• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

jill stein |ot| ain't no party like a green party 'cause a green party don't stop

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SteveWinwood

Member
1342326664_7704_jill_stein.jpg


So if you've been in this thread you might have noticed that Neogaf elected this lady as president when no one was looking. You may be wondering "Who the fuck is Jill Stein??" Excellent question.

Here is her website and her platform: http://www.jillstein.org/6526/platform (if you don't want to click it, it's a post where people are complaining that you can't find her official platform on her site) but I'm assuming it would be closest to this: http://www.ontheissues.org/Green_Party.htm which is actually a hell of a lot closer to what I would want out of a government then I ever thought I'd get out of something called the green party. [10/17 edit: Here is her official platform: http://www.jillstein.org/issues ]

Anyway this is mostly an elaborate thread to counteract the now mostly dead Ron Paul thread and to ask a more important question. How do you feel about third party candidates in United States government elections? Do you feel they will ever have a place in our political system? Can they? Should they?

Personally I think we should probably have runoff voting. It's not like we don't have the money or the technology anymore. I think it'd be great. Will the very strong two party system we have ever want that? Probably not. So in all likelyhood won't get done. Also remember when Nader was the reason that Bush won? That was fun.
 
I guess I'm on Team Stein, according to that website. Still not going to vote for her because, but I might give a few to her campaign out of principle.
 
Voting third party is basically like choosing cooperate in a massive multiheaded prisoner's dilemma where almost everyone else defects.

Could that potentially change? Probably not. Should it change? Well, it would be nice to have more options...
 
this is where proportional representation in the parliament/senate or what ever you want to call it would come in handy, it would make third parties a more viable option as they would have representatives in the higher echelons of politics even if they "only" get a few % of the popular vote.
the first past the post system the US and the UK use will inadvertently lead to only the two main parties really getting seats.
The libdems in the UK are a good example they have been getting very respectable vote counts for decades +~15% yet they only have a fraction the the seats in the house of parliament.

In Germany any party with more than 5% of the popular vote will get a proportional share of the seats in the Bundestag. leading to a much more diverse representation of what the people actually want.
no one can tell me that the republicans and democrats rightfully represent the views of 99% of the us electorate.
 
I would be sooo pissed off in a two-party system, because I would have to vote democratic in order for the republicans not to win. Even though my ideas don't necessarily match those of the democrats.

But going by that little test from the other thread, at least I agree with Obama on 80% of the issues, so I could live with that, even though I agree more with Jill Stein.
 
The Green Party, like the Libertarian Party, always has fun conventions. People here should check them out. They actually talk about interesting things, and have debates about philosophy.

SteveWinwood said:
Anyway this is mostly an elaborate thread to counteract the now mostly dead Ron Paul thread and to ask a more important question. How do you feel about third party candidates in United States government elections? Do you feel they will ever have a place in our political system? Can they? Should they?
Click to expand...
In MN the Independence Party has major party status, and with good reason: they have a real shot of winning elections. A large part of that has to do with the fact that people are actually involved in the political process and are willing to take a look at the candidates—and not simply write off every non-R or D vote as a "wasted" one.

But Duverger's law suggests that the basic structure of our system makes it extremely difficult for third parties to operate effectively. There are other factors, of course; the two major parties have a vested interest in having only one viable opponent, so laws making it easier for third parties are rare (despite token rhetoric thrown their way, which is common). Money and campaign contributions also have an obvious and measurable effect, but I think the idea of a massive international corporate conspiracy to keep the two parties under its heels is overplayed as a reason things are the way they are.

SteveWinwood said:
Personally I think we should probably have runoff voting. It's not like we don't have the money or the technology anymore. I think it'd be great. Will the very strong two party system we have ever want that? Probably not. So in all likelyhood won't get done. Also remember when Nader was the reason that Bush won? That was fun.
Click to expand...
What kind of runoff voting? A separate runoff election, like they have in France, where the winners in an initial plurality system go on to compete? Instant-runoff voting has gained a lot of grassroots approval around the country among various officials. We've had it in Minneapolis for a few years, and St. Paul passed it in 2009 and started using it last year.

Assuming we keep a single-winner system: a voting method that is currently in vogue with a lot of political scientists is approval voting, in which voters simply vote for whomever they like absent any restrictions, and the election winner is the candidate receiving the most votes. No voting system in which there are more than three candidates is "perfect", according to Arrow's impossibility theorem, so it's worth acknowledging that there are flaws in any system folks are eager to switch to.
 
SecretMoblin said:
What kind of runoff voting? A separate runoff election, like they have in France, where the winners in an initial plurality system go on to compete? Instant-runoff voting has gained a lot of grassroots approval around the country among various officials. We've had it in Minneapolis for a few years, and St. Paul passed it in 2009 and started using it last year.

Assuming we keep a single-winner system: a voting method that is currently in vogue with a lot of political scientists is approval voting, in which voters simply vote for whomever they like absent any restrictions, and the election winner is the candidate receiving the most votes. No voting system in which there are more than three candidates is "perfect", according to Arrow's impossibility theorem, so it's worth acknowledging that there are flaws in any system folks are eager to switch to.
Click to expand...

Droppin' knowledge bombs here. Yeah I was mostly talking about instant runoff. I knew it was in the Twin Cities and it seems to work. But have third parties been successful there at the city level yet using it?

And I don't know why but approval scares me. It just seems like after everyone got past just voting a straight D or R they would just start checking everyone for lower levels because they don't care. I'm sure someone has done a study or something proving that wrong though...

Yeah, and for the record I wasn't trying to imply there was some massive conspiracy keeping the lil' ol' third parties down.
 
Like her and will probably vote for me (my state is so red it doesn't matter). If I was in a battleground state I would still vote for Obama though.
 
Apparently I agree with Jill Stein on most issues, but a vote for her is a wasted vote since she doesn't have the ghost of a chance of actually winning. Even if I didn't think Obama deserves a second term, I'd vote for him anyway to keep Romney out of office.
 
Monocle said:
Apparently I agree with Jill Stein on most issues, but a vote for her is a wasted vote since she doesn't have the ghost of a chance of actually winning. Even if I didn't think Obama deserves a second term, I'd vote for him anyway to keep Romney out of office.
Click to expand...

I hate this. I hate that this is what it has to come down to :(

edit:not saying you're wrong because I agree. It's just that it's sad.
 
patrickthehedgehog said:
I hate this. I hate that this is what it has to come down to :(

edit:not saying you're wrong because I agree. It's just that it's sad.
Click to expand...

What's the right answer? Vote Green and then cry as Romney nominates 4 new justices to the Supreme Court over the next 8 years? How do you think that will turn out?
 
2000 proved how the current political system works that voting third party is basically a vote against whatever major party you'd normally lean to.

A vote for her in a swing state is a huge boost to Mitt Romney.

So I'd never vote for her even though I'd likely like her more than Obama potentially. It's one big waste of a vote unless the political system changes.

I agree with Green a lot more than Democrats but Democrats have my vote, they actually can win.
 
I may go ahead and vote for her. I can't see Arkansas being anything but blood red this election since the Democratic candidate isn't Clinton, so an Obama vote would likely be as much of a waste anyway. I can also indiscriminately bitch since I voted, but my candidate didn't win (what a cynical way to view things...)
 
I remember when she was running for Governor here in MA - not a thing about her position that I disagreed with. Did not stand a chance, of course.

I'd probably vote for her is Mitt wasn't running - otherwise I wouldn't doubt MA going Democrat, but it's a bit murky now and I wouldn't want to take any chances.

I'd love, love, LOVE to see elections reformatted to percentage-based rather than district-based. Instead of whoever gets 51% winning the district, more accurate representation state-wide. If a Democrat wins 10 districts 60-40, then only 60% of people voted Democrat... fair representation would be 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans. With that system there's a chance a third party could get enough support to muster up 10% of votes and I think it would only improve from there.

Too bad the current two-party system is so advantageous for, well, the two-parties.
 
Guevara said:
What's the right answer? Vote Green and then cry as Romney nominates 4 new justices to the Supreme Court over the next 8 years? How do you think that will turn out?
Click to expand...

No, I agree with you! It's just shitty that Romney winning would be so bad that we can't take a chance to vote for someone who better represents our views outside of the usual party lines.
 
I still can't forgive the Green party for what happened in 2000. This thread just reminded me of how pissed off I am how Ralph Nader handed Bush the election. If even only a small percentage of Nader voters voted for Gore (which they would without Nader, Nader stole liberal votes) we would never of had Bush as President.
 
Monocle said:
Apparently I agree with Jill Stein on most issues, but a vote for her is a wasted vote since she doesn't have the ghost of a chance of actually winning. Even if I didn't think Obama deserves a second term, I'd vote for him anyway to keep Romney out of office.
Click to expand...

Pretty much why the country is down the shitter and we cant do a damn thing.

Go team green.
 
patrickthehedgehog said:
No, I agree with you! It's just shitty that Romney winning would be so bad that we can't take a chance to vote for someone who better represents our views outside of the usual party lines.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can. I do not vote defensively. I never will. The U.S. has strongarmed people into voting for candidates they don't even necessarily like. If Romney ends up winning would you regret not voting for Stein?
 
patrickthehedgehog said:
No, I agree with you! It's just shitty that Romney winning would be so bad that we can't take a chance to vote for someone who better represents our views outside of the usual party lines.
Click to expand...

It's the result of the very polarisered near 50-50 split electoral voting base. You can't take a chance and vote third party when the risk of a close election is so high.

ThisWreckage said:
Sure, you can. I do not vote defensively. I never will. The U.S. has strongarmed people into voting for candidates they don't even necessarily like. If Romney ends up winning would you regret not voting for Stein?
Click to expand...

Obama is literally a MILLION times better than Romney. On every single issue. And Obama is far from perfect, that shows you how horrible Romney would be for this country. And he is the only person who has any hope of beating Romney. It is pretty simple.
 
It's not that simple to me. I am not going to vote for someone who I don't believe in. He may be a million times better than Romney, but he's still not my choice. I'm not going to vote for Obama just to keep Romney out of office. That is absurd to me.
 
ced said:
Pretty much why the country is down the shitter and we cant do a damn thing.

Go team green.
Click to expand...

I've said it before if people really, really want a third party to emerge they need to be supporting grassroots efforts in local district races and building from the ground up. put pressure on local politicians by widening support for green candidates in local elections for state senate or the federal seat in the house. Grow your presence the way the tea party did, it's the one thing they get partially right. Make candidates cater to your positions or fear losing elections. Build a presence in regions of the country so you get more and more national exposure with your ideas and grow their legitimacy. Then try your hand at larger seats. Then try a national election.

I feel like everyone is trying to put the cart before the horse here by voting and thinking a third party candidate has a chance in hell in a national election. Furthermore that they in anyway would be in any way effective if elected.

These national elections are certainly nice for some low level exposure but after its over these parties and their supporters tend to dissappear when what they need to be doing is trying to get people into local positions in government and building from the roots up.

Take your protest votes and put it toward a better cause. Building from the grassroots.
 
I was a huge Nader fanboy in 2000 but that election was a wakeup call. I assume many here wanting to support Stein weren't old enough to vote in 2000. 2000 was a sobering lesson of what voting third party does in a close election.
 
Cheebo said:
I was a huge Nader fanboy in 2000 but that election was a wakeup call. I assume many here wanting to support Stein weren't old enough to vote in 2000. 2000 was a sobering lesson of what voting third party does in a close election.
Click to expand...

I wasn't old enough to vote, but I do remember what happened. I wonder if it's a natural cycle of things. Portions of this country wanting to move further left, only to be punished for doing so.
 
If everything operated in a strictly left-wing, right-wing scale then obviously voting third party in the U.S. wouldn't make a lot of sense. But things are so complex and in some ways it is a one-party system with two sides. That combined with the fact that only like 4-5 states are going to decide who gets in due to the electoral college makes it so that voting 3rd party does make sense for a lot of people.

I agree with Obama on some social issues (gay rights, immigration), health care (for the most part), and taxation. I agree with Romney on deficit cutting (though not with tax cuts for the wealthy), welfare reform, abortion, and for the most part on smaller government (except on health care which I disagree with him).

I disagree with both on the drug war, civil liberties (Patriot Act, etc...), banking and auto bailouts, campaign finance laws, and a bunch of other things that both parties agree on.

So I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein both as a protest vote and because my #1 issue, violence in Mexico due to drug-related trade, is being ignored by both parties.
 
jill stein |ot| ain't no party like a green party 'cause a green party is sustainable

Any year but this year I might vote Green -- I voted for Nader, after all (but don't hate me, California wasn't in play!) -- but this year I'm honestly afraid.
 
I'll be voting for Stein (and yes I voted in the 2000 election) even if it means running the risk of GWB 2.0 AND a Supreme Court that is in the good graces of Rush Limbaugh.
 
Jonm1010 said:
I've said it before if people really, really want a third party to emerge they need to be supporting grassroots efforts in local district races and building from the ground up. put pressure on local politicians by widening support for green candidates in local elections for state senate or the federal seat in the house. Grow your presence the way the tea party did, it's the one thing they get partially right. Make candidates cater to your positions or fear losing elections. Build a presence in regions of the country so you get more and more national exposure with your ideas and grow their legitimacy. Then try your hand at larger seats. Then try a national election.

I feel like everyone is trying to put the cart before the horse here by voting and thinking a third party candidate has a chance in hell in a national election. Furthermore that they in anyway would be in any way effective if elected.

These national elections are certainly nice for some low level exposure but after its over these parties and their supporters tend to dissappear when what they need to be doing is trying to get people into local positions in government and building from the roots up.

Take your protest votes and put it toward a better cause. Building from the grassroots.
Click to expand...
This isn't really possible in many areas. Here in Louisiana, there aren't even Democratic candidates running for half our congressional districts, let alone Green or another third party.
 
AstroNut325 said:
I'll be voting for Stein (and yes I voted in the 2000 election) even if it means running the risk of GWB 2.0 AND a Supreme Court that is in the good graces of Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

And the question is why? Knowing the cost?

I mean ask yourself, is a national election vote even the best way to grow the presence of the green party and the issues they stand for?

Is not the more tried and true effective way of growing movements and third parties been through grassroots efforts and building a base in smaller elections?

To me it seems a wasted vote where my efforts would be better served spending time and effort building the party locally to build up its presence and clout and force politicians in the democratic party to move toward them or fear losing elections.
 
I voted for her when she ran for Governor (MA). They barely let her talk at debates the pool was so crowded, then she wasn't allowed to speak at later debates because the Green party wasn't even recognized as a party for such low registration declared numbers or something.

*sigh*

The Green Party has shrunk monumentally from where it was in 2000. They can't even get Green STATE HOUSE members elected right now, let alone running for president. I admire her tenacity to keep trying though.
 
Cheebo said:
I still can't forgive the Green party for what happened in 2000. This thread just reminded me of how pissed off I am how Ralph Nader handed Bush the election. If even only a small percentage of Nader voters voted for Gore (which they would without Nader, Nader stole liberal votes) we would never of had Bush as President.
Click to expand...

200,000 Registered Democrats in Florida voted for George Bush
Millions of Registered Democrats throughout the nation voted for George Bush
1 million Democrats in Florida didn't vote at all (along with 50,000 illegally purged without consequence)

Nader didn't lose the election. Nader isn't the enemy. Neoliberalism is the enemy.
And yet, we're told to keep voting for this scam duopoly in some vain hope we'll transmogrify the rotted corpse of liberalism.
 
Figured I'd bump this since she did a AMA today on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/zs2n3/i_am_jill_stein_green_party_presidential/

I agree with a lot of what she says on social issues, but then she'll do really stupid shit like homeopathic medicine funding, a very simple view on nuclear power (which a lot of people are calling her out on in the comments), and then the green party's absurd stance on GMO's (which I haven't seen mentioned in the comments yet, but still looking). I'm also not sure she knows what the farm bill is or how it works.
 
Short and sweet interview with Jill Stein on USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinio...ill-stein-green-party-presidential/57837680/1
She's a doctor. Odds are high that she's on the ballot in your state. Her party has rocked the vote in the past. But you've probably never heard of her, because talking about her doesn't fit much of the press's election-coverage agenda.

She's Dr. Jill Stein, nominee of the Green Party. She's on the ballot already in 38 states, accounting for 85% of voters, and expects to be on most of the rest by Election Day. But even though the Green Party has gotten plenty of attention before (remember Ralph Nader in 2000?), most of the press doesn't seem very interested in covering her. And that's too bad, because she has some interesting ideas.
Click to expand...

First, she said, she'd bring back job programs like the New Deal's Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), so that unemployed people could do something useful instead of just drawing government benefits. "If you don't have work, you'd go to an employment office, not an unemployment office, and you'd get a job, not sit home, depressed, with a check."

On health care, she'd extend Medicare to everyone, which she said would "save trillions of dollars" by eliminating the "health insurance bureaucracy."

On education, she said she'd make public higher education free to everyone and bail out student loan debtors. ("We know higher education pays for itself," she says, citing the GI Bill).

And, because three things weren't enough, she added that she'd downsize the military to below its 2000 funding levels and avoid "hypermilitarism," from which, she says, "we are getting a lot of blowback right now."

She also favors ending the Patriot Act, and rolling back the civil-liberties infringements of both the Bush and Obama administrations — the latter, she says, being worse than Bush's in many respects.
Click to expand...

"Ninety million eligible voters are expected to stay home because they don't want to vote for either Obama or Romney," she observes. "Americans are chomping at the bit for more choices. Don't they deserve more choices?"

Stein says the anti-third-party effort is "mostly an effort to silence political opposition," by the Republicans and Democrats. "The mythology is essentially a fear campaign designed to drive people back into the establishment fold. This politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of: A President who will attack our civil liberties, launch war overseas, limit immigration? What have we gotten with Obama? War, drone attacks, troops (even) in central Africa. Obama has deported more immigrants in three years than Bush did in eight. The politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of."
Click to expand...

Good point by the author:
Remember: There's nothing in the Constitution limiting us to two parties. The two parties we have just like things that way.
Click to expand...

Short and too the point. I don't like how so many interviews nowadays are wordy messes of fluff.

Interesting point about unemployment checks. Although, would this give people adequate time to look for jobs on their own? Anecdotally, we can see that some people on unemployment don't job seek as hard as we'd like them too anyway, as evidenced by a recent thread.
 
The green party still has a lot of inroads to make in Congress before their presidential candidate becomes a viable alternative. A green president won't be able to do much in a democrat controlled congress and even less in a Republican controlled congress.
 
Eric C said:
and this is why I won't be voting for her.
Click to expand...

There are so many reasons besides Ralph Nader why Al Gore lost to Bush. He lost by less than 600 votes and could have come out on top if he insisted on recounting outside of blue counties. He didn't need any help losing that election.

Jill's got my vote. I live in Indiana so I have the luxury of voting my conscience. I wouldn't necessarily advise those in swing-states to do the same.

Volimar said:
The green party still has a lot of inroads to make in Congress before their presidential candidate becomes a viable alternative. A green president won't be able to do much in a democrat controlled congress and even less in a Republican controlled congress.
Click to expand...
No one's voting for Stein under the misguided hope of her actually winning. As you said, voting Green is about making those inroads and building the party into a viable option. Too many third-party voters are viewed as flakes who don't understand how much the odds are against them - it couldn't be further from the truth. I'm voting for that 5%, and if it doesn't happen this year, then maybe in 2016.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gardening GAF - Green thumbs ahead
5
354
Hookshot replied
Paramount Takeover of Warner Bros. Gets Green Light From Shareholders, But They Reject David Zaslav’s Pay Package
News 
32
715
bitbydeath replied
Canelo vs Crawford VR watch party. Who is down to watch?
4
580
ReasonBeing replied
Rant: Could every business in existance stop asking for me feedback non-stop every time I interact with them at all?
23
466
Dr.Morris79 replied
  • Locked
Getting ads for a far-right party before the election in Germany
17
2K
EviLore replied
Top Bottom