"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."

  • Chapelgentry@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 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.

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 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.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 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.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 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.