The New York Times has published a long article about the Green Party. The theme is that the Republican Party in the past and currently has helped in a few states to get the Green Party on the ballot.
The story is myopic. The authors take it for granted that it is difficult for a party like the Green Party to get on the ballot. The authors should ask the big question: why should be difficult for a party with some measure of support to need the support of a more powerful organization to get on the ballot? The Green Party has elected state legislators in three states, and it polled 1,457,217 votes for president in 2016, even though it was not on the ballot in six states.
In Great Britain and Canada, two countries that are very similar to the United States, ballot access is so easy that the Green Party regularly qualifies for the ballot in virtually every district, for Parliament. If it is true that the U.S. Green Party’s presence in the campaign injures the Democratic Party, then it is probably also true that the Green Party’s existence in Canada injures the Liberal Party, and that the Green Party in Great Britain injures the Labour Party. But no one in either Canada or Great Britain ever even imagines having an election law that would keep the Green Party off the ballot.
The Times also ignores the evidence that left parties and candidates in the U.S. do not injure the Democratic Party. The Times makes no mention of Political Science/Pollster Sam Lubell’s findings that the Progressive Party of 1948, which ran former vice-president Henry Wallace for president, helped Harry Truman to defeat Thomas Dewey. The Times makes no mention of the findings of four major pollsters in 2004 that a slight majority of Nader voters said, if Nader were removed from the ballot, they would vote for George W. Bush, not John Kerry. See the Washington Post of October 22, 2004, front page.
The Times also says that 2020 Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins is on the ballot in 28 states. Actually he is on in 29 states, plus the District of Columbia, and also he is on the Guam advisory ballot.
Of course the NYT won’t ask that question. They’re neoliberal propagandists, not independent Journalists. You’re more of a Journalist than they are Richard, and certainly more ethical.
Good luck in getting ANY leftwing media to detect EQUAL in 14-1 Amdt.
RED commies on the March —
destroy all opposition.
See Lenin 1917, Mao 1949, etc etc
TOTAL guessing / gambling game about 2nd, 3rd, etc. choices – due to LIARS / NON-disclosures.
Condorcet = RCV done right.
Plurality elections will always give large parties an incentive to use small parties as pawns.
I wonder why the Democrats don’t do more to help the Constitution Party and other small right-wing parties.
ADB —
The LP is quite enough to divide and conquer the fascist Elephants.
Except it’s not. If draws just as much from democrats because it’s to the left of democrats on social/cultural/civil liberties and military/foreign policy issues, and those drive a lot of voters. The LP has zero spoiler effect because it’s equally balanced.
TM IS A MIND READER AND/OR THE GREATEST SPY IN WORLD HISTORY ???
This is just how the “New York Times” propagandists work: they lie, and lie, and lie some more. Just like when they told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In Britain and Canada, candidates run as individuals, not as party nominees. Until recently, ballots did not include party labels at all.
There is limited authority by party authorities to control use of party names and symbols. All candidates have the same ballot access requirements – those who want a party designation whethe Labour, Conservative, Green, or Official Monster Raving Loony Party also include a permission slip from the party.
It is equivalent to that used for Top 2 (at least as practiced in Washington)
Wouldn’t the Canadian Greens hurt the NDP more than the Liberals?
I didn’t know that about Samuel Lubell’s 1948 study. I was in high school with his son in the mid-1960s, when Sam Lubell was quite famous.
Why is it that Republicans try to limit access to the ballot box by imposing strict requirements for identification, but advocate for throwing out the rules for access to the ballot itself? couldn’t just be self-interest, could it?
We could find out in November from whom the LP “takes” votes, whatever that means, in Maine, when the RCV results come in. Then, we will have some hard data. I’m so thankful that Maine is doing this experiment, even tho, I myself am aware that I might be disappionted with what the results reveal about my fellow LP voters.
I’m not a mind reader or spy. There are plenty of surveys and demographic data, which I’ve seen over the years but not catalogued to provide you proof. If you’re interested do the same research yourself. There is also the simple logical fact that the L.P. Is to the left of democrats on many issues and those issues motivate many voters. Since you are making an equal and opposite claim about how l.p. Voters would vote if it were not for the L.P. Does that make demorep the greatest mind reader and spy in history? I kinda doubt it.
Henry Wallace made Harry Truman look moderate.
ME LP votes via RCV in Nov 2020 — but a bit small sample in a SMALL pop State —
affected by nonstop red commies media in MA, NY, etc.
Did you ever spend any time in northern Maine, nh or vt? No one gives a flying shit what any media from New York or Massachusetts say other than maybe to laugh at them.
The Green Party doesn’t get on the ballot because very few people want it there, and the Ventura candidacy in particular illustrates that it’s now a hollow shell. It has elected officials in the past? So did the Whigs. Wallace tried to hurt Truman and failed? So did Strom Thurmond, and he didn’t futz around with a minor party after 1948 but joined the major party more willing to promote has racism.
In Canada, the Greens hurt the NDP more than the Liberals – in fact, they’re in the process of replacing the NDP as Canada’s main left-wing opposition. In the UK, the Greens know they injure the LibDems and/or Labour and have made pacts not to compete in seats where the other party is contending in the last two general elections. So these comparisons don’t really help you.
Very few people want it there?that’s bs since most people are fine with it and not aware it’s a problem. They’re on the ballot in many places and have elected people in a good number of places including recently. Your statement sounds like sour grapes. They got walloped by covid, usual demofash games worse than usual, trump polarization and fec sitting on funds. Not a good year for them but no reason to expect it to be permanent.