>There must be something wrong with my argument, because at least to me
>this strategy seems head and shoulders over running yet another national
>candidate who you know can't win. This way, you get the coverage you're
>looking for, you've got a much better chance of building a party, and
>unlike another Nader whinefest, you could actually _win_ something! So
>what am I missing?
They are thinking strategically. Here's the thinking:
>A strong Green ticket will force the
>establishment to address the failures of the electoral system, and to
>choose between the implementation of reforms such as Instant Runoff
>Voting (IRV), and the continued loss of votes to the Greens.
There has to be a reform of the primitive and undemocratic electoral system before the greens can achieve real influence. It follows that at least one of the existing parties have to get on board. If the greens stand aside for the Democrats because the existing electoral system would otherwise disenfranchise a majority of voters, then they are not only allowing the democrats off the hook, but failing to grasp an opportunity to raise public awareness of the flaws in that system.
You think the Democrats will willingly fight for an electoral system which advantages minority parties unless they are also disadvantaged by the present system? You have to be made to bleed until you catch on.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas