William Rivers Pitt spent the early summer of 2000 collecting signatures to get Ralph Nader on the Massachusetts ballot. Now, he’s trying to explain to Greens why they’re wasting their time with their presidential candidate. I agree with two points that Pitt makes. One, any party with presidential ambitions which doesn’t have an Electoral College strategy is just masturbating in public and undermining the overall strength of the left (or right). Two, to have an Electoral College strategy, you must start out with some kind of regional base.
But I don’t get why he chose Massachusetts to be that base. I understand that Massachusetts was a safe state for the Greens to play in 2000, unlike, say, Florida. But before the Greens grew strong enough to actually displace the Democratic Party in Massachusetts, they’d split the vote sufficiently to throw its Electoral Votes to the Republicans. The Greens can’t play like that.
The obvious answer for the Greens is to put everything into California, and to forget about presidential elections until they can build a sizable caucus on Congress. Why California?
It’s simple. The Golden State’s new election laws have created an open primary where all parties run against each other and the two top vote-getters square off against each other in November. What this means is that the Green can knock the Dem into second place in the primary without costing the Dem the opportunity to run in the general election. And if the Green can come in first or second, they may even discover that their opponent in the fall is a Democrat. The intent of these electoral reforms, at least in large part, is to create more moderate representation in Congress. But it still creates an opening for the Green Party to expand at the Democrats’ expense without it helping the Republicans.
With 53 congressional seats, and 55 electoral votes, California is the biggest regional base a party could have, and it has the most pickup opportunities. It also has a lot of very liberal areas that might seriously consider the Green Party’s candidates.
But the Green Party should also be realistic. This is a two-party country and we would have to amend the Constitution to really change that. The Green Party’s goal can only be to supplant the Democratic Party in the same way that the Republican Party supplanted the Whigs. And they must do it, somehow, without just splitting the left and empowering the conservatives. California gives them an opening to start that process in the primaries, but running against Democrats in general elections is counterproductive unless you win. And there aren’t too many places where the left is so strong that it can field a strong Green candidate without it throwing the election to the Republicans.
So, my advice is to focus on electing members of Congress in California. Build up a caucus in the House, and get your members some experience actually legislating. And then see what the next step might be. It could be electing a senator from California. It could be organizing to get other states to adopt California’s election system.
But, it’s time to stop the public masturbation. Get a plan.
Of course, for several months an awful lot of disgruntled liberals have been saying openly they WANT the Democrats to lose, this fall.
They WANT Obama to lose.
They want to punish Obama and the Dems for playing further left.
If voting Green can’t do it, no matter how numerous they are, they’ll just vote some other way.
Or not show up.
Sorry, for NOT playing futher left.
I get what they’re saying but it’s the most ridiculous strategy they could possibly use.
The reason that Republicans listen to the right wing is that they vote. They vote in the primary. They vote in the general. They vote in special elections. They vote in municipal elections.
They put up their candidates and if they don’t win, they still show up in large numbers to vote for the Republican that did win.
If progressives want the Democratic party to do the same thing, they have to show up and vote. Why would they care what progressives think if they can’t count on them voting consistently?
Like I said, I think it’s an idiotic strategy.
They also have to run effective campaigns to counter-act wealthy DINO’s that run(like who beat Darcy Burner this time), and who are supported by the Washington Democratic Establishment. Just look at who Ezra Klein claims will likely be the next TreasSec. The most odious choice, for a guy with a “D” after his name, possible.
but if they lose to said DINO then they have to come out and vote for him in the general
You build power in parties by being solid voters in the parties.
Of course, in CA you can also end up with 2 Republicans finishing 1 and 2 and have them run against each other, which I believe is what happened in at least one district this year.
Personally, I think it is a stupid system and those of my family who live there think so as well.
The best third party strategy is to pick up enough small states to make one or both of the major parties nervous. In 1968, George Wallace took Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia even after the Republicans tried to co-opt those voters with a Southern Strategy. In 1968 in the scheme of things all of those were small states.
The Greens best hope in 2012 is to work the heck out of Vermont and possibly Washington state and then try to make some inroads into some less predictable small states that might not be happy with Romney. Lightning could strike somewhere.
Also, it turns out that the political culture that favors the Greens also favors a huge Obama landslide. That wipes out any possibility of Democratic co-option of their positions. Leaving them with the ABPHBO vote from the left. Even in California, that is not much. And for a third party to try to take the state with the largest number of electoral votes without having a strong state record of governance is madness.
But the biggest disadvantage that the Greens have is that they do not try to take local and state offices in order to build a base. For over 40 years they have done last-minute Presidential runs, trying to be spoilers, and then have disappeared from sight until the next Presidential election.
See below as to why the Greens have effectively given up on local offices in WA.
Don’t hope for much from WA on the presidential front here, either. Stein (who, like Pitt, I think is very good), former Salt Lake mayor Rocky Anderson, and the Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) all have a base of support here and will split the can’t-in-good-conscience-vote-for-Obama progressive vote. The Green Party’s breathtaking incompetence over the last decade on the state level has alienated a lot of would-be supporters, too – which is no fault of Stein’s, but which means the national party has no real local base to work with. Johnson’s likely the only one who will come close to cracking one percent.
Aside from halting a depression, bailing out the auto industry, enacting almost universal healthcare, ending discrimination in the military, ending the war in Iraq, expanding consumer protections and quintupling wind and solar power generation…just what has Obama been doing these last four years?
Vote Green today! For progress and great justice!
And the roads.
And the aqueducts.
I agree with Pitt’s (and Boo’s) basic point about public masturbation, though in this column, as usual, I found Pitt’s arrogance nearly unbearable.
However, Boo, you’re totally wrong about the top two primary system in CA being an opportunity for Greens. WA has had an identical system for several years now. It was originally opposed by third parties (the Libertarians, Greens, etc.), and their fears have uniformly come true. It’s been a disaster for them.
The problem is that it’s almost impossible for a third party candidate running against more than one major party candidate to get to the November ballot; they all get eliminated in the primary, which is in August here and even earlier (June) in CA. In districts heavily weighted to one party, an in-party primary challenger can also knock out third party options.
Far fewer people vote in the primary, there’s much less media coverage of local races, and so incumbents and people with institutional backing (i.e., leading major party candidates) have an enormous advantage in fundraising and visibility. In theory, a, say, Green candidate could overcome this with a devoted base that showed up in the lower-turnout primary – but it’s hard to get even that devoted base without having some local success stories. Those are hard to come by when you can’t even get on the general election ballot except as a patsy facing an otherwise-unopposed incumbent. Even if the Greens organized competently (they usually don’t), and even if a district had a large progressive base (few do), a lot of voters who are sympathetic on the issues either won’t vote in the primary, won’t know the Green is running (or who they are), or won’t want to “waste” their vote on a party that never wins. And, of course, that’s not even counting the barriers to getting on the ballot that the two major parties and their legislators and officials often enact for third-party and independent candidates.
It’s a huge series of hurdles which becomes a vicious cycle. In November, which is when most people are paying attention to politics, the third parties in practice have become utterly invisible in our state, because they all got knocked out months ago. No visibility in debates or local ads, no opportunity to hold campaign events or fundraise, nothing. Out of sight, out of mind.
Since top two was implemented in WA several years ago, the viability of both the Greens and the Libertarians has plummeted. The Libs used to regularly crack 5% in statewide and local elections, and even won a few local elections each year; the Greens never did well statewide but were competitive in other local elections and even won some. Now, neither party even bothers with statewide candidates, and I haven’t heard of either party fielding any local candidate that made it to November since at least 2008. (I’m sure it’s happened – some Libertarian in Garfield County or something – but if so it’s not exactly been a visible precedent.)
There are other factors in the third parties’ decline as well – the WA Greens, for example, were a tragicomedy of infighting and incompetent organizing, and are now nearly defunct. But for third parties, Top Two is a huge barrier regardless – not an opportunity – in any state that adopts it.
Maybe I should be clear.
The CA system provides the Greens a chance to actually promote their ideas and run candidates without fucking over the left.
If they can’t get their crap together, that’s their problem.
In the general election if they’re their party’s nominee? Or only in the general if they finish in the “top two”? If the latter – which is the construction of every top two system I’ve ever heard of – the Greens etc. can make all the case they want, but only during times when few people are paying attention. (The exception being presidential races, which we agree are mostly a waste of time without more local success first.) That doesn’t make it impossible, but so far it’s been an insurmountable burden in WA.
I don’t really know what you are getting at.
The Green Party would like to supplant the Democratic Party as the party of the left. But it would like to do it without doing massive damage to the left in the process.
I suggested a way that they could get started.
If it’s difficult, that’s too bad. What they should do is identify races where they can finish ahead of the Republicans as the number two option, and then try to win those seats. The California legislature is the best place to start, moving up to the federal House races.
Focus on creating situations where you go head-to-head with the Democrats.
“The Green Party would like to supplant the Democratic Party as the party of the left. But it would like to do it without doing massive damage to the left in the process.”
Don’t be too sure.
And, anyway, the more transparent is their subservience to the Democrats the more likely are angry liberals to vote for and independent or other minor party candidate further left.
They want to punish the Democrats for ignoring them.
They think that’s how the conservatives took over and now control the Republican Party and they want to take over the Democratic Party through the same unforgiving pursuit of ideological purity and relentless punishment of those who displease them.
If I were a Green or an Independent, I would organize in the states that have a referendum process to establish ranked elections–or runoff although the downside of runoff elections is expense. This would free up a lot of people to then be able to vote for the candidate who best reflects their views without the risk.
With a ranked system I could go into the ballot and vote for my first two choices. If my first choice were a Green and that Green didn’t receive enough votes to be viable, my second choice (let’s say Democrat) would receive my vote. This way you avoid the very real consequence of electing a tea party governor because the liberal vote was split between the Democrat and the Independent. The last two years here in Maine have been disastrous!
Greens are a bunch of whiny college kids. If they REALLY want to make a difference: QUIT PREACHING TO THE CHOIR!!!
You want to change the actions of this country? Go to MS, TN, AL and GA. You aren’t going to hurt any Democrats there, and if you do: FUCK’EM.
The Green Movement will pick up by itself in MA, VT, ME, CA, WA, OR and elsewhere. You gain street cred by putting it on the street.
You want to change the actions of this country? Go to MS, TN, AL and GA.
You can add Louisiana and South Carolina to that list.
There are enough high-profile environmental disasters spawned by untrammeled capitalism in those states in particular to put real teeth into a Green message. And traditional bien-pensant environmentalist groups in the South are weak.
That is, if Greens are still actually green.
You need a USP if you’re going to move product.
Under your strategy, the Greens should go bigtime after West Virginia. But…are there any native Greens in family-connected West Virginia?
Closest thing to a viable third party candidate I’ve heard of there was from the Mountain Party. Essentially you’re up against coal money and organizational power fueling (NPI) both major parties. A Green candidate at any level would have real trouble getting a message out.
There are lots of natives there with Green sympathies, but on top of the money problems, it’s getting damn dangerous just having a peaceful demonstration in WV these days. Pushback against a hypothetical viable Green candidate could be scary.
Here are the top 15 targets for third parties, in order. If you can’t get a statewide election won in these, even one of these, you can’t win in any city or county over 2 million population. If you can’t win in cities and counties over 2 million population, you cannot have an urban strategy. If you don’t have an urban strategy, you cannot win–period.
What is the concentration of progressives or lefties in any of these states? What counties and cities are they in? Now, do you understand: (1) Bernie Sanders; (2) how the Republicans can make the map look red and still lose; (3) why a third party will not win in 2012 and likely not be a spoiler either. Obama-Biden clearly have advantages in DC, Delaware, and Hawaii. That leaves Vermont and Rhode Island as potential geographic bases for a progressive third party.
And geov pointed out another issue that is rarely remarked on–the competing ambitions among third-party leaders and the schisms that occur on a regular basis in third parties. Just check out why socialism doesn’t have a chance to get on the board even with a good candidate and platform: Party of Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Party – USA, Socialist Equality Party, Socialist Workers Party. And those are on the ballot in at least one state. There is also the Freedom Socialist Party – New York,
All of which does not include the Greens (Stein-Honkala), Justice Party (Anderson-Rodriguez), Peace and Freedom Party (Barr-Sheehan), and one Eco-Green Party candidate.
That is a possible nine-party coalition big tent, but it will never happen. Egos and personalities.
Egos, personalities, and petty ideological squabbles.
Oh! Democrats and Republicans don’t have those?
Not to the point of creating separate parties.
How about 1860? Five Presidential candidates with two of them being Democrats. 1948 and the Dixiecrats?
Forgot John Anderson. Can you count that as a party split?
I think Illinois is ripe for a third party. The Democrats are possibly the most corrupt in the country and the Republicans are religious crazies. Both are in the pockets of the corporations (left pocket, right pocket). But TarheelDem is right that a party needs to build at the grass roots level. Villages, Townships, Counties, then going on to become a force in legislatures. Most third parties are one issue parties that can’t have broad appeal. They make bold splashy campaigns for Governor or President. When someone like Jesse Ventura wins because of massive revulsion for both established parties, they find they have no legislative base to govern with. The Libertarian Party has a political philosophy instead of a single issue, but that philosophy is to have no government. You can’t succeed in business if you don’t want to buy and sell. You can’t succeed as a Labor Union if you don’t beleive in collective bargaining. And you can’t succeed in government if you don’t believe in governing. An Illinois third party that just promised to govern well by using common sense and a commitment to fair play instead of “come with the cash” has a chance at the local level. It takes a long term commitment to good government instead of personal aggrandizement.
If I were doing Illinois, I would start with Carbondale, Rockford, and Peoria and figure out how to build a base there. Do the townships first. Build a reputation of snow removal, for example. (Back in the day the Socialist machine in Milwaukee was built on a platform of sanitary sewers.) Network into the rural counties surrounding these places. And use a “boil the frog” strategy. Begin the building of urban support by starting with East St. Louis.
At some point, you will get big enough for one of the major parties to try to co-opt you. Or you might totally supplant one of them in a local area. A decade as a governing local party establishes you enough to put folks in the legislature.
[Sorry, just spinning out a scenario of how it could work.]
Good advice. I was one of a band of suburban Democrats and activists that tried to establish a suburban Democratic Party independent of Chicago. Independent, clean and Liberal. We were crushed. Donors were intimidated and professional paid precinct workers from Chicago swamped us. Actual Republicans were recruited to run for our committeemen, with the blessings of Daley and Emanuel. It wasn’t ideology. It was just plain old power and the power went to those who pledged fealty to City Hall. Rockford is far enough and poor enough to not arouse suspicion, at first. Doing it on Chicago’s doorstep was not smart, but it was where we lived.
You got my drift.
Must step in here:
This is a two-party country and we would have to amend the Constitution to really change that.
I’m not so sure the first clause is true any more. In any case, the second has never been true. Political parties are, by definition, private organizations which may choose their own members and make their own rules. They are out of reach of the The Constitution, and in fact that document says nothing about political parties. The entire system of parties as private organizations evolved independently of constitutional processes.
RkKSAlGw