• Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    I just want you to understand how this sounds when it’s flipped:

    Yes, but then being unwilling to take any concession is not. The democrat party could, for example, pull itself off of ballots in key states or elections when the Greens agree to their policies.

    It may be easier to identify this way that this is not a reasonable position, no matter which party it is about.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If the Democrats were the minority party to the green party then yes, this is still sound. This is how politics works in FPTP election systems. You may not like it, but it’s not unreasonable. If the purpose of the green party is to get its policies enacted then the best way for that is pushing and endorsing when concessions are made.

      Heck, for a lot of its positions the best thing the green party could do is run for local and state level positions. But they don’t do that, they only run for presidential positions. They waste a ton of time and money getting nothing done. You only hear about the green party once every 4 years which is why they are unserious.

      And I’m not even saying they can’t keep doing their dumb campaigns. However, they work directly against their goals by running in contested states. The green party pulls votes from Democrats which are the most in line party with the green party goals. By running in contested states they help Republicans get elected. Of the green party was more than just a joke or a rat fuck, they’d mainly be running in states like Idaho or California.