It’s a part of the problem, an important one, but certainly not the only problem.
5 Likes
Aren’t you assuming that they can’t win because of their platform as opposed to their ability to access the public more broadly? That’s part of the problem of the deck being stacked in favor of the two major parties, that other parties do not get a chance to address the public in any sort of effective manner that allows them to get votes.
2 Likes
I’m not sure that’s quite what he was saying, but here’s how I feel: a party that has not yet demonstrated that it has the ability to successfully GOVERN at a state or local level is probably not a party I’m prepared to entrust with governing at the Federal level, at least in the executive branch. Whether or not they can WIN at a federal level is another issue. As the last election proved, it’s perfectly possible for a completely inexperienced, unqualified person to win the presidency, but that doesn’t mean they should.
And that’s not to imply that Green Party presidential candidates aren’t good people who have worthy policy goals. Many good people don’t have the experience or background needed to be an effective president.
I’m perfectly happy to vote for qualified Green Party candidates at the state and local level, and have done so in the past.
2 Likes
Sure, but part of the problem is that if they can’t get into positions where they can exercise authority over and above, say, city councils or school boards, how are they supposed to show what they can do? When political parties are actively prevented from winning, even in state elections, because the bar for participation is too high, they will never get a chance to prove themselves.
People keep saying they’d happily vote for a 3rd party guy, and then aren’t willing to do so when they come along. I think that’s true at the local and state level, as well as at the national level. In locations where 3rd parties are allowed to compete, it’s usually biased towards the “side” that is already in power - here in GA, lots of libertarians (I’ve never seen a green on a ballot here) and I’d suspect in places like Oregon, let’s say, you do get Greens running for office.
2 Likes
@nungesser, I don’t think we’re going to come to a meeting of minds on this. It’s why I said I’ll respect your dislike of Dr. Stein’s choice of dinner parties; I don’t share your opinion, but given the anti-Russian place you are coming from it’s a legitimate concern, and not just an anti-environmentalist smear.
My belief in freedom of speech is pretty strong. I don’t have a problem with Russians having access to the US electorate. I do have problems with the architecture of Twitter and the business model of Facebook, which both foreign and native propagandists have exploited in the recent elections, but those are topics for a different thread.
@NickyG, thank you very much for the link, which I will parse, and while I strongly disagree with you about the trustworthiness of the US Government, I most fervently agree that you shouldn’t blindly trust Random Internet Guy!
Edited to reflect post below.
Just for the record: I am in no possible way “anti-Russian”. I bear no animosity towards Russians or towards the country, and fully understand why they’d have a vested interest in how our elections turn out. I think dialog with Russia is incredibly important and I’d certainly hope that Trump, Stein, and Clinton spoke with him on a diplomatic level. But I’m very much anti-treason, and as NickyG pointed out, it’s becoming pretty clear that our current elected officials sold out to a foreign power. That’s not a “freedom of speech” that I’m comfortable with.
4 Likes
I’m saying that both winning national office and governing effectively once attaining it requires mastering the art of coalition building. Even if a Green candidate miraculously won the White House they’d still need to work with members of other parties to get anything done. Heck, Trump’s party controls all three branches of the Federal government and he STILL barely managed to accomplish any of his goals this year.
So for a member of a third party to be an effective candidate, let alone an effective President, they would first have to get lots and lots of practice creating political alliances. Thus my belief that Greens need to work on building a track record at the regional and statewide level before they are ready for the White House.
4 Likes
Again, sure, but you know that probably the biggest reason why the Greens can’t get anywhere is because of the democratic party working to undermine them.
and I’ll point out that mulitparty systems in other places have as much dirty politics as we do, but still manage to build coalitions when the time comes (not always of course). And prior to the modern era, our two parties did indeed also work together, and now they don’t.
So, I think that what we need to do is change the election systems from the ground up, because the current system is just rot from top to bottom, and both parties bear responsibility for doing that (as do corporations).
3 Likes
That’s exactly why I think the Green Party needs to focus its energy on State & local elections until they DO start winning those legislature seats and governorships.
So the Millenials are going to ruin yet another thing?
More power to 'em!
2 Likes
Haven’t they been? I mean, I agree, local elections are key to opening up greater opportunities, but you have to remember, state wide, one party often has a strangle hold on elections - here it’s the GOP and in other states, it’s the Dems. It’s still the same underlying problem of access to elections.
I’ll also say that having ballot access hasn’t been helpful to local Libertarians, who are still a minority party with little influence as libertarians.
1 Like
For the record, I studied Russian for many years, visited Russia on an exchange program (I think in '93?), and really love the shit out of Russia in general.
I still think it’s a totally fucked-up kleptocracy, and Putin is really just a very successful criminal (perhaps the most successful?), who has nukes, which really puts him at “James Bond Villain” level. Which, like, I give props to on some level, but fundamentally think is evil.
I know the above quote wasn’t directly aimed at me, but I feel you’d probably imply that I’m anti-Russian as well, so I thought I’d lay out the above.
edit: Oh yeah, and I’m part Russian (Jew) – my great grandmother spoke Russian.
4 Likes
I would submit Gayle McLaughlin as an example of someone whose political career could provide a template for the Green Party winning national office. She was a member of the Richmond City Council who won two terms as Mayor and is now running for Lieutenant Governor of California.
She has good politics, actual experience in governing and attainable goals. But I’d be very surprised if she got as much support from the Greens’ national committee as Jill Stein’s bid for the Presidency.
5 Likes
Seriously, what’s the problem, specially in practice? What good has the DNC done, specially in the past couple of cycles? Clearly, it’s skewed heavily towards supporting Republican-lite candidates – so-called blue dogs – and I don’t see where that helps us. Am I missing something, maybe a track record of great successes?
3 Likes
Why on Earth should DNC turn the party HQ over to someone who isn’t a party member, and only ran as a Democrat in the last election because he knew otherwise he wouldn’t get anywhere?
1 Like
That’s probably because one of the DNC’s reasons for existing is to give Democratic candidates a shot in places that normally go Republican. So in those races you end up with candidates like Doug Jones, who is conservative by Democratic standards but progressive by Alabama standards (and still a major improvement over Roy Moore).
2 Likes
Because if they don’t I’m not voting for them. Could there be any better reason.
3 Likes
Well, if they lose two, or say just 1.1, existing voters by changing things radically enough to win your support, it’s a pretty bad reason for them. And given how Sanders failed to win the Dem primaries, I would not be surprised if they think that turning the party over to him and his fans would lose them more support than it gained. And I don’t think they would be entirely wrong, thinking so.
1 Like
Sanders lost an unfair primary. The results are moot.
Clinton lost the election. The results are not moot.
1 Like
Meh, without the truckloads of money, I’m betting most of those problems will become manageable.
