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.

"How has Stein fared as a leader? By AOC’s perfectly reasonable standard, she’s done abysmally. As of July 2024, a mere 143 officeholders in the United States are affiliated with the Green Party. None of them are in statewide or federal offices. In fact, no Green Party candidate has ever won federal office. And Stein’s reign has been a period of indisputable decline, during which time the party’s membership—which peaked in 2004 at 319,000 registered members—has fallen to 234,000 today.

This meager coalition can’t possibly kick-start a legitimate political movement, capable of organizing voters and advancing ideas outside of perennial electoral events. It’s just large enough, however, to spoil the work of those who put in this kind of work."

  • cabbage@piefed.socialEnglish
    16016·
    2 months ago

    It’s a two party system. Everybody knows if you run as a third party you’re merely increasing the chances that the ones furthest from you politically will be elected.

    It’s impossible for a third party candidate to be running for president in the US in good faith unless they’re complete fucking idiots with no idea how the political system works.

    Jill Stein knows how the system works. So obviously she’s not acting in good faith.

    Simple as that.

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      5913·
      2 months ago

      Seems like you beat the coin flip today, and people agree with you. Watch out, next time the Libertarians and Communists will tell you that just getting on the ballot is enough to make a dent in the two party system…

      • cabbage@piefed.social
        558·
        2 months ago

        It’s a thread about the Green Party, those trolls don’t bother coming here. The third party enthusiasts only show up for the Harris threads.

        …speaking of good faith.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        433·
        2 months ago

        The communist party of the United States has consistently refused to run candidates for major offices very specifically to avoid spoiling the vote.

        • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
          345·
          2 months ago

          The Communist Party, yes. The air-quote Communists on Lemmy are just as happy to tell you to vote third party as anyone else.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            98·
            2 months ago

            I am a leftist and I celebrate everyone’s right to vote how they please. If people would like to hear my reasons for voting for Kamala, or my concerns about third party spoiling, I can tell them. But a person’s right to vote is more important to me than how they vote. That’s what democracy and being for the people is about. Use your rights, I support that. We all deserve to use our rights.

            • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
              21·
              2 months ago

              What an insufferable position and way of arguing for it. To anyone reading this thread, she only gets worse with each reply. She’s arguing for… Literally Everything necessarily taking a backseat to protecting people from even the mere concept of them feeling like their voting rights are taken away. Despite the fact that no one in this thread is trying to do that, and only Republicans are ever interested in such a thing, she’s really oddly interested in making sure people vote for third parties, which helps Republicans, without ever hearing the truth about third parties because it might hurt their feelings. Which as we all know, is definitely taking their voting rights away.

              She undoubtedly will point out some out of context quote about how the rational person in this discussion is a fAsCisT but each time she did that previously in the thread below, she wasn’t doing it in good faith so you be the judge.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                2 months ago

                You realize your strawman here is a bad faith argument? In fact, I actually can’t find a single good faith argument in anything you’ve written. You start out with an appeal to emotion. Then strawman. Then no true scotsman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Also we all know you’re the “”“rational”“” other person on an alt account. You type the same and it’s been days since anyone responded to this thread. Lol.

                I am voting for Kamala and I’m perfectly happy to tell people why. Maybe people will agree with me and that’s great. Otherwise, I still support someone’s right to vote no matter how they vote. Because that’s what a right is, and that’s what the right to vote grants. I disagree with any speech that advocates for limiting the right to vote, particularly because I’m a woman and women’s rights are being taken away actively.

                I also think that while yes, obviously Jill Stein is a Russian asset, that doesn’t mean every independent or third party candidate is. I am on the side of the every day person and am fine with hearing criticisms of Dems and of the way we currently vote.

                I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though. I’ve quoted the specific issues with what you said. I don’t really need to say more. I accept you think it’s fine to control others. I accept that you refuse to learn about civil rights and the right to vote. I accept that you refuse to analyze propaganda and dog whistles in your speech. Whatever, it’s your opinion. I also think your little comment serves as an advertisement anyway for any people reading this thread besides you, lol.

                • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
                  11·
                  2 months ago

                  Quite conspiratorial to think I’m that other person… do you do that? Why would you even think that people would go through the trouble? Weird.

                  I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though.

                  More conspiratorial thinking. in any case it’s pretty ridiculous to try and tell someone they shouldn’t inform people about third parties because they might get their feelings hurt and then… Feel unable to vote or something?

            • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
              511·
              2 months ago

              I’m not sure you could be more milquetoast if you tried. Sure, it’s important that everyone has the right to vote. It is equally as important that everyone understand that unless they vote one of two ways, their vote is essentially going to waste at best, and going against their best interests at worse. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote cast against your closest aligned Democrat or Republican candidate. A vote not cast for them is cast against them. That’s just the way the system works. It sucks. I hate it. I want to change it, but wishful thinking isn’t fixing the problem, and until its fixed, voting third party is a net loss for the voter. That’s the shitty reality of it. People that tell you to vote third party are either idiots, or malicious, and no one should be listening to either of those groups when it comes to voting for the future of the country. Work on changing the system first, then cast the vote you want to cast.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                85·
                2 months ago

                It’s not “equally important.” No, the right to vote is more important. Period.

                Sure, your perspective and how you and many others view this election, is that it’s important to vote for either Kamala or Trump. But that’s your perspective. Totally fine to discuss but it doesn’t supercede the literal civil right to vote. Or to run for office.

                Today and yesterday, I’ve seen people advocate for removing the right to vote and run for office here on Lemmy. I’ve seen people use the word “disenfranchised” wrong. Our civil rights are actively in jeopardy - see: abortion access. People being confused on how important voting rights are and what that means is BAD. I have seen a LOT of fascist rhetoric lately. It is NOT leftwing or radical or progressive to be fascist and deny people their vote just because you dislike it. It is NOT leftwing or radical or progressive to deny people the right to run for office because it makes another party’s job harder. That is actually literally fascism. What the fuck.

                And again, I’m voting for Kamala. I generally agree with your reasoning. I do not agree with the messaging or the idea that people should be forced into thinking and voting like me.

                • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
                  72·
                  2 months ago

                  Totally fine to discuss but it doesn’t supersedes the literal civil right to vote. Or to run for office.

                  By that logic, the right to own a gun supersedes the need to be educated on how they work. “Here’s a loaded 9mm, Timmy. I’m sure you can figure the rest out.”

                  I do not agree with the messaging or the idea that people should be forced into thinking and voting like me.

                  And I’m not saying that anyone should be forced to vote any one way. Vote however you want, but being educated on how it works is just as important as the act itself. If every voter were educated on the system and understood how it worked, then we wouldn’t have third party candidates. Actually, strike that, we would have them. We wouldn’t have this first past the post bullshit we do now, and third party candidates would have a chance at being elected if they represent the will of the majority.

                  Untl we have that, though, people should understand that voting doesn’t work how they want it to, it works how it works. If you want to feed your family by fishing with cheetos, go for it, but don’t tell everyone else that if we all fish with cheetos suddenly fish will take the bait. The nature of the beast is that we vote in a two party system, and we will until we change it at a fundamental level. The fact that we have people saying that third party voting is a viable option tells me that there is a lot of misinformation and a strong lack of education in our voting populace.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        73·
        2 months ago

        Guys as soon as we’ve got 5% popular vote we get on the ballots automatically. That prevents unavoidable blockers like how our own campaign fucked up the paperwork! It will be all over for these fuckers, we will win it for certain after that.

    • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
      126·
      2 months ago

      There’s room for 3rd party candidates who have principals that voters can compare candidates to and not let the 2 party system shift in whatever direction it wants as soon as the 2 parties start racing to the bottom. But if you accept Putin’s money and influence it is your party who is racing to the bottom and you have no principles so that’s when you become a useless drain.

    • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
      4·
      2 months ago

      Everybody capable of rational thought knows that. However there are plenty of tankie douchebags who would love to tell you what a wrong ShItLiB you are for saying this basic truth

  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.worldEnglish
    553·
    2 months ago

    When I was a teenager and foolish and a republican, we campaigned for the green party because we thought we could trick democrats into voting green but we’d never get them to vote republican. make of that what you will.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      282·
      2 months ago

      It’s literally one of the things they do every election. This isn’t new. Or even news. Unless people were living under a rock, or blind.

      Just like Russia, China, etc help any misinformation and disinformation campaign they can all over the world in other countries. All chaos is good for them in the end. Even if their ideal candidate doesn’t win, the bickering they help stole makes it harder for other countries to rally very well against their interests.

      It’s the same reason the US has done the same shit all over as well. Promoting and supporting coups is a national passtime because it helps the US indirectly either way.

    • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
      31·
      2 months ago

      And Dems funneled money to MAGA fascists to split republicans. It’s art of war 101: divide and conquer; it doesn’t really reflect on the merits of anyone involved.

      Green could be a false flag puppet of the Republicans or they could have a legitimate platform and genuine candidates working to better the world for all the rightwing cares, what matters is that they are popular enough to detract from dems.

      Ironically, reacting to this as if Green is the enemy also plays into this tactic: dems become more isolated from other interests and therefore more resistant to change and adaptation to a changing political climate, which makes them less appealing and more likely to die out.

  • Thrillhouse@lemmy.world
    449·
    2 months ago

    It makes total sense for Russia to make Jill Stein a Russian asset because it neutralizes an anti-oil organization. Oil is very important to Russia’s economy so of course they don’t want any phase-out of fossil fuels.

  • Chapelgentry@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    374·
    2 months ago

    Wait, the Green Party only had 300k members at it’s peak? That’s 0.001% of the American population. Why are all the tankies in here talking about how voting for Stein will make a difference? That’s not even enough to consider her a contender in most states, much less for the whole country.

    Edit: should be 0.1%. My bad and thanks for the correction!

    • ravhall@discuss.online
      242·
      2 months ago

      Because they are not trying to get her elected, they are trying to destroy the west by getting trump elected.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      16·
      2 months ago

      Hey, at their peak, when Nader was running in 2000 and Bush was installed as President by the Supreme Court, the Greens got 2.7% of the vote!

      The best they’ve done since then is Stein in 2016 with 1.07%.

      Generally, they’re 0.1%, 0.3%. In that range.

      • ansiz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        2 months ago

        People forget, but in the 70’s Nader was so feared by the DC elite that Nixon repeatedly complained about him on the Nixon tapes. Nader would have been a good president based on his record of advocating for citizens over corporations.

      • Chapelgentry@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        6·
        2 months ago

        Ah yeah I remember that! I remember everyone talking about the 3% threshold where (if I remember correctly) the green party would be included in debates and receive federal campaign funds. Hell, if they couldn’t do it at the height of Nader always I don’t see that happening now, particularly under Stein.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      161·
      2 months ago

      Because they can smugly claim to have accomplished something with their vote while the country burns around them. Must be nice not being at risk under a Trump administration.

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
      15·
      2 months ago

      (319,000 / 293,000,000) * 100 = ~0.11%

      Not 0.001%. Unless you were just overexaggerating their insignificance on purpose. However that’s then potentially 319k less voters for the Dems.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
      44·
      2 months ago

      Because for as long as they remain an available alternative to the democrats, they place pressure on them to address their policy shortfalls.

      The real question is why the Democrats have suddenly decided they are an unacceptable threat, despite their declining registrations numbers.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        The real question is why the Democrats have suddenly decided they are an unacceptable threat, despite their declining registrations numbers.

        Because the polling is currently a toss up between Trump and Harris. And the closer the race, the easier it is for spoiler candidates to spoil the vote. Hence the panic.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
          12·
          2 months ago

          The last three or four elections have been ‘toss-ups’, though. Basically since the Greens were a party.

          Previously, though, democrats were fairly dismissive, and I’d say even moderately receptive to addressing or responding to their main grievances. Democrats even adopted the Green New Deal from them as recently as 2018.

          It’s not an exaggeration to say that the democrats have had a very sudden change in tone around the green party, right at a time when their platform is making a swing to the right. I think it’s fair to speculate that someone made a calculated decision to abandon any effort to match or compete with the greens on policy and instead attack them on the basis of their opposition.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            right at a time when their platform is making a swing to the right.

            It’s also right at a time when the conservatives have been at an all time high with their open fervor for fascism.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    271·
    2 months ago

    Jill Stein is so bad that if I lived in a ranked choice voting state, I would still rank her pretty low.

  • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    101·
    2 months ago

    I think Ralph Nader killed it when he helped get us Bush and the war criminals.

    Jill just figured out the Putin would pay to reanimate its corpse.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      6·
      2 months ago

      The Green Party really didn’t exist before Nader. There was a loose coalition of state Green parties that united under Nader in 1996. But the idea of a national Green party wouldn’t happen until 2001.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        5·
        2 months ago

        Good point, but I still think that even if he created it, he also damaged its reputation the most in the 2000 election.

        Stein being a stooge for Putin is just the result of a weak/desperate organization that needs funding and has no real leadership or ideals outside of at best, wanting to exist, but at worst, planning to spoil for an ideologically opposite party.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    123·
    2 months ago

    Reactionary people are unable to accept that some of us are socialists who have an absolute fear of more orange bad. I love where I live and planned to stay the rest of my life, but will be forced (by my own standards and fear) to leave the country if he returns to office.

  • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
    54·
    2 months ago

    If there’s such a fear of third parties cleaving off votes from the Democrats, why have they never tried to mobilize similar forces on the right?

    We had the Libertarians right there, before they imploded.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      161·
      2 months ago

      The Republican party saw it happening and absorbed it. Groups like the Tea Party were a very real threat to Republican party candidacy in elections. They absorbed the groups and shifted more right to integrate them.

      The Democrat leadership however aren’t willing to actually shift left. They current Dem leadership aren’t actually radically left at all like the Republicans keep trying to convince people. They keep shifting right along with everything else taking the Overton window with them.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        87·
        2 months ago

        Because people on the left are mostly younger and they won’t vote no matter what you promise them, even if it’s everything that they want to be promised.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      2 months ago

      Because Democrats are honestly bad at their jobs. I can’t come to any other conclusion - whether it’s intentional or just basic incompetence, I’m not sure. There’s no Mitch McConnell Dem equivalent, including Nancy Pelosi. The current Supreme Court justice mess is due to Dem strategy fuckups on multiple levels.

  • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
    58·
    2 months ago

    It’s just large enough, however, to spoil the work of those who put in this kind of work.

    The big 2 parties haven’t put in more effort, they’ve just put in more person-hours… Because they have more people. Parties aren’t more worthy of votes based solely on how many people are voting for them, that’s tyranny of the majority. And if they can adapt their platforms to appeal to the small portion of undecided defectors from their primary rival party (each other), they damn sure can tailor their platform to the 100,000s that vote independent/3rd party.

    Checking biases, the only other article by this contributor is explaining why it’s actually A Good Thing™ that the Harris campaign doesn’t explain their platform in depth… You know, like you would want a leader to do if you were subject to their rules and policies for any length of time.

    Once again, the liberals are quick to assign blame for any of their shortcomings, and it’s just coincidentally never their fault nor responsibility to do anything. Their primary guiding principal for decades has been to change the status quo as little as possible to ensure they can’t be blamed for the changes, while accusing everyone else of destroying democracy.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 months ago

      Politically it is a good thing. I don’t know what angle they took but it generally means the campaign believes they’re in the lead.

      As far as having more man hours to throw at stuff, it sounds like the green party needs to be recruiting. Not lancing at windmills and getting laughed off the stage.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      46·
      2 months ago

      Its funny that some democrats are doing exactly what you say in your last sentence, calling any criticism of the party an attempt to destroy democracy.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          2 months ago

          Still then prevalence of that perspective is a bit jarring.

          Sort of like, “we can do freedom to vote next election, promise!”