Dems look at Green Party and wonder 'what if'

[LoZoccolo]

Green Party member Lloyd C. Clarke said he joined the state Senate 32nd District race to expand the ranks of his party.

But some Democrats question whether the Frankenmuth resident siphoned electoral support from Saginaw Democrat Carl M. Williams, who narrowly lost the contest by 520 votes to Saginaw Township Republican Roger N. Kahn in Tuesday's general election. Williams and Kahn are state representatives.

Clarke, of Frankenmuth, collected 2,326 votes.

http://www.mlive.com/news/sanews/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1163168465175060.xml&coll=9

[Mass]

1. In MI, I certainly would not blame green party supporters not to vote for Democrats.

The dems have not been better than the corporations in their refusal of doing anything to push consumption standards.

[LoZoccolo]

5. GREEN PARTY WHORES! HIPPIES FOR BUSH!

GETTING THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS CARVED UP FOR CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS!

[Greyhound]

16. How very Democratic...

LOL.

[BoneDaddy]

20. Ignorance

at it's best.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. If Greens are going to run against Democrats, expect Democrats to smear them

When you choose to run against someone, you open yourself up to being attacked by your opponents period the end. If calling Green candidates "Hippies for Bush" will get their potential voters to vote democratic instead of Green then I'm perfectly fine with it. Certainly Green party candidates make ignorant statements like "There's no difference between Gore and Bush". If Greens can't take the abuse then they shouldn't run for office.

[Justyce]

2. If the Green Party's main reason for

existence is the environment, and Democrats are also fighting to protect the environment, then what's the point of their party? (other than taking votes from the side that actually agrees with them on that issue) What am I missing?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BoneDaddy]

22. Amen

I am sooo sick of Democrats who sit back and take pot shots at the Green Party. Don't blame the Greens for the failing of the Democratic Party, they self destructed when they tried to be Bush light and it blew up on them. they needed a scapegoat so it became cool to attack the Greens instead of developing a platform that incorporates them instead of isolating them.

The maturity issue on this topic is astounding. Dems all of a sudden sound like freepers when it comes to the Green party.

[jonnyblitz]

41. good post. I agree. nt

[Greyhound]

32. What you are missing, from their perspective, is that the Democratic

Party is effectively controlled by a group of corporate shills that prevents them from actually accomplishing anything of substance. The Democratic position is not representative of Democratic action, thus the schism.

In 1999 and 2000 Nader stated over and over that he would gladly drop out if the Democrats wold take up his main issue, rampant corporatism running the country to the detriment of its citizens. They wouldn't.

[The Magistrate]

36. So What, Sir?

From the perspective of the Republican leadership, the Democratic Party is an engine for weakening the country and overthrowing the moral order. Would you propose that be treated seriously?

The Green party is, on its own showing, an enemy of the Democratic Party. In the present political system of our country, this makes them effectively an ally of the Republicans, their protestation of ultra-leftism to the contrary.

"Don't watch the mouth: watch the hands."

[Greyhound]

42. No prejudice there...

ultra-left?
enemy of the party?

They are, I believe, disenchanted because they have watched the hands remain idle for many many years.

I don't agree with them most of the time either, but the idea that they are the enemy is just silly, IMO.

[The Magistrate]

43. You Will Need, Sir, To Make The Accusation More Clear....

My statement is simply a statement of fact, phrased baldly and directly.

[Greyhound]

45. What accusation?

[Unvanguard]

59. Of course they wouldn't.

The electoral system is bought by the "corporate shills" you mention. Nader and the Green Party are absolutely right about that.

The problem is that they assume that they can somehow change this by running fringe candidates. That is not the case, and as such, the only significant function of their actions is to empower the Republican Party.

[Greyhound]

63. While I am sympathetic to their cause, I don't agree with their strategy at all

and like you, don't think it will work. But this is still (nominally) America, and they have every right to try. The hysteria over their participation in the process and desperate attempts to blame them for our failures is just sad, IMO, and the MI races illustrate this perfectly.

[The Magistrate]

73. That Is An Odd Phrasing, Sir

You seem to be laboring under the belief that there is some right not to be criticized entailed when one has a right to act in some manner or other, and does so. A person has a right to run as a Green candidate, and persons have every right when he does to call him a fool and a wrecker and a key cog in the Republican electoral apparatus, all statements that are factually true.

[Greyhound]

91. "Odd phrasing"? Oh, the irony...

:D
Look, IIRC both those races were lost by a few hundred votes and the Greens each received a few thousand. The Greens run on, primarily, environmental issues and we all know how welcoming the home of the Big Three is to environmentalists. Therefore it seems pretty obvious to me that, had our candidates run campaigns more strongly advocating the environment they would almost certainly have received the additional votes necessary to win. They instead chose to ignore or downplay the environmental and lost those votes and thereby the election. The Greens do not owe us their votes, and if we want them, we will have to address their issues.

I have no problems with anyone criticizing anything, but the OP doesn't criticize, he calls for their abolition, and as I originally replied, this is an idea that is about as undemocratic as I can imagine. So criticize away, it doesn't change the fact that we, as a party (with plenty of exceptions), too often choose to fight against their (Greens) issues in favor of corporate donors, and sometimes the result is the loss of support from those who should be our natural allies. This is a lesson that they will continue to teach until we are ready to learn.

One could even say that it becomes a choice of money over principles.

[styersc]

84. Good point. Then why are Dems never helping to elect Greens?

Why do Dems want loyalty from the Greens but have never offered votes or support to elect Green candidates? If Dems are allies of the environment and enemies of corporatists our position would be strengthened if the GOP had to fight us on two fronts. Why are Greens always expected to give their votes and support to the Democratic PArty that often turns its back on Green interests and never offers support or help in electing Green candidates? The Green Party is a proud party with interests often parallel, but not the same as the Dem's. The alliance could be positivie but it is assinine to treat Green's like ugly step-children.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

4. I wonder "what the hell does it take for Greens to like Dems"

when they work to defeat candidates like Lamont and Wellstone? :shrug:

[mike_c]

6. give it a rest....

These Green bashing threads are an utter waste of oxygen. You've made it clear that you don't like the Green Party, so stop being so obsessed with them. If they don't matter politically, then quit whining about them. If they DO matter, then wouldn't your energy be better spent trying to find ways to work with them rather than by childish name-calling?

[LoZoccolo]

7. GREENS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUSH IN POWER!

NO GREEN IS A SAFE GREEN!

[mike_c]

8. whatever....

I presume you're joking, but it's not coming off very humorous....

[The Magistrate]

18. What On Earth, Sir, Makes You Suspect That Is A Joke?

The Green party, as an objective fact, is nothing but the left auxiliary of the Republican electoral machine.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Not by their own choice, but that's how they're being manipulated...

...by the Rape-Publican criminals.

NGU.

[The Magistrate]

31. There Is Something To That, Sir

Two principal factors are at play.

The first is a tremendous degree of political naivite afflicting the farthest reaches of the left in our country.

The second is the calculation of Republican operatives.

The end result is that persons wind up working, quite against their inclination, and largely unaware they are doing so, for the triumph of the worst elements of reaction in our country, while maintaining they are in fact the purest expression, and the real champions, of the left.

[ClassWarrior]

35. Yup, we need to quit playing our role in this little Rape-Publican kabuki theater...

...and start building bridges between us and the Greens.

NGU.

[The Magistrate]

38. If The Greens, Sir

Wish to drop their opposition, and agree to work in coallition, concentrating their fire on Republicans and acting as a left wing of the Democratic Party, they will be quite welcome. So long as they continue to work as spoilers and enemies, there is no alternative but to isolate and crush them wherever possible.

"Politics ain't bean-bag."

[ClassWarrior]

46. "Let the other guy do it," huh?

I say, "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with ME."

NGU.

[The Magistrate]

54. Visualizing Whirled Peas, Are We, Sir?

The splinter must move back to beam: the beam does not follow the splinter.

[mike_c]

56. if the beam is immovable, then it has little basis for criticizing...

...the splinter for falling away. And if the splinter is so insignificant as to merit no consideration from the beam, then the log doth protest too much.

[The Magistrate]

77. Simple Arithmetic, Sir, Remains The Key To Political Understanding

The votes cast by the electorate remain narrowly divided between the two large coallitions dominating our politics. The award of office to the first past the post exaggerates this effect, often operating to produce wide disparities in governing power where only small differences exist in the vote cast.

The problem with the small splinters that may fall away is that what power they do acquire is a purely negative one. On the national and state levels, organizations like the Greens and Libertarians are powerless to put their own people in office: they can only deny office to someone on one side or the other. The demands they make for re-joining the coallition are demands that, if acceded to, would cost more votes among larger groups of voters than the splinter could possible provide, and thus to actively court them is a loosing proposition. What is necessary is for the splinterists to realize the actual effect of their actions, which, where it is measureable, is invariably to assist towards office a person whose views are farther from their own stated views than the available alternative.

[ClassWarrior]

65. Hey, I can only do something about me, not them. That's what...

...responsibility is all about. All wooden metaphors aside. :evilgrin:

NGU.

[mike_c]

49. bloodthirsty vegetarians?

(on edit-- the "GREENS = BLOODTHIRSTY VEGETARIANS" accusation was in the post I responded to-- the poster has since edited it out)

Please. And as for the greens being the republican left, if you really believe that then you are far more politically naive and deluded than I could ever have imagined. The GP is a significant presence in my local gov't, in coalition with the democratic party, and NOT with the republicans. To even suggest that a republican left auxillary exists is nonsensical-- or deliberately obtuse.

[The Magistrate]

53. There Have Been Some Damned Bloodthirsty Vegetarians, Sir

There is nothing particularly incongruous about the juxtaposition of the terms....

Whatever local practices may prevail in some small left enclave, the fact remains that the political effect of the Green party in national elections is yeoman service to the Republican electoral machine as a left auxiliary. The discomfort stating this fact causes apologists for the Green party is of no account: people need to face up to and accept the consequences of their actions, and to understand that the effects of their actions often accord poorly with their own image of themselves and what they do.

[bling bling]

64. I agree. The consequences really are the bottom line.

Good intentions, purity, ideology, convictions, voting for ones conscience. All of that and a vote for the green party gets you (and the rest of us)....

Mr. Bush

(as well as other Republican politicians that get elected in tight races).

[FDR33]

92. No joke there

What's funny about a bunch of tree huggers enabling GWB to take control of the country and run it into the ground?

[kwolf68]

15. Bunk

The Supreme Court is.

This is a free society and the green party exists because of the reasons it was explained above. I am a Democrat, but the Green Party would never produce legislation (as many Democrats did) that gives power to global corporations and takes power from local communities. That is par and parcel of what we Dems should be fighting for. What happens is Dems get elected and then they sign all these crappy trade deals that sellout the people and resources of an entire nation just to enrich the few. If the Democrats are serious about getting the Greens out of the game, then start governing more like Dennis Kucinich.

[LoZoccolo]

26. GREENS HANDED THE DECISION TO THE SCOTUS!

NOW THERE ARE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES BECAUSE OF GREENS!

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Telly Savalas]

86. Did Ralph Nader steal your caps lock key?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

24. You don't gotta.

But if you do I'm gonna say GREEN REPUBLICANS SPREAD THE GREEN LIE! CORPORATIST GREENS!

[Hippo_Tron]

79. Work with them? They are a RIVAL political party

Our goal is to get Democrats elected and the way you do that is by winning votes. We win votes from Republicans by attacking their candidates. There's absolutely no reason that we shouldn't do the same with Greens. If attacking them will get their potential voters to vote Democratic instead of Green then we have accomplished our goal. If Greens don't want the abuse then they shouldn't run for office.

Besides, the Greens showed that they have zero interest in working together with Democrats when they ran against Paul Wellstone.

[oasis]

9. Question: Did Clarke accept GOP/Halliburton cash as other Greens have done?

:shrug:

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Greens are a force to be reckoned with in European politics

Originally many asked the same questions about them. Those who claim they are bushbots etc are either lying or uniformed.

[Frances]

11. I support the right of Greens

to form their own Greenunderground.

Personally, I think Dems have a better chance of converting white Evangelicals to the Dem party than Greens. White evangelicals just don't have the facts. Greens do but they enjoy being spoilers more than they want to effect change from the inside.

[Unvanguard]

62. Name for me a country in Europe

with significant Green representation in the legislature that exclusively subscribes to a first-past-the-post system for electing MPs.

[pberq]

13. this is why we need instant run-off voting

As in this example, the winner-takes all system means third party candidates can split the vote. Instant run-off voting can fix that.

Proportional representation is another way of dealing with this. As it stands now, our two party system leaves the interests of large segments of the population out of the ocnversation.

[LoZoccolo]

29. INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING = GREENIE WEENIE VANITY!

"Let me vote for a loser first before the winner, or else I unleash the Republicans!"

[Vidar]

14. Threads like this make me ashamed of DU.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

28. GREENS TOOK SANTORUM'S MONEY!

GREENS WERE A PLANT BY SANTORUM BY THE RIGHT!

[BoneDaddy]

30. I got an idea

why don't you start a campaign.... All greens should be rounded up and a big G branded into their forehead. Would that satisfy you?

[LoZoccolo]

48. No.

I only wish the Greens to learn from the anger caused by their sabotage.

[BoneDaddy]

85. or maybe they just stuck by their guns and found the democratic party

intolerable. I am not in full agreement with the Greens...but this is America. They are allowed to vote any way they want...just like I protect yours and the republican vote secure, because that is the ethical thing to do.. I may not like it...but you sound fascist in your approach.

[Greyhound]

34. HILLARY TOOK TATA'S MONEY!1!1!!!

My caps lock works too.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. Why? It's all true. Greens are Republican enablers

who would rather revel in their purity than get anything done. Voting green is just ballot masturbation: it might feel nice, but it doesn't really get you anywhere.

[Silent3]

51. What's there to be ashamed of?

It's absolutely true that Greens cost Democrats votes, more votes than they ever take away from Republicans. Greens may often say that "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the two major parties, but that doesn't change the fact that, in general, even if a Green-leaning voter isn't thrilled with either the Democrat or the Republican who's running in a race, the Democrat is going to be at least a little closer to a Green's liking than nearly any Republican.

Should we simply not mention uncomfortable facts because those facts might hurt the feelings of someone who believes they're "doing the right thing" by voting for a Green?

First off all, I am not saying, nor do I think anyone else angry about the bad affect Greens often have is saying, that you don't have the right to vote for a Green. You most certainly have that right, and no one is trying to take it away from you. We're saying that voting Green in some close elections, as is your right to do, can have very bad consequences no matter what effect you intend for your vote to have.

It's not impossible for a third party like the Greens to get started in a significant way in the US, but it's damned unlikely any time soon, and the Greens aren't necessarily helping themselves by playing the roll of spoiler in tight elections.

There are ways to get a third party started which don't entail stupid and ultimately very costly mistakes like voting for Nader in Florida in 2000. (For all the ridiculous "not a dime's worth of difference" blather from Greens and others, consider the war in Iraq: That war would have been very, very unlikely to have happened under a Democratic President. The cost in lives and dollars of that mistake have been far greater than a dime.)

Here's what won't work to get a third party started: Simply "voting your conscience", with no consideration of the strategic implications of your vote. Thinking that this kind of voting helps the situation is at best naive.

Delusion #1: "We're sending a message."

Perhaps you are sending a message when you vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, but it can be an awfully expensive way to send a message that often ends up saying the opposite of what you mean it to say.

In the over-simplified language of left vs. right, Nader was clearly to the left of Gore, who was himself to the left of Bush. The vote in Florida in 2000 was about 2% for Nader, and a damn near even split of the remainder of the vote between Gore and Bush.

In Nader-voter fantasy land, the outcome of the election sent a message to the Democratic party, "If you'd been less like the Republicans, you damned corporate whores, and more like Nader, you'd have gotten enough of those Nader votes to win. Remember that next time and learn your lesson!"

All of us paid the price of that lesson, not just Democrats who weren't Green enough in their views. Thousands of dead American soldiers and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands even, of dead Iraqis paid the price of Nader's "lesson" for the Democrats.

Given that this was an incredibly expensive "lesson", what did a lot of Democrats apparently learn from that lesson? It wasn't to appeal to Nader voters at the risk of alienating the right-most Democratic voters who had been just on the edge of voting Republican. Many Democratic politicians decided instead to move toward the right, to see if they could pull more votes away from the 48% who voted for Bush the next time.

48% is bigger than 2%. On a purely strategic level, isn't pretty obvious which pond politics will dictate one goes fishing in for more votes the next time around? Even if an individual politician is unwilling to change his purported political philosophy simply to garner more votes, the political process (which as a collective process has a strong bias toward trying to promote and fund winners) will tend to pass over that guy, and put more opportunities and funding into the hands of someone who is willing, by genuine belief or by nothing more than cynical pandering, to move to the right.

Delusion #2: "We're working for the future."

If you actually manage to lose without losing badly, this thinking might not be delusional. Make a respectable showing, and you might raise the visibility of your party and your platform, and make it look like a viable possibility in the future.

You don't do that when you get 2% of the vote. 2% is not bloody likely to build to 3% the next election, then 4%, then 5% and so on. 2% stagnates or dwindles. 2% says, "What the f*ck were we thinking?" 2% says, "I care more about symbolic gestures than reality." 2% says, "I want to always pick a loser, so no matter how screwed up things get in government, I can always say it wasn't my fault."

We can all bemoan the terrible herd mentality that so often dictates human behavior. Bemoan it all you like, however, you ignore it at your peril.

In your mind, perhaps you imagine there are lots and lots of people out there itching to vote for an independent candidate. You imagine them wanting to cast that independent vote, but holding back for fear their vote will be "wasted". Oh, if only they'd all let go of that fear at once, then the Green could win, and we'll break the shackles of the two party system!

News flash: they aren't all going to let go of that fear at once, and neither wishful thinking nor berating people for not "voting their conscience" is going to help. The people who vote strategically, rather than purely symbolically or ideologically, are voting smart. They understand the human group dynamics of an election and vote accordingly.

A further problem with this idea is that all an Independent has to do is stand there saying that he's neither a Republican or a Democratic, and all of those who are sick of Republicans and Democrats will flock to him, at least if they aren't held back by fear of an Independent's ability to win. This conception of the electoral situation ignores the pretty obvious fact that the reasons people might be sick of the two major parties are varied and numerous, and that it's going to be difficult to find a real platform behind which one could unite a significant number of disaffected voters, many of whom are disaffected for completely antithetical reasons. A Socialist and a Dominionist are both likely to be very unhappy with Republicans and Democrats as their only choices, but good luck finding someone they'd both want to vote for instead.

[bling bling]

67. Good post. n/t

[The Magistrate]

80. Well Said, Mr. Kerry!

[ClassWarrior]

17. Another manipulation by the criminal Rape-Publican Party.

They keep Progressives divided, and use one faction to siphon support from the other.

Remember who's the real enemy.



NGU.

[GeorgeGist]

21. The duopoly system...

ain't what it used to be. Get over it.

[LoZoccolo]

27. GET OVER REPUBLICANS TAKING A STATE SENATE?

DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOU ARE??!!

[Kelly Rupert]

39. Now, I hate the green party and everyone in it.

They've cost us plenty of elections.

That said, chill. You're a bit...frothy.

[ToeBot]

40. I guess a winning season isn't a good enough reason to purge my ignore list nt

[depakid]

44. The question one should be asking is

Why, given the abysmal state that Michigan is in, did people vote for Republicans at all?

Pointing fingers and blaming Greens isn't going to provide any answers to that....

[bemildred]

47. Very entertaining thread.

:thumbsup::rofl:

:popcorn::popcorn:

[Strawman]

52. Seems like an oddly high number of Green votes for Frankenmuth

Wonder how many of those votes in that district many were people who filled out their ballots wrong? I'd be curious to see the ballot in Saginaw County where that Green got most of his votes.

Royal Oak doesn't surprise me as much. The Green Party is probably as strong there and in Ferndale as it is anywhere in MI outside of maybe Ann Arbor and is, relatively speaking, somehwat well organized in that area. I'd be curious to know if Andy Levin made any attempt to reach out to them and get their votes.

[Frances]

55. I would love for the greens to develop their own site

Then I'd like to go there and ask the greens to support Dems. Turn about is fair play.

[LoZoccolo]

61. RIGHT ON!

:toast:

[USA_1]

57. Seems Like Dems Are fighting Each Other, Again ...

OK, let's stop the bickering before the Republicans get their shyte together and remerge as the predominant party.

Here's a better question than those posed above:


WHAT CAN THE DEMS DO TO ENLIST GREENS ANDS OTHER INDYS TO JOIN WITH THEM IN THE SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS?


Please be very specific.

Bear in mind that I am an Indy. I voted Dem in this and the 2004 elections because it is clear that Republicans are out of touch with the national consensus and with reality. But many other Indys may not see it that way and you will need their votes.

[paulk]

69. do we even want to enlist Greens?

I'm far from convinced that anyone still voting Green after what has happened the last six years is someone I even WANT on my side.

And any move to the left the Democrats might have to make to enlist that support would surely lose them support in the center. And, like it or not, the majority of gains made by the Democrats in the recent election came in the center (and that includes independent voters).

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

60. That's not a rule I made up.

That's reality.

[blindpig]

66. Really? Sez who?

The Democratic Party? The Republican Party? Ain't nothing in the Constitution about a hidebound 2 party system. It is indeed what many of the Founding Fathers feared. The 2 parties like it just fine, it grotesquely limits the options of the people so that they must become sports fans. People are told what they must accept because "you're either with us or against us". The people are in desperate need of universal health care, overwhelmingly support it in poll after poll yet the "party of the people" offers pathetic scraps, and where else do they have to turn? Obviously not the Republicans, so I guess they've just got to suck it up.That's what you're advocating here, the restriction of freedom.

[LoZoccolo]

68. Hello? Nobody says it. It's reality. n/t

[blindpig]

76. Well, I guess you've got the final word on defining reality.

I bow to your wisdom, Enlightened One. May I kiss your robe?

[LoZoccolo]

83. I don't; it's simple math and I shouldn't have to explain it.

Argue all you want, but you're not arguing with me.

[Kelly Rupert]

70. It's not a matter of "who says what."

It's a matter of "these are the way the votes are counted in real life."

[blindpig]

72. Like I said

Elections are but the result of what has gone before, an affirmation. Gain the support of the people and the elections are but an afterthought. Elections are not the purpose of politics, to concentrate solely upon winning elections serves no one but politicians and those whose teats they suck upon. That Rove is considered a genius by some is a sad commentary on the degenerate state of politics in this country. Do what the people want, gain their trust,and Rovian games become irrevelant, people can tell shit from shinola. Otherwise it's nothing but a contest with slogans and cheerleaders. Small wonder half of the electorate don't care, it's not about the public good, it's about winning.

[Kelly Rupert]

74. That's great.

Really, that's fantastic. It's also completely meaningless, but hey.

The two major parties have between them 95% of the vote locked up, because that's the way American politics functions in real life. Elections are the purpose of politics, yes. They are the only purpose of politics. In fact, that is the very concept on which a democracy is founded--that politicians will spend all their time trying to get elected by pleasing the majority of the people.

And as it turns out, people like slogans more than they like results. Yeah, that kinda sucks. But voting for the Greens doesn't actually do anything. You aren't sending a message, other than "the left wing doesn't really give a damn about getting in power."

You can talk all you want about political theory in vague and loaded terms. But in the reality of American politics, the Green Party will not record more than 5% of the vote. They will not gain any sort of power. All they will do is drain votes from the Democrats, enabling the Republicans to take power--and leading the Democrats to give up on capturing the Green vote, and instead move towards the right.

While it's a nice idea, the Green party is completely counterproductive in real life.

[blindpig]

78. If elections are indeed all that politics are about

then why should people bother?

It is utterly arrogant to assume that Green votes belong to the Democrats and displays sports fan mind set. The people deserve better.

[Kelly Rupert]

81. Because if liberals don't bother,

then conservatives take over. Politics is a cynical business. It's not "sports fan" mindset--that would be cheering for Your Guys no matter what the effect. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about pragmatically looking at the situation and deciding how to maximize the passing of legislation that I find acceptable. And that would be by voting for Democrats.

Green votes don't "belong" to anyone, no. But it is functionally worse for left-wing ideals than simply not voting. Not only does it make it more likely that Republicans (who are several orders of magnitude worse than Democrats) will get elected, but it discourages the Democrats from embracing left-wing views--after all, if lefties vote Green anyway, why would the Dems care about us?

[The Magistrate]

82. Who Says So, Sir?

"Democracy is a system based on belief the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard."

[pberq]

87. Right on! - this is what needs to be said over and over.

The solution to this in many other countries is to have proportional representation.

[Strawman]

71. It's not unreasonable to ask Greens to not run unserious candidates

Check this out:

"Even so, the outcome was especially frustrating for Democrat Andy Levin, who lost to Pappageorge, a former state representative.

Levin said he welcomes the participation of minor-party candidates in elections but only if they truly run a campaign. He said McBee, whom he never met, didn't come to any candidate forums.

Levin said McBee's own roommate ended up volunteering for the Levin campaign because McBee "wasn't doing anything."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15684491

This, unfortunately, is par for the course for alot of Green candidates. Not all. But way to goddamn many. Many Green candidates are serious people with a history of activism who are unpragmatic idealists. David Sole, who ran for US Senate in MI is a good example. I respect the right of candidates like him to run even though I disagree with their strategies.

That being said, there are a helluva lot of half-assed kids like this who think it would be "cool" to run for something, are recruited at a meeting to run, get on the ballot, and don't do shit. I personally knew one of these Greens last cycle who ran for a minor local office. It's a joke. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the Greens to only field serious and capable candidates if they are serious about asking people for their votes.

[Buzz Clik]

88. Yet another whining thread about the Greens in Michigan. Puke.

How about taking this sob session the the Michigan forum where someone might actually give a shit.

[LoZoccolo]

89. Thank you for your kick. n/t

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.