What does a "spoiler" spoil?

The Minneapolis StarTribune editorial staff, on June 23rd, published their commentary that perfectly illustrates how obstructive they can be to any attempt to move away from power-politics-as-usual.

The editorial, titled "Party-building work remains for IP" is carefully written to give the impression that the Independence Party, despite having candidates you admittedly might like, is not likely to produce any results except watering down the Democratic vote, thereby insuring a Republican win.

It suggests that most Minnesotans are asking this question: "Is this party offering voters a serious contender for governor, or a spoiler?"

Serious contender? Is the questioner wondering whether the IP is just joking with us? Are we to wonder that they don't even want to win the election? Could they be nominating a full slate of 5 constitutional candidates and running what seems to be a full campaign just as some sort of a "lark"?

Then there is the mysterious title of the editorial... party-building work remains for IP. Are we to believe that the IP has neglected to build a party, or is the StarTrib suggesting that they should first build their party to some size and/or strength before running candidates? I guess that would mean party membership, although parties are usually judged by their results in elections.

The editorial later gives clues as to the meaning of the "question" they hope Minnesotans will ask... by pointing out that none of the IP candidates has been elected to any office before, and that none of their names are well-known. In other words, they haven't followed the accepted path that Republicans and Democrats tred on their way to major state elections. They haven't "played the party game" of working their way up through minor elected positions and loyal party labors. Again, revealingly, the editorial states the objection that "What they are not is a team of politicians."

Not a team of politicans? The cat is out of the bag, isn't it? The state should be run by a team of politicians? Ah yes... that is the position of power-politics... and those who benefit from it. How can the StarTribune be expected to deal with, and influence, leaders who don't respond as politicians... as career politicans? What kind of leverage can you apply to someone who may not even care about being reelected?

The term "spoiler" is a loaded term that is continually used as a means of dismissing any opposition to the entrenched parties and their approved candidates. In this case, because the StarTribune is clearly in the "liberal" camp, the IP may "spoil" the Democrats chance at upsetting the incumbent Republican administration, because the IP is assumed to take more Democratic votes than Republican. By implying that the IP is operating as a "spoiler", the commentary hopes to convince readers that a vote for IP candidates can do no more than spoil the election that would otherwise reflect our response to the fatal alternatives of Dem or GOP.

In this election, Sue Jeffers, running as a Republican in the GOP primary against the incumbent Governor, is not considered a spoiler by the StarTribune, because she may take votes away from the candidate the StarTribune would prefer to see lose. "Spoiler" is reserved for use against candidates they want to be unsuccessful.

What, pray tell, StarTribune, does an additional candidate or slate of candidates, or another active political party, spoil? In what way does giving the voters another choice SPOIL anything? Is having more choices on the ballot a negative for anyone, in any way?

The answer is simple and obvious; the only way an additional candidate can be considered negative is to someone who is securely aligned in one of the two old parties and thus wants to eliminate alternatives that may cost the favored party. "Spoiler" means spoiling the simple two-party, either/or, Tweedledee/Tweedledum establishment that all power pushers prefer. Those who hope to drive the political system in their direction prefer as little opposition as possible. Having a 3rd party involved complicates power politics. A 4th and a 5th could really make things interesting.

I have no love for the Independence Party or their candidates. Although one can't be sure what they stand for, I'm fairly certain it isn't what I stand for. Nevertheless, having their candidates on the ballot can only be a positive for Minnesota. We need choices... even choices I may not personally like... to the two corrupt embedded parties that take turns driving this state in bad directions. Having additional choices in the political arena has many positive effects, especially if those choices are at all competitive. Choice improves the political dialog. Having more choices refines our voting, allowing us to find a candidate and/or party that more closely fits what we want. The votes they garner are more informative about what the people of Minnesota really want. The results of elections where there are only two choices tells us very little about the wishes of the voters. The long-term effect of more choices is that the positions of each party become more clearly defined and discrete as they are forced to react and respond to the positions of competitors.

Are Minnesotans so bumbleheaded that we actually prefer having only two choices? Can we not see that having only two choices has created total confusion about who stands for what? Are we unable to detect that the results are so similar regardless of which old party wins? Are we so polarized that we can't admit that either old party will continue to take our liberties and increase our taxes? I hope the answers to those questions are NO.

I welcome the Independence Party candidates to the election. If I don't vote for their candidates, it won't be because I consider them spoilers, or because they haven't spent long enough building their party, or because their candidates aren't career politicians. Minnesota voters desperately need competition for the corrupted old Republican and Democratic parties. I would be even more pleased if, in future years, our ballots contained many more choices.