“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
A-fucking-men.
The Green Party should be the RCV party and that should be their main focus. After that then they and any other party would actually stand a chance. Republicans are actively banning RCV from being implemented and Democrats are slow walking it, but we need to keep pushing.
That would mean actually caring about running campaigns for state goverments. State governments are the ones that can (and in Alaska’s case have) implement RCV.
TBH, I don’t see it happening except organically from within the Democratic Party. If enough progressive Democrats get elected, I think it stands a chance to happen in our lifetimes.
Any democrat has a vested interest in first past the post continuing.
Unless they gain more support from endorsing RCV than they would lose to third parties. They’re slowly bending to long term third party pressure.
This is just not true. Places which are doing RCV are literally state at metro democratic strongholds. Democrats are literally the only ones pushing it.
Also Alaska, for some weird reason.
I disagree, which is why I specified the word “progressive.”
Vested interest meaning it benefits them, i doubt you disagree with the current system of only two parties being considered for elections improves the odds of those two parties winning elections
Actually, an RCV system may help the democrats, at least in the short term.
For the last couple of decades, the “spoiler” candidates generally take from the democrats more than the republicans. Last big spoiler third party that screwed the right was Perot that I remember. With RCV, then the ‘fringe’ votes can still be cast and democrats can work toward being the second choice of those hardliners. At least in the short term, it alleviates the need to actually compete for votes with candidates that are going to lose anyway.
Longer term, it may cause a viable third party or more to get some steam (attracting practical candidates that no longer see the need to be a D or R to get votes, the parties generally getting left alone by outside forces that find them not worth weaponizing), but I don’t think the politicians are too concerned on that long a time frame.
What I disagree with is your implication that they will only ever act in their own interests. I do not know that to be true in the future (and neither do you), as not everyone is motivated by money or power. Enough politicians who see it as vital to the health of US democracy, and change will happen.
I’m not proposing that it will, only that it is far from a precluded possibility. As Boomers die out and retire, I have hope for the Millennials and Gen Zers who replace them.
We can sure make some educated guesses based on a lengthy history of evidence.
I like progressive democrats, but they want to get elected at a minimum.
But that’s all they are: guesses. The fundamental flaw in looking to history for future behavior is the assumption that each person elected to office has the same motivations, ideals, and philosophies.
They want to get elected, sure, but wanting to get elected isn’t the same as desiring to keep that office. If I had the skills to run for office, I would be willing to sacrifice reelection to ensure good legislation passed, for example.
Actually, score voting would be better. IRV (also known as RCV) has been proven to lead to the same 2-party domination and has many disadvantages.
They are. Holy shit.
That’s all well and good, but useless in any federal race because the federal government does not dictate how the elections/voting are done.
Brings it back around to if you care so damn much, then focus your resources on state governments.
You should reread the elections clause. Congress has authority to regulate elections
It’s right there in the platform.