The California Democratic primary is March 2. The Democratic candidates will be there claiming to support the working people at large. Put them on the spot! Urge the striking supermarket workers to go to cmapign rallies and meetings and put forward the demand that the candidates who promise to support the working people should put their money where their mouth is -- they should give substantial support to the supermarket strike. By this I mean not only public statements but presence on picket lines or at rallies. The claim of the Democrats to support the workers is bullshit (not that the Republicans are friends of the working class). The Dems should be put on the spot, their pro-labor masks ripped away, shown to be false friends. This will hasten the day when the working class has a movement of its own, independent of the two capitalist political parties. Such a movement is the only way out of the present misery for the working class.

Why not just support the one that Already Does support the strike.

http://KucinichWatch.com/support/UFCWstrikeVideo.htm

Because Denny the K doesn't stand a whelk's chance in a supernova of getting nomination, let alone the Oval Office.

But if you want to flush your time and money down the toilet, by all means, support Dennis "Mind-control Satellites" Kucinich.

nonanarchist

In an ideal democracy, each person votes for the candidate closest to their position. They don't think about "wasting votes" on can't-win candidates.

The purpose of the primaries, particularly the DP primaries, seems to be to allow this kind of voting. (The GOP uses a winner-take-all system like the electoral college. The DP uses a kind of proportional representation.)

This, I just learned... as an adult! It's pretty sad that I didn't know this.

After some contemplation, though, I started to grasp that there's a continuum of "democracies" that vary in their actual level of democratic power.

At one end are one-party pseudo democracies, like Iraq. Mexico and Japan used to be one-party too. The old communist countries were also one-party. In these non-democracies, non-participation in the party limited your access to power, and in some places, could mean you'd have your rights curtailed.

Better than one-party are two-party systems, like the US and Great Britain. In these, the power is concentrated in the wealty people who lead the big parties, and smaller organizations of people end up siding with one or the other. In America, community groups and democratic clubs tend to side with the Democrats, while companies and some churches tell their people to go with Republicans. Unions give money to the Democrats, but the membership votes across party lines.

Better than two-party systems are multi-party systems. I believe Germany has this, as well as Italy. It's in vogue right now, and a google search turns up a lot of new governments trying it out. It seems to tip the scales toward people-power, at the risk of ongoing contentions in the government. Check the link for an NGO that promotes multi-party democracy.

In an ideal world everyone votes for themself because everyone is a candidate and everyone thinks they can represent themselves best (and they want the money)

The good thing about a two party system is that you dont get rapid swings in policy to the far left and far right. AND the elected leaders must pass through a significant amount of beurocracy before they become president. in a multi party system it is possible to become president by running around making some inflamatory speaches and then having some good fortune in the election. (even though this would still be difficult)

Of course it depends entirely on what you mean by "good" If you mean good for the economy or good for the minorities or good for the "would be" politicians etc etc.