- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Green party has been dead since Nader.
Pretending they had a chance in a voting system that can barely support two parties was kinda pitiable. Until we have RCV for federal elections at a minimum, they will never have a shot.
A-fucking-men.
The Green Party should be the RCV party and that should be their main focus. After that then they and any other party would actually stand a chance. Republicans are actively banning RCV from being implemented and Democrats are slow walking it, but we need to keep pushing.
TBH, I don’t see it happening except organically from within the Democratic Party. If enough progressive Democrats get elected, I think it stands a chance to happen in our lifetimes.
The Green Party should be the RCV party
They are. Holy shit.
That’s all well and good, but useless in any federal race because the federal government does not dictate how the elections/voting are done.
Brings it back around to if you care so damn much, then focus your resources on state governments.
You should reread the elections clause. Congress has authority to regulate elections
It’s right there in the platform.
Actually, score voting would be better. IRV (also known as RCV) has been proven to lead to the same 2-party domination and has many disadvantages.
I’m voting for the party for socialism and liberation and you can too.
You don’t need to vote green to cast a third party ballot.
will be voting for the PSL if they’re on the ballot in my state, Claudia De la Cruz is great. if they don’t make it on the ballot then it’ll probably go to Stein as I believe she’s confirmed on the ballot in my state, but the PSL is my first choice!
edit: just checked, the PSL is indeed on the ballot in my state, so they’ve got my vote :3
“given that she herself has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Google, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and McKinsey.” I don’t see this information on the FEC website. Can anybody actually find this information? I sort this page by Amount, and it doesn’t list these companies. It lists people:
The writer of the article read it on Facebook. Fake news is the new standard.
Is she really responsible for the problems of the US Green party?
As near as I can tell the EU Green parties had a different trajectory. They initially started winning seats in parliaments on purely environmental platforms. Those MPs actually started pushing green agendas in various parliaments. That, in turn led to more people voting for them. Eventually that had to adopt policy positions beyond the environment and they tended to be pretty left.
The US never had Green party members in a position where they could actually do anything useful about the environment. That means they could never fulfill their primary goal in the US. So when they tried to branch out the same way the EU Green parties did, they just turned into a vague hodgepodge of leftists ideas.
Is there any suggestion that Jill Stein’s replacement would have any chance of saving the US Green party?
The Green party is doing exactly what it was designed to do. It’s siphoning off eco-conscious Democratic voters just significantly enough to affect voting margins but not enough to win. To be clear I’m not saying that Even a significant number of people in the green party have that as a goal, but top down, that’s all it’s about.
We are a two-party system and they are allowing the green party to exist to use it as a wedge.
Then I guess y’all should starting reworking how your system works, because it doesn’t sound like a democracy at all if you can’t vote for what you actually believe in.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
Hahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahah. You’re hilarious!
Right?!
Counterpoint: The Green Party hasn’t done much to keep people engaged. They killed themselves.
At least the Tea Party had a decent run and engaged with the people who would vote for them. Though, it let MAGA convert or overtake it, but the point still stands. The Tea Party did more in the 10ish years it existed than the Green Party has done in 20 years.
Counter-counterpoint: the Tea Party was an astroturf movement funded by big oil, big tobacco and the Koch brothers. Given massive amounts of support by media companies (lots and lots of oxygen). With the purpose of taking over the GOP and entrenching their toxic industries and power.
With the perspective we have now it is clear that their plan was to push Republican supporters over into fascism (not to say that it wasn’t latent within many of them) and reduce the risks of democracy to the oligarchy.
And Stein’s answer every single time this comes up?
“What about Gaza?”
She is literally an operative for Russia and the Republicans. This isn’t even a meme or conspiracy theory, it’s simply a plain truth.
I don’t understand how a genocide can be taken so lightly. Some people have trouble casting a vote for any political party that sponsors one.
I’ve given more details elsewhere, but the short version:
We can classify US presidential votes into three categories:
- Vote for the Democrat
- Vote for the Republican
- Vote third-party/independent or don’t vote
The most effective vote to make on an anti-genocide platform is #1.
Voting for a Republican is voting for a party that appears to be profoundly okay with the genocide in Gaza AND wants to start some genocides of their own (e.g. against trans folks, immigrants and racial minorities). This is the most pro-genocide vote.
Voting for a Democrat is voting for a party that has a fairly significant group that opposes the genocide, and which appears to be movable on the topic.
Any other vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. On the presidental front, there is no chance in this election that anyone other than a candidate from one of the main two parties is elected, and that’s also true for most senate or house races. (Possibly all, but I don’t want to make that strong claim since I haven’t actually researched all the races.) Voting for a candidate who you know won’t win is explicitly choosing not to have a say between the tho feasible candidates.
I do have one caveat though…
If you live in West Virginia for example, it’s a bit more complex. There your choice is essentially “the Republican or not the Republican,” so third-party/independent moves into category 1. However, then I’d argue that voting for the Democrat for president may still be the preferable response because if the Republican wins the electoral college but, (as has happened in every presidential election since 1990 except 2004) the Democrat still wins the popular vote, it further delegitimises the Republican’s presidency and the electoral college.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
