Last week, Jack McMillin, a fellow columnist, wrote a column that every sane Democrat should be applauding right about now. In fantastic two-party fervor, Jack showcased the popular discontent with the meddling Greens: we shouldn’t have electoral reform, we should crush third parties. We ought to weed out annoying and inviable progressive third-party candidates because they threaten a corporately funded, only prima facie progressive mainstream party.

But this isn’t new. Democrats have been crying about this for years.

And now, to scare people off from local candidates in Champaign and Urbana, the College Democrats have been sending Jack’s column to houses and apartments all over campus and the surrounding areas.

In envelopes with the return address of the Illini Union, printed pages of the column are followed by a brief note: “paid for by the College Democrats.”

To some extent, they are right, insofar as they do face a kind of threat from third parties. But what can be done to fix the problem? Scare tactics using faulty arguments and faulty information? One of Jack’s, equating Greens with Republicans, just won’t work, and this is why: in Illinois, Glengariff polls solidly show that not only is Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney gaining ground, but the Democratic candidate is still winning and moreover Whitney voters comprise a mix of all three, with Republican and Democratic voters supporting Whitney about equally and with 15 percent support from Independents. So no, Greens aren’t just Republicans in disguise, stealing votes from Democrats. They run for viable and valid alternative policy ideas.

Moreover, Greens support progressive politics. You don’t see another progressive candidate running against David Gill in Illinois’ 15th district because there is no need for one – voters have a progressive choice.

What the Democrats need to do if they want power is talk about meaningful reform, especially electoral and campaign finance reform. Without it, people will become increasingly fed up, they will vote for other candidates and they slowly but surely pave the way for third parties if the mainstream parties won’t do it themselves.

What I mean when I say reform is not just making voting easier, decreasing apathy, putting more money into get-out-the-vote campaigns and mildly capping campaign contributions. I mean abolishing the Electoral College. I mean making officials accountable primarily to voters, not to campaign contributors. I mean real caps on personal and corporate contributions, not unending and impotent lip service. I mean parties having to earn and not just buy our votes. I mean, at the end of the day, a real push toward proportional and meaningful representation in this country, not just a perpetual foray into contemplating the same tired Republican and Democratic parties who may have a couple decent candidates here and there in a larger framework of mediocrity.

Of course, there are important differences between our two main parties that I’m omitting. One party only got 26 percent of the total election contributions from Enron since 1990, while the other got 74 percent. One party supported the war in Iraq adamantly, and the other only supported it willingly. One party drafted the Patriot Act, and the other voted for it.

My facetiousness should not be understood as mockery but as real fear about what bad choices and low voter turnout do to policy decisions in a country the size of the United States. Jack may think it’s better to abandon hopes for reform, but I don’t. I think we need to critically examine the Electoral College (the real reason Al Gore was not elected in 2000), how we regulate campaign finance and why more and more people in Illinois are choosing third parties as an alternative.

It’s not just bad candidates anymore; it’s a bad system.