- 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.
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.
Even if you assume she isn’t a bad faith actor, she’s still objectively failed to pass the one thing the world needs, the Green New Deal, and environmentalism is in the worst shape it’s been in decades.
That’s not all her fault, but her protest candidacy weirdness put Trump in office the first time instead of spending that time and effort on actual policy so…
Fuck off already?
Haha oh really. It had nothing to do with Hilary being the worst candidate ever? The authoritarian electoral college founded to preserve slavery? The rampant voter suppression by Republicans that Democrats refuse to stop. It was all her fault huh?
Certainly if she has been trying to effect real change in a realistic way, rather than an egocentric impossible run at the presidency…
Things would have been different. She was one of many straws, which if subtracted, would have prevented trump
So for that and that alone, she and the rest of the greens can fuck right off.
See the No Labels folks for a more common sense way to be activist on national level politics.
Greens would be great if they would focus on good, winnable races from the bottom up…
What that called again?? Uhh ‘grass roots’
She funded an investigations that showed Hilary had won a state that went to Donald Trump. But sure it’s her that doesn’t care about democracy not the Democrats that rolled over on not one but two elections where they likely won.
I’ll agree that Dems have given up way too easily, mostly based on naive “for the good of the country” white knighting.
It probably didn’t start with Al Gore and the hanging chads, but that would have been a good time to realize that sometimes these fights are existential
Doesn’t change the fact that Stein is currently a russian-funded spoiler and she’s a drag on the Greens and does great disservice to all of the non-major parties.
I hope No Labels and other serious ‘third paries’ spend time focusing on voting reform like RCV or similar. Of course, many nerds will (probably correctly) claim that RCV is flawed in whatever way and we should try to move to some other even more complicated system. And then nothing will happen and we will continue to be stuck in a bi-party system with smaller factions only ever having the opportunity to act as spoilers in national or even state-wide races.
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.
