Call the Greens an ‘independent party,’ not ‘third party’: Jill Stein
Call the Greens an ‘independent party,’ not ‘third party’: Jill Stein
www.msn.com
MSN
70 comments
-
-
They're a spoiler party.
-
They’re a spoiler party.
Calling them a spoiler party only reinforces the power of the two-party system that stifles real choice. Third parties actually push important issues into the spotlight, challenging the status quo. And they give voters more options. We need more than this duopoly that we are under.
-
Acknowledging the reality that third parties cannot win under the current system is more useful in moving towards the alternatives you want that endlessly banging your head against the wall by running and supporting futile campaigns.
It’s not that we haven’t found the right moment or candidate. The electoral system in the US simply prevents third party candidates from being functional alternatives. You need to reckon with and change that reality if you want real alternatives.
-
Calling them a spoiler party only reinforces the power of the two-party system that stifles real choice.
No, I mean that being spoliers is their function. They exist to siphon votes off Democrats, not as a side effect of gaining votes for a sincerely held belief in any cause, but as a cynical and deliberate attempt to decrease their chances and increase Republicans' chances.
-
Third parties actually push important issues into the spotlight, challenging the status quo. And they give voters more options.
Jill Stein has run for public office a total of 8 times. Of those she was successful in getting elected and completing her term one single time. This office was: Lexington Town Meeting, a representative town meeting, the local legislative body in Lexington, Massachusetts. 3 years later she ran for the same office and won again...but then resigned during her term. source
This doesn't look like a realistic candidate interested in a political career to change policy. How is this giving voters more options?
-
You mean: it clarifies the reality of the situation - that the spoiler party has zero chance of winning.
-
-
-
How about "Putin's Useful Idiots"?
-
But she's not running for Putin.
-
And it's possible she just might believe that. Thus the term...
-
-
-
Until there's a third party that can get more than 1 to 3% of the vote, they are all "Independent Parties".
Most folks just don't understand the scale involved.
Party registration:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
Democratic - 48,019,985
Republican - 35,732,180
Independent - 34,699,567After that, literally every other party is an "also ran". The largest of the independent parties is less than 1.5% the size of the Democrats. 1.490%. The Greens are 1/3rd of THAT size.
This isn't even a comprehensive list, "No Labels" is absent, likely due to their complete inability to function.
American Independent - 715,712
Libertarian - 710,123
Independence Party of New York - 388,779
Green - 240,198
Independent Party of Florida - 195,333
Independent Party of Oregon - 134,996
Constitution - 131,901
Independent Party of Louisiana - 110,653 b Peace & Freedom - 110,576
Independent American Party - 58,331
Working Families - 55,352
United Independent - 20,976
Alaskan Independence - 18,983
Common Sense Party - 17,322 b New Jersey Conservative - 16,104
Independent Party of Delaware - 9,807
Socialist Party USA - 9,198
Natural Law - 6,549
Reform - 5,900
Women's Equality - 4,468
Approval Voting - 4,046
Independent American Party of New Mexico - 3,889
Unity - 3,215
Better for America - 3,180
Oregon Progressive - 2,928
Working Class - 2,693
United Utah - 2,285
Party for Socialism and Liberation - 1,369
Bread and Roses - 1,127
Ecology Party of Florida - 1,108 -
call them whatever you want but they are only viable in Maine, Hawaii and Alaska. i wish more third party candidates would run in disguise as Democrats or Republicans and push for Rank Choice Voting vs running third party. But I understand their value as to platform ideas and influence the two main parties, but that is so slow.
I mean we have Tactical Voting in the primaries why can't we have tactical running. Hell the Republicans do it all the time look at Tulsi and those two parties that are the opposite. Where is the Greens (Jill excluded) I would call that a coalition under a different name. sometimes you have to do it out in the open sometimes you got to do it 5th column style.
-
**i wish more third party candidates would run in disguise as Democrats or Republicans and push for Rank Choice Voting vs running third party. **
As do I. It would lead to actual change. And not just empty posturing.
-
Would it really be in disguise? What policy does the Green party have that isn't in the scope of the Democratic Party?
-
One being election reform that is just not lip service, two putting the environment above the economy. but honestly i don't care which third party get in as long as they dismantle the first past the post voting and we get a system can be compatible with real coalition. Sometimes you vote for the people you don't like to get the opportunity to vote for the ones you do.
-
-
I’m with you on this—while I lean more socialist, I think you’re right. The Green Party needs to step up and make some real progress, and a stealth mode campaign is smart.
That said, I love how our third-party options seem to send the duopoly into a frenzy, exposing their fear of losing control.
-
-
They are technically a third party though.
-
Yeah, but I think she’s highlighting how there’s so much hate and vitriol directed at third parties that people should change their mindset and see them as independent voices.
Yes, they're essentially the same thing, but lately, the term "third party" has been unfairly tainted by negative connotations from both major parties.
-
70 comments
I'll stick with calling them naive.
Are they building a coalition toward ranked choice?
They are naive at best… BUT malicious in appearance.
The fight for ranked choice voting is crucial, but it shouldn't be an excuse to dismiss third parties. Supporting third parties now is how we build the momentum for change, including reforms like ranked choice voting.
The more we challenge the status quo, the more pressure we put on the system to evolve.
Well, at least you’re not calling me—or anyone else—a Russian asset today. So, brother, I’ll take your "naive" comment in stride. I genuinely respect and support your right to your opinion, even if we see things differently.
It would have never happened if you hadn't been so eager to constantly try to push that Stein had no contact with Russia when she very provably did.
It'd be fine to acknowledge that Stein did have contact with Russia and benefited from their support, but you support her anyway. That is a legitimate opinion based in factuality. But by consistently attempting to spin away from those two basic facts, your goals became pretty clear.
This new "all opinions are equally valid" strategy isn't really that much better either, and is a classic conservative technique.
I don't really see the Russian asset thing as being real. It seems like Stein made some dumb choices in terms of travel and meetings but I think we'd see it more in her policy if she were a Russian asset. I remain suspicious of Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump's Russian ties.