Comments | fellow_traveler: The Green Hypothesis

fellow_traveler

The Green Hypothesis

Jan 22, 2006 12:12

Disclaimer: The following commentary is my take as an outsider, having just read these letters to Z Magazine (subscription required, I think). I cannot point to specific documents or strategic discussions to support it.

( The Green Party was founded on the assumption that significant numbers of Americans were good socialists who were only voting for Democrats and Republicans because they had no better options. )

Comments 6

zarfmouse January 22 2006, 23:06:52 UTC

Uh ( ... )

ataxi January 23 2006, 00:38:06 UTC

I think there's some strength in the idea that people prefer to back a winner. Incumbents generally have an advantage, assuming they haven't screwed up. Parties that have historically gained only a small percentage of the vote have a big disadvantage, especially in the US where the electoral system is broken (colleges, first-past-the-post, etc.) and there's no way to transmit preferences from a Green vote to a Democrat vote.

Isn't there always a large "don't vote Nader because you'll stop us winning" campaign by the Democrats?

That said, I'm prepared to agree with your assessment that most people don't want the Greens to win, but I'd say more than is currently apparent probably wouldn't mind, or would back them in other circumstances.

anonymous January 23 2006, 08:14:32 UTC

Money spent = votes gained.
Lots O' Good American Socialists + Socialist Candidate /= Socalist President

kurosau January 23 2006, 08:15:05 UTC

Damnit! I wasn't logged in, but that was my post.

xamses January 23 2006, 14:28:59 UTC

I won't say that hypothesis is completely wrong, nor is it completely right. Americans, for the most part, have been conditioned by the rhetoric of the two big parties and thus do frequently want what those parties are offering. But is that surprising when those are the only messages the average person hears due to advertising dollars and party omnipresence (more so with Republicans, but it also applies to the Democrats)on ballots?

Also keep in mind how abyssmal the country's voting rate is. Nearly half the country doesn't vote because they don't see the point.

mojave_wolf May 25 2007, 19:48:03 UTC

Hi! I just checked out your blog after a reading one of your comments in ataxi's lj, and for what it's worth, I'm someone whose views are much closer to green than democrat, but there's no way I'm voting Green in the presidential election unless it's a landslide or the dems piss me off even moreso than normal.

Plus, I actually liked (and still like) Gore. (kerry, no, that was a default to beat Bush vote).

We might still wind up w/dem/repub majorities w/a different voting system, but it would be a lot closer. If you put one of those "descending order of choice" ballots, I suspect the Green Party would immediately jump over 10% as a first choice, and might eventually make it's way up to around 30% once people figured how this ballot worked and as their voting habits changed over time . . . (by this time, 30% of first choice ballots and 20% of 2d/3rd choice ballots might even get you a win).