Could the Greens and Progressive Dems merge to form a 3rd party?

[Dover]

I say "could" because I wonder if there are enough issues in common......more so than the two factions within the Dem party - the New Democrats and the Progressive Democrats?

What would result from having a third, viable and large Party?

[JohnKleeb]

1. I think the democratic party ought to be the progressive one

[JasonBerry]

13. You said it John

You're only 16? You've got it together!

[JohnKleeb]

16. yes I am 16

We gotta be the progressive party. That progressive party was the party my grandparents grew up and loved, that progressive party pushed hard for civil rights during my parents time. I am a pretty left democrat I admit but I think the party is best left not centrist. The late Harry S Truman once said if you give the people a choice between a democrat who acts republican and a republican they will vote republican. LOL Harry hated republicans more than I do. He wouldnt ride on a disney ride because it was an elephant. We have to return to our progressive roots.

[nuxvomica]

39. I agree wholeheartedly

If your house is in disorder you don't run off and buy a new house. Our country is a mess and most of us have stayed here, hoping to change things. We should do the same with our party. And we will.

[StandWatie]

2. everyone here who bitchs about "greens" or "dems"

and doesn't work on instituting IRV or something to pick your state electors (this can all be done at the state level) should keep their mouths shut.

[Dover]

4. I agree and would add to that , reliable voting machines/counts

Without that the rest is moot. That's a given. But that should not diminish the ideological question I am posing.

[StandWatie]

I'm just saying..

all these ideas would be unnecessary if the people here put half as much energy into changing our archaic election system as they do into trying to browbeat other people into voting for "their" guy.

[Ress1]

5. Sigh.

I'm beginning to think DU will be downfall of the Democratic Party. The Republicans must be wetting their pants watching us implode.

[cprise]

14. StandWaite is so right

But why the Dem leadership has not seized this issue is beyond me. Well, maybe it's because the DLC knows the Democratic party would be pulled left. I think elitists are against IRV because it gives politics more of a populist influence.

[StandWatie]

17. why would they want to?

it locks them in for a job :shrug:

[Lefty48197]

3. They already tried that in 2000

The 95,000 Nader votes in Florida sealed our fates until Jan 20, 2005.

[Evanstondem]

7. Yes, and I don't want another 4 years

Or more of that. A third party to the left of the Dems would just ensure Republican control of the country.

[Dover]

9. Apparently the significance of that split in votes in 2000 was lost on the

Dem leadership, because they have failed to integrate the concerns of the Greens into the Dem platform. In fact they have alienated them further, and the only thing holding the progressive constituency to the Dem party are those loyal progressive Dem candidates who continue to operate within the very Party whose leadership has turned a deaf ear.

[cprise]

And when even Nancy Pelosi is attacking Dean

...then you know that something is wrong with the way the party works. So if the DLC alienates a huge swath of Dean progressives, and he doesn't get the nomination... what percentage of the vote do you think Nader will get then?

[JohnKleeb]

25. Pelosi and Dean made up

So I am told.

[no name no slogan]

26. Oh dear not again....

Nader did NOT lose Florida for Gore. I thought it was common knowledge among Dems that BushCo rigged Florida from the start.

www.gregpalast.com

[Terwilliger]

28. I'm sorry but the "third-party" threat has always been the DLC

they decided to change the morals of liberalism, and they're going to pay the price for it

[expatriot]

6. what would result? Republican monopoly on federal politics

This is a 50-50 country. It is a winner take all system.

If you divide the left of center vote the right of center bloc would win every time.

[Dover]

15. I'm not sure about that. But regardless, this kind of shift in alliances

wouldn't happen until after the 2004 election. Which leaves the Greens to decide to either throw their weight to the Dem side or the GOP. But after the next election....who knows.

[leftyandproud]

8. they could, and it would be one HELL of a party!

It would take some time to build the coalition and to recruit progressive dems to join the new party, but I think it is an excellent idea

[Booberdawg]

10. What for?

There's the Green Party and Democratic Party. There is already movement between the two.

Sounds more like a recruitment tactic for Greens.

[Dover]

20. "movement"? What kind of movement? I see more and more alienation

and stagnation.
How has the current Dem leadership moved Toward the Greens of late?
They can barely tolerate the Progressive wing of their own party.

[Booberdawg]

32. I was talking about "people" moving from one Party to the other

The Green Party is already a 3rd Party. The only point to "merging" the Green Party with other Progressive Dems is simply to recruit for the Greens. I think they need to fall or stand on their own.

I just think it's a terrible idea. I don't support the Green platform. Splitting the Democratic Party only guarantees a Republican win. Not good business. I want bush* OUT of the White House. PERIOD. Any work that needs to be done within the Democratic Party can be addressed after that. In the meantime, to steal a phrase from another DU member, I'll vote for you dog's hairy asshole, if that's what's on the DEMOCRATIC ticket.

[ferg]

11. viable? no.

This is a two party system. That's a fundamental fact resulting from our election rules.

If you want a three party system, you need to change the election rules, moving to a parlimentary system or instituting IRV.

Under the current rules, the only thing a third party does is split the vote allowing for Republican wins.

Unless the elections rules are changed, the only effective route for Greens/Progressives is to increase the size of the Green/Progressive caucus in the Democratic party, taking it over from within. Green/Progressive candidates could certainly win in Democratic primaries.

[Tinoire]

12. Could? Yes... Should? I'd so say if we can't get rid

of the type of people who enable and support this

There apparently isn't enough room in this New Democrats'/DLC Party for Progressives and Liberals. Kind of like Shartpon put it loud and clear


"We help take you to the dance and you leave with right-wingers. In 2004, if we take you to the party, you go home with us or we don't take you to the party."

[Prodemsouth]

18. They could, but not likely because..

most progressive Dems, except a handful I see on this board, hate Nader and the Greens more than moderates or conservative Dems.

[Dover]

21. Well what if the Greens found new leadership once they merged?

Nader may not be the best representative of an expanded 3rd party.
It depends on how they defined themselves and who best fit the leadership role as representative of those goals.

[no name no slogan]

24. Nader's not even a good GREEN

he just so happened to win the party's nomination in 2000 & 1996. I have a good friend who's very involved in Green Party politics, and there's many of them who didn't (or don't) like Nader that much.

I think a lot of people think that Green Party == Nader, which is far from the truth.

[Dover]

29. yes, I think you are right. The Green party is much greener than Nader

and has many other characteristics/goals/dreams that really aren't reflected in their leadership under Nader.

[Terwilliger]

31. I still have to give credit to Nader

the Greens elected him to represent them

I personally think he's on a mission to save capitalism from the excesses of the corporatists. And THAT's why he says that the differences between the parties are cosmetic. As long as the corporate dominates the law and the discourse and the actions of this country and its people, there's really not a lot of separation of anything.

[knight_of_the_star]

37. Yeah

Nader was given the nod because he has name recognition, not because he was a good Green. I hope that we drop him in '04 and just endorse the Dem candidate.

[gully]

19. We could simply 'take our party back' as the Great Doctor would say...

:D Forgive my shameless plug.

I think we can better start a coalition and work toward common goals. WE can then demand certain things from any candidate that we would endorse?

That might be a more viable option.

[Dover]

22. That's another option for sure. But I'm afraid the good Dr. would find

himself spending a lot of energy carrying the old baggage around for the entrenched Dems...they will continue to load him down. He, or ANY progressive, will find himself in a compromising position should they win. Compromise is necessary...but how, and how much? Dean has already begun that process...

[no name no slogan]

23. Michael Moore said it best

If you really want a 3rd party, work for it, but at the same time, continue to support progressive dems and try to take the Democratic party back from the corporatists.

It could conceivably work, as there are a lot of very PO'd progressive Dems who are sick of the national leadership of this party.

[MisterP]

35. quite true; we've evaded me-tooists before, we can do it again

[Terwilliger]

38. what goals?

[no name no slogan]

27. Remember, the GOP was originally the "3rd Party"

...and I sure don't see the Whigs running candidates anymore.

[JackSwift]

30. Yes, but

If you split the most liberal and progressive elements off from the more moderate elements of the party (and the rare conservative ones) you will wind up with the party with the plurality in your hypothetical third party system 45% Republicans 27% "Progressive" and 28% Democrats where the Republicans win every single election. In a plurality wins system, two major groups compete to form a coalition before voting. So organize within the two parties and risk winning an election.

[Upfront]

33. In Common?

Beat Bush is all I care about, we will sort the rest out after misson accomplished.

[knight_of_the_star]

34. That could work

I would rather it be staved off for about 3 years. That kind of a merger would be able to create a strong political party though. There are enough progressive Dems out there that some serious gains could be made if that happened for the Green Party.

[Terwilliger]

36. only thing preventing progressive Dems from embracing other progressives..

is how mortified they are when confronted with wing-nuts in the Repuke party

Remember, a lot of those people who describe George Bush as the end of freedom and light, are they, themselves, very amenable to the idea of "centrism"