this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
9 points (84.6% liked)

Politics

1025 readers
1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 1 year ago
 

Full article text:


Cornel West, a Green Party 2024 presidential candidate, fights to reach ballots in states with differing laws.


With the 2024 presidential election heating up, debates over the role of third parties are beginning to simmer -- and Democrats fear the Green Party could offer voters an enticing alternative who could hamper their chances in the general election.

At the center of those concerns is newcomer presidential candidate Cornel West, a philosopher and activist who announced his intent to run with the left-wing, populist People's Party on June 5 before switching, saying on June 14 he would seek the Green Party nomination.

Bernard Tamas, a political science professor at Valdosta State University, told ABC News that American third-party candidates don't need to win elections to be influential. Rather, they often "sting like a bee" and shock one of the two major parties to take up issues they're passionate about.

Tamas believes that the best hope for Green Party members is that the Democratic Party will shift towards their preferred positions in an effort to neutralize the threat that they could siphon away voters.

"I don't think anyone in the Green Party has any delusions that they're going to win anything," he said. "This is a way for the progressives, those on the left, to force the Democratic Party to take [seriously] issues that they take seriously."

In other words, Tamas said, the possibility that West might cost Biden the election isn't a coincidence: It's a core part of third parties' strategy.

"They're between a rock and a hard place," he said of the Green Party. "Stepping aside for this election, well, it would effectively end their impact at all."

The stated priorities of the U.S. Green Party's platform are decreasing the U.S. military budget, addressing global climate change through a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, social justice, and democratic reforms like the public financing of elections.

The U.S. Green Party has about 200,000 registered members as of July 2023, according to a party database, and 133 members of the Green Party hold elected office.

So far, the only candidate competing against West for the Green Party nomination is Randy Toler, a co-chair of Florida's Green Party, who has filed to enter the race but has not yet formally begun his campaign. Toler is also running for Florida's open Senate seat in 2024.

With the endorsement of Jill Stein, a two-time Green Party presidential nominee who is now West's campaign manager, and as the only candidate who is actively campaigning so far, West is considered the clear frontrunner in the race.

Like the Democrat and Republican parties, the Green Party nomination will be decided through primaries or conventions across the country starting early next year, culminating in the 2024 Green National Convention. The date of the convention has not yet been announced.

No third party nominee has ever won a presidential election -- but some famous third-party bids, such as that of businessman Ross Perot, may have shifted electoral outcomes, and campaigns from Teddy Roosevelt, Strom Thurmond and others even won a few states.

Who is Cornel West and why is he seeking the Green Party nomination?

According to his staff, West, who is a philosopher and former professor of the practice of public philosophy at Harvard University, switched to seeking the Green Party nomination because it is more widely listed on presidential ballots than his original selection of the People's Party.

In order to appear on the ballot, presidential candidates need to meet state-by-state requirements – a fairly costly and labor-intensive endeavor. In the U.S., only a select few parties, like the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, have the organizational and grassroots support needed to meet those requirements across the country.

"It became clear that he needed a party that could actually get him on the ballot," said Stein.

While the Democratic and Republican parties also have those resources, Stein argued, West sought a third party nomination because he believes neither party met the Green Party's standards on the issues of climate change, the influence of corporations and wealthy donors in U.S. politics, and more.

"Dr. West is acting on the reality of the cards that we've been dealt," said Stein. "If you know anything about the polls, you know that American voters have broken with the system. ... People are hungry for more choices and more voices in this election and Dr. West is speaking to the deeply felt need."

West's candidacy has sparked fears and heated criticism from Democrats that the professor's campaign could "spoil" the election for Biden, pulling votes away from the incumbent in vital swing states and tipping the election towards former President Donald Trump. In 2016, the number of people who voted for Stein, then the Green Party presidential nominee, exceeded Trump's margin of victory in Michigan, though Stein has disputed that she cost Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton the election there, arguing that not all of her voters would have voted for Clinton otherwise.

"I think that Democrats have reason to worry," Tamas said. "1% of the vote, 2% of the vote, could very well shift the election over to the Republican Party."

Stein dismissed that possibility as "propaganda."

"This is about the party elite protecting themselves," she said. "To call that spoiling, when people like Dr. West stand up and offer people another way forward, instead of this pathway that has just been throwing working people, poor communities of color, under the bus, that's just nonsense."

West has also drawn backlash from progressives for a recent op-ed where he praised Florida Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis for supporting a "classical education" oriented around the Western literary canon.

Which voters will West woo?

Given West's background in racial justice, Tamas said the natural inclination would be to believe West could attract African American voters.

But history suggests that might not be the case, Tamas said. Historically, African-American voters have been a fairly risk-averse voting bloc, only voting for candidates that are thought to have good odds of winning.

"They are much less likely to jump on board to a challenge," he said.

However, West's left-wing platform could appeal to a certain base of progressive voters, said Melissa Deckman, a researcher and CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute. This is especially true among younger voters for whom socialism is an appealing economic policy divorced from its negative Cold War-era connotations.

"Generally speaking, the term 'socialism' is not one that is necessarily embraced by the general public. However, younger Americans, especially young women, I found in my research, tend to be more open to the concept of socialism," Deckman said.

"Many Americans would say that capitalism as a system isn't working well for them," she continued. "For example, many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, increasingly because the cost of living is too high."

Deckman also named climate change as a factor shaping some voters' perception of capitalism. West has made the issue a pillar of his campaign, frequently naming "ecological collapse" as one of his key priorities.

The first challenge: Getting on the ballot

The potency of West's campaign could turn on a set of relatively obscure proceedings surrounding ballot access laws. Each state has different rules for who can qualify to appear on the ballot for a certain office. Most states require candidates to gather signatures or pay a filing fee.

But the Green Party argues these laws unfairly benefit well-funded candidates.

"There's always been, even in the Constitution, a check on the people," wrote Tony Ndege, a co-chair of the Ballot Access Committee for the Green Party, in an email to ABC News. "They spin the propaganda of, 'Well, these are the serious candidates.' Well, they're the candidates serious about remaining beholden to big money interests."

The swing state of Pennsylvania could become a key battleground. The Green Party gathered the sufficient number of signatures for ballot access in that state during the last presidential election cycle, but it was disqualified from the ballot due to technical issues with how the requisite signatures were gathered. The Green Party is already on the ballot in two other key swing states: Michigan and Wisconsin.

Taken together, Ndege said he is expecting an "interesting 2024."

"There will always be pushback from those in power when you are doing the right thing. I think that will intensify dramatically as the months continue," Ndege said.

The party has not announced a date or location for its convention.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Republicans are hungry to water down the Democrat vote.

[–] TokenBoomer 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Do you have a source that this is funded by Republican donors?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't see them say that. It's a pretty factual statement that fracturing the Democratic vote is excellent for the Republican Party.

[–] TokenBoomer 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some of us aren’t Democrats. We’ve just never had another choice. I welcome anyone that pushes the conversation more left. If he does get on the ballot as a spoiler, I won’t vote for him. But I can’t fault those who do.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have never in my life been registered as either Democrat or a Republican, so you're preaching to the choir there. It's still the case that a left-leaning third party historically benefits the Republican Party by diluting the left-leaning voter pool.

[–] TokenBoomer 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

So left-leaning voters can’t ask for more? It’s by design. At some point the table must be overturned. Why not now? Look what happened to Bernie. The Dems kept a Green Party candidate off the ballot in NC. They’re never giving us healthcare because of corporate donors.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Of course they can and they should. I personally happen to believe that the only way that can happen is to move the Democratic Party further left, until we can get rid of first past the post. Once first past the post is gone, parties will have more equal footing.

[–] TokenBoomer 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve watched this play out my entire life. The Democrats are moving to the right, not the left. They won’t allow reform. Bernie proved that. Voting harder isn’t gonna do it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't necessarily disagree. The Democratic Party has moved left in some areas, but it's pretty far right when it comes to economic ones. We need more options, but we don't have them. I suppose fracturing the vote is better than busting out the guillotines.

[–] TokenBoomer 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Americans are innovators, we can do both. A great American poet once said, “Fortune favors the bold!”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I appreciate your optimism.

Edit: Kbin bug won't let me nest this where it belongs, but I'm leaving it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So left-leaning voters can’t ask for more? It’s by design. At some point the table must be overturned.

The thing to ask for is ranked choice voting.

Why not now?

You answered your own question already:

If he does get on the ballot as a spoiler, I won’t vote for him.

You said it yourself. In the current scenario this version of asking for more only makes the road easier for R.

Look what happened to Bernie.

I registered Democrat after decades of being registered Independent specifically to vote for Bernie in the primaries. I feel he was shafted by the DNC both times, just ever so slightly more subtly the second time.

But I can’t fault those who do.

Nor will I, but if your left leaning values cause you to cast a vote that's only handing power to folks far, far to the right of Biden/Harris based on Biden/Harris not being left enough for you, don't ask me to pretend that's not exceptionally self defeating.

[–] TokenBoomer 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t think it’s self-defeating. By maintaining the status quo and never giving the left what it actually wants, the Dems doom themselves to this scenario. At some point in the future, voter disillusionment WILL result in a Republican president. Then Fascism will rule. It may happen anyway due to Republican state legislatures and the Supreme Court. All because establishment Democrats won’t give up power. Martin Luther King said it best, “Justice too long delayed, is justice denied.” They want you to wait for change so they can keep bilking corporate coffers. I’m too old to wait any longer. I’m tired of waiting!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I didn't say maintain the status quo. You have much more chance of changing it by making ranked choice voting your rallying point than you do by voting for a candidate you consider to be left enough for you vs Democrats.

I voted Nader in 2000 because I believed as you do. The result was no different than what voting for this candidate will bring. (And I still get to listen to people blame me for Bush.)

You do you, all I'm saying is don't pretend you are moving the needle. You aren't, or you are moving it in the opposite direction you intend.

Edited to add a d.

[–] TokenBoomer 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your vote maintains the Status Quo. Why would Democrats offer ranked choice voting, it is against their interests? I’m not saying vote for Cornel West over Joe Biden in the general election. I’m advocating supporting a third party candidate to force the Democrats to answer to the left.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m advocating supporting a third party candidate to force the Democrats to answer to the left.

I don't really get the mechanism by which you are suggesting this would happen.

All the support for Bernie put no visible pressure on Dems, all the support for Nader didn't either. Jill Stein did nothing but help Republicans when she ran, and now she's helping Cornell West do the same.

Your vote maintains the Status Quo.

Only in that it doesn't push things to the right, which a vote for any third party effectively does in today's environment.

Why would Democrats offer ranked choice voting

I don't claim to have a roadmap to ranked choice voting, but whatever slim chance we have of getting that done at some point is still far more realistic than the idea that voting green is going to have any impact other than putting an R in the whitehouse again.

However much improvement the Dems may need, they aren't actively rolling us backwards. I can't fathom how anyone does that calculus and comes to a different conclusion in 2023, after witnessing 2016 and 2020.

[–] TokenBoomer 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The Democrats “aren’t actively rolling us backwards.” This is where we disagree. It’s theratchet effect. The reason the Democrats seem like Republicans from the 70’s and 80’d is because they’re the same. They’re NEVER going left! And voting for them isn’t going to change that. Again, I’m not ceding to fascism. Vote for Joe Biden. But try to understand why someone might be disaffected.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you're deciding between not voting or voting for a third party that has no chance of changing any major platform or winning an election, absolutely vote for a third party.

Either way you are consenting to the outcome.

Whether you vote protest to an unelectable third party or vitre strategically, what you do beyond the ballot box matters far more.

But the idea that a vote for the lesser of two evils isn't a vote for less evil? I don't buy that. Especially when the progressive needle was moved significantly under Biden, especially for climate.

[–] TokenBoomer 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Have you ever seen the 80’s movie Wargames. When presented with two undesirable outcomes, the best choice is not to play.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You got the point of that movie all wrong. Mutually assured destruction is a game where the only winning moving is not to play, because it is mutual, meaning either choice is equally doomed to the same outcome. "Two undesirable outcomes" is not a good enough excuse to simply not participate. By definition, one of those outcomes must be preferable to the other, and that's what you should vote for, while you continue to work outside the ballot box to push better candidates and better policies.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Only if both outcomes are equally undesirable.

If they aren't and you don't participate, you are consenting to the outcome. Even if that is the outcome that was less desirable.

Everything you write here is the exact kind of cynical, pessimistic motivation many need to hear... in order to convince them to not participate. To not vote. And the kinds of people you're going to drive away are the ones you need active and participating to further your agenda.

These people who tell you that the Democrats are perfect and great and have no issues that are being invoked don't exist. Pretty much no one thinks that. And I'm sure, push come to shove, you probably do vote strategically because only a true moron wouldn't.

But this position you're out here arguing for isn't one that is going to let politics get pushed left. It's going to push it right. You're achieving the opposite agenda by telling people not to vote strategically.

[–] TokenBoomer 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some may disagree. If I don’t like either candidate and choose not to vote. I am NOT consenting to either outcome. That’s a false dichotomy. Not voting can be a protest vote. If I give you a choice between dying by gas chamber, or by firing squad. And you choose neither. You’re not consenting to death by firing squad.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

But the choice you're actually getting is gas chamber vs having to buy your own lunch.

Both outcomes undesirable. One of them tolerable. And you're recommending against doing either. And so when the gas chambers people win the election because you refused to vote for anyone who didn't promise you free lunch, yeah, you're complicit. And so much more so because you are advocating for people that want free lunch to stand by and let gas chambers win.

Fundamentally, the insanity you're espousing is the idea that ONLY elections matter. They're the smallest effort you can put towards shaping the world. A tiny piece of being an advocate for change. Use that vote strategically and put the rest of your efforts towards advocacy. Instead of advocating for people to not use their votes. It's genuinely heartbreaking to see someone so obsessed with moral absolutes that they're actually shaming people for trying to make things even a little better.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The issue is that in wargames not playing causes the event not to happen, while in electoral politics not playing just means ceding the decision to everyone else

[–] TokenBoomer 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Apparently I’m bad at analogies. I was trying to convey that the outcome centrist/ liberals/ anti-fascist want is not what some others want. They want to move past a duopoly, and that will never be achieved by voting for Dems or GOP. They understand that fascism may result, but also know that is going to happen anyway. This explains why.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But try to understand why someone might be disaffected.

In rethinking much of this discussion while preparing dinner, I realized I maybe came in a little aggressive on the topic, my apologies. I do understand this. Our primary difference is that I don't think we can do better than "lesser of two evils" until structural change occurs.

While I agree with you that structural change is not an easy path either, to me it seems an undeniable prerequisite before any flavor of voting for or supporting a third party is going to do anything other than benefit Republicans.

The reason the Democrats seem like Republicans from the 70’s and 80’d is because they’re the same.

I don't agree with this choice of words, but I do think I agree with the spirit of what you are saying in this regard. I think the issue is that there's not a good path out of this. I think your suggested path is an impossibility, and you think mine is.

Edited to add a d and fix punctuation and this:

I think supporting the most progressive local candidate you possibly can seems likely to have the best effect. In my case, the local democrat is very progressive, wins handily, and is truly a good choice. So I admit I've got easy mode for this locally. But I feel like these are the folks who can provide change you might actually feel, and who can potentially manage upwards through their party.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

See the comment about first past the post elections. Until that is resolved, the rest of this is essentially moot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Democrats and liberals aren't left though. They're right wing, as are Republicans and conservatives. The actual left are Greens, Socialists, Communists, etc. None of which are represented by Democrats or Republicans. If Democrats want the actual left to support them, they need to start actually passing actual left policies, not ratcheting to the right every chance they get.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why I specifically say "left-leaning".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Any self respecting actual left person wouldn't vote for a Democrat or a Republican. And voting won't fix anything anyways. It hasn't for 50+ years. Why would it now? You can't vote out fascists and oligarchs. The rich keep getting richer and everyone else keeps getting poorer no matter who is in power/control.

[–] TokenBoomer 2 points 1 year ago

You get it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So what are you doing and recommending? Voting and campaigning are currently the only ways available to keep fascists out, unless you are suggesting violent revolution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can fault them. As someone on the left, I dislike not having another choice besides Dems but for real there are far better ways to get the conversation more left than playing spoiler.

The thing about our shit system is you need to have heavy majorities in Congress on top of winning the electoral college if you want to be able to enact any change besides tearing things down. Spoiler candidates handicap that possibility.

There's way too many people who think that simple majorities mean it's enough to get stuff done but they at best (and as evidenced by the last 15 years) barely keep the status quo afloat.

[–] TokenBoomer 1 points 1 year ago

Everyone is misunderstanding me. I’m voting for Joe Brandon because there is no other choice. I get it. But I understand there will never be another choice, by design. So I’m sympathetic to those that vote third party or check out. Ya’ll can’t accept that because you believe the system can be reformed. I don’t think it can. We need…radical change. I hope I’m wrong.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

There’s no latitude for other choices whilst first past the post voting systems remain.

If you want minor parties in the US then your first priority must be establishing ranked choice voting. Any other approach just hands power to your opponents.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Imagine all that Obama didn't accomplish facing a GOP controlled Congress, then amplify that tenfold. That's the best case scenario for a 3rd party candidate for president. If you want to pull us politics to the left- I sure as hell do- you have to start with Congress. Otherwise your next case is a lame duck while your likely outcome is a spoiler.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Frankly, I don't think third parties can do anything other than fracture a voting block until we get rid of first past the post.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah 100%

This CGP Grey video really does a great job of explaining why

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Stein dismissed that possibility as "propaganda."

"Because it's devastating to my case!"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Anyone who votes any other third party (or doesn't even vote - shame) is giving Republicans a vote and sending us towards fascism. So enjoy your "other options" while you still have them before Republicans ban all other parties.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Any other vote splitting will just make Democrats lose until the inherent issues within the voting system are resolves such as gerrymandering, the failed electoral votes (it should be majority), removing voting rights, that former criminals can't vote, that massive of amount of people are in and have been in prison system and can't vote, all voter supression, that voting isn't a paid legal holiday, that voting isn't mandatory, that electronic voting is difficult online. etc. etc. etc.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Democrats fear the Green Party could offer voters an enticing alternative

Okay, so what's keeping Democrats from offering something enticing? Medicare For All comes immediately to mind as a broadly popular policy. If a Republican win next year means fascism, shouldn't the Democratic leadership be deeply worried about that? Shouldn't they be pulling out all the stops?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Okay, so what's keeping Democrats from offering something enticing?

~~Bribery~~ campaign donations and lobbying.

Both parties are shit, but that doesn't mean that we should allow the shittier one to reign.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Medicare For All comes immediately to mind as a broadly popular policy.

For starters, because this isn't actually true.

The latest findings, from Gallup’s annual Health and Healthcare poll conducted Nov. 9-Dec. 2, 2022, show 57% think the government should be responsible to ensure coverage for all Americans, while 40% say it should not.

Currently, 53% of U.S. adults prefer a private system, while 43% support a government-run system.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/468401/majority-say-gov-ensure-healthcare.aspx

Leftists often drastically overestimate how popular significant healthcare reforms actually are. The government merely offering a public option is more popular, and if I recall, was something Biden actually supported, though it wasn't ever going to the last Congress, let alone this one. Full-scale socialization of the medical system à la the British NHS is far less popular.

Edit: downvoting me for reporting
data does not change the truth, but if anyone has an actual point to make I'd be more than happy to hear it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Wait, they're pushing for 2024? They pushed Stein in 2016. All they did there was shave a point or two off Hillary. All they'll do in 2024 is either shave a point or two off Biden, or they'll shave a point off some other "outsider" candidate / party.

load more comments
view more: next ›