SANDERS MOVEMENT
June 7, 2016


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2016/06/05/voices-sanders-forces-could-become-dems-tea-party/85250154/

Voices: Sanders forces could become Dems' Tea Party
Paul Singer, USA TODAY
4:57 p.m. EDT June 6, 2016

USA TODAY -- Sanders camp: Better options for DNC chair out there than Wasserman Schultz


Bernie Sanders may never be president of the United States, but his campaign may well make Congress even less manageable for whoever holds that job next year.

Congress has become increasingly polarized over the past few decades as both parties have become less ideologically diverse. The Brookings Institution has some fascinating graphics showing the ideological purity of the two parties. In the 1970s and 80s, the two parties spread like butterfly wings, Democrats ranging across the center and left side of the spectrum, Republicans spread across the center and right. in 1990, there were still a dozen or so Republicans who had a more liberal voting record than the most conservative Democrats.

But by 2012 the graph had changed, with the parties looking more like undifferentiated clumps — a red clump of lawmakers packed together on the right, and a blue clump of Democrats clustered on the left. There is basically no shared middle ground.

Six years ago, the rise of the Tea Party exacerbated this problem as grass-roots activists demanded a take-no-prisoners, brook-no-compromise approach from Republicans in Congress. With congressional districts largely gerrymandered into one-party dominance, the biggest challenge to Republicans in Congress has been not a Democratic challenger, but a Republican primary opponent accusing the incumbent of being too cozy with the Democrats. This pitchfork-wielding wing of the GOP ousted Speaker John Boehner a year ago, in part because it was peeved that he would not threaten another government shutdown in a budget dispute with the Obama administration.

Bernie Sanders' movement may be the tip of a purification purge in the Democratic ranks. Sanders himself has pushed Hillary Clinton to the left on issues such as a nationwide increase in the minimum wage. His campaign team has made it clear that it intends to arrive at the Democratic convention with a series of demands for shifting the party platform to the left on issues ranging from health care to campaign finances, and for bringing more non-Democrats into the primary system.

Sanders has also accused Democratic National Committee chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of manipulating party rules to give Clinton a leg up in nominating contests. Wasserman Schultz is facing a Democratic primary challenger for the first time in more than a decade, and Sanders has endorsed her opponent, political newcomer Tim Canova, who accuses Wasserman Schultz of being allied with "big corporate interests."

It is striking that the grass-roots liberal outrage against the party establishment comes as the Democratic congressional delegation is at it most ideologically unified point. The centrists/moderates have mostly retired or been defeated by Republicans, and Democratic leaders have faced no revolt from the left. But that is what Sanders appears to want to push.

It is also striking that the rebellion comes as the party controls neither the House nor the Senate — precisely the situation Republicans faced when Tea Party activists demanded a harder turn to the right. This is part of the reason liberals are frustrated with Washington: The minority party has almost no power to advance its agenda in Congress, particularly in the House.

House Democrats actually scored a surprising upset recently by managing to add a gay rights protection measure to a multibillion-dollar energy spending bill. Their success was short-lived as majorities in both parties then turned around and voted the whole bill down. It probably didn't matter much. The White House had already threatened to veto the bill, and there is almost no chance Congress will manage to pass the annual spending bills and get them signed by the president in an election year.

This is what divided government looks like from a seat in the congressional press gallery: Lawmakers of both parties maneuvering late into the night to add language that will kill a bill that was already dead anyway.

If Democrats launch an ideological cleansing similar to the one Republicans have been enduring for the past six years, they will need to win in a mighty wave and unseat the GOP majority in the House in order to achieve any legislative success. And even then, as the Tea Party discovered, it may not be enough to pass government-funded health care for all or sweeping campaign finance changes or other ideological priorities.

Short of a historic win, the #FeeltheBern crowd may end up simply making the Democratic caucus in Congress as unmanageable as the Republican caucus has become. Which would be fun to cover, I admit, but might not achieve much.

Singer is USA TODAY's Washington correspondent.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/25/bernie-sanders-jeff-weaver-debbie-wasserman-schultz/84911452/

Sanders camp: Better options for DNC chair out there than Wasserman Schultz
Eliza Collins, USA TODAY
6:21 p.m. EDT May 25, 2016

Photograph -- Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the DNC, bangs the gavel to call the convention to order at the 2012 convention. (Photo: H. Darr Beiser, USAT)


Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager said that he “think(s) someone else could play a more positive role” as chair of the Democratic National Committee than Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Jeff Weaver — who spoke to Fox News and CNN on Wednesday — was asked about reports of pressure to get rid of Wasserman Schultz as head of the party. On CNN’s At This Hour, Weaver was asked point blank if he wanted her out. He didn’t outright say that he did, saying “I’m trying to be diplomatic."

But Weaver did accuse Wasserman Schultz of being “unfair in many respects.”

“I just think that there’s been a pattern of conduct which calls into question whether she can really be the kind of unifying force that we really need,” Weaver said. “I think someone else could play a more positive role.”

On CNN, Weaver pointed to the debate schedules which had been set up by the DNC — many Democratic debates were over the weekend and the party held fewer than did the Republicans. Weaver also cited the DNC's decision to suspend Sanders' voter database in December.

On Fox & Friends Wednesday, Weaver said, “I do feel certainly that the process has not been fair as administered by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”

"I just think she became personally involved in this. Beyond politics, I think it became very personal for her and you know she has lashed out at the campaign, as I said on a number of occasions, these joint fundraising agreements which took money from state parties and gave it to the DNC. Or the latest, the standing committees that the convention where they tried to keep the Sanders people off,” Weaver said.

“There’s just been example after example, and I think it has become sort of personal and I think it’s really unfortunate because, really, Democrats should be working together after the convention, that’s for sure.”

The Sanders campaign has been openly critical of Wasserman Schultz and has endorsed and fundraised for her her primary challenger — Tim Canova.

Later Wednesday on CNN, former secretary of State Hillary Clinton's communication director, Brian Fallon, questioned the Sanders campaign's criticism of the chair.

“To be honest I don’t understand many of the criticisms that Bernie Sanders has made," Fallon said. He then listed off some of the issues he's heard Sanders and his campaign discuss in relation to Wasserman Schultz. "I'm not sure Debbie Wasserman Schulz bears any of the culpability for it."

"From our viewpoint, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a very dedicated leader for our party. There is nobody more committed to her, nobody more committed than her to making sure that Donald Trump is not the president in 2016 in November when we have the general election," Fallon said.



DEMS’ TEA PARTY -- “The Brookings Institution has some fascinating graphics showing the ideological purity of the two parties. In the 1970s and 80s, the two parties spread like butterfly wings, Democrats ranging across the center and left side of the spectrum, Republicans spread across the center and right. in 1990, there were still a dozen or so Republicans who had a more liberal voting record than the most conservative Democrats. But by 2012 the graph had changed, with the parties looking more like undifferentiated clumps — a red clump of lawmakers packed together on the right, and a blue clump of Democrats clustered on the left. There is basically no shared middle ground. …. Bernie Sanders' movement may be the tip of a purification purge in the Democratic ranks. Sanders himself has pushed Hillary Clinton to the left on issues such as a nationwide increase in the minimum wage. His campaign team has made it clear that it intends to arrive at the Democratic convention with a series of demands for shifting the party platform to the left on issues ranging from health care to campaign finances, and for bringing more non-Democrats into the primary system. …. Sanders has also accused Democratic National Committee chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of manipulating party rules to give Clinton a leg up in nominating contests. Wasserman Schultz is facing a Democratic primary challenger for the first time in more than a decade …. comes as the Democratic congressional delegation is at it most ideologically unified point. The centrists/moderates have mostly retired or been defeated by Republicans, and Democratic leaders have faced no revolt from the left. But that is what Sanders appears to want to push. …. the rebellion comes as the party controls neither the House nor the Senate — precisely the situation Republicans faced when Tea Party activists demanded a harder turn to the right. This is part of the reason liberals are frustrated with Washington: The minority party has almost no power to advance its agenda in Congress, particularly in the House. …. If Democrats launch an ideological cleansing similar to the one Republicans have been enduring for the past six years, they will need to win in a mighty wave and unseat the GOP majority in the House in order to achieve any legislative success.”

DNC CHAIR -- “On CNN’s At This Hour, Weaver was asked point blank if he wanted her out. He didn’t outright say that he did, saying “I’m trying to be diplomatic." But Weaver did accuse Wasserman Schultz of being “unfair in many respects.” “I just think that there’s been a pattern of conduct which calls into question whether she can really be the kind of unifying force that we really need,” Weaver said. “I think someone else could play a more positive role.” …. Weaver also cited the DNC's decision to suspend Sanders' voter database in December. On Fox & Friends Wednesday, Weaver said, “I do feel certainly that the process has not been fair as administered by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.” "I just think she became personally involved in this. Beyond politics, I think it became very personal for her and you know she has lashed out at the campaign, as I said on a number of occasions, these joint fundraising agreements which took money from state parties and gave it to the DNC. Or the latest, the standing committees that the convention where they tried to keep the Sanders people off,” Weaver said.”


The DNC has overplayed its’ hand in a way that is making loyal Democrats furious. It’s just possible that the controlling Clinton element in the party will not win after all. Despite their frequent boasts to the contrary, in their struggle against the left and center, as the Dems Tea Party article of June 6 describes our more liberal divisions, I believe their credibility will be severely damaged. Clinton has maintained that she is “centrist,” but todays article implies strongly that she is right of center, which Sanders has also stated. If she is centrist, I would think she would stand up for the environment, labor, the social safety net and the improvement of the grotesque economic divide by pushing for the $15.00 per hour minimum wage. To me, that’s what Democrats do.

I definitely have hope that the decidedly more ideologically pure Sanders group, of which I am a member, may well win significant changes in the way the nomination process has been run, the platform is constructed, the inclusion of more progressive members; and I am even more certain now that Sanders is a noticeably better candidate against the uncouth and only partially educated Donald Trump.

The Sanders campaign, according to recent polls, has more push among the American populace today than Clinton, who has “too much baggage” for the public taste. If Clinton is indicted for security irregularities, I don’t think she will keep all of her followers, which will put Sanders even farther ahead in the real election in November, and it may even disqualify her for the Presidency. Should Sanders get a position in the top tier of the party, I hope he will then put up a fight for regularization of the Democratic Party’s candidate nomination rules, so that several of our state Democratic Parties will not be running caucuses rather than normal votes. I want to go to a well-defined place, and cast my vote in ten minutes. I also don’t want any state manipulating and restricting the access of polling place/ballots, etc. as the Nevada party did last month. That was infuriating.

There is no fairness without more simplicity and uniformity. A situation in which a woman who has to work nights is unable to go to a location where, even if she does make it there on time, she has to stand on her feet for four or five hours while folks from the other competing groups are constantly coming up to harangue at her to change her vote. Frankly, the whole thing would diminish my patience to the point that I would try my luck with sending my vote through the mail, even though I don’t trust the anonymity of that, either. Chaos does not create greater fairness or intelligence. It just turns a lot of people who otherwise would be loyal voters off to such a degree that switching to the Independent party will look very attractive. I am actually considering leaving the Democrats for a new party behind Sanders, or register as unaffiliated.

Having just said that, I decided to investigate what that means as a practical matter. The following insightful article has quickly convinced me that if a Progressive Party is not formed and registered (however that has to be done), I won’t go as unaffiliated. In closed primary states, which Florida is, I would not only lose my vote in the primaries, but frequently in the General Election as well. Pardon my French, but that really sucks! More electoral unfairness!


http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/why-you-shouldnt-register-as-an-independent-voter-in-florida-8193027

Why You Shouldn't Register as an Independent Voter in Florida
BY KYLE MUNZENRIEDER
MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 AT 8:27 A.M.

Image -- Think twice before registering as an independent.


It's all the rage to register with no party affiliation in Florida. Independents now represent 24 percent of the electorate in the Sunshine State. Taking third-party registrants into account, that means 27 percent of Florida voters aren't affiliated with either major party. That's a dramatic shift from just two decades ago, when only 12 percent of Florida voters were neither Republican nor Democrat.

To put that into perspective, in 13 counties across the state, non-party-affiliated voters now outnumber one of the major parties. In Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach, independents outnumber Republicans.

In fact, both major parties actually lost voters in the past year, according to the State Department of Elections, while independents continued to grow.

That's great and all, except no one is actually sure what it means or why exactly this shift is occurring. There's also one major drawback to registering as an independent: In Florida, you aren't allowed to vote in primary elections unless you're registered with one of the two major parties.

Operating under the radical political ideology that more people voting in more elections makes for a better democracy (call us crazy!), we would like to point out a few reasons why you should reconsider registering as an independent in Florida.

You Can't Vote in Primaries

Florida is a closed primary state. That means only people registered with a party can vote in the party's primary election on the state and federal levels. This isn't the case in all states, but it is in Florida.

Thanks to a Weird Loophole, Sometimes You Can't Make a Meaningful Vote in the General Election, Either
There are some cases where a congressional district may lean so far in favor of one party that the other party doesn't even bother running a candidate in the general election. That means the election is actually decided in the primary. Imagine a Republican-leaning congressional district where a hard-core Tea Party-style conservative is facing a moderate mainstream Republican with no Democrat in the race. An independent might decide he wants to weigh in on that — and he can! Technically, when no other party has a candidate, state law opens the primary to all.

Except there's one strange loophole: If someone — literally anyone — registers as a write-in candidate for the general election, the primary remains closed. It's really easy to register as a write-in candidate, actually. There have been plenty of cases where the dominant party even recruits a nobody to run as a write-in just to close the primary. State lawmakers have tried to close the loophole, but the Tallahassee establishment can't seem to be bothered.

Yes, Primaries Do Present a Choice to Voters
Do primaries offer real choices? Honestly, sometimes they don't — when two mainstream party candidates square off, it's easy to feel apathetic. But this is Florida, and sometimes the primary choices are pretty drastic, especially for open seats.

Consider this: Marco Rubio is retiring from the U.S. Senate after his presidential run, and both parties have contested primaries for the seat featuring candidates from all over the ideological map.

The Democrats have Rep. Patrick Murphy, a consummate moderate who once donated to Mitt Romney, facing off against Rep. Alan Grayson, a strict progressive who once called Dick Cheney a "vampire." There's a whole lot of daylight between the two.

Meanwhile, Republicans are looking at a four-person primary in that race. Rep. Ron DeSantis is beloved by the Tea Party. Rep. David Jolly isn't a full-fledged moderate, but he's far closer to the center than DeSantis. Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera has never held federal office, but he's pretty much a Miami-Dade-style Republican. Todd Wilcox is a businessman who remains a bit of an ideological wildcard.

In any event, there are pretty clear choices on both sides of the aisle in a primary election that will be held in August. And indie voters will get zero say on either side of the race until the general.

Primaries Do Matter

Let's take our widely unpopular Gov. Rick Scott for example. He came out of nowhere to launch his outsider bid for governor, winning the Republican primary against heavily favored former state Attorney General Bill McCollum. Scott did that by only 3 percentage points. That's not exactly a razor-thin margin, but the race could have easily gone another direction — especially with a different makeup of voters at the polls. Pre-election polling showed McCollum was more popular with Hispanics and younger voters. Those are not only demographics that tend to show up less for primary elections, but they're also the same group that now tends to register more often as independents.

Of course, no one can say for certain that the growth in independent voters in Florida led directly to Scott's inglorious rise, but it might very well have made it much more likely.

Politicians Do Accurately Represent the Values of Americans — Who Vote Regularly
There's a lot of talk lately that politicians don't actually represent the values of real Americans. It's one of the big talking points behind folks who choose to register as independent. And it's true, actually!


INDEPENDENTS -- “Here's the dirty secret: Politicians do represent the values of Americans who vote regularly, especially on economic issues. Wealthier, older white people tend to vote more than anyone else. And guess what? Their interests are exactly those that most politicians choose to fight for. Eschewing the party system, ignoring the primaries, and going independent may be a tempting middle finger to the establishment — but don't expect to inspire the winning side to care about your issues.”



GREEN PARTY USA:

See the next article for a much better choice – the Green Party
June 7, 2016

I just signed the pledge and donated my meager $5.00. Do likewise if it appeals to you. The more the merrier. There is the need to switch back to Dems if you want to vote in the primaries. Read the articles below. Investigate in your local area what voting snafus can result from being a member of something other than the two dominant parties.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States

Green Party of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Green Party of the United States (GPUS or Greens) is a green, left-wing political party in the United States.

The party, which is the country's fourth-largest by membership, promotes environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice, participatory grassroots democracy, gender equality, feminism, LGBT rights, multiculturalism and anti-racism.

The GPUS was founded in 2001 as the evolution of the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP), which was formed in 1996. After its founding, the GPUS soon became the primary national green organization in the country, eclipsing the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA), which formed in 1991 out of the Green Committees of Correspondence (CoC), a collection of local green groups active since 1984. The ASGP had increasingly distanced itself from the G/GPUSA in the late 1990s.

The Greens gained widespread public attention during the 2000 presidential election, when the ticket composed of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke won 2.7% of the popular vote. Nader was vilified by many Democrats and even some Greens, who accused him of spoiling the election for Al Gore, the Democratic candidate.[5] Nader's impact on the 2000 election remains controversial.

The GPUS had several members elected in state legislatures, including in California, Maine and Arkansas. A number of Greens around the United States hold positions on the municipal level, including on school boards, city councils and as mayors.


Ideology

The GPUS follows the ideals of green politics, which are based on the Four Pillars of the Green Party: Ecological wisdom, Social justice, Grassroots democracy and Nonviolence. The "Ten Key Values,"[6] which expand upon the four pillars, are as follows:

1.Grassroots democracy
2.Social justice
3.Ecological wisdom
4.Nonviolence
5.Decentralization
6.Community-based economics
7.Feminism
8.Respect for diversity
9.Global responsibility
10.Future focus

The Green Party does not accept donations from corporations, political action committees (PACs), 527(c) organizations or soft money. The party's platforms and rhetoric harshly criticize any corporate influence and control over government, media, and society at large.[7]

History

Early years[edit]

The political movement that began in 1984 as the decentralized Committees of Correspondence[8] evolved into a more centralized structure by 1990, opening a national clearinghouse, and forming governing bodies, bylaws, and a platform as the Green Committees of Correspondence (GCoC), and by 1990, simply, The Greens. The organization conducted grassroots organizing efforts, educational activities, and electoral campaigns.

Internal divisions arose between members who saw electoral politics as ultimately corrupting and supported the notion of an "anti-party party" formed by Petra Kelly and other leaders of Die Grünen in Germany,[9] vs. those who saw electoral strategies as a crucial engine of social change. A struggle for the direction of the organization culminated a "compromise agreement," ratified in 1990 at the Greens National Congress in Elkins, West Virginia – in which both strategies would be accommodated within the same 527 political organization renamed the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA). The G/GPUSA was recognized by the FEC as a national political party in 1991.

The compromise agreement subsequently collapsed and two Green Party organizations have co-existed in the United States since. The Green Politics Network was organized in 1990 and The National Association of Statewide Green Parties formed by 1994. Divisions between those pressing to break onto the national political stage and those aiming to grow roots at the local level continued to widen during the 1990s. The Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) encouraged and backed Nader's presidential runs in 1996 and 2000. By 2001, the push to separate electoral activity from the G/GPUSA issue-based organizing led to the Boston Proposal and subsequent rise of the Green Party of the United States. The G/GPUSA lost most of its affiliates in the following months, and dropped its FEC national party status in 2005.

Fundraising and position on Super PACs[edit]

In the early decades of Green organizing in the United States, the prevailing U.S. system of money-dominated elections was universally rejected by Greens, so that some Greens were reluctant to have Greens participate in the election system at all, because they deemed the campaign finance system inherently corrupt. Other Greens felt strongly that the Green Party should develop in the electoral arena; many of these Greens felt that adopting an alternative model of campaign finance, emphasizing self-imposed contribution limits, would present a wholesome and attractive contrast to the odious campaign finance practices of the money-dominated major parties.

Over the years, some state Green parties have come to place less emphasis on the principle of self-imposed limits than they did in the past. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that Green Party fundraising (for candidates' campaigns and for the party itself) still tends to rely on relatively small contributions, and that Greens generally decry not only the rise of the Super PACs but also the big-money system, which some Greens criticize as plutocracy.

Some Greens feel that the Green Party's position should be simply to follow the laws and regulations of campaign finance.[10] Other Greens argue that it would injure the Green Party not to practice a principled stand against the anti-democratic influence of money in the political process.

Candidates for office, like Jill Stein, the 2012 Green Party nominee for the President of the United States, typically rely on smaller donations to fund their campaigns.[11]


Structure and composition[edit]

Committees[edit]

The Green Party has two national committees recognized by the Federal Election Commission:
the Green National Committee (GNC)
the Green Senatorial Campaign Committee (GSCC)[12]

Green National Committee[edit]

Main article: Green National Committee

The GNC is composed of delegates elected by affiliated state parties. The state parties also appoint delegates to serve on the various standing committees of the GNC. The National Committee elects a Steering Committee of seven Co-chairs, a Secretary and a Treasurer, to oversee daily operations. The National Committee performs most of its business online, but also holds an Annual National Meeting to conduct business in person.

Caucuses[edit]

Five Identity Caucuses have achieved representation on the GNC:
Black Caucus[13]
Latinx Caucus[14]
Lavender Greens Caucus[15] (LGBTIQ)
National Women's Caucus[16]
Young Greens Caucus[17]

Other caucuses have worked toward formal recognition by the GNC:
Disability Caucus[18]
Labor Caucus[19]

State parties[edit]

The following is a list of accredited state parties which comprise the Green Party of the United States.[20]

Green Party of Alabama[21]
Green Party of Alaska[22]
Arizona Green Party[23]
Green Party of Arkansas[24]
Green Party of California[25]
Green Party of Colorado[26]
Green Party of Connecticut[27]
D.C. Statehood Green Party[28]
Green Party of Delaware[29]
Green Party of Florida[30]
Georgia Green Party[31]
Green Party of Hawaii[32]
Idaho Green Party[33]
Illinois Green Party[34]
Indiana Green Party[35]
Iowa Green Party[36]
Kansas Green Party[37]
Kentucky Green Party[38]
Green Party of Louisiana[39]
Maine Green Independent Party[40]
Maryland Green Party[41]
Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts[42]
Green Party of Michigan[43]
Green Party of Minnesota[44]
Green Party of Mississippi[45]
Green Party of Missouri[46]
Montana Green Party[47]
Nebraska Green Party[48]
Green Party of Nevada[49]
Green Party of New Hampshire[50]
Green Party of New Jersey[51]
Green Party of New Mexico[52]
Green Party of New York State[53]
North Carolina Green Party[54]
Green Party of Ohio[55]
Green Party of Oklahoma[56]
Pacific Green Party of Oregon[57]
Green Party of Pennsylvania[58]
Green Party of Rhode Island[59]
South Carolina Green Party[60]
Green Party of Tennessee[61]
Green Party of Texas[62]
Green Party of Virginia[63]
Green Party of Washington State[64]
Mountain Party of West Virginia[65]
Wisconsin Green Party[66]
Green Party of Wyoming[67]

In addition, the Green Party has a chapter in the US Virgin Islands.[68] The Green Party does not currently have active state chapters in North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, or Vermont.


Geographic distribution[edit]

The Green Party has its strongest popular support on the Pacific Coast, Upper Great Lakes, and Northeast, as reflected in the geographical distribution of Green candidates elected.[69] Californians have elected 55 of the 226 office-holding Greens nationwide as of June 2007. Other states with high numbers of Green elected officials include Pennsylvania (31), Wisconsin (23), Massachusetts (18), and Maine (17). Maine has the highest per capita number of Green elected officials in the country, and the largest Green registration percentage with more than 29,273 Greens comprising 2.95% of the electorate as of November 2006.[70] Madison, Wisconsin, is the city with the most Green elected officials (8) followed by Portland, Maine (7).

In 2005, the Green Party had 305,000 registered members in states allowing party registration, and tens of thousands of members and contributors in the rest of the country.[71] One challenge that the Green Party (as well as other third parties) faces is the difficulty of overcoming ballot access laws in many states.


Office holders[edit]

John Eder, elected in Maine in 2002, was the first Green Party candidate elected to a state legislature to serve a full term and be re-elected as a Green.

Musician Jello Biafra ran for several offices with the Green Party, including for President in 2000.

Malik Rahim, former Black Panther Party activist, ran for the U.S. Congress in 2008 with the Green Party.

Psychiatrist Joel Kovel ran for the Green Party's presidential nomination in 2000.

2012 and 2016 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein

As of October 18, 2012, there were 134 elected Greens across the United States.[73] Positions held varied greatly, from mayor to city council, school board to sanitation district. Twenty-three states had Greens elected at the municipal level, representing every region of the country except for East South Central. Greens held mayorships in California and New York, and positions on city, neighborhood, or common councils in the West, South, Midwest, and Northeast. Major cities with a Green presence were spread throughout the country and included Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Oklahoma City, and Washington, DC.

The Green Party in the United States has won elected office at the local level; most winners of public office in the United States who are considered Greens have won nonpartisan elections.[74] The highest-ranking Greens ever elected in the nation were: John Eder, a member of the Maine House of Representatives until his defeat in November 2006; Audie Bock, elected to the California State Assembly in 1999 but switched her registration to Independent seven months later[75] running as an independent in the 2000 election;[76] Richard Carroll, elected to the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2008 but switched parties to become a Democrat five months after his election;[77] and Fredrick Smith, elected to the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2012,[78] but re-registered as a Democrat in 2014.[79]

In November 2010, Ben Chipman, a former Green Party leader, ran for Maine House of Representatives as an unenrolled candidate and was elected. Chipman was re-elected in 2012 and 2014.[80]

In 2014, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin was the most notable Green elected official in the United States. McLaughlin was serving her second term as mayor of Richmond, California at the time. McLaughlin defeated two Democrats in 2006 to become mayor,[81] and was reelected in 2010 before stepping down in 2014.[82] Richmond, with a population of over 100,000 people, was the largest city in the country with a Green mayor.

Fairfax, California, Arcata, California, Sebastopol, California, and New Paltz, New York are the only towns in the United States to ever hold a Green Party majority in their town councils. Twin Ridges Elementary in Nevada County, California held the first Green Party majority school board in the United States.[83]

Presidential tickets[edit]

1996: Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke 685,128 votes (Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 1996)
2000: Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke 2,882,000 votes (Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000)
2004: David Cobb and Pat LaMarche 119,859 votes (David Cobb presidential campaign, 2004)
2008: Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente 161,603 votes[84] (Cynthia McKinney presidential campaign, 2008)
2012: Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala[85] 469,627 votes[86] (Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2012)


Green National Committee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Green National Committee is the central governing body of the Green Party of the United States. The GNC is composed of delegates from each of the affiliated state party organizations and from recognized caucuses. The GNC oversees all national party functions and elects a Steering Committee to oversee day-to-day operations.

Current co-chairs[edit]

2015 - 2017
Sanda Everette, California
Andrea Merida, Colorado
Tamar Yager, Virginia
Bahram Zandi, Maryland


https://www.usa.gov/election

National Conventions

After the primaries and caucuses, most political parties hold national conventions (PDF, Download Adobe Reader) to finalize their choice for their Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees.

2016 National Convention Dates and Locations
•The Constitution Party Convention will be held in Salt Lake City, Utah, beginning April 13.
•The Libertarian National Convention will be held in Orlando, Florida, beginning May 26.
•The Republican National Convention will be held in Cleveland starting on July 18.
•The Democratic National Convention will be held in Philadelphia beginning July 25.
•The Green Party Convention will be held in Houston, Texas beginning August 6.

How to Change the Electoral College

Because the Electoral College process is part of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. For more information, contact your U.S. Senator or your U.S. Representative.

It is possible for a candidate to receive the majority of the popular vote, but not of the electoral vote, and lose the Presidential election.


U.S. Constitutional Requirements for Presidential Candidates

The President must:
•Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
•Be at least 35 years old
•Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years

Any person who meets these requirements can declare his or her candidacy for President at any time. Candidates must register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) once they receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching that $5,000 threshold, candidates must file a Statement of Candidacy with the FEC authorizing a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on their behalf.



https://pivotamerica.com/theres-a-movement-within-the-sanders-movement-to-go-green-after-primaries/

TENS OF THOUSANDS TO LEAVE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THE DAY AFTER THEIR PRIMARIES IN PROTEST #BERNIEORBUST
Patrick Curl | March 3, 2016 | Bernie Sanders, Progressive News | 370 Comments

Photograph -- Image Credit: Daryl Ontiveros, The University Star, a student protest march for Sanders’ socialist ideals called the Million Student March


As a protest thousands and thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters are making plans and preparations to say goodbye to the Democratic National Committee. Many have realized that as those who control the party move more and more right away from those who actually vote that it may be time for a revolt within the party itself.

Bernie Sanders calls for a political revolution, and many are now feeling that the establishment is conspiring against them at every turn. Whether it’s Bill Clinton’s election fraud in Massachusetts, or coin flips in Iowa, or rigged debate schedules – the fact is there are many people who just can’t let this race run fair and square and may the best candidate on merit and public opinion win.

DON’T FRET, THE GRASS IS GREENER IN THE… GREEN PARTY.
THE GREEN PARTY IS THE LOGICAL NEXT STEP FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO WANTS TO SEE THE POLICIES THAT BERNIE SANDERS IS FIGHTING FOR BECOME LAW.

In order for a 3rd party to be invited to presidential debates they need to gain 15% of the popular vote in public opinion polls. Furthermore, by gaining a large number of people the Green party can benefit in more funding from the U.S. government.

The Green Party platform is like Bernie Sanders stole it from them. Get money out of politics, check. Protect the earth from climate change, check. Single-payer universal healthcare, check. Prison reform and legalized marijuana, check.

Now, I’m NOT advocating leaving your party today, many states have CLOSED primaries and caucuses which means you must be a registered Democrat to vote in those, what I AM saying is the day after your primary ends, go online or to your board of elections and change your party affiliation to The Green Party, as insurance against the super delegates.

If we the people of the Democratic party were to join forces and get 5 million or 10 million people to leave enmasse and go to a NEW better party, even if we vote democratic in the generals, and switch back for the next primary season, if we were to do that before the Super Delegates cast their vote, they would be a LOT more hesitant to go against us. When the DNC sees that Debbie Wasserman Schultz single handedly caused a mass exodus from the party, and that she and Hillary Clinton are dividing this party, NOT uniting it, then and only then can we truly get change inside the Democratic party.

If it fails, well imagine what it would be like to start in a brand new party, who’s main platforms are all that Bernie has been fighting for all these years, and there’s not a single establishment candidate running. Sounds like a breath of fresh air, if you ask me. Please sign the pledge below.



“As a protest thousands and thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters are making plans and preparations to say goodbye to the Democratic National Committee. Many have realized that as those who control the party move more and more right away from those who actually vote that it may be time for a revolt within the party itself.” ….


This looks like a truly valid choice. As a Green, I wouldn't be likely to have my candidate win, but it provides a voice for progressive ideas; and in looking over the statistics above, there are in the hundreds of thousands who have voted Green at National Elections. I am hopeful that it can grow beyond that into a party with genuine influence in our decision making.

See the problems above for those registering as unaffiliated or Independent. The ability to vote in certain states and elections is limited. A future which is positive for the people in this country, for peace around the world, for environmental preservation and for racial/ethnic/religious protections, with no preference being given for any one group above the other (in other words, no baker may refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple and no atheist will be legally persecuted, and certainly not prosecuted, for their lack of religious affiliation). If we are Sanders’ “army,” I think it’s time to march!