Didn't Greens cost Democrats the presidential election in 2000/2016?

There is no short or easy answer for that question, but no. The Democrats have their own big problems to fix: They must promote policies that truly benefit the people as a whole, rather than their corporate contributors. Greens see neither major party as entitled to anyone's vote. Votes must be earned. When both establishment parties' policies perpetuate war, economic injustice, and ecological disasters, a vote for either party's ticket makes no sense.

In Florida in 2000, where George W. Bush "officially" won by about 500 votes, far more Democrats voted for Bush than for Green nominee Ralph Nader. Later recounts revealed that Al Gore actually received more votes in Florida, but by then it was too late.

In 2016, as in 2000, there were close results in several states that Donald Trump officially won. Green nominee Jill Stein raised millions in individual donations and led the effort to recount votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. State officials and the Trump campaign worked to thwart the effort, and electoral laws in two of those states defied common sense, making recounts impossible or prohibitively expensive. Those states' Republican legislatures—via Voter ID laws, misuse of Interstate Crosscheck, and other means—have made voting increasingly difficult for constituents of color, students, seniors, and the poor who are likely to vote for Democrats.

Both elections demonstrated that the United States needs serious electoral reform. The Green Party supports voting reforms such as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and Approval Voting. RCV, adopted in 2016 by the people of Maine, allows voters to rank candidates in the order of their preference. If your first choice receives the fewest votes, your vote is transferred to your next choice; this continues until a winner emerges with an absolute majority. Approval Voting removes the ranking and allows voters to choose all the candidates they might support. Both systems let voters vote their conscience without possibly helping a candidate they dislike. They also save tax money by removing the need for separate runoff elections.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.