Green Party Presidential Candidate

[Tars]

You folks aren't going to run Ralph Nader again, are you? Just curious who your Green Banner Bearer is. Gimme a name I can Google, OK? Who're your prospective candidates? By their accomplishments let them be known. TIA!

Tars

["Mad" Miles]

Yo Tars Baby, (Ah, I begin to see..., another trickster role?)

"TIA"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIA

Not sure what you mean. But in answer to your questions:


First let me say that I am not, at this time, centrally involved with the Green Party of Sonoma County, GPCA or GPUS. But I get the mailings and am on the SonomaCo Discuss and North Bay Discuss lists.

Secondly we Greens nominate our Presidential candidate at a Convention, usually held the June before the actual Presidential (and for other offices at other) election(s). Since the election is in 2008 it's a little early to predict who our candidate will be.

There is some discussion/debate internal to the GPUS that our convention is held too late, that the Demoblicans have their field out in public long before us and we should be more proactive.

Others argue that the real political significance of the GP is our local organizing, where in this winner-take-all, majority rule electoral system (as opposed to proportional representation / parliamentary democracy), at least at the local level we can win elections, build a base, have elected officials who establish a track record and then, down the road, have a legitimate and successful record on which to run regionally, state-wide and then nationally.

As in all things Green, where passionate, dedicated, well-informed activists discuss, there is plenty of contention on this and other matters.

Ross Mirikarimi, San Francisco City Councilperson, was the Nader/GP 2000 California campaign coordinator. He is the SF Councilperson responsible for writing and leading the effort to pass the recent city ordinance phasing out the use of un-recyclable plastic grocery bags.

Tangentially, some Greens focus on leveling the electoral playing field by promoting instant-run-off / ranked preference voting. So that the duopoly lock on elections might be broken and viable candidates that represent varied social interests, as opposed to the mainstream politicians (pretty much ALL of them, with some exceptions, Lynn Woolsey being a local notable one) who are dependent on corporate donations in order to gain, and keep, office.

Many members / supporters of the Democratic Party like to slime the Greens for "spoiling" elections and "taking" votes from them. This debate has already been held on this board, and many other places. If you're interested see:

https://www.waccobb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8566


So, in a short answer to your question. We haven't decided yet. We will in good time. Any Green who wants our party's nomination can start campaigning any time. But most active Greens have better things to do until, probably, next Fall or early Winter.

Just cause leaders of the duopoly spends gazillions on maneuvering to dominate the field two years out, and even earlier, doesn't mean we have to slavishly copy them.

We don't have the corporate bucks to waste, we don't want them (well some very active and perennially broke activist Greens might, that's another debate within the Party) and we have better things to do with our time.

All things in their own season.

"Mad" Miles

Proviso: I am not an elected official of the Green Party of Sonoma County.

Any more. I was the Secretary / Treasurer from Spring of 2000 - Summer of 2001, I was also a member of the County Council (CC) during the same period.

The CC is an elected body whose members are chosen during the Party primary in a public election administered by the Sonoma County Clerk / Registrar of Voters.

But since the number of local active Greens wanes, until the months leading up to Presidential elections, CC membership is usually, so far, not contested. Active Greens are asked to run to fill open slots and once they get the required signatures, their accession to the position is usually a lock.

This is not the goal, the goal is to have viable, contested elections for public office, and Party office (such as the CC). But as in many things Green Party, we're not there yet.

The Green Party is a relatively new third party, and for lots of complicated reasons, primarily having to do with the lock on power orchestrated by the dominant two Parties and constrained by current election law, etc. there is still much work to be done.

So all of this is to say, I do not speak as an "official" representative of the Green Party (at any level in the U.S.).

Regarding election law reform, it is a bit of a paradox. The Republicrats make mouth noise about Democracy and Public Participation in the process. But they write and administer the laws that lock out third party challengers.

Given their lock on power, it is unlikely they will support IRV (Instant Runoff Voting, aka Ranked Choice Preference Voting), Proportional Representation (Parliamentary Representative Legislatures where minority parties gain seats in proportion to their share of votes cast in the general election) and other reforms that would make our democracy truly democratic and representative of all competing public interests.

Why would they change the system to allow challengers to their duopoly?

Good question, right?

They will only do it, like in all things having to do with the distribution of power in society, when enough people demand that they do it, and non-violently raise the cost of not doing it until not doing it is intolerable to them. Just like the War, just like Social Justice, just like Environmental Survival and Protection, etc., etc., etc..


Check out the Green Party at:

https://www.gp.org/

https://www.cagreens.org/

https://www.sonomagreenparty.org/

[lynn]

Here's what one person wrote about Nader on another site....


"She is a political coward," Nader said.

It's Nader who's the political coward. On issue after issue, I agree with Nader, and have for decades.

But when it comes to dealing with political reality, he's just wrong. He could have gotten elected to the

Senate thirty-plus years ago, held his colleagues feet to the fire, and gotten a lot of good things accomplished.

But he would have found it a little tougher in the trenches, so he stayed on the outside where it's easier to be a gadfly.

Now, he comes out every four years and acts as a spoiler, running for an office he has no chance of winning.
The country, and the world, have been paying for his cowardice since 2001.

["Mad" Miles]

Ralph Nader was not a "spoiler" in 1996, 2000 or 2004 (When he was not the GPUS candidate.)

That is a lie. See previous discussions regarding this on this board. Check out the article by Daniel Solnit on the GPSC website. It's titled "Still Blaming Nader?" and is in the archive section.

Neither the numbers or the logic add up to support this claim. It is Democratic Party calumny to cover their/your own inadequacies and failures.

Clean your own house before sliming others. Better yet, don't slime at all.

"A lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth."

Sheesh!

"Mad" Miles

[Willie Lumplump]

Ralph Nader was not a "spoiler" in 1996, 2000 or 2004 (When he was not the GPUS candidate.)

Neither the numbers or the logic add up to support this claim. It is Democratic Party calumny to cover their/your own inadequacies and failures.
"Mad" Miles

THAT DOES IT! MAD MILES FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008! GREEN FOREVER!

[lynn]

I'm not impressed with 'the greens' one bit...Not the ones in this county anyway...Enough of them didn't even get off their duff to help pass the 'gmo' issue on the ballot a couple yrs. ago...

They haven't stopped plenty of land from getting paved over in this county, or more stupid wineries from going in...or address the overpopulation issue...

And now plenty of them seem to be wasting their time on this 'climate change' crappolla...

If people don't do much on the county or state level...I sure ain't gonna' expect much on the national level...

If people want 'green', I don't understand why people don't support 'Kucinich'...He's probably more 'green' than Nader...And at least he's been in office...

[Willie Lumplump]

If people want 'green', I don't understand why people don't support 'Kucinich'...He's probably more 'green' than Nader...And at least he's been in office...

Right on! Kucinich for president, Mad Miles for vice-president.