Green Party Loses Its Only State Legislator in Country to Dems

[Badger]

While we're on the subject of party switching to the Democrats:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/29/national/a122556D86.DTL

IIRC, the Constitution Party has one state senator in Montana, and of course the Progressives have several in Vermont. But now neither the Greens or the Libertarians have any state legislators in the entire country. Must be the stranglehold of the 2 party system and big money of the two main parties keeping them down. That's the only realistic possibility that keeps them from mounting a successful grass roots campaign in any of the thousands of state legislature seats nationwide, some with only a couple thousand registered voters to reach.

It couldn't possibly be that there's simply no need for a party that are redundant spoilers to their own liberal base, or another party that simply has no relevant or workable policy proposals that would appeal to anyone outside a few economic doctoral students. Nah, couldn't be....

[Verily]

He only won election because the Democratic incumbent was bounced off the ballot when there was no Republican running. (I don't recall the reason the incumbent got tossed, but I think it was criminal.) The Greens last legitimately elected someone in Maine from 2002-2006; John Eder lost his Portland seat to the Democrats in 2006.

[Rowan]

Who cares? The Green Party has always been irrelevant and for good reason.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Rick Jore, the Constitution Party state rep from Montana in question, was term-limited out in 2008, as he was previously in the legislature as a Republican. So now the only third-party legislators are the Vermont Progressive Party caucus and one Working Families assemblyperson in New York.

It's not a surprise Carroll switched, since he was a Democrat, he just used the Green Party's ballot access because it was easier than trying to run a write-in campaign.

[Badger]

So now the only third-party legislators are the Vermont Progressive Party caucus and one Working Families assemblyperson in New York.

And I'll bet that NY assemblyperson was a fusion candidate who also had the Democratic Party line on the ballot.

[Verily]

There's also an Independence Party member of the NY Assembly.

[Joe Republic]

Of all the states to be the only one to have a Green legislator, I wasn't expecting it to be Arkansas.

[jimrtex]

He only won election because the Democratic incumbent was bounced off the ballot when there was no Republican running. (I don't recall the reason the incumbent got tossed, but I think it was criminal.) The Greens last legitimately elected someone in Maine from 2002-2006; John Eder lost his Portland seat to the Democrats in 2006.

The Democratic party bounced the only candidate who filed off the ballot.  Dwayne Dobbins had been a representative before, but resigned as part of a plea bargain to a misdemeanor harassment charge (to avoid a felony sexual assault charge on a minor).   His wife (who was not the minor) then served as representative for a couple of terms, and was expected to file for re-election.  Minutes before the deadline, he filed as the only candidate.

The Democratic Party refused to certify his nomination, and his court appeals to be placed on the ballot failed.  The Arkansas House also passed a resolution that would bar someone who plea bargained to avoid a felony charge from serving.  The vote was 86-1 with Dobbin's wife being the sole dissenting vote.

Richard Carroll had approached the Democratic Party to run as their candidate, but would have had had to been a write-in candidate.  He then got the Green Party nomination.  In the general election he easily defeated two write-in candidates (there was a 38% undervote).

[justfollowingtheelections]

Of all the states to be the only one to have a Green legislator, I wasn't expecting it to be Arkansas.

Arkansas actually has a relatively strong Green Party mainly because the state Democratic party is so conservative.

[Hash]

I think Arkansas was one of McKinney's "best" states last year, whatever that means (0.3% instead of 0.1% probably).

[they don't love you like i love you]

I think Arkansas was one of McKinney's "best" states last year, whatever that means (0.3% instead of 0.1% probably).

Nate Silver has theorized that McKinney's support was mostly PUMAs, so there you go.

[minionofmidas]

I think Arkansas was one of McKinney's "best" states last year, whatever that means (0.3% instead of 0.1% probably).

Nate Silver has theorized that McKinney's support was mostly PUMAs, so there you go.

Which says a lot about PUMAs...

Somebody got a county map of McKinney's support in Arkansas and Louisiana? That should settle it, shouldn't it?

[°Leprechaun]

Who cares? The Green Party has always been irrelevant and for good reason.

If it were irrelevant you wouldn't have wasted your time writing the above.

[°Leprechaun]

Third parties don't do well because the two main undemocratic parties do everything in their power to keep them off the ballot. Write ins are seen as irrelevant or not counted at all. However, if given a choice between the two undemocrats in an election, I will write in, "undervote", or not vote at all.

Take PA for example. Anyone who thinks 'single bullet' Specter is not the biggest fraud since snake oil is retarded. As far as I'm concerned PA has two DINOS in the US Senate.
Thank God for THIRD PARTIES!!!!!!!! (and that's coming from an atheist)

[Meeker]

I think Arkansas was one of McKinney's "best" states last year, whatever that means (0.3% instead of 0.1% probably).

Nate Silver has theorized that McKinney's support was mostly PUMAs, so there you go.

Which says a lot about PUMAs...

Somebody got a county map of McKinney's support in Arkansas and Louisiana? That should settle it, shouldn't it?

Al has one somewhere. He's probably a little busy at the moment though.

[Vepres]

Third parties don't do well because the two main undemocratic parties do everything in their power to keep them off the ballot. Write ins are seen as irrelevant or not counted at all. However, if given a choice between the two undemocrats in an election, I will write in, "undervote", or not vote at all.

Ballot access is definitely part of the problem. I would say though that the problem is more the third parties' attitudes. They are ideological purists who make the current Republican party look like a big tent coalition. This automatically hurts the third party candidates. A third party must have principles, but they must accept candidates who disagree with them on a mere 10%-20% of the issues (the GOP should do this too, though they are established and at least somewhat more accepting than third parties). In addition to that, the parties focus too much on the presidential and congressional elections. Start small, build a good reputation in city and county governments. Then slowly increase to state legislators and so on. By the way, though the two parties reinforce the two-party system, the people chose to have one by only voting for two large parties.

[Vepres]

Third parties don't do well because the two main undemocratic parties do everything in their power to keep them off the ballot. Write ins are seen as irrelevant or not counted at all. However, if given a choice between the two undemocrats in an election, I will write in, "undervote", or not vote at all.

Ballot access is definitely part of the problem. I would say though that the problem is more the third parties' attitudes. They are ideological purists who make the current Republican party look like a big tent coalition. This automatically hurts the third party candidates. A third party must have principles, but they must accept candidates who disagree with them on a mere 10%-20% of the issues (the GOP should do this too, though they are established and at least somewhat more accepting than third parties). In addition to that, the parties focus too much on the presidential and congressional elections. Start small, build a good reputation in city and county governments. Then slowly increase to state legislators and so on. By the way, though the two parties reinforce the two-party system, the people chose to have one by only voting for two large parties. Keep in mind there are advantages to a two-party system, even if you oppose it.

[Frodo]

Third parties don't do well because the two main undemocratic parties do everything in their power to keep them off the ballot. Write ins are seen as irrelevant or not counted at all. However, if given a choice between the two undemocrats in an election, I will write in, "undervote", or not vote at all.

Ballot access is definitely part of the problem. I would say though that the problem is more the third parties' attitudes. They are ideological purists who make the current Republican party look like a big tent coalition. This automatically hurts the third party candidates. A third party must have principles, but they must accept candidates who disagree with them on a mere 10%-20% of the issues (the GOP should do this too, though they are established and at least somewhat more accepting than third parties). In addition to that, the parties focus too much on the presidential and congressional elections. Start small, build a good reputation in city and county governments. Then slowly increase to state legislators and so on. By the way, though the two parties reinforce the two-party system, the people chose to have one by only voting for two large parties.

Agreed -the Greens barely have a presence on the San Francisco City Council, and none at all in Seattle.  If they have to struggle to win even municipal seats in cities one would expect to be at least contested battlegrounds between Greens and Democrats, what chance do they have on the state or national levels? 

[Badger]

Third parties don't do well because the two main undemocratic parties do everything in their power to keep them off the ballot. Write ins are seen as irrelevant or not counted at all. However, if given a choice between the two undemocrats in an election, I will write in, "undervote", or not vote at all.

Ballot access is definitely part of the problem. I would say though that the problem is more the third parties' attitudes. They are ideological purists who make the current Republican party look like a big tent coalition. This automatically hurts the third party candidates. A third party must have principles, but they must accept candidates who disagree with them on a mere 10%-20% of the issues (the GOP should do this too, though they are established and at least somewhat more accepting than third parties). In addition to that, the parties focus too much on the presidential and congressional elections. Start small, build a good reputation in city and county governments. Then slowly increase to state legislators and so on. By the way, though the two parties reinforce the two-party system, the people chose to have one by only voting for two large parties.

Agreed -the Greens barely have a presence on the San Francisco City Council, and none at all in Seattle.  If they have to struggle to win even municipal seats in cities one would expect to be at least contested battlegrounds between Greens and Democrats, what chance do they have on the state or national levels? 

Vepres & Frodo have it right. Though IMHO state assembly seats are a more solid basis for forming a party as municipal council races tend to be less party-partisan and a state legislative agenda is a better way of showing a distinction between the major parties than mundane pothole repair issues that most city officials deal with.

The other weakness with US third parties is that the 2 major parties are ideologically such big tents, particularly compared with European parties. Why vote for a Green candidate when any district liberal enough to be sympathetic to their platform will likely have a hardcore left-winger running as a Democrat? Ditto for the Constitution Party being pre-empted by hard core conservative candidates running as Republicans. All the while the 2 major parties can include relative extremist candidates from the wings as well as moderates like Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe.

On that note, I think most leftists in this county are too scared by Nader's 2000 campaign giving us 8 years of Bush & Cheney to consider seriously supporting the Greens any time in the foreseeable future.

The Libertarians could possibly find a niche in this left-right continuum if they truly had a socially liberal and economically conservative platform like we all learned in high school government class. In fact their social policy is more anti-federalist than liberal. While a libertarian might personally oppose restrictions on abortion and homosexuality, the Party opposes the federal government/courts imposing a national mandate like Roe v. Wade and supports allowing the states to legislate such matters. Thus, other than promising to end the War on Drugs, the Libertarian Party is a de facto conservative party which accordingly winds up pre-empted by conservative Republican candidates appealing to sympathizers as an electable alternative.