[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asatru / ausneets / christ / nofap / o / ss / vichan / wooo ]

/ecopol/ - Ecological Politically Incorrect

Winner of the 72rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - The Church of Otter

February 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 065d24f84ac611e⋯.png (120.93 KB, 316x316, 1:1, Green_Party_of_the_United_….png)


What does /ecopol/ think about the U.S. Green Party?


Pretty spooked for a while but it's getting better all the time as class consciousness rises and the liberal faction within the party loses power. It has a serious problem with top-down organization though. The party needs to become more democratic and institute a dues system for consistent funding and holding leaders accountable to its base. Also get rid of this ridiculously anti-democratic "caucus" fuckery.


It is full of retarded commie faggots like >>56



Can you explain the caucus bit, how is it anti-democratic?


>retarded commie faggots

please don't speak like a dumbass, thanks



Please don't be a dumbass, thanks.


Any party that props up Jill Stein as its presidential candidate is obviously lacking in strong leadership



Fair enough. Ralph Nader has carried that party for decades. It’s a joke now that Our Revolution exists.



The national Green party has a bunch of groups called caucuses, like the black caucus, the Latino caucus, the women caucus, the socialist caucus. The problem is, the "caucus leaders" each get an actual vote on the national committee.

Like making the first five people in the room your state officers, this rarely works well. The token leaders of the caucuses, who get automatic votes on the Green Party’s national committee, are not responsible for following their own bylaws or for contributing any specific or defined work to the party. The black caucus for instance has such sloppily drawn membership requirements that they actually exclude anybody not registered Green or “nonpartisan” despite the fact that in 18 states the laws permit you to do neither. Caucus bylaws also require annual election of officers at the party’s annual meeting including notice and voting arrangements for caucus members not present at the meeting to vote. It’s been at least five, and perhaps seven or eight years since the black caucus even made a pretense of providing for votes by mail, and the current alleged chair of the black caucus recently declared he is under no obligation to reveal to the party who the members of the supposed caucus (which ‘elected’ and may ‘elect’ him again) are, or how many are actually in his “caucus.”

So you have these unaccountable bodies which don't represent the party base at large that get a bunch of free votes. It's anti-democratic and invites all sorts of malicious opportunism.


I don't think it's possible to be a bigger joke than "Our Revolution", an organization that exists for practically the sole purpose of endorsing candidates and has the inspiring of strategy of reforming the Democratic party, for the seventh or eighth failed time in the last century.



I think Our Revolution will eventually splinter into a third party once they’ve gained enough mettle. Called the progressive party.



>the current alleged chair of the black caucus recently declared he is under no obligation to reveal to the party who the members of the supposed caucus (which ‘elected’ and may ‘elect’ him again) are, or how many are actually in his “caucus.”

yeah, that sounds dumb as hell



They'll probably just join the DSA



Maybe combine. The DSA is too well connected to anarckiddy cells and actual communists to gain ground. Who knows though.



I continue to hope that these imbeciles will open a history book and realize what a failed strategy it is to hope for yet another new Progressive third party basing itself off a cult of personality (Bernie Sanders). Theodore Roosevelt, Robert la Folette, Henry Wallace, learn from history already. We already have a progressive third party, and it started from the grassroots–the way a third party should. It's the only progressive third party at a national level out of perhaps a dozen attempts over the last 40 years that actually managed to survive and thrive. They should join the Greens and make them stronger. But they won't, because they're Bernie Sanders sycophants.



The DSA has seen explosive growth in the last couple years since the 2016 election. Over half of all millenials now identify as socialist, even if most don't have a clue what that word even means.



The Green Party is about as neutered as the Libertarian Party. Perpetual third parties that will never gain any political offices. Longevity of existence doesn’t imply success by any stretch of the imagination.



I believe that. However, I’m not sure it’s necessarily a good thing. A lot of them are just Democrats by another name. Just more obsessed with identity politics. They certainly don’t care about class issues to any meaningful extent.



>Ralph Nader has carried that party for decades.

Nader only ran as a Green officially in 2000, and in 1996 a number of state Green parties campaigned for him. In 2004 and 2008 he ran as an independent.



It absolutely is, the struggle for ballot access in a party run entirely on volunteer work without corporate money (unlike the Libertarian party) is a war that depends directly upon the size of grassroot support. It is not a trivial task by any stretch and in some states like Oklahoma and North Carolina the signature requirements are downright obscene. The failure to get elected at a federal level can be shouldered primarily on America's dysfunctional electoral system and Duverger's Law.



I should add, the herculean task of maintaining ballot access in enough states to have a national presence is something "new" progressive party advocates routinely underestimate. It's not just numbers that third parties have to deal with, the two major parties are constantly filing sometimes successful and others times frivolous legal challenges to keep third parties off the ballots and waste their resources on court cases. Any new progressive third party will have to deal with this crap the same as the Green party has.



Does that mean the Green Party is the answer?



I think so, that's why I organize with them. It might not be the answer but I think it's the most effective use of my time when it comes to electoral politics.

Of course the real answer is that multi-party democracy is impossible under a system affected by Duverger's Law. So, everything done now is in preparation for the event when we either get a different voting system that can overcome it, or the improbable (and wishful thinking) event that one of the two dominant parties has such a catastrophic collapse that a window opens up for the Greens to displace them. That's why one of the most important things to do is to get the Greens to replace Instant Runoff Voting in their national platform with a voting system expressive enough and discouraging tactical voting enough that it actually can overcome Duverger's Law. Of course, should such a change in electoral politics happen to undo Duverger's Law, there won't be any need for a "big tent" party of the Left anymore like the Greens, and people should then feel free to splinter into whatever party represents their political goals the most. But maybe the Green party will be a fully committed, properly funded, and accountable-to-its-base eco-socialist party I hope it to be by then.



The Green Party fucks up more ecosystems than they help.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asatru / ausneets / christ / nofap / o / ss / vichan / wooo ]