Here’s the problem: Trump is out to maximize environmental damage and the US Green Party runs as spoilers. Let’s look at three scenarios:
Scenario 1:
Harris: 1001 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 0 votes
Harris wins
Scenario 2:
Harris: 1000 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 1 vote
Tied vote, which goes to the courts and Congress, putting Trump in power
Scenario 3:
Harris: 999 votes
Trump: 1000 votes
Stein: 2 votes
Trump wins outright
This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward. Republicans know this, which is why they’re the ones funding the Green Party.
And that’s why the European Greens want Jill Stein to step down now — they get that what she’s doing is making it easier to elect a fascist bent on environmental destruction.
Or just run in deep blue districts to challenge sure-thing Democratic moderates who slow walk progressive stuff. You’d think that’d be where their best chances are while also being the places where the impact would be strictly beneficial.
Someone else suggested running in places like Alaska, which has RCV, or focus upon local races. The reason Conservatives are having a moment is because they focused on races they could win.
Green Party, meanwhile, seems content to lose and be a spoiler.
Conservatives do well because their ideology is compatible with the interests of capital. No party that is a serious challenge to those interests can win any notable power through elections in the US.
As far as the idea of focusing on local races: If your main concern is immediate and substantial action on climate, what good would winning a local race do for you? Yeah maybe it would be easier to get a left wing candidate on a school board or whatever, but that’s because it holds no meaningful power.
Not that I think they have any particular chance of success at the national level. I’ve just found that “local races” argument… most charitably put, confusing, less charitably: bad faith or willfully missing the point.
It’s too complicated to go into a lot of detail here, but the “local” argument is relying upon the effects of local influence and effects over time. Sure, it won’t move the global needle, but it would affect the local population in a positive way, and many politicians get their start at the local level first. Local laws and ordinances affect your day to day, and that’s why it matters.
However, it’s too late for them to get in locally. They should have been trying 20 years ago, at least. They could still try, but they will have missed the opportunity to actually do anything about climate via the levers of government. It’s essentially up to Democrats and independents who caucus with them, now.