“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
Could it be because they currently exist only as a spoiler party for the presidential election? The media doesn’t have a vested interest in not covering them, that’s republican “fake news” talk. Media LOVES conflict.
It seems that way because the Greens operate on a local and state level between presidential elections, by design:
The success of the 2000 Nader campaign had an ironic backlash among progressives – some on the left faulted Nader and the Green Party for the defeat of Democrat Al Gore. In 2004, the Greens nominated attorney David Cobb for president and labor activist Pat LaMarche for vice president. Cobb, a longtime Green leader, pledged to use the presidential campaign primarily to build the party. His campaign’s goals included increasing Green Party membership, helping local candidates and initiatives, and creating state and local chapters where they did not yet exist.
Cobb also felt that Greens should emphasize the need for Instant Runoff Voting, and that if there were a relatively “progressive” Democratic candidate, most Green resources should be focused on those states where the Electoral College votes are not “in play” (which is most states). He saw this as necessary for Greens to appeal to a broad swath of the population.
The media chooses to not cover the Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, the Working Families Party, or any socialist parties because that would give them credibility and undermine the capitalist controlled two-party message.
I am not defending the Green Party. I will not vote for them. But the narrative that is being pushed to suppress third party support is detrimental to democracy.
