Socialist Alternative/CWI-USA candidate receives 6.5% in Boston Council election

by ? Fri Nov 09, 2007 21:52

well done, could you expand on what kind of outreach you engaged in as a party to raise public knowledge and his profile?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Nov 10, 2007 00:19

Campaigning on the streets, we learned a lot more about Boston. We did not just learn about the electoral system; more importantly, we learned about the issues confronting communities. We found that housing was the key issue facing many communities. We also were brought closer to a community campaign fighting against Boston University’s attempt to put a very dangerous, level 4, ‘bio-terror’ laboratory in their community. We learned that the lack of a library is an issue in Chinatown, and the proliferation of condos (expensive privately owned apartments) is an issue in many communities.

Bringing socialist politics to the streets
The most important aspect of the experience we got is the fact that many young activists got daily experience explaining the ideas of socialism to working class people in an understandable way. In this way, the importance of the campaign will be seen for years to come.

What we found everywhere in Boston, throughout this campaign, is that working class people are fed up. Angry at the lack of affordable housing, sick of the war in Iraq, fed up with the cost of living in the city, infuriated every time they see more condos being built, and tired of the stories that come every week about one young person killing another on our streets.

Unfortunately, this anger leads to mixed consequences. Alienated from what was on offer from the main parties, many simply did not vote. The turnout was just 13.6%, down from 24.6% in 2003 and the lowest in decades. Anti-immigrant sentiment seems to have gathered some steam; with an outsider candidate running on an anti-immigrant platform getting around four thousand votes. This is an indication of the political polarisation, both left and right, taking place in US society. Socialists need to be bold about taking up this issue, and we made immigrant rights one of our key issues, despite the fact that undocumented immigrants cannot vote.

We distributed tens of thousands of leaflets, and well over a thousand copies of our eight-page election-edition of the ‘Boston Organizer’, our local Socialist Alternative newsletter. Every single piece of literature and election material, including our one-hundred huge red signs, prominently placed the logo of Socialist Alternative. Quite literally, we raised the banner of socialism to more people in Boston than has been done for a long time.

Many people were very impressed with the seriousness of our election campaign, and many people are interested in joining Socialist Alternative through this work. As the war in Iraq ravages on, as the housing situation deteriorates, and as the attacks on working people intensify, mass struggle is likely to pick up in the US.

When this fight intensifies, new activists will look for alternatives on the political and electoral plane. Socialist Alternative does not wish to just stand aside and comment on this process. We want local and state lists of candidates, independent of the Democrats and Republicans, who fight against rising rents, home foreclosures and the high cost of living.

We would contribute to the political struggle for working class representation whether the candidates’ list was explicitly socialist or not, while not hiding our own socialist views. With our experience in Boston, we are now better positioned to intervene in this type of development in a serious way.

In this way, even if only on a very small scale, Socialist Alternative’s campaign in Boston served many purposes. The campaign raised the basic ideas and programme of working class socialism; it was a campaign that consciously built an organisation; it helped to educate a layer of young working class activists, and it was a tiny but important step towards creating working class political representation.

by Red Admiral (butterfly) Sat Nov 10, 2007 21:36

This seems very impressive. Can you put up some links so we can get more information about this? Thanks.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sun Nov 11, 2007 05:49

Try here

http://www.votegeary.com/

and here

http://www.socialistalternative.org/

by Mike Novack Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:30

Maybe..........

I have a rule of thumb which seems reasonable to me. If there's a story posted on an IMC site remote from the location of the story which might be too good to be true (or the other way around) rand that far away city has its own IMC site -- I check THERE. If a story is real/newsworthy should be able to see talk about it.

So before discussing this story any further, how about checking in with Boston IMC

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sun Nov 11, 2007 21:58

a story s only newsworthy if it is carried on IMC?

I don't know if Socialist Alternative in Boston have any interaction with Boston IMC - but that hardly detracts from what SA in Boston have done in relation to the election campaign of Mike Geary. Surely anytime an openly socialistt candidate can pick up 6.5% of the vote in an American council election it is worth acknowledging the effort of all involved.

by Statistician Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:10

It seems to me that he actually got 2.4% of the votes cast. Not 6.5% as claimed in the title. Given turnout, that less than 0.5% of those entitled to vote in Boston, about the equivalent of someone getting 4 or 5,000 votes in Dublin in the European elections.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Nov 12, 2007 14:48

You are incorrect - 6.5% of all voters voted for Mike Geary. As each voter was entitled to four votes Mike Geary received 2.4% of all votes cast - 3,000+

As for the comparison with Dublin - a first-time standing on a clear left-wing platform in George Bush's America - I think the equivalent of 4-5,000 votes is an outstanding achievement.

by Statistician Mon Nov 12, 2007 15:12

So he got 2.4% of FIRST Preferences?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Nov 12, 2007 22:43

the vote was not conducted on the basis of proportional representation. 6.4% of voters used one of their four votes (in effect all 1st preferences) to vote for Matt Geary (my apologies for using the wrong name earlier). He received a total of 2.4% of all the votes cast (number of voters X 1,2,3 or 4 depending on how many they actually used).