Question for debate: Should Democrats give up lower level offices to Greens?

I think they should for several reasons:

1. The Greens would basically send a message to the Republicans that Green issues do matter to people. The Republicans would have to be a little less conservative in their platform to appeal to voters.

2. More Greens in office would take the "liberals are bad" stigma away from the Democrats and place it on the Greens. Thus the Democrats wouldn't have to worry about being name words called "evil liberal".

3. Democrats could save money & time & resources they don't spend on local elections for state and federal elections. Thus their campaigning would be easier.

4. Greens could agree to not run a Green candidate for President/Vice-President and for members of Congress in states that don't facilitate instant runoff voting. Thus Democrats wouldn't have to worry about Greens spoiling elections for them.

5. Democrats would be seen as uniters. This would go good with voters and would increase voter turnout and voters registering with the Democratic Party. The Democrats and Greens differ little if any regarding local elections.

I am sure that there will be posts stating that this is a bad idea, but on the face of it, this sounds like a good idea.

Clearly, environmental issues have not received the attention they need. The consequences of our negligence will be universally felt if we don't take these issues seriously, and soon.

Local government has little impact on environmental issues.

If the Democrats give up thier local base, eventually their entire Party will collapse. They depend upon local support to win State and National elections.

Why would ANY party give up its grassroots support?

Granted, it is quite a stretch to think that two parties would cooperate with each other for the greater good.

A merger might be a good idea, though. Churches do it all the time, like the Methodists and the United Brethren together formed what is now the United Methodist Church.

I would like to see the Democrats and Greens work together. Their ideals seem a lot more compatible with each other than the ideals of the Republicans and the Green Party.

Amlord, I'm not suggesting the Democrats give up their grassroots support, just some local offices to Green Party Candidates. For the reasons I stated above, I think the Dems & Greens working together would work great.

One problem here. The Democrats don't have the right to "give" political offices away. The voters choose. If the Greens go head to head with Republicans the Greens will lose just about everytime.

Of course you're correct, Hugo. An elected official can't "give" his/her position to somebody else.

But the concept of the two parties joining forces sounds kind of nice. There should be communication (if there isn't) between the two parties to see if something can be worked out.

Even if it could not be done in this upcoming election, it could very well have some good long-term benefits.

Maybe I'm just a bit dense, but i don't see where it does either the Democrats or the Greens any good to "give up" lower political offices.

What does it do for the Greens? They have to rely upon the largesse and table scraps of the Dems? The way to become a legitimate poltical party is not by getting in bed with another and becoming a junior partner to them. If the Green Party is ever going to obtain a degree of legitimacy it won't happen by becoming a subsidary of the Democratic Party.

The only way to get respect is to go out and BEAT some Democrats and Republicans. Start electing some Green school board members and county commissoners and city councilpersons and mayors and then both parties will start taking the Greens seriously. Demonstrate some voting clout on a local and statewide basis first and then over time the Greens can build enough strength to run viable candidates for President or U.S. Senator.

I don't see how you can change a corrupt system of two corporate political parties by cozying up to one or both. If Jesse Ventura could break the two-party stranglehold, what's stopping the Greens?

Hmmm- the art of politics is to define your enemy more than to even define yourself. I think any "giving" of ground by supporting green candidates (I guess this is the only way this would be doable, not to mention the money for running itself, as fundraising is important as pressing the flesh etc unfortunately) would allow the repubs to define the dems, a huge mistake.

I beg to differ, but locals have ENORMOUS impact on the enviromental issues, more than the state and fed, simply because of the power of the "nimby".

If the dems feel the greens have good ideas, they should co-opt them, and I feel that they would do good co-opting much of the libertarian platform. This is really how Clinton worked, is that he co-opted the palatable parts of the conservative platform, or even fairly large chunks of it.

The current opposition status of the dem party may be very helpful to it in the long run, it can dump the things that have caused it to lose power, and pull in the third party viable voters that are atracted to some of the issues.

I think the dems could do well to adopt green issues that allow developement, but not the peta poeple crap. The getting rid of "victimless" crimes part of the libertarians, and perhaps even advocate some civil liberties expansions as an amendment that permanently negate the possible passage of patriot act legislation without an amendment as well etc. Maybe drop thier stance on gun control and go neutral on the platform.

Sure, they shoud, just as the Republicans should move over for the Libertarians. Why either major party would want to help a minor party that might eventually replace them if they ever attracted enough notice is beyond me, but it would make things interesting. How about this? The Republicans should give up the House, Senate and the White House to the Libertarians and see how that goes. Not likely, huh? I'd settle for ballot access without having to constantly struggle for it and inclusion in the debates.

I never suggested the Democrats should give up the House, Senate, and White House for the Greens, just low level political offices (like city councils). Another advantage I see if the Democrats did this is that it would throw the Republicans off balance -- the Democrats could use that to their advantage for the '04 elections. The Greens plan on running a presidential candidate. If the Democrats did agree to give up lower level offices to Greens, the Green presidential candidate would back out of the race.

I like the topic that you have brought up, I'm sure that as election 2004 gets closer, those of us varying "liberal" stripes will face another internal struggle as to whether or not vote democrat if Nader decides to run again.

Your third point is one that I have somewhat mixed feelings about. In my state, the state democratic party spends zero dollars on local elections. The county party puts up those funds, and a small amount of it at that. The state party helps out a lot for races like governor and attorney general, but they do hold the purse strings tight if the candidate is perceived as having less than a 50% chance of winning. I feel that leaving the greens to have the local races would be counterproductive in my state. It's largely agricultural and sparsely populated. The congressional district that I live in is the size of Iowa. The greens are located in the two largest cities in the state, and that's about it. The green in my state do not have the resources or candidates to run for most local and state offices. As a matter of fact, they are only a ceritified party in two of our three districts. Perhaps your idea would be better off in states like New York, California, or Ohio. As for Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma, the plan would probably have negative consequences. Then again, I could be wrong, but it would be interesting to find out.

I think in states where it's legal Democrats on lower level positions should change their party allegiance to being Greens. This would draw the "liberals are a bad people" belief away from the Democrats and put it more on the Greens. Then the Democrats wouldn't have to worry so much about being called "bad liberals".

Well Flute, perhaps so. At the same time, the democrats have a broader base than the greens do. I don't deny that the democrats have many liberals, but they also have a large number of moderates and even (gasp!) conservatives. The greens are just too out there for many people.

There are two Green parties...

The Greens are a whole lot different from the democratic party or even the Green Party. Look at the platform of the party.

If the Green party wants a larger voice they can try to be more liberal democrats that makes more sense.

The G/GPUSA is a lot different than the Green Party of the United States. The latter group is much larger, and isn't as leftist as the former group. Ralph Nader rejected the former groups nomination and embrasced the GPUS(as opposed ot the G/GPUSA. In my own state, what I have noticed is that the party was really just Ralph Nader. He earned 5% in some areas, but that was about it. In off years, the Greens lost ballot access and the party really dwindled after the Nader campaign. The flood of volunteers and other interested people really did not translate into party support. Without Nader or a credible left individual, the party is dead in the water.

I don't know nebraska, I think the Green Party has been doing very well in elections without Nader. There are Democrats and Green Party members I've talked to who like the idea of Democrats giving up low level offices to Green Party members in exchange for the Green Party not running a presidential candidate.

I like your poltiics flute, Kucinich is a great guy, and I hope that he continues to get a lot done in the House. Unfortunately, he's not going to win. I don't mean to be a pessimist, but he's not moderate enough in his views to get the votes. I'm not sure if I have stated this in this thread or another, but here it goes. I use to be heavily active in the green party in my state. Out of our three districts(we only have 1.5 million or so people) the party is certified in only one. The highest percentage of votes that Nader received in a county was 5%. The party has grown since the Nader election? Now I know the party is floundering in a state like mine, but let's take one the Greens should win hands down easily every time, that being California. During the recall vote for Governor, Peter Camejo didn't fare that well. He earned 3% of the vote. That would be a whopping 212,000 some odd votes. How did the democrats do? Bustamante had 34% of the vote, or roughly 2.3 million. Want more??--consider the mayoral election of San Francisco. Now, you're talking about a truly progressive population here. You aren't talking about my area of the country, where a latte & biscotti is thought to be a new corn seed company. You are talking about the liberal of the liberal, the progressive of the progressive. Who won??-the embattled democratic mayor.

The point? Democrats should not give local elections to greens, because greens can't even beat democrats for those offices!! I love the greens platform, I think they have many great and dedicated people who could really do the democratic party some good. At the same time, I see the greens getting weaker. They're on the ropes and the only direction for them is down. Third parties come out swinging early on, but they fade in the middle rounds and disappear by the last ones. Hate to disappoint, at least they've kept some democrats honest in teh process.

So what's in it for the Greens if the Democrats don't give them city council offices in exchange for Greens not running a presidential candidate? I don't think the Greens are going down. If anything, they're going up. The Green Party, from what I understand, is the fastest growing political party and has the largest rallies. Most likely, the Greens will receive many votes in the next election simply because many Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act -- people won't be voting for Democrats next time.

First of all, I think that Kucinich has the ability to win the nomination. Most Democrats from what I've seen are liberal. That's why J.F. Kennedy was so popular. Second, the Greens are not getting weaker. If anything, they're getting stronger. The San Francisco mayor's race proved that. If Gonzalez had the money Newsom did, he probably would've won with a landslide. Newsom I think spent millions of dollars trying to win the San Francisco mayoral election. He should not have campaigned but instead let Gonzalez win the election - the money Newsom raised would've been better used to win back the White House. At this rate, the Democratic Party will be bankrupt by November and Democrats won't win the election.

Excuse me, don't voters determine who goes into office? The idea that Democrates have somehow earned a part of government to simply give to another party is absurd. Democrats would rather have their offices taken by Republicans than a Green Party member.... the Rs and Ds pretend to hate one another but they find strange cooperation when it comes to keeping 3rd parties at bay.

Thanks batmunk! I thought I remembered something about the voters having a say on that. But let's pretend for a moment that the Democrats could just "give away" lower level political offices to Green Party candidates (they seem to like to play "pretend"). The answer is a resounding NO! That would just perpetuate their dreams (our nightmares) of a complete Socialist Utopia. Let's also pretend that John F Kennedy was a "liberal" (one of the first things he did in office was propose drastic sweeping tax cuts for everyone including the rich, wealthy elite, and the "corporations." Furthermore, let's pretend that "Kucinich has the ability to win the nomination."

I don't think the Democrats will give away any of their seats. The only thing they seem to give away is other peoples money. Perhaps one day (perish the thought) the greens will persuade the voters that they can "give away" even more of "other peoples money." Until then, Vote Green. Or if not green nominate Kucinich/Sharpton in 2004!!!

You think Kucinich can win?? What polls lead you to that conclusion? What state primaries and caucuses has he won? We know you #feel# that he can win, but what *proof* do you have that he has that ability? Comparing Kennedy to Kucinich is not a good comparison. Kennedy came from a loaded family with many resources, that allowed him to get elected. Kennedy's liberalism aside, he was a staunch anti-communist and sent more advisors to Vietnam than his predecessor did.

You think the amount of money in a mayoral race would tip the balance for the presidency? First, people give to candidates. The fact that the green party candidate couldn't match him is proof that the green candidate did not have the support of the greater number of people. The "grassroots" backed the democrat.

The democratic party will be bankrupt????? What do you base that on? Do you have a newspaper article? Do you have any source for that? Have the democrats stopped raising money? Is Barbara Streisand and Hillary Clinton's supporters all of a sudden unemployed??