| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Green Party in California trying to stem shrinking numbers |
| 2010-03-09 |
| Faced with diminishing numbers, a threatening ballot measure and the perpetual challenge of being a small third party in a two-party system, the California Green Party may be fading to chartreuse. But that won't happen if a hardy core of delegates, who gathered in San Jose over the weekend for a semiannual state meeting, have their way. Still, the Greens couldn't even hold the attention of their own members. By Sunday, the meeting had shrunk by half to 40 people. Even its two candidates for governor, Laura Wells of Oakland and Deacon Alexander of Los Angeles, skipped Sunday's talks on platform and procedures. Five years ago, there were 158,000 registered Greens, or 0.95 percent of California voters. By January this year, the number had shrunk to 111,000, or 0.66 percent of the electorate. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #11 Probably the best PR system around is the multi-member, single vote system. The Irish use this system as do elections to the Australian senate. You get to vote for the man woman of your choice, and choose between candidates from the same party. Because excess votes are transfered to the person from your party with the next highest number of votes, the overall result accurately reflects total votes cast. A party has to get around 15% (in Ireland) in a constituency to elect a member, so it is also good for reflecting regional issues. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-03-09 22:31 |
| #10 another advantage with the American system: voters get an opportunity (through primaries) to oppose their party being hijacked by a minority (Ok sometimes get an Obama). In proportional system you, have zero chancesgto do something aboutyour (big) party dancing to the tune of a small one represnting those 2% votes it needs to get the majority. I agree with this analysis, but as far as the Democratic party is concerned, I believe Obama represents how a majority of them really feel. They've made good starts at nationalizing finance, _and_ the automobile industry, and they don't even think they're governing if they're not nationalizing a new industry this month. (The current target is health, and the next one after that is energy). |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-03-09 12:52 |
| #9 Of course they're dying off - most of 'em are too stupid to breathe. |
| Posted by: mojo 2010-03-09 12:18 |
| #8 You'd think with a name like the Green Party they'd be concerned about the environment. But their primary concerns are socialism and gay marriage. They're a bunch of kooks and even Kaliphornia voters won't support them. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-03-09 11:57 |
| #7 another advantage with the American system: voters get an opportunity (through primaries) to oppose their party being hijacked by a minority (Ok sometimes get an Obama). In proportional system you, have zero chancesgto do something aboutyour (big) party dancing to the tune of a small one represnting those 2% votes it needs to get the majority. Also a problem with the proportional system: regionalisms. You have a party in region who has say 5% off teh regional vote and 1% nationally. But they are still in position to be kingmakers. That means they will get concessions from the would-be governing parties andmore importantly the means to brainwash children (control of scholls) so future generations become more and more radical, until they ask for independency. That is how Spain is imploding. In a a majority system vote swings give majorities of 100 representatives or more so the national parties don't need to bow in front of the nationalist parties in order to get 10 reprenstatives elected in their region. So the independentists don't get credit for bringing funds to the region and they don't get control of the schol. |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-03-09 11:53 |
| #6 #3 ROTFLMAO |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-03-09 11:46 |
| #5 In the US if you have a small party you might still gain influence with those in one of the big two who are always trolling for votes and inclusive with the big tent idea. In most cases if the small party isn't entirely nutty their ideas find their way in without the small party being able to hold a coalition hostage because they demand Ferret-laws be changed and it isn't happening fast enough. For example the LIbertarian ideas find their way into the Republican party from time to time. if not, we get Tea Parties which force the Republicans to reconsider. Or another example is the Greens. There ideas have been entirely looted by the Democrats so what do they really have to offer except an impossibly slim chance of winning an election? I think the US system tends to work well. If third parties were serious and had something unique to offer they'd storm the local and state elections with victories before even considering the national jobs. Instead they hitch their wagon to a big name (Nader, Perot, Ventura) and fade away when the Cult of Personality fades. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2010-03-09 10:44 |
| #4 And lets be honest, small party or big party, that all do not want to give the American voter the choice on the ballot of "None of the Above" for fear of the consequences when NA gets the plurality. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-09 08:59 |
| #3 In proportional representation if a party puts a pedophile (or a scammer, like in Israel some years ago, OK he only scammed foreigners) first position he will be elected In proportional represntation, representatives have to bow in front of party leadership because the leaders decide who will be in "guaranted to be elected" or "guaranteed to not be elcted" position". In proportional represntation voters have no saying in which parties will govern. It is negoatio between paarty leasderrs totally behind their backs. In proportaional represntation sme small party represnting 5% of the people holds the keys to governemnt and the larger ones (that is those who represent far more people have to bow in front of it. In proportional represntation losing votes is no problem as long as you are needed to form goverment (minor party) or you + minor party over 50% (major party). In proportional representation you don't have democracy but partitocracy. |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-03-09 04:33 |
| #2 In proportional representation extremists have their own small parties---releasing the steam presure. In winner take all, extremists have no choice but to take over a major party. For example: US democrats & ultra-left. And wait until religious-right takes ofer republican party. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-03-09 04:02 |
| #1 "A 17th-century electoral system keeps minor parties minor," Stauffer said. Under a modern European parliamentary system minority parties would still be minor, but combined in a more popular coalition can have their policies advanced or codified. That is why the American left is so in love with Euro-socialism |
| Posted by: badanov 2010-03-09 00:11 |