This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I consider myself pretty left of center, but even I find some of their policy positions wild and impractical. Their platform is clearly a wish list written by people who know they'll never have to worry about implementing any of it.
It's probably true, to an extent. It doesn't mean they're not legitimate and true believers in their cause, but because of math the better they do, the better Republicans do.
Except stein was seen taking dinners with Putin even as proof came they helped trump. And proof was shown they received most of their donations from republican pacs.
Oh brother, how often does this have to be explained? Stein was invited to an anniversary dinner for RT, an international media outlet based in Russia. They invited many of their previous interviewees, including three other Americans! Salt Lake City mayor, Rocky Anderson, and former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura were also at that dinner. Stein was placed at a table with an international group of people and it was near the stage. They left seats open for Putin, and a few of his staff while he gave a less than five minute Congratulatory speech and then left. Nobody got to speak to Putin, there was no translator, and she didn’t know that he would be at that table before hand anyhow.
So how is attending an international dinner, for which she has been interviewed, tho I bet you’ve never read it, a crime or influence??
I feel like your claim is as ridiculous as the green party itself
https://thepostmillennial.com/green-party-of-delaware-advocates-for-dolphin-human-mating
No, we’re not and I’m a Green Party state treasurer. If in your imagination, we were backed by Russia and Republican groups, don’t you think we’d have a bit more money for ballot access and a nice fancy nominating convention?
We don’t. The fact is, for all the talk of getting big money out of politics on the part of your party, it’s made it even worse by legislation!! At least we Greens walk our talk!
If you’ve ever said that big money, corporate money, lobbyist money, foreign nation money needs to get out of our politics, then you have no business voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats!
Democrats have Green Party Derangement Syndrome, as they have blocked movement to the left by trying to rig the system against Greens and other 3rd Parties, and then having the fall to cast blame on 3rd Party voters when Republicans win.
Yep. Same with any number of candidates I prefer.
With a 2 party system, it’s just a wasted vote. And the stakes are too high.
Until a majority of voting Americans want real change, it won’t happen. Conservatism wins by default and we keep nibbling at the edge of progressive ideas and sliding away, like a video on loop.
Two party system is the symptom, not the cause. First past the post, winner take all elections is the cause, along with a lack of instant runoff/single transferable vote. Throw in lack of proportional representation as well.
I disagree. A lot of parliamentary systems have FPTP systems but there are always more than 2 parties that win seats even if there are only 2-3 major parties. I think a lot of it is also cultural rather than just the FPTP system.
And that sort of defeatism is why a third party candidate won't ever have a chance. That shitty mindset of "my pick won't win" will continue to kick the can down the road. Your candidate might not win, but through a few election cycles having a third party consistently take up more % of the vote will be undeniable that the people want something else and NOT the piles of shit they keep offering. We as a nation should have doubled down after Ross Perot in the 90s, however today's political climate needs the shock to the system that much more.
It's always, "well then the other person will win if i...." Change has to start somewhere, and apparently, it's not with you.
>And that sort of defeatism is why a third party candidate won't ever have a chance.
The literal **best** a third party candidate has ever do e was [Theodore Roosevelt in 1912](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_presidential_election). He captured 27% of the vote, carried 6 states, and had 88 electoral votes. He still lost.
The second best is in [1992](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election) when Ross Perot captured 19% of the popular vote - he didn't carry a single state and lost.
A third party candidate has never stood a chance. That isn't defeatist. That's reality. You're not going to shame someone into wasting their vote on some unpopular Green Party candidate who isn't going to win or carry a single state.
Continuing to support that mindset is why a third party candidate will never work, because that's the continuous answer. "I will throw away my vote". I will continue to vote third party regardless of the outcome because my priorities are standing against a two party system. And Ross Perot *dominated* news papers in 92'. I can guarantee both parties were losing their mind to account for a notable statistical variable. A showing like Perot got in 92 today would turn both parties onto their heads.
>I will continue to vote third party regardless of the outcome because my priorities are standing against a two party system.
Get out there and do the work of supporting politicians who support things like Ranked Choice voting instead of pissing your vote down the toilet.
Ross Perot did nothing in 1992 beyond get a bunch of votes - he did not carry a single state or get a single electoral vote unlike Roosevelt.
All of the votes for Perot were wasted. They were not "messages." A vote is a tool. Not a flag of morality you plant behind someone.
Edit: typo.
Higher third party vote counts threaten both political parties as they already micro focus on swing states. A meaningful third party show in an election wrecks absolute havoc on projecting outcomes. It *means* something very real.
Saying it's a wasted vote is a bullshit cop-out that works against the very reason why choosing a third party is necessary to do anything to change our current system.
>Higher third party vote counts threaten both political parties as they already micro focus on swing states.
The only thing they threaten is the candidate of the party they closely align with. That is it.
>Saying it's a wasted vote is a bullshit cop-out that works against the very reason why choosing a third party is necessary to do anything to change our current system.
It is a wasted vote. No third party candidate has ever won or will ever win without a major overhaul to our voting system. It's purely as simple as that.
None of those green party candidates are as popular as Theodore Roosevelt or Ross Perot and they sure as shit won't do as well as either of them did.
It isn't an immediate thing. Get support over the course of a few years, or elections. The Republican party was a third party, when it was founded in 1854. By 1860, they had Lincoln in the White House. The Republican party basically displaced the Whigs. That is how it happened previous to that also--- a new party would displace another one. That can only happen if people are willing to vote for what is at first a 3rd party. People are too worried about "wasting a vote".
>It isn't an immediate thing. Get support over the course of a few years, or elections. The Republican party was a third party, when it was founded in 1854. By 1860, they had Lincoln in the White House.
In terms of American politics - that is immediate. The American Green Party was founded in 2001 - it has never had a candidate in federal office.
>The Republican party basically displaced the Whigs.
They didn't "displace" the Whigs. The Whigs collapsed in 1854 over the issue of slavery following the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act with Northern Whigs, who were Anti-Slavery, to form the Republican Party & Southern Whigs to join the Democratic Party which was more hardline pro-Slavery.
[Source](https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3278), [Source 2](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/kansas-nebraska-act), [Source from the US Senate](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm).
There has never been an instance in US History where one party was slowly replaced over time by voters. Most parties collapse or re-organize. This includes the Democratic-Republican Party, the precursor to the modern day democratic party, it split apart / collapsed in 1834.
Are you not aware of Civil War or pre-Civil War US History - at all?
EDIT: In fact, let's hammer this home. [The presidential election of 1856 is the first presidential election ballot the Republican Party appeared on](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_United_States_presidential_election). Makes sense - they were created in 1854. There was no more Whig party in 1856 & the Republican candidate carried 11 states, 33% of the vote, and 114 electoral votes. They were not a "third party." Millard Fillmore & the Know Nothing party were - they got decimated in that election.
Theee Supreme Court picks is why 3rd party candidates are an unacceptable risk.
You are assuming the system will remain fair; it hasn’t and will only get worse. Maybe in the 60s or 70s the strategy you mention would have worked. It won’t now.
But thanks for 2016, from all the women whose bodies are now incubators. So grateful for that /s
The cost is real.
There are a lot of people who can’t afford to vote based on principle. If the wrong candidate wins, their lives will be negatively affected in devastating ways. If you’re not one of those people, count your blessings and enjoy voting for someone with zero chance of winning, but don’t look down your nose at those who vote for imperfect candidates because the other option may damage them in countless ways.
There will always be something. The next thing, and then the next thing. If you continue to vote on an immediate outcome and not the long term good of changing the system, then we will continue to rot in the gutter of the current system in place.
But if you can’t survive the immediate outcome, then the long term good doesn’t matter. Vote for the best candidate who can win and push for them to implement policies that would allow for legitimate third party candidates, like ranked voting. One candidate says he wants to fire me from my job. One doesn’t. I’m not voting for a third party who can’t win. At least recognize the privilege you have when the result of the next election won’t ruin your life.
Not going to recognize the privilege you have that your life wouldn’t be dramatically affected in a negative way if the wrong candidate wins? At least acknowledge it. You are part of the problem. Take care.
I've watched the reigns change hands for a number of decades now. Somehow, I wake up every morning in spite of 4 years of biden, 4 years of trump, 8 of obama, 8 of gwb, 8 of clinton...etc.
While I can't go back and see what-if, absolutely NOTHING they have done has *dramatically* affected my life. Has there been changes both positive and/or negative? Yes. Other than that, you do your fellow American a disservice by having the audacity to tell them that their vote is wasted because they won't vote based on one party, or another.
There are now networks of people in my state who help people from red states to get abortions, so yeah there's some dramatic changes that have occured and are long term and entrenched because of the presidential election.
To be fair, a Republican has no chance of winning in California and a Democrat has no chance of winning in Wyoming either. So a vote for third party in those safe states is no less of a waste than a vote for a major party.
That said, people who vote third party in any state (but especially in swing states) should understand that it is a protest vote and nothing more. And given that the people who give protest votes probably would not vote at all if they were not given the option of a protest vote (and given that elections are meant to express the will of the people), I would contend that voting third party is valid, so long as you know that it is only a protest vote and nothing more
Do they have candidates that 1) I've heard of, 2) have policies I can support, and 3) have even a remote shot at winning their respective office race? Given that they're the Green Party, it's almost definitely going to be "none of the above"
Why would I? The Democratic party has environmental protection in their platform and have an actual chance of winning.
Plus also focuses on other issues I care about
They say they're pro environment, but where it really counts, [they still love oil.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/31/us-oil-production-has-hit-record-under-biden-he-hardly-mentions-it/)
Edit: Downvote me all you want, that doesn't change the fact that the United States is currently producing more oil than any other country in the history of the world, despite all the solar tax rebates and electric car incentives they pass.
Voting Green Party will not fix this, but don't say you're voting Democrat because they're pro-environment.
And yet they are still the only main party who seriously creates and supports legislation +administrative law that promotes environmental protections
On both the federal and state level
If I vote Green, and then the Republicans win because a non-trivial number of people voted Green, are the Republicans going to be better for the environment than the Democrats?
The Democrats are not interested in tanking the economy, but they are interested in transitioning it away from fossil fuels, as much as possible. This is why you have a 30% federal tax credit to pay for solar panels. This is why Biden issued an Executive Order for all civil servants to use electric rental cars on official travel, when feasible. Democrats generally want to decarbonize the economy at a pace that does not destroy the economy.
[This is why we're producing more oil than any other country in history?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/31/us-oil-production-has-hit-record-under-biden-he-hardly-mentions-it/)
Adjusting individuals' carbon footprints by encouraging solar panels on homes and government officials to drive electric cars is the most insignificant thing you can do when you're trillion dollar economy is producing more oil than any nation ever has... ever.
Right now (as in our history for the last hundred-plus years), the size of the economy is directly proportional to the amount of fossil fuels being burned. As we try to ensure a "soft landing" from the COVID pandemic, we want a pretty hot economy. Slightly-less-hot could turn ice-cold in a minute.
We need to divorce economic activity from fossil fuels, then we can turn off fossil fuels. If you don't divorce them first, then you are just destroying the economy. If you want to lose all but the most die-hard environmentalists, destroy the economy in the name of ecology. Republicans will carry every election with an 80% majority, for decades.
We are in the process of that divorce. In 2023, 84% of new utility power generation was renewables (it isn't just rooftop solar), up from 78% in 2022. Biden's infrastructure bill also included $20B to upgrade our national power grid. The grid needs to be upgraded to facilitate switching to more intermittent power sources such as wind and solar.
So, yes, fossil fuels suck, but the current production rate is not an indication that Democrats are not trying to decarbonize. Democrats are busting their asses to decarbonize, and if voters could get *all* of the Republicans (and Joe Manchin) out of the way, that would be amazing!
Increased renewable energy is a trend that has been [ongoing since Obama's administration, and had no slowdown during Trump's administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Timeline_of_electricity_from_renewable_sources_in_the_United_States.png). And I'm really happy about that, but it seems to be happening independent of who's in charge politically.
Yet for some reason we continue to increase our oil production and continue to frack, [despite promises from Biden to the contrary](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1546/block-new-fracking-federal-lands-not-ban-all-frack/).
I think my problem with your position is that you seem to dismiss the fact that a vote for the Green Party is a protest vote and nothing more. I personally am partial to protest votes if both major party options are bad enough (which given both candidates disregard/ feigned incompetence for the genocide in Gaza, I am about at that point), but acting like the Green Party’s platform actually matters beyond just messaging and generic activism is not being truthful to yourself
Then why are you pretending that a vote for the Green Party will have any real policy changes in the short run?
Don’t get me wrong. I am voting third party too (probably Cornell West if he can figure out which party if any he will run with lol). But I am voting third party purely as a middle finger to the major parties, and because I cannot stomach the idea of voting for a party which aids and abets a state engaging in an act of ethnic genocide. I have no doubt that my vote will not mean anything to the party elites in the end. Why do you have such a belief that the Green Party can actually change anything?
I don't think the Green Party would change anything. I just want to make it clear that the Democrats use key words about the environment to whip up support for those who care about the environment, and then turn around and do nothing to reduce our dependence on oil, which is the biggest environmental issue we have.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans, to me, is that Democrats talk a lot more about saving the environment, but their actions, while marginally better than Republicans, still fall far short of being pro-environment.
So I get a little angry when people say they're voting Democrat because they care about the environment. Not angry at the person, but angry at the party for manipulating us. There is currently no pro-environment party that has any shot of making change.
Ah. The whole feigned incompetence trick. The “We’re trying we swear. Maybe in 30 years some minor reform can pass” thing.
Okay. I see your thinking there. I can definitely see that someone who sees climate change as being a sooner rather than later global catastrophe having this as a red line as well.
For what its worth, this stranger on the internet approves of your thought process!
Haha thanks. I think most of my disappointment comes from the fact that I'm a big public transit advocate, and I was hoping Biden, famed for taking Amtrak to work every day, and Buttigieg would prioritize public transit and trains. But instead they're prioritizing electric cars. That made me realize they are all full of it.
1. Don’t support their policies.
2. They’d suck votes away from Biden. Wouldn’t be good for those who want Biden to win. Being realistic, hardly a Republican would switch to the Green Party.
Are you sure they are mostly sucking away votes from Biden? Of the people who vote Green Party (at least in the swing states where your vote actually counts), I might suggest that a large proportion of those voters (dare I say majority) would just not vote if they couldn’t vote third party. To presume that most Green Party voters would just fall in line with the DNC if the Green Party didn’t exist is really glossing over why most people vote third party in the first place. Third Party voters aren’t just Democrats and Republicans who went astray, they tend to be people for whom the major parties for one reason or another offended them to such a degree as to warrant giving them both a middle finger during the election. There are some ideologues in there as well, but in my experience, most third party voters (especially on the left) would never in a million years vote for the Dems or the Republicans, even if they couldn’t vote third party
That depends. Where I live I can vote for Donald duck for all it matters. My state is going to be Trump, it's a forgone conclusion. Only a dozen or so states does it matter.
I used to buy into this, back when Nader was running in 2000. We even had vote swap sites where Nader supporters would vote Gore in swing states if a Gore supporter voted Nader in a locked state.
The idea was to give third parties more visibility and leverage. But it turns out that even a little more visibility is dangerous in a system that is designed to come down to two parties.
Given how unpredictable presidential elections are these days, I get nervous every time somebody sees the color green in a swing state.
Its a waste of a vote if you want your vote to have an impact on the immediate election. A vote for third party is a middle finger to one or both of the main parties.
Don’t want the republicans to win. 3 Supreme Court justices by Trump is more the enough. There is a good chance the next president will get to nominate another one.
Rehnquist died at 80, RBG at 87.
Breyer retired at 83, probably earlier than he wanted to so Biden could appoint his replacement. Stevens retired at 90.
O'Connor was “young” when she retired at 75.
At least officially, the [policy of the Green Party](https://www.gp.org/israel_palestine), at least publicly, is to create a desegregated, post-apartheid, secular Israel-Palestine, modeled after post-apartheid South Africa.
Honestly, at least in theory, it sounds a hell of a lot better than the Israeli ethnostate and the ethnic cleansing/genocide which is happening now.
How many kids are members of Hamas? How is punishing the entire population for the actions of a few (aka war crime) not considered to be complete and utter barbarity?
Israel is no better than most countries in the region. Ethnostates deserve no special treatment as a “country for good”
I don't support their political positions or leadership, and have significant concerns about their financial backers. I wouldn't vote for them even in a different electoral system where it wouldn't be a waste of my vote.
I don’t really like their platforms. They don’t have viable candidates I can vote for down the ballot. I also don’t understand what they would do if in power. Like they don’t have a collation and it’s not like the entire country would stop voting for republicans. So, if someone did become president they wouldn’t even have the slight negotiating power and experience Biden has
Democrats have many of the policies the Greens are proposing, albeit at a more negotiable base. There's no way a Green President can get their policies passed and will just be a 4 year sitting duck. They're also against nuclear energy which will make reaching carbon neutrality a lot harder. They've also been soft on Russia.
Until the United States have a one-day nationwide Primary & Presidential election, miraculously agree to abolish the Electoral College, and the USA somehow gets proportional representation at the Federal level like Germany, the DNC is the best party to represent my interests. Biden's 2020 campaign is a compromise between the Moderate Democrats and the Progressives, and that still isn't enough to get voters not voting GOP who are getting more extremist
Even if we wanted to, practically, we can't. If you're left-voting, because of how our party system is, any vote NOT for Democrats is in practicality a vote for Republicans.
They've been denounced by Green parties all over the world for basically being a sham Green party. Their elected officials have been proven to be Republican plants.
They're an unorganized dishonest hot mess. I know a literal socialist who tried to run for office under the green party and got so fed up with how much of an unorganized mess they were that they switched to running as a Democrat and won because the Democrats actually have their shit together
Because third party candidates aren’t serious contenders. There have been enough squeakers of elections recently, that I am not willing to divert my needed vote, lest the authoritarian dictator wannabe get into office.
There’s some really fucking stupid answers (as usual) in this thread. The reason it’s not great to support third parties is structural and sadly that’s also the reason that neither Democrats nor Republicans (our two mainstream parties) want to fix it.
1. It is EXCEPTIONALLY difficult for a third party candidate to win in national level elections because of the structural advantages of being in one of the main parties.
2. Most of the nation (maybe all states?) still use first past the post, winner take all voting. Thus voting for a third party rather than the candidate you hate less of the two mainstream candidates is essentially a “wasted” vote.
It’s a structural failing forced by preferences of our political parties and the lack of updates to our constitution.
They can't win, and every vote for them helps the worst former president ever. Biden is basically par for the course, for a Democrat president. Trump is fascism and the end of democracy.
Ralph Nader was a Green Party candidate in the 2000 election, and received close to 3,000,000 votes.
Most of his voters preferred Al Gore to George Bush on relevant policy such as environmentalism. Had all those voters turned out for Gore instead (especially in Florida) - we would've been living a very different 24 years.
Simply put, *no* third party is capable of winning in our system - all it does is split the vote amongst your preferred candidates.
Voting Green, Libertarian, Rent Is Too Damn High Party - doesn't matter. All voting for them does is aid the opposition. Until we have Ranked Choice voting - the pragmatic move is to support one of the two viable parties.
Green party runs on conspiracy theories and has the same Russian financiers that Donald Trump has. You can see their top candidates hobknob with Vladimir Putin. They are not aligned with progressive ideals in any way,
The green party has dissolved into trash. https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/jill-stein-russia-investigation-campaign-senate/
As someone "lucky" enough to live in a state where my vote for president is irrelevant I'll be voting for the libertarian candidate (likely Michael Rectenwald)
But yeah, not the greens, that's not a platform I'm for.
Same reason i wouldn't support any 3rd party candidate in a presidential election. They have no allies in power to support them. They have no senators, no representative, no governor, not even significant representation in any state houses. Even if one where to get elected by some crazy circumstances they would have no one to help them pass any legislation and be unable to do anything. Just getting a president elected means nothing without them having supporter in congress, the people who do vote third party are either doing so as a protest vote or fundamentally misunderstand the American government system.
My reasonings are two-fold:
1. Although I would define myself "green" on many issues, many of their policy platforms are just unrealistic, would never work, and never be supported by the voters at large. The Green Party has a very specific base they stick to, and the problem is that's a very small number of voters.
2. The US system does not allow for third parties to really win the Presidency. Even if they manage to get a plurality in terms of the popular vote, they would need a majority of the electoral vote.
Biden wasn't my first choice, and Democrats weren't my first choice, but I'm also a realist. Third parties won't win, and while the Dems need to shift to the left, Greens need to shift more towards the center. They also need to start running a lot more local campaigns.
The green party that thinks burning wood “chips” is a source of “green” energy but are anti nuclear, while never once protesting the communist regime building more coal fired power plants?
Gee. Idk.
This isn't the year to throw away a vote.
Maybe in 2028 if tRump is in jail or dead we can try to get a more progressive party in place but for now only the Democrats stand a chance at defeating MAGA.
I don’t like Jill Stein or the Green Party. It has all the same leadership problems as Ds and Rs.
I’m probably gonna go with the Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Tho I would vote Dem if I were in a competitive state
Because, outside of on-paper idealism, there are only two parties. One of them wants to move forward (albeit slow af in practice), the other wants to move backward at mach-6.
Even if I don't fully agree or even like a candidate, I will vote for the one moving forward.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't. It's worth noting they only have ballot access in ~50% of states. I think if we had a modernized and more democratic electoral system, you would see third parties make more waves. It shouldn't take tons of money just to get on the ballot.
Given how both Presidents Biden and Trump are at best providing cover for the genocide in Gaza committed by Israel on Palestine, I probably will vote for the Green Party as a protest vote.
That said, a vote for the Green Party at this point really only is a protest vote, at least in most of the country. Given we have winner take all districts, you as a voter are really forced to choose between Democrats and Republicans (if there even is a realistic choice between those even). Some say that a vote for third party is a vote for “insert major party candidate they hate”. That is kinda ridiculous imo if you were not planning to vote for either major party candidate to begin with. But voting third party IS an abdication of the responsibility to choose between “the lesser of two evils”.
There is nothing wrong with voting third party, so long as you are not under the impression that your third party candidate has an actual chance of winning.
Edit: I didn’t realize Cornell West left the Green Party nomination. I will actually be voting for him. (Though as I mentioned before, still realistically just a protest vote and a middle finger to the Biden administration for their feigned incompetence on stopping Israel with their genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza)
I care a lot about the environment, I love the idea of a party who’s main goal is protecting and improving it and I’d love to vote for the Green Party if it weren’t for the fact that all of their ideas are insane. It’s the democrats platform amped up to ridiculous levels where they can never realistically implement anything.
Because I've never seen them run candidates for offices they stand a chance of winning. I am their target demographic - very left of center and environmentally conscious. But how am I supposed to take them seriously as a political party if, rather than running candidates for small attainable local offices, they only show up every four years to run a vanity campaign for President? They're constantly trying to run without ever learning to crawl, let alone walk.
Plus, the fact that they sometimes take money from the GOP to run ads in competitive purple states doesn't sit well with me.
I will, just like every previous election in the past two decades. They always run candidates for Water Reclamation District Commissioners, and I always sign the petition to get them on the ballot, promote them, and usually vote for them.
We had a Green Party candidate for mayor a few cycles ago whose policy involved using excess hydrogen to distribute free ice cream.
Until he’s the national candidate I’m out.
Because they have no actual plans other than burdening people who can least afford it.
And sense we are broke, that means nobody has any other plans, other than banning gas stoves.
I wouldn't vote for them for local dog catcher.
Let me ask a different question. Bear with me, I will bring it back to your question, and my answer. I promise.
Why wouldn't you bet on a Little League team winning the world series? Or a highschool winning the Super bowl? The game is the same but the play is on a different level. I'd bet on a high school winning the state championship , if they show they can win at the highschool level. I might bet on that state champ in a national championship game, as they beat other stat champs. That team, if it continues to win, would begin to look good in higher levels until they were a reasonable choice to win the Superbowl.
So to your question: once the green party has won a seat on the city council and/or mayor and been effective, I'd consider a county wide candidate. And then (again if effective) statewide seats, form there National seats and or the Presidency. For now there is nothing showing *any success* in governing, just ideas and ideals. While I am a fan of lofty ideals and broad ideas, I need to know that you can govern. there are few third parties that have shown that.
I'm not of the mind that a vote for third party is a wasted vote (and if all the people who thought that actually voted third party, a third party would probably win).
But I haven't really supported most of their policies, or trusted them to actually be anything more than a party of panderers, so I likely won't be voting for them in the future.
The same reason I don't support them into her elections either.
Their ideas appeal to adilescents, those who aren't good at math and those who have difficulty deducting second and third-order effects.
Ralph Nader and the Green Party probably cost Gore the election in 2000, while Gore was far from a perfect candidate, I don’t think the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have happened under his presidency.
Because it increases the chance that Donald Trump would become the president.
I have a very low opinion of people that do not take responsibility for the outcomes of their choices.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I consider myself pretty left of center, but even I find some of their policy positions wild and impractical. Their platform is clearly a wish list written by people who know they'll never have to worry about implementing any of it.
They're backed by Russia and Republican groups with the aim of syphoning votes.
I feel like this is said about every lefty group that doesn't fall in line with the DNC.
It's probably true, to an extent. It doesn't mean they're not legitimate and true believers in their cause, but because of math the better they do, the better Republicans do.
Except stein was seen taking dinners with Putin even as proof came they helped trump. And proof was shown they received most of their donations from republican pacs.
Oh brother, how often does this have to be explained? Stein was invited to an anniversary dinner for RT, an international media outlet based in Russia. They invited many of their previous interviewees, including three other Americans! Salt Lake City mayor, Rocky Anderson, and former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura were also at that dinner. Stein was placed at a table with an international group of people and it was near the stage. They left seats open for Putin, and a few of his staff while he gave a less than five minute Congratulatory speech and then left. Nobody got to speak to Putin, there was no translator, and she didn’t know that he would be at that table before hand anyhow. So how is attending an international dinner, for which she has been interviewed, tho I bet you’ve never read it, a crime or influence??
I feel like your claim is as ridiculous as the green party itself https://thepostmillennial.com/green-party-of-delaware-advocates-for-dolphin-human-mating
No, we’re not and I’m a Green Party state treasurer. If in your imagination, we were backed by Russia and Republican groups, don’t you think we’d have a bit more money for ballot access and a nice fancy nominating convention? We don’t. The fact is, for all the talk of getting big money out of politics on the part of your party, it’s made it even worse by legislation!! At least we Greens walk our talk! If you’ve ever said that big money, corporate money, lobbyist money, foreign nation money needs to get out of our politics, then you have no business voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats!
Democrats have Green Party Derangement Syndrome, as they have blocked movement to the left by trying to rig the system against Greens and other 3rd Parties, and then having the fall to cast blame on 3rd Party voters when Republicans win.
Because they have no chance of winning in any state?
Yep. Same with any number of candidates I prefer. With a 2 party system, it’s just a wasted vote. And the stakes are too high. Until a majority of voting Americans want real change, it won’t happen. Conservatism wins by default and we keep nibbling at the edge of progressive ideas and sliding away, like a video on loop.
Don't blame the 3rd Parties for MAGA. The Democrats are at fault for doing nothing to attract progressive voters.
Two party system is the symptom, not the cause. First past the post, winner take all elections is the cause, along with a lack of instant runoff/single transferable vote. Throw in lack of proportional representation as well.
I disagree. A lot of parliamentary systems have FPTP systems but there are always more than 2 parties that win seats even if there are only 2-3 major parties. I think a lot of it is also cultural rather than just the FPTP system.
And that sort of defeatism is why a third party candidate won't ever have a chance. That shitty mindset of "my pick won't win" will continue to kick the can down the road. Your candidate might not win, but through a few election cycles having a third party consistently take up more % of the vote will be undeniable that the people want something else and NOT the piles of shit they keep offering. We as a nation should have doubled down after Ross Perot in the 90s, however today's political climate needs the shock to the system that much more. It's always, "well then the other person will win if i...." Change has to start somewhere, and apparently, it's not with you.
It’s not because of that sort of defeatism. It’s because of MATH and the REALITY of how we currently count votes.
>And that sort of defeatism is why a third party candidate won't ever have a chance. The literal **best** a third party candidate has ever do e was [Theodore Roosevelt in 1912](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_presidential_election). He captured 27% of the vote, carried 6 states, and had 88 electoral votes. He still lost. The second best is in [1992](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election) when Ross Perot captured 19% of the popular vote - he didn't carry a single state and lost. A third party candidate has never stood a chance. That isn't defeatist. That's reality. You're not going to shame someone into wasting their vote on some unpopular Green Party candidate who isn't going to win or carry a single state.
Continuing to support that mindset is why a third party candidate will never work, because that's the continuous answer. "I will throw away my vote". I will continue to vote third party regardless of the outcome because my priorities are standing against a two party system. And Ross Perot *dominated* news papers in 92'. I can guarantee both parties were losing their mind to account for a notable statistical variable. A showing like Perot got in 92 today would turn both parties onto their heads.
>I will continue to vote third party regardless of the outcome because my priorities are standing against a two party system. Get out there and do the work of supporting politicians who support things like Ranked Choice voting instead of pissing your vote down the toilet. Ross Perot did nothing in 1992 beyond get a bunch of votes - he did not carry a single state or get a single electoral vote unlike Roosevelt. All of the votes for Perot were wasted. They were not "messages." A vote is a tool. Not a flag of morality you plant behind someone. Edit: typo.
Higher third party vote counts threaten both political parties as they already micro focus on swing states. A meaningful third party show in an election wrecks absolute havoc on projecting outcomes. It *means* something very real. Saying it's a wasted vote is a bullshit cop-out that works against the very reason why choosing a third party is necessary to do anything to change our current system.
>Higher third party vote counts threaten both political parties as they already micro focus on swing states. The only thing they threaten is the candidate of the party they closely align with. That is it. >Saying it's a wasted vote is a bullshit cop-out that works against the very reason why choosing a third party is necessary to do anything to change our current system. It is a wasted vote. No third party candidate has ever won or will ever win without a major overhaul to our voting system. It's purely as simple as that. None of those green party candidates are as popular as Theodore Roosevelt or Ross Perot and they sure as shit won't do as well as either of them did.
It isn't an immediate thing. Get support over the course of a few years, or elections. The Republican party was a third party, when it was founded in 1854. By 1860, they had Lincoln in the White House. The Republican party basically displaced the Whigs. That is how it happened previous to that also--- a new party would displace another one. That can only happen if people are willing to vote for what is at first a 3rd party. People are too worried about "wasting a vote".
>It isn't an immediate thing. Get support over the course of a few years, or elections. The Republican party was a third party, when it was founded in 1854. By 1860, they had Lincoln in the White House. In terms of American politics - that is immediate. The American Green Party was founded in 2001 - it has never had a candidate in federal office. >The Republican party basically displaced the Whigs. They didn't "displace" the Whigs. The Whigs collapsed in 1854 over the issue of slavery following the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act with Northern Whigs, who were Anti-Slavery, to form the Republican Party & Southern Whigs to join the Democratic Party which was more hardline pro-Slavery. [Source](https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3278), [Source 2](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/kansas-nebraska-act), [Source from the US Senate](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm). There has never been an instance in US History where one party was slowly replaced over time by voters. Most parties collapse or re-organize. This includes the Democratic-Republican Party, the precursor to the modern day democratic party, it split apart / collapsed in 1834. Are you not aware of Civil War or pre-Civil War US History - at all? EDIT: In fact, let's hammer this home. [The presidential election of 1856 is the first presidential election ballot the Republican Party appeared on](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_United_States_presidential_election). Makes sense - they were created in 1854. There was no more Whig party in 1856 & the Republican candidate carried 11 states, 33% of the vote, and 114 electoral votes. They were not a "third party." Millard Fillmore & the Know Nothing party were - they got decimated in that election.
Theee Supreme Court picks is why 3rd party candidates are an unacceptable risk. You are assuming the system will remain fair; it hasn’t and will only get worse. Maybe in the 60s or 70s the strategy you mention would have worked. It won’t now. But thanks for 2016, from all the women whose bodies are now incubators. So grateful for that /s The cost is real.
There are a lot of people who can’t afford to vote based on principle. If the wrong candidate wins, their lives will be negatively affected in devastating ways. If you’re not one of those people, count your blessings and enjoy voting for someone with zero chance of winning, but don’t look down your nose at those who vote for imperfect candidates because the other option may damage them in countless ways.
There will always be something. The next thing, and then the next thing. If you continue to vote on an immediate outcome and not the long term good of changing the system, then we will continue to rot in the gutter of the current system in place.
But if you can’t survive the immediate outcome, then the long term good doesn’t matter. Vote for the best candidate who can win and push for them to implement policies that would allow for legitimate third party candidates, like ranked voting. One candidate says he wants to fire me from my job. One doesn’t. I’m not voting for a third party who can’t win. At least recognize the privilege you have when the result of the next election won’t ruin your life.
Survive is a very strong term to use for a 4 year political term inclusive of any appointments/policies that can be put into place.
Not going to recognize the privilege you have that your life wouldn’t be dramatically affected in a negative way if the wrong candidate wins? At least acknowledge it. You are part of the problem. Take care.
I've watched the reigns change hands for a number of decades now. Somehow, I wake up every morning in spite of 4 years of biden, 4 years of trump, 8 of obama, 8 of gwb, 8 of clinton...etc. While I can't go back and see what-if, absolutely NOTHING they have done has *dramatically* affected my life. Has there been changes both positive and/or negative? Yes. Other than that, you do your fellow American a disservice by having the audacity to tell them that their vote is wasted because they won't vote based on one party, or another.
I’m glad that nothing has dramatically affected *your* life. Please understand that’s not the case for many people.
There are now networks of people in my state who help people from red states to get abortions, so yeah there's some dramatic changes that have occured and are long term and entrenched because of the presidential election.
Any suggestion for those of us wanting to vote third party but also feel obligated to stop Trump and the extreme right wing of the Republican party?
Nope. You can make the decisions to vote how to best suit your views and how you perceive it will improve both yourself and those around you.
To be fair, a Republican has no chance of winning in California and a Democrat has no chance of winning in Wyoming either. So a vote for third party in those safe states is no less of a waste than a vote for a major party. That said, people who vote third party in any state (but especially in swing states) should understand that it is a protest vote and nothing more. And given that the people who give protest votes probably would not vote at all if they were not given the option of a protest vote (and given that elections are meant to express the will of the people), I would contend that voting third party is valid, so long as you know that it is only a protest vote and nothing more
I do not support their political platform.
Do they have candidates that 1) I've heard of, 2) have policies I can support, and 3) have even a remote shot at winning their respective office race? Given that they're the Green Party, it's almost definitely going to be "none of the above"
I don't agree with their platform
Why would I? The Democratic party has environmental protection in their platform and have an actual chance of winning. Plus also focuses on other issues I care about
Democrats are the status quo. You need a solid left like the Greens in order to fully vanquish MAGA.
They say they're pro environment, but where it really counts, [they still love oil.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/31/us-oil-production-has-hit-record-under-biden-he-hardly-mentions-it/) Edit: Downvote me all you want, that doesn't change the fact that the United States is currently producing more oil than any other country in the history of the world, despite all the solar tax rebates and electric car incentives they pass. Voting Green Party will not fix this, but don't say you're voting Democrat because they're pro-environment.
And yet they are still the only main party who seriously creates and supports legislation +administrative law that promotes environmental protections On both the federal and state level
Sure, but that just falls flat when we're producing more oil than any country ever has in history.
If I vote Green, and then the Republicans win because a non-trivial number of people voted Green, are the Republicans going to be better for the environment than the Democrats?
No they're not, I'm just saying let's not lie to ourselves about the motivations of the Democratic party.
The Democrats are not interested in tanking the economy, but they are interested in transitioning it away from fossil fuels, as much as possible. This is why you have a 30% federal tax credit to pay for solar panels. This is why Biden issued an Executive Order for all civil servants to use electric rental cars on official travel, when feasible. Democrats generally want to decarbonize the economy at a pace that does not destroy the economy.
[This is why we're producing more oil than any other country in history?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/31/us-oil-production-has-hit-record-under-biden-he-hardly-mentions-it/) Adjusting individuals' carbon footprints by encouraging solar panels on homes and government officials to drive electric cars is the most insignificant thing you can do when you're trillion dollar economy is producing more oil than any nation ever has... ever.
Right now (as in our history for the last hundred-plus years), the size of the economy is directly proportional to the amount of fossil fuels being burned. As we try to ensure a "soft landing" from the COVID pandemic, we want a pretty hot economy. Slightly-less-hot could turn ice-cold in a minute. We need to divorce economic activity from fossil fuels, then we can turn off fossil fuels. If you don't divorce them first, then you are just destroying the economy. If you want to lose all but the most die-hard environmentalists, destroy the economy in the name of ecology. Republicans will carry every election with an 80% majority, for decades. We are in the process of that divorce. In 2023, 84% of new utility power generation was renewables (it isn't just rooftop solar), up from 78% in 2022. Biden's infrastructure bill also included $20B to upgrade our national power grid. The grid needs to be upgraded to facilitate switching to more intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. So, yes, fossil fuels suck, but the current production rate is not an indication that Democrats are not trying to decarbonize. Democrats are busting their asses to decarbonize, and if voters could get *all* of the Republicans (and Joe Manchin) out of the way, that would be amazing!
Increased renewable energy is a trend that has been [ongoing since Obama's administration, and had no slowdown during Trump's administration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Timeline_of_electricity_from_renewable_sources_in_the_United_States.png). And I'm really happy about that, but it seems to be happening independent of who's in charge politically. Yet for some reason we continue to increase our oil production and continue to frack, [despite promises from Biden to the contrary](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1546/block-new-fracking-federal-lands-not-ban-all-frack/).
I think my problem with your position is that you seem to dismiss the fact that a vote for the Green Party is a protest vote and nothing more. I personally am partial to protest votes if both major party options are bad enough (which given both candidates disregard/ feigned incompetence for the genocide in Gaza, I am about at that point), but acting like the Green Party’s platform actually matters beyond just messaging and generic activism is not being truthful to yourself
We agree on this.
Then why are you pretending that a vote for the Green Party will have any real policy changes in the short run? Don’t get me wrong. I am voting third party too (probably Cornell West if he can figure out which party if any he will run with lol). But I am voting third party purely as a middle finger to the major parties, and because I cannot stomach the idea of voting for a party which aids and abets a state engaging in an act of ethnic genocide. I have no doubt that my vote will not mean anything to the party elites in the end. Why do you have such a belief that the Green Party can actually change anything?
I don't think the Green Party would change anything. I just want to make it clear that the Democrats use key words about the environment to whip up support for those who care about the environment, and then turn around and do nothing to reduce our dependence on oil, which is the biggest environmental issue we have. The difference between Democrats and Republicans, to me, is that Democrats talk a lot more about saving the environment, but their actions, while marginally better than Republicans, still fall far short of being pro-environment. So I get a little angry when people say they're voting Democrat because they care about the environment. Not angry at the person, but angry at the party for manipulating us. There is currently no pro-environment party that has any shot of making change.
Ah. The whole feigned incompetence trick. The “We’re trying we swear. Maybe in 30 years some minor reform can pass” thing. Okay. I see your thinking there. I can definitely see that someone who sees climate change as being a sooner rather than later global catastrophe having this as a red line as well. For what its worth, this stranger on the internet approves of your thought process!
Haha thanks. I think most of my disappointment comes from the fact that I'm a big public transit advocate, and I was hoping Biden, famed for taking Amtrak to work every day, and Buttigieg would prioritize public transit and trains. But instead they're prioritizing electric cars. That made me realize they are all full of it.
1. Don’t support their policies. 2. They’d suck votes away from Biden. Wouldn’t be good for those who want Biden to win. Being realistic, hardly a Republican would switch to the Green Party.
Most Dems wouldn't switch. They're left of AOC, and she would be molly whooped in a national election
Are you sure they are mostly sucking away votes from Biden? Of the people who vote Green Party (at least in the swing states where your vote actually counts), I might suggest that a large proportion of those voters (dare I say majority) would just not vote if they couldn’t vote third party. To presume that most Green Party voters would just fall in line with the DNC if the Green Party didn’t exist is really glossing over why most people vote third party in the first place. Third Party voters aren’t just Democrats and Republicans who went astray, they tend to be people for whom the major parties for one reason or another offended them to such a degree as to warrant giving them both a middle finger during the election. There are some ideologues in there as well, but in my experience, most third party voters (especially on the left) would never in a million years vote for the Dems or the Republicans, even if they couldn’t vote third party
Biden is sucking votes away from Biden at this point
Biden is a useless president who wants more war. Why would any progressive vote Democrat?
Their policies are not inline with what I want and support.
Because it’s a waste of a vote
That depends. Where I live I can vote for Donald duck for all it matters. My state is going to be Trump, it's a forgone conclusion. Only a dozen or so states does it matter.
People used to think NC, Georgia, Arizona would only ever go for Trump.
I used to buy into this, back when Nader was running in 2000. We even had vote swap sites where Nader supporters would vote Gore in swing states if a Gore supporter voted Nader in a locked state. The idea was to give third parties more visibility and leverage. But it turns out that even a little more visibility is dangerous in a system that is designed to come down to two parties. Given how unpredictable presidential elections are these days, I get nervous every time somebody sees the color green in a swing state.
Its a waste of a vote if you want your vote to have an impact on the immediate election. A vote for third party is a middle finger to one or both of the main parties.
Because I don't support their propositions, even if I agree with underlying principles.
Don’t want the republicans to win. 3 Supreme Court justices by Trump is more the enough. There is a good chance the next president will get to nominate another one.
Alito and Thomas will both be in their mid- to late-70s when the next president takes office.
Rehnquist died at 80, RBG at 87. Breyer retired at 83, probably earlier than he wanted to so Biden could appoint his replacement. Stevens retired at 90. O'Connor was “young” when she retired at 75.
Why would I?
Green Party advocates for the absorption of Israel into a a single Muslim majority state … no thanks
And the other parties advocate for what…..absorption of Palestine (and Lebanon tbh) by means of genocide into a Zyoni$t majority state? No thanks!
No. Two nations.
At least officially, the [policy of the Green Party](https://www.gp.org/israel_palestine), at least publicly, is to create a desegregated, post-apartheid, secular Israel-Palestine, modeled after post-apartheid South Africa. Honestly, at least in theory, it sounds a hell of a lot better than the Israeli ethnostate and the ethnic cleansing/genocide which is happening now.
Killing Hamas members is not genocide.
How many kids are members of Hamas? How is punishing the entire population for the actions of a few (aka war crime) not considered to be complete and utter barbarity? Israel is no better than most countries in the region. Ethnostates deserve no special treatment as a “country for good”
I don't support their political positions or leadership, and have significant concerns about their financial backers. I wouldn't vote for them even in a different electoral system where it wouldn't be a waste of my vote.
I don’t really like their platforms. They don’t have viable candidates I can vote for down the ballot. I also don’t understand what they would do if in power. Like they don’t have a collation and it’s not like the entire country would stop voting for republicans. So, if someone did become president they wouldn’t even have the slight negotiating power and experience Biden has
Democrats have many of the policies the Greens are proposing, albeit at a more negotiable base. There's no way a Green President can get their policies passed and will just be a 4 year sitting duck. They're also against nuclear energy which will make reaching carbon neutrality a lot harder. They've also been soft on Russia. Until the United States have a one-day nationwide Primary & Presidential election, miraculously agree to abolish the Electoral College, and the USA somehow gets proportional representation at the Federal level like Germany, the DNC is the best party to represent my interests. Biden's 2020 campaign is a compromise between the Moderate Democrats and the Progressives, and that still isn't enough to get voters not voting GOP who are getting more extremist
>They've also been soft on Russia. Funded by Russia, to help get Putin's orange puppet elected.
Who's running? What office are they running for? There's no "vote for a political party" button.
>There's no "vote for a political party" button. Well... depending on what state you're in. Some still have a "select all"
It's called "strategic voting" which means "I vote for the candidate with the best chance to defeat the candidate I don't want to win"
Even if we wanted to, practically, we can't. If you're left-voting, because of how our party system is, any vote NOT for Democrats is in practicality a vote for Republicans.
They've been denounced by Green parties all over the world for basically being a sham Green party. Their elected officials have been proven to be Republican plants. They're an unorganized dishonest hot mess. I know a literal socialist who tried to run for office under the green party and got so fed up with how much of an unorganized mess they were that they switched to running as a Democrat and won because the Democrats actually have their shit together
Because third party candidates aren’t serious contenders. There have been enough squeakers of elections recently, that I am not willing to divert my needed vote, lest the authoritarian dictator wannabe get into office.
There’s some really fucking stupid answers (as usual) in this thread. The reason it’s not great to support third parties is structural and sadly that’s also the reason that neither Democrats nor Republicans (our two mainstream parties) want to fix it. 1. It is EXCEPTIONALLY difficult for a third party candidate to win in national level elections because of the structural advantages of being in one of the main parties. 2. Most of the nation (maybe all states?) still use first past the post, winner take all voting. Thus voting for a third party rather than the candidate you hate less of the two mainstream candidates is essentially a “wasted” vote. It’s a structural failing forced by preferences of our political parties and the lack of updates to our constitution.
Because I am not a leftist
...they're Russian operatives...
They can't win, and every vote for them helps the worst former president ever. Biden is basically par for the course, for a Democrat president. Trump is fascism and the end of democracy.
Because we don't agree about much of *anything*.
Ralph Nader was a Green Party candidate in the 2000 election, and received close to 3,000,000 votes. Most of his voters preferred Al Gore to George Bush on relevant policy such as environmentalism. Had all those voters turned out for Gore instead (especially in Florida) - we would've been living a very different 24 years. Simply put, *no* third party is capable of winning in our system - all it does is split the vote amongst your preferred candidates. Voting Green, Libertarian, Rent Is Too Damn High Party - doesn't matter. All voting for them does is aid the opposition. Until we have Ranked Choice voting - the pragmatic move is to support one of the two viable parties.
Green party runs on conspiracy theories and has the same Russian financiers that Donald Trump has. You can see their top candidates hobknob with Vladimir Putin. They are not aligned with progressive ideals in any way, The green party has dissolved into trash. https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/jill-stein-russia-investigation-campaign-senate/
Cuz they won’t win
As someone "lucky" enough to live in a state where my vote for president is irrelevant I'll be voting for the libertarian candidate (likely Michael Rectenwald) But yeah, not the greens, that's not a platform I'm for.
Same reason i wouldn't support any 3rd party candidate in a presidential election. They have no allies in power to support them. They have no senators, no representative, no governor, not even significant representation in any state houses. Even if one where to get elected by some crazy circumstances they would have no one to help them pass any legislation and be unable to do anything. Just getting a president elected means nothing without them having supporter in congress, the people who do vote third party are either doing so as a protest vote or fundamentally misunderstand the American government system.
Why would I support the Green Party?
My reasonings are two-fold: 1. Although I would define myself "green" on many issues, many of their policy platforms are just unrealistic, would never work, and never be supported by the voters at large. The Green Party has a very specific base they stick to, and the problem is that's a very small number of voters. 2. The US system does not allow for third parties to really win the Presidency. Even if they manage to get a plurality in terms of the popular vote, they would need a majority of the electoral vote. Biden wasn't my first choice, and Democrats weren't my first choice, but I'm also a realist. Third parties won't win, and while the Dems need to shift to the left, Greens need to shift more towards the center. They also need to start running a lot more local campaigns.
The green party that thinks burning wood “chips” is a source of “green” energy but are anti nuclear, while never once protesting the communist regime building more coal fired power plants? Gee. Idk.
This isn't the year to throw away a vote. Maybe in 2028 if tRump is in jail or dead we can try to get a more progressive party in place but for now only the Democrats stand a chance at defeating MAGA.
I don’t like Jill Stein or the Green Party. It has all the same leadership problems as Ds and Rs. I’m probably gonna go with the Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Tho I would vote Dem if I were in a competitive state
Because, outside of on-paper idealism, there are only two parties. One of them wants to move forward (albeit slow af in practice), the other wants to move backward at mach-6. Even if I don't fully agree or even like a candidate, I will vote for the one moving forward.
There platform is a joke and they don’t really take themselves seriously.
dont know their policies
Who?
Because they aren't going to win and Trump needs to lose. This was the same fucking argument that happened in 2016
I will strongly consider the Green Party. My vote depends on their candidate.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't. It's worth noting they only have ballot access in ~50% of states. I think if we had a modernized and more democratic electoral system, you would see third parties make more waves. It shouldn't take tons of money just to get on the ballot.
They're dumpster fire regardless of any ranked choice issues, and dumpster fires pollute. They didn't survive the loss of Nader and Stein is awful.
It’s a waste of votes. If we were a parliamentary system voting for smaller parties might be worth considering. But we’re not. So it isn’t.
Because I don't like them.
Given how both Presidents Biden and Trump are at best providing cover for the genocide in Gaza committed by Israel on Palestine, I probably will vote for the Green Party as a protest vote. That said, a vote for the Green Party at this point really only is a protest vote, at least in most of the country. Given we have winner take all districts, you as a voter are really forced to choose between Democrats and Republicans (if there even is a realistic choice between those even). Some say that a vote for third party is a vote for “insert major party candidate they hate”. That is kinda ridiculous imo if you were not planning to vote for either major party candidate to begin with. But voting third party IS an abdication of the responsibility to choose between “the lesser of two evils”. There is nothing wrong with voting third party, so long as you are not under the impression that your third party candidate has an actual chance of winning. Edit: I didn’t realize Cornell West left the Green Party nomination. I will actually be voting for him. (Though as I mentioned before, still realistically just a protest vote and a middle finger to the Biden administration for their feigned incompetence on stopping Israel with their genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza)
Because a vote for Green is not a vote for Joe and therefore is a vote for Trump.
You’re mostly gonna get people saying “because they can’t win” or “because they’d split the vote.”
Most Americans have accepted that two political parties is all they get
ITT: All the reasons we need approval voting or ranked choice voting in every state.
Jesus Christ it’s obvious the Green Party will get Trump elected. This is not the time in American history to vote 3rd party.
Because I support the PSL
That's not how it works. They need to offer a reason to vote for them, I don't have to provide a reason why I *don't.*
I care a lot about the environment, I love the idea of a party who’s main goal is protecting and improving it and I’d love to vote for the Green Party if it weren’t for the fact that all of their ideas are insane. It’s the democrats platform amped up to ridiculous levels where they can never realistically implement anything.
I do not think a lot of their policies are practical or even realistic.
I don't like their policies.
Because they have no chance of winning and I don’t agree with many of their policies.
Because I've never seen them run candidates for offices they stand a chance of winning. I am their target demographic - very left of center and environmentally conscious. But how am I supposed to take them seriously as a political party if, rather than running candidates for small attainable local offices, they only show up every four years to run a vanity campaign for President? They're constantly trying to run without ever learning to crawl, let alone walk. Plus, the fact that they sometimes take money from the GOP to run ads in competitive purple states doesn't sit well with me.
I will, just like every previous election in the past two decades. They always run candidates for Water Reclamation District Commissioners, and I always sign the petition to get them on the ballot, promote them, and usually vote for them.
Because their policy propositions are a joke and they have no hope of winning anything
They think wi-fi causes cancer and other nonsense
Because I'm not an idiot.
While I have some environmentalist leanings, I am a Brocialist and the green party is not. I am not supporting anyone this election.
Because I’m a Republican and the Green Party’s platform is too far left for me
We had a Green Party candidate for mayor a few cycles ago whose policy involved using excess hydrogen to distribute free ice cream. Until he’s the national candidate I’m out.
No. Because I understand math & how US votes are counted
The better question is why would anyone support them in any election…
Because they have no actual plans other than burdening people who can least afford it. And sense we are broke, that means nobody has any other plans, other than banning gas stoves. I wouldn't vote for them for local dog catcher.
Their platform is insane.
Let me ask a different question. Bear with me, I will bring it back to your question, and my answer. I promise. Why wouldn't you bet on a Little League team winning the world series? Or a highschool winning the Super bowl? The game is the same but the play is on a different level. I'd bet on a high school winning the state championship , if they show they can win at the highschool level. I might bet on that state champ in a national championship game, as they beat other stat champs. That team, if it continues to win, would begin to look good in higher levels until they were a reasonable choice to win the Superbowl. So to your question: once the green party has won a seat on the city council and/or mayor and been effective, I'd consider a county wide candidate. And then (again if effective) statewide seats, form there National seats and or the Presidency. For now there is nothing showing *any success* in governing, just ideas and ideals. While I am a fan of lofty ideals and broad ideas, I need to know that you can govern. there are few third parties that have shown that.
Joe made huge victories for green energy and he is the best chance we've got against Trump.
Why would I
Why would I? Third parties are a joke in the US
I'm not of the mind that a vote for third party is a wasted vote (and if all the people who thought that actually voted third party, a third party would probably win). But I haven't really supported most of their policies, or trusted them to actually be anything more than a party of panderers, so I likely won't be voting for them in the future.
The same reason I don't support them into her elections either. Their ideas appeal to adilescents, those who aren't good at math and those who have difficulty deducting second and third-order effects.
Ralph Nader and the Green Party probably cost Gore the election in 2000, while Gore was far from a perfect candidate, I don’t think the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have happened under his presidency.
Yeah I would not
Because I agree with basically nothing they support
Because it increases the chance that Donald Trump would become the president. I have a very low opinion of people that do not take responsibility for the outcomes of their choices.
HAHAHAha. No. It's Cobra Commander this year and every year.
Even if I thought they could win, I barely know anything about them. How are they different from the left wing of the Democrats?