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.

“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.”

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    925·
    2 个月前

    Pretending they had a chance in a voting system that can barely support two parties was kinda pitiable. Until we have RCV for federal elections at a minimum, they will never have a shot.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                3·
                2 个月前

                Maybe they should take some of the money they spend on Stein’s vanity run and instead use it on their Congressional races.

                When’s the last time you saw an ad for a Green Party candidate? Or saw a candidate holding rallies in your state?

                There’s plenty of local and even state positions where Republicans run unopposed and Democrats don’t even put up a candidate. Why aren’t Greens investing in those races? Those are literally the perfect opportunity for Greens to start making headway.

                • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  12·
                  2 个月前

                  Because when i think “spending too much on presidential campaigns”, I think Green Party

                  This is the kind of disconnect that happens when you start from a conclusion (green party bad), and then try to work backwards to figure out why. I havent even seen an ad for Jill, let alone for less prominent green party candidates.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      151·
      2 个月前

      They have a shot, by joining the Democratic Party. The same way that progressives join liberals, make their voice heard, and let the voters decide.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        38·
        2 个月前

        Or, just here me out, the Democrats adopt ranked choice voting from the Green Party platform, ditch aid to Israel, and make Jill Stein obsolete. I know, I know, it’s crazy. But, it might just work.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 个月前

          Or just hear me out, the green party stops playing spoiler every 4 years. Proving that their platform is meaningless and empty. And instead focuses on running and recruiting for state and local legislature to actually pass ranked Choice voting. And where it makes sense, such as offices no Democrat is running for. Recruit and endorsed a candidate to run as the combined democrat/green party candidate. Instead of constantly splitting the vote helping conservatives and the bourgeoisie.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            13·
            2 个月前

            I guess we’re never getting ranked choice voting then. And the genocide will continue until morale improves, according to bourgeois liberals.

    • socsa@piefed.social
      22·
      2 个月前

      This is a little discussed problem with fptp (along with many others) it gives minor parties perverse incentive to play spoiler, which gives foreign actors an opportunity to find spoilers.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      501·
      2 个月前

      A-fucking-men.

      The Green Party should be the RCV party and that should be their main focus. After that then they and any other party would actually stand a chance. Republicans are actively banning RCV from being implemented and Democrats are slow walking it, but we need to keep pushing.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          52·
          2 个月前

          That’s all well and good, but useless in any federal race because the federal government does not dictate how the elections/voting are done.

          Brings it back around to if you care so damn much, then focus your resources on state governments.

          • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
            35·
            2 个月前

            You should reread the elections clause. Congress has authority to regulate elections

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        8·
        2 个月前

        That would mean actually caring about running campaigns for state goverments. State governments are the ones that can (and in Alaska’s case have) implement RCV.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        20·
        2 个月前

        TBH, I don’t see it happening except organically from within the Democratic Party. If enough progressive Democrats get elected, I think it stands a chance to happen in our lifetimes.

          • socsa@piefed.social
            26·
            2 个月前

            This is just not true. Places which are doing RCV are literally state at metro democratic strongholds. Democrats are literally the only ones pushing it.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            2 个月前

            Unless they gain more support from endorsing RCV than they would lose to third parties. They’re slowly bending to long term third party pressure.

            • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
              311·
              2 个月前

              Vested interest meaning it benefits them, i doubt you disagree with the current system of only two parties being considered for elections improves the odds of those two parties winning elections

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                4·
                2 个月前

                Actually, an RCV system may help the democrats, at least in the short term.

                For the last couple of decades, the “spoiler” candidates generally take from the democrats more than the republicans. Last big spoiler third party that screwed the right was Perot that I remember. With RCV, then the ‘fringe’ votes can still be cast and democrats can work toward being the second choice of those hardliners. At least in the short term, it alleviates the need to actually compete for votes with candidates that are going to lose anyway.

                Longer term, it may cause a viable third party or more to get some steam (attracting practical candidates that no longer see the need to be a D or R to get votes, the parties generally getting left alone by outside forces that find them not worth weaponizing), but I don’t think the politicians are too concerned on that long a time frame.

              • Telorand@reddthat.com
                10·
                2 个月前

                What I disagree with is your implication that they will only ever act in their own interests. I do not know that to be true in the future (and neither do you), as not everyone is motivated by money or power. Enough politicians who see it as vital to the health of US democracy, and change will happen.

                I’m not proposing that it will, only that it is far from a precluded possibility. As Boomers die out and retire, I have hope for the Millennials and Gen Zers who replace them.

                • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  26·
                  2 个月前

                  I do not know that to be true in the future (and neither do you)

                  We can sure make some educated guesses based on a lengthy history of evidence.

                  I like progressive democrats, but they want to get elected at a minimum.

                  • Telorand@reddthat.com
                    6·
                    2 个月前

                    But that’s all they are: guesses. The fundamental flaw in looking to history for future behavior is the assumption that each person elected to office has the same motivations, ideals, and philosophies.

                    They want to get elected, sure, but wanting to get elected isn’t the same as desiring to keep that office. If I had the skills to run for office, I would be willing to sacrifice reelection to ensure good legislation passed, for example.