The Green Party members themselves spread the green lemon-lime Flavor Aid talking points.

[LoZoccolo]

(Flavor-Aid was the actual brand of punch used by Jim Jones.)

An editorial ran in the Detroit News by Douglas Campbell, who was the Green Party candidate for governor in 2002 and 2006:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061114/OPINION01/611140358/1022/POLITICS

In it, he reiterates the same tired lemon-lime Flavor Aid talking points that you've seen polluting the netroots blogosphere:

- He complains about Democratic funding, while the Green Party has been taking Rick Santorum spoiler money (he calls it "the Green Party way").
- He pretends that he couldn't have had an effect on the election because "minority votes don't win", and acts like it's completely illogical for us to blame the Greens.
- He then blames everyone for not implementing instant runoff voting so people can "express themselves" with their first choice and then make a responsible decision with their second.
- He says we need more than two political parties without saying why.

I have seen these plastered all over in the guise of promoting democracy; now that you see a Green Party member himself trying to further inundate this, you have to wonder if the green lemon-lime Flavor Aid might really coming out of the buckets of the Green Party itself.

[ixion]

1. personally, I'm in favor of opening access to other parties.

I think it would keep both dems and repugs more on their toes, and less likely to do things like win the majority and then lay back and preserve the status quo.

The status quo is what is causing the trouble, and it needs to be changed.

Just my two cents.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Oh, but the Democrats are not preserving the status quo.

Pelosi's plan calls for action in the first hundred hours where there's usually a plan for the first hundred days.

[ixion]

5. and I'm very hopeful that Pelosi and the new congress will follow through

but I've been let down too many times in the past to get excited about this now, and I still think it's beneficial to have more than two parties.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Why?

I'd like to hear your argument in the face of simple math.

[ixion]

7. the simple math:

a) Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there will be only two parties. Rather, two parties who currently hold power tip the playing field to marginalize candidates from other parties, effectively shutting them out of the election process. Ironically, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, as such, existed when the Constitution was written.

b) In group dynamics, it is better to have
i) More than two parties in a group, for decision making purposes.
ii) More parties means a greater diversity of opinion.

For example: I haven't heard a mainstream politician champion things I'm truly concerned about, like eliminating the so-called War on Drugs and it's ugly younger brother, the so-called War on Terror. I haven't heard people talking about rolling back the unPATRIOTic Act, or the Military Commissions Act, or the TSA or TIA or the OSP. Nope, all of that stuff is still floating around out there, as unconstitutional as ever.

I want results. I was very disappointed with Clinton when he accelerated the WoD, rather than bring back realism. He continued the fantasy, rather than breathing rational thought into the debate.

I'm waiting to see if that happens again. I'm waiting to see if someone starts being rational, rather than just continuing the narrative.

That remains to be seen. And it would be more difficult to maintain the narrative, if there were more than two parties.

All the more reason, IMO.

Hope this helps. :hi:

[LoZoccolo]

8. Everyone is going to see through this lame argument.

This is not "group dynamics"; this is an election. It is good to have more people voicing their opinions, but only one decision can be made as to who should sit in a seat.

[ixion]

9. gee, thanks for that rational comeback

:eyes:

one decision is fine. More than two parties makes who gets to sit in that seat more of a competition, rather than a secret club, which is exactly what it is now.


And yes, it's very, very much about group dynamics and collective behavior. How do you think the rethugs have held onto power?

[LoZoccolo]

10. Which is stupid, because it demonstrably gets Republicans elected.

White upper/middle class college students vote for people like Nader and poor people in Louisiana drown, amongst a thousand other things.

[jilln]

3. Do you really need to hear why we need more than two parties?

Or are you convinced that the two parties we have adequately represent everyone?

[LoZoccolo]

4. ...dot dot dot... n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

11. I think this year's election results prove

that the Greens haven't finished their work yet. Don't worry, though, they'll finish handing government to the Republicans yet.

[LoZoccolo]

12. It's best for them to start with a state legislature.

Like Michigan, for instance. That way, the Republicans can carve up the congressional districts in a key swing state.

_{NOTE: This post is sarcastic.}

[Buzz Clik]

13. Another anti-Green post? Somebody needs a hobby...

[LoZoccolo]

14. That's like complaining about anti-Republican posts.

They are both enemies of the Democratic Party.