2006 Mid-Term Elections
• Salute the Anti-War Candidates
• Overwhelming Support for Anti-War Referenda
• People Reject U.S. War and Repression, Prepare to Hold Democrats Accountable
• U.S. Elections Rigged Against Anti-War Candidates
• Some Facts Concerning 2006 Mid-Term Election Results
• Pennsylvania Court Upholds Rigged Election
• What Deal Was Made?
Salute the Anti-War Candidates
Voice of Revolution salutes all the anti-war candidates and their supporters who came forward to organize in states across the country. Despite tremendous odds, many of these candidates got themselves on the ballot and secured tens of thousands of votes. More importantly, they used the opportunity to campaign in their states and galvanize the anti-war spirit of the people. Many voters, including those not voting for the candidates, expressed their support for the stands being taken and their appreciation for the fact that there was an anti-war candidate running. They also appreciated the space created by these candidates for discussion on the electoral setup and for candidates from among the people to be able to run and get elected.
As an indication of the strength of the anti-war movement and the broad anti-war stand among the people, this election was also marked by more anti-war candidates running for the Senate. This means taking the organizing efforts statewide, in cities, towns and rural areas. Whether running as independents, or with the Greens or other small parties, these candidates report that they were warmly welcomed. Many people spoke to the fact that they appreciated a candidate they could actually vote for because they had a platform representing the people. In many states, without the participation of small parties and independents, there would have been no anti-war candidate for Senate. Demands also included opposition to the attacks on rights, defense of immigrant workers, opposition to war plans against Iran and Korea and more.
Many of those who came forward were long-time activists, not only against aggressive war, but against racism and in defense of the rights of all. Others were iraq war veterans. They expressed their plans to go forward in building the resistance of the people on various fronts and on the importance of continuing to -intervene in the elections. Work to strengthen the unity of the small parties and have a single candidate from their ranks for each district or state, is already underway.
[TOP]
National Binding Referenda Needed
Overwhelming Support for Anti-War Referenda
In addition to the broad rejection by the people of Bush and the war on terror expressed in kicking the Republicans out, the people also firmly expressed their demand to end the war now in referenda across the country. These referenda were on the ballot in 164 cities and towns. Nearly every one passed, usually by a large majority. It took sustained work of requiring large numbers of signatures of registered voters to get these referenda on the ballot, and then further efforts to inform people about them. All of this contributed to further strengthen the determined stand of the people to end the war now. The ballots generally called for a speedy or immediate end to the war and rapid withdrawal of the troops.
In Massachusetts, voters in more than one third of the state’s cities and towns, 139 municipalities, called for an end to the war. All but six passed, while hundreds of thousands voted to end the war, commonly by 60 percent margins or more. In Wisconsin, similar measures were passed.
In Chicago, and the surrounding areas, huge numbers voted to stop the war. The referenda asked: “Shall the United States government immediately begin an orderly withdrawal of all its military personnel from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserves?” In -Chicago the vote was 80 percent in favor. Most of the towns outside Chicago had similar votes of 60-75 percent to end the war.
Given laws in these states and across the country that basically outlaw binding referenda, all of these referenda are non-binding. They clearly express the popular will of the people, but will not find expression in law, in the legal will governing the state. This is one of the key problems facing the electorate at this time — how to make their popular will the legal will, binding on the government. Discussion on the need for the people themselves to be able to initiate legislation and readily secure binding referenda is developing.[TOP]
People Reject U.S. War and Repression, Prepare to Hold Democrats Accountable
Across the country, the popular will of the people was broadly and overwhelmingly clear: End the Iraq War Now! With their anti-war candidates, pledges to vote only for those opposed to the war and all aggressive wars, in anti-war referenda, in their votes to kick the Republicans out, the popular will of the people against Bush and the “war on terror” and in Iraq was vibrantly expressed. It is a tribute to the determined resistance in Iraq and to the anti-war movement here that this election turned on Bush and the war in Iraq and that the people are armed with a clear solution — bring the troops home now.
It is also clear that the movement has no intention of accepting the plans of Democrats to continue U.S. war and aggression, whether through redeployment of the troops or a “timed” withdrawal that leaves troops and bases in Iraq or the region. This was expressed in the many actions on Election Day, where no signs or speeches in support of the Democrats could be found. These demonstrations and walk outs, alongside organizing work for anti-war candidates and referenda, -galvanized the anti-war stand of the people and strengthened their determination to hold the government, especially Democrats, accountable.
Rumsfeld’s resignation is not enough. The people want him and Bush and Cheney charged with war crimes. They want Bush impeached and arrested. They do not want bipartisan support for better management of the war, they want the war ended now.
The clash between the popular will of the people to end the war and impeach Bush, and the legal will of the government, which refuses to do so, has also been sharply revealed. The election has not served as a process for the popular will to win out. Instead it served as a mechanism to block it. More than 164 cities and towns voted to end the war, some by margins of 80 percent as occurred in Chicago, yet this vote, this popular will, is not binding on the government. Many more anti-war candidates came forward to be elected, but were blocked from being on the ballot, sometimes directly by the Democrats.
U.S.-style democracy is a set-up that blocks the people from power and thus prevents their popular will from being implemented. These mid-term elections have sharpened this reality in the consciousness of the people and brought to the fore the necessity for new electoral arrangements that empower the people. Let us together build on the efforts to elect anti-war candidates and secure referenda as part of the work to politically empower the people. As the Democrats make clear that they will not deliver, let us organize to kick them and Republicans out and bring forward our own candidates and political parties.[TOP]
Millions Denied Right to Vote and Be Elected
U.S. Elections Rigged Against Anti-War Candidates
Many of the people coming forward to run as anti-war candidates found themselves blocked from participation by the difficult and complex requirements to become a recognized candidate. Each state decides who is and is not a recognized candidate, with their name placed on the ballot. This is commonly done by the state legislatures and done in such a way to guarantee that power remains in the hands of Democrats and Republicans. The requirements vary from state to state, but all automatically put Democrats and Republicans on the ballot. This is usually accomplished by a requirement that any party receiving 5 percent or more of the vote automatically has a party line on the ballot for their candidates. Since Republicans and Democrats are often the only ones running and certainly the ones considered by the government and monopoly media as legitimate, they easily secure 5 percent of the vote.
For independent and small-party candidates, the situation is far more difficult. For the House of Representatives, candidates run in specific Congressional districts, which are more or less equal in terms of population. Commonly a small-party or independent candidate is required to secure signatures equal to 5 percent of the votes cast, in their district, for the previous election for governor of the state. This is usually a minimum of 5,000 signatures and often twice that and more, depending on voter turnout and additional state requirements.
For the Senate it is even more difficult. Since Senate races are statewide, the signatures required are based on signatures equal to 5 percent of the vote for governor statewide. Commonly states also require that the signatures be gathered from all over the state, and not, for example, mainly from the large cities.
In addition, signatures can only be collected by a registered voter and must be witnessed by a registered voter. Only the signatures of registered voters — not eligible voters — count. For both the House and Senate, these signatures must be collected within a set period of time, commonly only 6 weeks, and only on dates designated, which are usually just before the elections. This means they cannot be gathered over time in the periods leading up to the election. In New York, for example, about 25,000 signatures were required, meaning at least 27,500 needed to be collected, as at least 10 percent are usually branded as “not valid.”
Clearly an entire electoral machinery is needed simply to get on the ballot. The fact that despite these obstacles, anti-war candidates did mobilize among the people, secured many volunteers and got the signatures needed to get on the ballot shows how strong the drive of the people is to have their will, against war and for rights, represented.
Warmongers Will Not Get My Vote
In addition to making it difficult to run candidates, control of the elections is exercised by the Democrats and Republicans through how district lines are drawn and by excluding large numbers of voters, especially national minorities and workers. This exclusion is done using voter registration requirements, fraudulently excluding eligible voters and outright manipulation of the vote on Election Day.
The state legislatures generally draw voting districts in a manner that guarantees seats to Democrats or Republicans. The rigging of districts, along with exclusion of small parties, are largely responsible for the fact that 90 percent of incumbents win and in more recent elections, especially since 2000, it has been about 99 percent, with fewer than 5 seats changing hands. This year was somewhat different because there were more seats where incumbents had resigned in the face of scandal (like Tom Delay of Texas and Mark Foley of Florida) or had retired or decided not to run. Thus more open seats, with no incumbent running, were in play.
As well, based mainly on the broad opposition among the people to the war and fascism pursued by the president and Congress alike, an estimated 50 seats were considered competitive. Faced with few candidates to vote for, people expressed their anger by voting against incumbents, especially the Republicans. Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee are among the states where these contests are playing out. The fact that Democrats won is mainly an expression of the strength of the people’s opposition to war and repression, rather than support for the Democrats. This was readily apparent in the many actions across the country on Election Day, where signs for Democrats were non-existent, replaced by anti-war stands and those that read, “Warmongers will not get my vote.”
Larger Numbers Excluded From Voting
Using voter registration and the -impeachment proceedings requirements for it, the government at both the state and federal level also exclude large numbers of people from voting. The majority of these are national minorities and workers. With passage of the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), even more restrictions are being placed on the right to vote. HAVA is pushing states to require every voter to have proof of citizenship and state-issued photo ID, on Election Day, to vote. This is in addition to requiring everyone to first register to vote, with similar ID requirements and sometimes even more stringent ones like two photo IDs and proof of citizenship. This compares to current requirements, where most states had more than a dozen types of valid ID, including work and university IDs, bank statements, utility bills, and so forth.
In addition, HAVA requires that there be a verified electronic database of registered voters, controlled by the Secretary of State for the state. “Verification” commonly means that the information provided at registration is the same information the state already has on hand for a driver’s license, or social security card and so forth. Any difference in the information, such as a change of address, or change in last name, or simply a misspelling, means the registration will be ruled invalid. Many states currently have lists that are wrongly excluding 25 percent of voters.
All of these requirements are serving to exclude larger numbers of voters, while also creating a situation where the government, using its databases, will arbitrarily decide who can and cannot vote. In this manner, a civil death is being imposed, blocking people from their rights to participate in the political life of the country, including electing and being elected to office.
In addition, the Secretary of State is a position often appointed by the governor, or elected. Either way, this means the voter lists are controlled by a Democrat or Republican. Experience already shows that these party officials manipulate the lists to favor their own candidates and to force more and more people off the voting rolls. This year, given the win by Democrats, it is not likely that the illegal exclusion of many millions of people from voting will even make the news, let alone be investigated.[TOP]
Some Facts Concerning 2006 Mid-Term Election Results
Elections at the federal level occur every two years in the United States. This is based on the two-year term for all 435 members of the House of Representatives. Mid-term elections are those that come in the middle of the presidential term of office. In addition, about one third of the Senate was up for election.
Generally, less than 50 percent of eligible voters vote in U.S. elections. This means no candidate receives a majority of the vote, something that most people consider a basic requirement of democracy. In the U.S. there is no requirement for candidates to secure 50 percent of the vote. Instead, they receive what is called a plurality of the vote, meaning they get the majority of the votes cast. Commonly this means candidates, including presidents, are elected to office with only about 25-28 percent of the eligible vote — not 50 percent, not even 30 percent, about one quarter of the vote.
For the 2006 elections, the turnout was only about 40 percent, considered normal for a mid-term election. Given most of the races were close, and votes for the anti-war candidates from small parties more widespread, it is likely that the final results will show that a majority of those who won did so with less than 25 percent of the eligible vote — possibly even less than 20 percent.
Representation in the House is based on population in each state, with larger states like California, Florida, New York, and Texas, having larger delegations, Rhode Island, Delaware and Connecticut smaller ones. Candidates are required to live in the district where they are running for office and voters can only vote for candidates in the district where they live.
For the Senate, there are two senators.tors for each state regardless of size, making 100 altogether. They serve a six-year term, so that one third are up for elections with each federal election. This year, 33 Senators — 17 Democrats, 15 Republicans and one independent — were up for election. Senate elections are statewide, meaning all eligible voters in the state can cast a vote for candidates for senate.
Majority control of the House requires 217 seats. Coming into the 2006 elections, 231 seats were held by Republicans, 203 by Democrats and one independent. Republicans have held a majority in the House since 1994.
For the Democrats to secure a majority, they needed to win 15 seats from Republicans while retaining all their existing seats. They achieved this goal, losing no seats and winning 29 seats so far. (9 contests were still being counted at press time). The Democrats will have at least 229 seats and the Republicans 195, with two independents, when the new Congress is sworn in January 2007.
Democrats won most of their House seats in the east and midwest, including New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Ohio and Indiana, while also securing seats in Florida, North Carolina, Kansas, California and elsewhere.
In the Senate, Republicans held the majority with 55 seats. Democrats needed to win six seats. While the race in Virginia is still being contested as we go to press, it is expected that the Democrats will win, giving them the six senate seats necessary for a majority. These seats were won in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, Montana and likely Virginia.
This means that Democrats will have majorities in both houses of Congress. Their margin in the House will be similar to that Republicans had. In the Senate it is even more closely divided than previously, with 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and two independents, who are expected to vote mainly with the Democrats. However, it is also the case that most votes are not strictly along party lines with both Democrats and Republicans crossing party lines. As well, many of the Democrats elected are pro-war and what are known as “Blue Dog” Democrats, meaning they are as conservative or more conservative than some Republicans. Given this, it is not surprising that a main view now being given by both parties is that they will work together and support “bipartisanship.” What this likely means for the people is that more repressive legislation like the USA Patriot Act, passed with overwhelming “bipartisan” support, will be imposed.
The Democratic majorities in both houses also gives them chairmanship of the congressional committees. These committees largely determine which bills actually reach the floor for a vote. They also determine such issues as -congressional oversight of wrongdoing by the executive branch, impeachment, fraud, etc. While the voters have made clear their demand for impeachment proceedings and an immediate end to the Iraq War, no one is holding their breath for Democrats to actually uphold the popular will. Indeed, people across the country are going forward with plans for stepped-up activity against the war and for impeachment, relying on strengthening their own efforts and building their own organizations to bring change.[TOP]
Green Party Anti-War Candidate Kicked Off Ballot
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Rigged Election
Green Party of the United States
Green Party leaders called a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that upheld the removal of a Green candidate for U.S. Senate from the state ballot and the order to pay as much as $1,000,000 in legal costs a serious blow to democracy and fair and open elections.
“Democratic and Republican officials in Pennsylvania have rigged the system in their own favor,” said Nan Garrett, Georgia Green and member of the party’s Ballot Access Committee said on October 8. “The removal of Green candidate Carl Romanelli is a defeat not just for Greens, but for all Pennsylvania voters, who will no longer see the name of an anti-war, pro-choice candidate for U.S. Senate on the ballot on Election Day.”
“Carl’s removal is not a victory for the Democratic Party or for Bob Casey [D]. It is a disgrace to Democrats, the Casey campaign, and to the state of Pennsylvania. Thanks to the court’s decision, the cradle of democracy is now the graveyard of democracy. Pennsylvania elections are as rigged as if someone had tampered with computer voting machines or tossed paper ballots in the trash,” added Ms. Garrett, who is also the Spokesperson for the National Women’s Caucus of the Green Party.
As a result of the court’s decision in response to Carl Romanelli’s appeal of an earlier ruling:
• Mr. Romanelli will not appear on the ballot because Democratic lawyers persuaded the court that enough of the 95,000 signatures he collected were technically invalid to bring him below the state’s 67,000-signature requirement. According to the state’s ballot access rules, Democratic and Republican candidates must gather 2,000 signatures to get on the primary ballot, while other parties’ candidates and independents must gather 67,000. Greens have called the rules grossly unfair, antidemocratic, and evidence of a “gentlemen’s agreement” between Democrats and Republicans to keep other candidates out of state races.
• Mr. Romanelli must pay $89,000 in court costs and all of the Democratic Party’s legal bills for the challenge, which are expected to approach $1,000,000, as well as his own legal expenses. In August, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly ordered Ralph Nader’s independent 2004 campaign to pay more than $80,000 in legal costs after being knocked off the ballot.
The Romanelli campaign has held that the Democrats’ challenge to the ballot petitions was brought in an unconstitutional manner, because the law requires challengers be specific in their charges, and because, even though Mr. Romanelli defeated the challenge a month ago and can demonstrate that his team has defeated the amended challenge, the court would not allow a defense.
“The right to present evidence and a defense is basic in America. Even murderers are given a day in court. After seven weeks, I was not. Yet, the court wants me to pick up the tab,” said Mr. Romanelli, who noted that his campaign collected more signatures than any candidate in Pennsylvania history.
“The message of the Democratic Party’s challenge and the court’s ruling is this: if you are a third party or -independent candidate, you risk being punished with personal bankruptcy just for trying to run for office,” said Liz Arnone, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.
“Pennsylvania’s outrageously prohibitive signature requirement and assessment of legal fees, if the signatures are successfully challenged, are meant to intimidate anyone outside the Democratic and Republican parties from running. Bob Casey and his fellow Democrats have exploited the means to kill democracy in Pennsylvania.”
(for more information see www.gp.org)
[TOP]
What Deal Was Made?
On the day after the elections, -President George W. Bush announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. This action, like the elections themselves, represented the accomplishment of the anti-war movement in making ending the Iraq War and rejection of Bush’s whole “war on terror” the key issue of the elections. The overwhelming stand of voters nationwide was against the war and against Bush. For the elections to have any legitimacy, Bush needed to act. Rumsfeld was the easiest and most direct target to choose, and one who had already been targeted by many in the military.
Rumsfeld is a main architect of the war, particularly the massive “shock and awe” bombings, and his resignation gives every appearance that there will be a change in course in Iraq. At the same time, it is also a means to try and unite the military behind Bush, which has increasingly expressed its opposition to Rumsfeld, Bush, and civilian leadership in general. It remains unclear if the resignation will accomplish this given that Rumsfeld’s replacement is not a military man, but former CIA director Robert Gates.
More importantly, while peoples the world over welcome the removal of Rumsfeld, no one accepts that he be -allowed to simply leave without being held accountable for his crimes. It is with this in mind that the question emerges — what was the deal made with the Democrats?
Given the timing, and statements by Nancy Pelosi, expected to become Speaker of the House, and others, there is every indication that a deal has been made. Most likely, its main terms are no impeachment proceedings, no investigation or -subpoenas of Rumsfeld, and -“bipartisan” efforts to try and win the war in Iraq.
Pelosi got an early-morning phone call from Bush on November 8. She then made a public statement, before Bush’s afternoon press conference, calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Then she had lunch with Bush.
In both her victory speech on election night and since, Pelosi emphasized, “Mr. President, we need a new direction in Iraq. Let us work together to find a solution to the war in Iraq.” At no time has she, or any of the other leading Democrats, supported the demand of the people to end the war now and end it because it is a criminal aggressive war. Instead, in various ways, the pro-war Democratic majority has indicated that, as Bush stated, “Leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat.”
Rumsfeld’s resignation no doubt means there will be a change in tactics in Iraq. But Bush and Pelosi, and the plans put forward by the Democrats, make clear that the aim of world domination and control of Iraq and the region in general, will not change. And all the talk of “bipartisanship” underlines unity on this aim and the refusal by Democrats to uphold the will of the people to end the war and impeach war criminals Bush and Rumsfeld.[TOP]