530
Jill Stein Is Killing the Green Party
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
530 points (93.3% liked)
politics
19246 readers
3002 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
America has what I like to call ‘Monkey’s Paw Democracy’; almost as if someone wished for a representative Government from a cursed object.
Now instead of voting for policies they like, voters are forced to vote against policies they dislike or risk being punished my having their rights slowly chipped away.
We would, but as it stands now it's an authoritarian dictatorship, right wing hellscape, and a marginally awful moderate right wing dystopia in a trench coat and they're not about to cede any distance to allowing us new liberties.
If we don't get at least a 60% margin there's a really good chance the guy that said this will be the last time you ever have to vote, I'm going to be a dictator on day one and I'm going to imprison all of the opponents, legislators and donors that went against me.
Outside of an actual moderate or left-wing coup which is pretty much impossible I don't see there's any way that this country is getting out of this.
Agreed, but while we're working on that in multiple avenues, we still need to vote for the harm reduction choice.
I'll say that I sort of despise Fairvote.
They lie about RCV pretty much all the time.
The system has more problems than First Past the Post, and still doesn't fix the third party problem.
No, a far better system is STAR. It actually fixes the problems that it sets out to fix.
Someone should inform the Whigs
It would be nice but you'd have to go back to 1850 because we eradicated them and made sure it couldn't happen again.
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?!
The issue is she sucks all the oxygen out of the room with her pointless presidential runs and does nothing for the four years in between. There’s an inconsequential number of Greens who run and win elections in small cities and towns or less consequential elections, and none of them have won any federal elections. A real party leader would recruit and foster candidates in large cities and state legislatures— and then get folks to run for the US House, the Senate, state governorships, and then the presidency.
Stein is less a party leader and more a figurehead who basically seems to be in it for the grift. And so US Greens (especially in comparison to those in the EU) are less a party and more just a convenient label for those of a certain bent that want to run as something other than as a Democrat.
My question was more along the lines of the "(not so) the great (wo)man" hypothesis.
Let's imagine that Jill Stein was permanently abducted by aliens. What do we think would happen?
Would the Green Party just collapse?
Would the former member just join the Democrats?
Would they start a new party?
Or maybe someone new would take over who could do a better job?
I think we'd likely just get someone who's functionally equivalent.
Maybe vote count is instructive:
Nader 2000: 2,882,955
Cobb 2004: 119,859
McKinney 2008: 161,797
Stein 2012: 469,501
Stein 2016: 1,457,216
Hawkins 2020: 407,068
I don't think the party would collapse without Stein. They have been around for decades and they have a cadre of oranizers who will continue to show up regardless of results. Stein is just the most famous person they can use for a presidential election, and you can see from the above results what happens when they run someone nobody has heard of.
I think they genuinely believe in their core values, and it's unfortunate that Stein is their only viable candidate. They won't ever be a real political party until they start winning local/state elections, but they're looking to secure more federal funding by getting enough votes. If Stein disappeared then they would keep doing this but they'd never breach half a million votes. Maybe a progressive democrat in the House would smell an opportunity and break ranks to run for president with the Greens. That could maybe get them a million or two votes again.
Or maybe it absolutely does not matter who they run and they just get a lot of votes when the Democrats run particularly shitty candidates for president.
Nader wasn't even the Green candidate in 2004. Nader ran as an independent in 2004.
That year the Green Party ran David Cobb, who got 119,859 votes, putting him behind the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the independent Ralph Nader.
In 2008, Nader ran again as an independent and beat the Green Party once again, with 739,034 votes, versus McKinney's 162k. In between were the Libertarians in fourth place, and the Constitution Party in fifth place.
The Green Party has never even come in third place, and several times hasn't even come in fifth place, in our two party system.
My mistake, thanks
In terms of her affect on the Green party, those numbers make it look like she's fairly run-of-the-mill. Her first one was low and later on she posted numbers similar to more famous candidates.
I did a quick search on where those candidates are and it seems that many of potential Green party candidates are in swing states. It also looks like many of them are specifically siding with them because of their stance on Gaza.
That suggests that she's just fine for the Greens and is likely even helping them. She's a problem for Democrats because there's an assumption that those voters would switch to the Democratic ticket if they don't vote Green.
Right. If democrats want those votes then Biden needs to make significant progress on ending the genocide now. The threat from third parties exerts an outsize pressure on the Democrats to actually do something. But of course they likely won't, and instead Trump will take advantage of this.
I don't think it would even have to go that far.
It's mostly that Harris needs to be able to present credible red lines. Right now, the perception is that Israel can get away with absolutely anything.
Anything to break that perception it might be enough. A light version might be something like, "Every time X happens, we'll delay weapons shipments by a week while we investigate." That's not much and it might not even change Israel's behavior but I suspect that just articulating some policy and sticking to it would be sufficient.
Ah, I get your question now. Unfortunately I think it’s impossible to say, but I do know it’s impossible to find out while she’s still there.