carnell

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

In the very odd election for governor of New York, The Nation offers an equally odd endorsement -- vote for Democratic candidate Carl McCall, but do so on the Working Families Party (New York allows candidates to be nominated by multiple parties, and McCall is listed both as the Democratic and WFP candidate).

Voting for McCall on the WFP party line may give the WFP the 50,000 votes it needs to automatically be placed on future ballots (the alternative is an expensive petition procedure). The Nation argues that the WFP deserve the support of the Left rather than the Green Party or other third parties in New York,

The WFP is not the only third party on New York's ballot that may appeal to progressive voters. The Green Party is running CUNY professor (and Nation contributor) Stanley Aronowitz. for governor. While many of the Greens' positions are appealing, and Aronowitz has run a vigorous campaign, the Greens have yet to forge coalitions with labor and communities of color or to show they can build organizational staying power. We might like the WFP to put up its own candidates every now and then in these high-level races, but we believe the WFP's patient base-building makes more sense than the Green Party's insistence on running its own candidates, however marginal or likely to siphon votes from progressive Democrats.

Do progressives really have the luxury of casting a pure protest vote when McCall, an African-American, is demonstrably better than Pataki on many basic issues? In New York, where cross-endorsements are permitted, a smart voter can give expression to progressive values by voting on the basis of party, not personality. While votes on the WFP's line will count toward McCall's total, they will also insure a permanent progressive presence in state politics, whatever happens on Election Day. Don't waste your vote; vote WFP.

Oddly, The Nation doesn't even bother to raise the nightmare situation that Democrats in New York have been contemplating -- what if McCall (as a Democrat) finishes third to Independent Party candidate Tom Golisano. This is unlikely, to be sure, but certainly still within the realm of possibility and The Nation's strategy would play right into this.

McCall has ran one of the worst campaigns in the country this election cycle. In a state in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2 million, McCall has been consistently down as many as 20 points in recent days to incumbent Republican Gov. George Pataki. McCall is widely seen even within his own party as having no chance of winning, and the race is now for second place.

In the Democrats' nightmare scenario, Democratic voters stay home in large enough numbers that Golisano barely squeaks into the second place position.

A third-place finish would have a number of repercussions. The most immediate would be that in future elections, the Independent Party would take the Row B on future ballots with the Democrats dropping to Row C for the next four years. In addition, the Democrats would be replaced by the Independent Party in deciding political appointments for offices that are election-related, such as Election Inspectors and members of the state's Election Boards.

Such a scenario almost happened in 1990 when the Republican candidate for Governor barely beat out a Conservative Party challenger for second place.

Source:

Pull That WFP Lever. The Nation, October 31, 2002.

Discuss (0 Replies) | Printer Friendly