To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Here's what this anonymous guy wrote to me a couple days ago, you're not gonna like paragraph 3:
From: John Doe . . . Subject: Hey there To: fairleft . . . Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 9:51 AM I hope you don't mind this email, but I saw some of your posts about the "Green New Deal", and I saw you were wondering what "GreenChange" exactly was. First off, some of the suspicions of the poster named "blues" is correct, it's a front for the Green Party. It should indeed be advertised more transparently, as the owner of the site I believe is the second in command (in essence) to the California Greens. Dave Schwab, one of their administrators, also writes for a site called "Green Party Watch". However, frankly, his rants on IRV are simply wrong. He sounds like one of those trolls who follows every single article on the internet that mentions IRV, and spams their comment section with how "evil" IRV is, and how "range voting" is the best solution, etc. etc. Essentially a crackpot, and I believe he/she is one of those same people from the range voting organization. IRV is no pancea no doubt, but it's certainly a significant improvement, and a realistic reform in the US. But back to GreenChange, essentially it is what you suspect. It's a site to play the role of pulling in authentic leftists to the Green Party, and to build the Green Party. They don't like hearing about other leftwing parties (such as the successful Vermont Progressive Party, or the Independent Party of Oregon), and generally frame their issues between Democrats Vs. Greens. Some of them also don't like it when recommended to join non partisan reform groups, such as "Free & Equal", which has helped the Greens in the past, and even been talked about positively @ GreenChange. All in all, extremely biased towards the Green Party. There's also some silly new age fruitcakes on the site, but it's a "Green" site, so that generally comes with the territory. It's also not the best built website, but it seems to be slowly growing, and despite it shortfalls, I'd still keep my eye on it. If nothing else, the US needs a new progressive third party to gain some steam.
I hope you don't mind this email, but I saw some of your posts about the "Green New Deal", and I saw you were wondering what "GreenChange" exactly was.
First off, some of the suspicions of the poster named "blues" is correct, it's a front for the Green Party. It should indeed be advertised more transparently, as the owner of the site I believe is the second in command (in essence) to the California Greens. Dave Schwab, one of their administrators, also writes for a site called "Green Party Watch".
However, frankly, his rants on IRV are simply wrong. He sounds like one of those trolls who follows every single article on the internet that mentions IRV, and spams their comment section with how "evil" IRV is, and how "range voting" is the best solution, etc. etc. Essentially a crackpot, and I believe he/she is one of those same people from the range voting organization. IRV is no pancea no doubt, but it's certainly a significant improvement, and a realistic reform in the US.
But back to GreenChange, essentially it is what you suspect. It's a site to play the role of pulling in authentic leftists to the Green Party, and to build the Green Party. They don't like hearing about other leftwing parties (such as the successful Vermont Progressive Party, or the Independent Party of Oregon), and generally frame their issues between Democrats Vs. Greens. Some of them also don't like it when recommended to join non partisan reform groups, such as "Free & Equal", which has helped the Greens in the past, and even been talked about positively @ GreenChange. All in all, extremely biased towards the Green Party. There's also some silly new age fruitcakes on the site, but it's a "Green" site, so that generally comes with the territory. It's also not the best built website, but it seems to be slowly growing, and despite it shortfalls, I'd still keep my eye on it. If nothing else, the US needs a new progressive third party to gain some steam.
My response:
Thanks! Like I've said in a comment somewhere, the ten basic planks are extremely good and clear compared to the norm, and I hope the ten become a powerful phenomenon independent of the usual compromised politics and backstage shenanigans of political parties. fairleft
Like I've said in a comment somewhere, the ten basic planks are extremely good and clear compared to the norm, and I hope the ten become a powerful phenomenon independent of the usual compromised politics and backstage shenanigans of political parties.
fairleft
IRV has been tried in some places, and then promptly abolished. This presumably has poisoned the chances for methods that could actually provide real choices for voters. All because the Rockefeller brothers launched their gigantic anti-democratic PR operation promoting IRV!
I am not a proponent of range voting, but I hope to soon discuss a little-known, very simple and practical voting method that would be 100 times better than plurality or IRV.
Also:
The Pirate Party!
