Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I was referring to my locality.

Greens also came close to allowing Republicans to keep the majority in the Senate by getting 25,000 votes in Virginia.

 I've been very sympathetic to the Green Party in the past, and disenchanted with the Democrats, but the nightmare of 2000, plus a lot of personal experience, has brought me back to the Democratic party.  There will be a two party system in the U.S. for my lifetime, and when the stakes are extraordinarily high in terms of the damage one party can do, it's important to work within it. Besides which, the Green Party I know is not a party.  They go on about how much more virtuous they are, and stab each other in the back. I once found myself debating the guy who became their 04 presidential candidate (he wasn't supposed to be there--it was a forum about Democratic candidates pre-primary), and the guy flat out lied.  The Greens here have dissolved into warring factions, subdividing an already small group. They may be no less moral than other politicians, but they will never admit that.  Their self-righteousness and ideological purity paralyzes them.        

"The end of all intelligent analysis is to clear the way for synthesis." H.G. Wells "It's not dark yet, but it's getting there." Bob Dylan

by Captain Future (captainfuture is at sbcglobal dot net) on Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 04:49:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe the 'Virginia Greens' who were on the ballot for the Senate election are a local right-wing pressure group who hijacked the Green name and have no connection with the US Green Party. Their votes could easily have gone to Allen rather than Webb if they had stood down.  
by saugatojas on Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 10:48:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Upon checking, you are right! The right-wing Greens are the Independent Greens of Virginia, but there is also the legit Green Party of Virginia. The G G Parker who got 1.1% was indeed from the right-wing version.

On a more general note, I continue to protest the attitude of big party supporters that assume that certain voters' votes belong to them.

  • A voter's vote belongs to the voter.
  • That voter may as well stay at home if denied the (third) option.
  • There are much more people already staying home than voting for third parties in the US. This is your campaign's real failure, not not getting the voters of third parties.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Nov 10th, 2006 at 03:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
However, it should be noted that the first point:
  • A voter's vote belongs to the voter.

means that care must be taken to avoid the details of the Australian version, where people may either put in an exhaustive list of preferences, or vote for a party "above the line", with their preferences distributed at the direction of the party.

That leads to all manner shenanigans, including a Coalition (conservative) Prime Minister gaining power in part due to the preference distribution of a Trotskyite party.

Optional second preference is close enough for me ... it allows people to express their support for their preferred candidate, and also express their view on the lesser of two evils between the major party candidates.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Nov 12th, 2006 at 09:42:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series