|
Donella H. Meadows 撰寫2000年8月7日
抱怨之聲不斷湧入：「為何要寫專欄支持納德?為何積極的幫助笨蛋布希的競選？你應該可以做的更好。」同樣的，支持者也不斷：「我相信我和你一樣都絕不後悔，秉持良心投票」。
這就是羅夫
在 Grist 的讀者投書中，letters page of Grist http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/
letters/letters062900.stm，民眾不只抨擊我，還大肆互相譴責：「不管誰當選，都將是未來四年的主宰，自然環境都無發法承受四年德州式的環境保護論。」「不要再只看到眼前的事物而無遠見，誰當選都是半斤八兩罷了。」
「喬治會使我們對環保所做的努力化為灰燼，使教育走回頭路，把最高法院的司法權力讓渡給激進宗教者。這些難以接受的惡果，使得投票給納德看來非常荒謬。」
「人們投票給高爾不是因為他們認為他將會是個好總統，而是為了免於恐懼」堅持我們的信念是獲得真正改變的唯一方法。」
感到困擾的民眾想將選票投給一個真正誠實的人而非一個善於包裝的人;投給一個不會賣掉自己的人;投給一個將會為人民及環境奮鬥的人。他們互看不順眼主要是因為對他們面對的選擇感到氣憤:投票給納德而使布希當選;或投給高爾，高爾當選。不過，還是有人拒絕被迫做出上述的選擇。
如偉大的專欄作家Molly Ivins 說道：納德對國家的實質貢獻比另兩位候選人的總和再相乘還要多。」她來自德州但強調她不會做任何事去幫助布希當選。「兩個壞人程度上總是有區別的。」
短期來看，她認為如果你支持納德，就大力的聲援他，假使他得到了15％的選票，他將有機會出現在總統辯論中，使高爾和布希相形見拙。假使你位於那些結果已經相當確定的州（如德州、麻薩諸塞州），你可以隨意的投給納德，讓這兩個不怎麼樣的政黨緊張，幫助綠黨獲得認同和競選的經費。假如你所在的州結果並不明確，為何不等著看11月會是什麼結果呢？」
信心滿滿的Michael Moore有不同的策略，一封標題為「布希和高爾使我想要拉爾夫」的公開信中他主張所有高爾的支持者要投票給高爾。「事實上我相當堅持這一點，即使你正想放棄你的選票。」與其鼓勵民眾投票給納德，Moore認為還不如動員全國最多數人 - 55％厭惡投票的民眾。
「假如你開車到一個發出惡臭的體育館，其中在幕後一場騙局正在進行，你走進去、簽名、拿起他們給妳的選票、在投票區中就像丟擲政治汽油彈一樣投下你的票。這二個候選人都支持NAFTA, WTO，死刑、古巴禁令、增加五角大廈的預算、低廉的HMOs，貪婪的連鎖醫院、2億5000萬隻槍存在於家庭中、增加對伊拉克的轟炸行為、貧富差距加大。你想告訴我這裡有二個人可以選擇嗎？我不會這樣做，我會投給納德。」
1996年柯林頓贏得4700萬選票，而有10000萬的投票者選擇待在家中。Moore 表示，不用去爭取高爾的4700萬張選票，他們(10000萬選民)便能「創造歷史，把真正的美國英雄送進白宮
(address: 1600 賓州大道)」
長期來看，為何我們要容忍這種只能在爛人中選一個比較不爛的選舉制度呢？有一些不錯的替代方法：其中一種是在大部分民主國家中實施的國會代表比例制，我觀察到民眾對它的猶豫，但我從不知道為什麼。 國會代表比例制比起現行制度，有較公平的發言機會給不同見解的人。
另一個較有趣的制度是在伊朗和澳洲施行的instant runoff。在這個制度中，你可以在選票中選出你心目中的第一、第二及第三順位。在第一輪中只計算第一順位的選票，假使無任何一位贏得大部分的選票，此時先淘汰選票最少者，而那些第一順位選擇被淘汰候選人的選票自動以第二順位加權計算。」
如此將能消除因選舉而帶來的憤怒，因為你就不需要為了擔心更差的候選人當選而投票給你所厭惡的候選人。如果能和俄羅斯選舉制度的特色 - 以上皆非 - 結合將會更好，如果「以上皆非」獲得大部分的票數，所有的候選人將被取消資格。政黨必須不斷的努力直到她們能獲得大部分民眾支持。（要知道更多不同的選舉制度請到
Center for Voting and Democracy.
http://www.fairvote.org/）
在兩黨政治體系中選出的總統在未來當然不願意改變真正符合民主的制度，但是你知道誰改變了？綠黨正利用instant runoffs 的制度提名總統候選人。
Donella H. Meadows擔任永續經營機構的指導教授同時也是Dartmouth College研究環保領域的副教授
全文及圖示詳見： http://www.gristmagzine.com
/grist/citizen/citizen080700.stm
版權歸屬 環境信託基金會 (張珮菁譯，黃媺雯、葉春良審校審校)
中英對照全文：http://news.ngo.org.tw/reviewer
/donella/re-donella20000828.htm
|
|
by Donella H. Meadows 08.07.00
The complaints continue to pour in:"Why are you writing columns supporting Ralph Nader? How can you actively aid and abet the election of that dolt Bush? You can think better than that. "And so does the applause: "I believe that you will never regret voting on the basis of your conscience, and neither will I."
Right on, Ralph.
On the letters page of Grist, folks are attacking not just me but each other, with gusto:"Whoever is elected gets to call the shots for the next four years, and I don't think the environment can take four years of Texas-style environmentalism.""Let's stop always taking the short view. That's just what Tweedledum and Tweedledee want you to do."
"George the Shrub will undo all the environmental progress we have made in my lifetime, turn education on its head, and turn the Supreme Court over to the radical religious right. These are outcomes so unacceptably evil that a protest vote for Nader looks ridiculous."
"People are voting for Gore out of fear, not because they think he will make a good president. Sticking to what we believe is the only way to get real change."
These embattled folks all want to vote for an honest person rather than a packaged image, for someone who is not sold to the highest bidder, for someone who will fight for the people and the environment. Their anger with each other is mainly anger at the choice they face. Vote for Nader and get Bush. Or vote for Gore and get Gore. But some people refuse to be squeezed into that box.
The great columnist Molly Ivins, for example, says that Nader "has done more real good for this country than both [major] candidates added together and multiplied." But she's from Texas and emphatically does not want to do anything that might help Bush become president. "The lesser of two evils does make a difference."
So for the short term, she says, if your heart is with Nader, be loudly for Nader. If he gets 15 percent in the polls, he'll be in the presidential debates, with a chance to show up the two Tweedles. When it comes to voting, she says, if you're in a state with a certain outcome, like Texas that will go for Dubyah or Massachusetts that will go for Gore, you can freely vote for Nader, throw a scare into the Tweedle-parties, and help the Greens get recognition and campaign funds. If you're in a state where the outcome is close, she says, "why don't we see how it looks in November?"
The irrepressible Michael Moore has another strategy. In an open letter entitled Bush and Gore Make Me Wanna Ralph, he urges all Gore supporters to vote for Gore. "In fact I insist on it, even if you are just throwing your vote away," he writes. Rather than trying to get these folks to vote for Nader, Moore wants to mobilize the nation's largest party -- the 55 percent who are normally too disgusted to vote.
"What if you drove down to that stinky gym where the little shell game behind the pretend curtains is taking place, walk in, sign in, take the ballot they hand you, and toss yourselves inside the booth like a political Molotov cocktail?" Moore asks. "You wanna tell me there's a choice here between two guys who both support NAFTA, WTO, the death penalty, the Cuban embargo, increased Pentagon spending, sleazy HMOs, greedy hospital chains, 250 million guns in our homes, more bombing of Iraq, the rich getting richer and the rest of us declaring bankruptcy? Not me. I'm voting for Ralph Nader. KAAAABOOM!"
In 1996 Bill Clinton won with 47 million votes, while 100 million eligible voters stayed home. They could "make history by putting a true American hero at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" without taking a single vote away from Gore." Moore writes.
For the longer term, why should we put up with an electoral system that gives us nothing but choices between lesser evils? There are far better alternatives. One is the proportional parliamentary system practiced in most democracies. I see people stick up their noses at it, but I never understand why; it allows a fairer hearing to a wider spectrum of views than does our winner-take-all system.
Another intriguing possibility is the instant runoff, practiced in Ireland and Australia. In this system you mark your ballot with your first, second, and third choice. In the first round only first-choice votes are counted. If no one wins a majority, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated. Those whose first choice was the eliminated candidate automatically weigh in with their second choice.
That would take away the agony of voting for someone you despise just to keep someone you despise even more from winning. It would be even better combined with a feature of Russian elections, where there is always a choice called "none of the above." If a majority of voters choose "none of the above," all candidates are disqualified. The parties must keep trying until they come up with a slate of possibilities that the people can actually stomach. (Learn more about alternative voting systems from the Center for Voting and Democracy.)
Of course no president from either Tweedle-party would think of leading a charge toward a genuine democracy. You know who would? Here's a hint: The Green Party already uses instant runoffs for its presidential nominations.
Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.
http://www.gristmagzine.com/grist/
citizen/citizen080700.stm |
