“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
James Bovard

“How much is my vote really worth?”  The question has been posed by nearly every voter since the 2000 election. The answer for UML professor Chad Montrie is, “My vote is worth so much that I won’t waste it on a party I don’t believe in.”

Montrie, who has voted for the Green Party candidate since 2000, has made it public that in 2004 he will not be voting.  In a September 22 talk given to the UML Election 2004 class entitled “Why I’m not Voting,” the two year assistant history professor outlined why he could not justify using his vote to support a party that he no longer believed in.

“I believe in social change that begins at a local, grass-roots level,” Montrie commented in a recent interview.  “Just because I am choosing to not vote does not mean that I’m retreating to a cabin in the woods. My interest is in building a party, distinct from the other two (Republican and Democratic), which attempts to actually win political power and use it in the interest of average Americans, rather than corporate interests.”

“Both parties try to use superfluous issues to distract the American people from real issues. As important as Roe versus Wade is on a personal level, the global issues of U.S. imperialism and global capitalism have a far greater impact on the lives of every human.”

Immediately following the Democratic parties confirmation of John Kerry as Presidential candidate at the Boston convention July 29th, an intense focus was given to voters like Montrie.  The Unity Campaign and ralphdontrun.net, were a few of the internet based campaigns which sought to sway voters who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election.  The Green Party severed ties with Nader last year and nominated David Cobb as their candidate.

“At this point Cobb and his running mate are telling folks they understand if they feel compelled to vote for Kerry, especially in swing states. The issue for me is not the candidates. The lesser of two evils argument does not work for me.  Both parties want and hold to some form of global dominance and supposed free trade.”

Montrie continued, “By giving implicit, if not explicit support to the Democrat's candidate, the Greens are acting more as an endorsement organization, much like the Labor Party and confusing voters about the need for a third party alternative. I won’t give endorsement to a party or organization that continues to divert attention from real global and social issues."

“People think that there has always been Republican and Democrats. It’s just not the case.  The Populists of the 1890’s is a great example of a social movement turning into a political party that forced democratic change. Things happen that politicians can’t control and these are what create social movements.”

Several other examples were cited by Montrie as successful social movements including school integration and union rights. “It was not the majority that sought these social changes.  It was grass roots efforts. The war in Iraq is a great example of it now.  The majority of Americans, at least statistically, approved the war initially. But gradually there is an increasing number that want out.”

“These American’s feel the war has been placed out of their control.  Social movements and a valid third party should offer resistance and be the voice of opposition to the ideological agendas of the two party system now,” Montrie stated.

When asked about the impact his talk had had on the Election 2004 class, Montrie smiled saying, “I think it was valuable for the class to be exposed to another way of thinking.  Americans are looking for public conversation and are open to discussion.  There is unrest at the local level.  I was watching the baseball game yesterday with some neighbors, people who aren’t in educational settings, and they are ready to talk politics.  People are hungry for this conversation.”

Montrie is not naïve to think that a third party will be created overnight and acknowledges that he respects John Kerry as a politician.  “I think Kerry will win because he is a better politician. Bush is one of the dumbest presidents we’ve ever had. But as much as I respect Kerry, he represents an ideology and party that is not my own.”

“Under Clinton, there developed a lackadaisical attitude toward many social issues that have come to the front under the Bush administration.  That’s not to say that I want Bush to win, but the argument that nonfundamental ideologies will be benefited by Kerry in office carries no weight with me.  The election of either Kerry or Bush does nothing to advance social movements on a global scale.”

One colleague of Professor Montrie commented, “Chad is the only professor I know of who is not voting for Kerry.  And that says something.”