That's anti-vaxxer and homeopathic shill to you, Mr. Savage!

Seriously though, Greens fucking suck. Win some elections and stop advocating health policy that will lead to children and the immunocompromised to suffer needlessly.

Even Rick fucking Perry stands heads and shoulders above the Green Party. That's pathetic.
That ad hominem and frankly specious attack must've been as exhausting to write as it was to read. What exactly was the point of even writing this? You should be better than that.
So Mr. Savage, why are you spending more time this election cycle insulting left wingers than the GOP? Is this supposed to bring votes to Hillary somehow? Or are you just trying to help burn the whole shitshow down?
The American system is simply not designed to accommodate third parties. Yes, third party candidates win small seats from time to time, but you will never see a third party garner enough support to even establish a real coalition like you see in parliamentary governments. To change things enough to allow for effective third parties, we would need a new Constitutional Convention, and the powers that be (you know, the two existing parties who do not want weakened grips on the reigns of power) are not going to allow that.

For the time being, if you want to effect change, you must work within one of the two existing parties. That means supporting nominees, even when they are far less than ideal. It means voting in primaries-- and not just presidential ones. You can also become a delegate or run for office yourself. Supporting a third-party candidate (especially for the big offices) does next to nothing. You only convince the leadership in the party nearest your own ideology that you do not support them and are probably not worth their time.
And since the anti-vaccine thing keeps coming up, I read the complete interview with Jill Stein, and her point was that we should question the numerous conflicts of interest between the medical industry and government regulators due to the revolving employment between them.

Given that many federal agencies are subject to regulatory capture--meaning that they're actually servicing the businesses they're supposedly regulating (energy and finance especially), this doesn't come across as a over-the-top suggestion. She did not state that she is against vaccines.
@4: I was asked a Q on the podcast about voting third party. I answered. It blew up. I've also gone on and on at the podcast about the awfulness of Trump and the need to defeat him. Podcast listeners sometimes write me to remind me to talk about things other than how awful the Republicans are. So suggesting that I don't talk about Trump or bash the right? Yeah, another bullshit lie.

Thank you for playing Slog.
@6 Hmm, yes. "We should be skeptical", "teach the controversy", "follow the money", "let people make up their own mind", etc etc.

Nothing more than bullshit you hear from evolution and climate change deniers. Sorry to hear that you're backing an anti-science candidate who is just "keeping an open mind" about an already solved issue whose reversal would lead to thousands of deaths and tens to hundreds of thousands of others becoming seriously ill, losing the ability to walk or have children, but that's your problem, not mine.

By the way, before you of Jill start screaming about "regulatory capture", you need to provide some evidence that counters the billions of doses administered all over the fucking world showing efficacy and safety. Since I know you're not going to be able to actually do that, why don't you just shut the fuck up about things you obviously don't understand? Then check your vaccination records, get your shots updated and maybe you won't kill someone with cancer.

Sound good? Awesome.
The Green Party was so incompetent here in Arizona that they missed the filing deadline for delegates, essentially keeping them off the ballot. So to save their hide, Arizona's very Republican Secretary of State bent the rules to make sure that Stein is there in November to drag a few votes off of Hillary. All they had to do was fill out the paperwork, and they couldn't even be bothered, turning a basic chore into a needless drama. Until we reform our electoral system, 3rd parties will always steal from the party closest to them. BTW, that's perfectly fine if it's Libertarians stealing votes from the GOP :)
Small correction: the .0002 ratio is equal to .02%, not .0002%.

And officeholders: .00019 ratio means .019%.

Still miniscule. Get to work locally, Greens.
Wow, that's a lot of hate spewed at the Greens, Mr Savage. Why??? Sounds personal!

We're supposed to be believers in democracy, are we not? Surely the Greens have as much rights as, say, David Duke - who is running for office, quoting the Orange Dumpster!

While we're all entitled to our beliefs, you have quite a lot of influence and power to sway people; with power comes responsibility, don't you agree?
You mistakenly turned 0.0002 the decimal into 0.0002% early in the article.

Fortunately for the Green Party, diluting something by a factor of 100 makes it stronger, right?
All I read was "blah blah blah I'm a dirty party-line whore who isn't accountable for what I say."

How's the Iraq War looking?

Also, I fast forwarded through that segment of the podcast because I figured you'd throw up a "I was bitankual" mea culpa (bullshit), and then go around insulting anybody who dared challenge the two party system.

It's a lot of boring old hat arguments that we hear time and again from those gullible enough to have supported the Iraq War (and then had to apologize for it). You're operating out of fear and you fucking know it.
@ 5 The notion that we can't vote for third parties because they never win so we can't vote for third parties is a self-defeating paradox.
What a bunch of whiners we have on SLOG today. Dan Savage writes the way he writes, and talks the way he talks, because it works for him. That is his style. It can be insulting. Get over it. He has a point, and it is a valid point. Voting for Stein in this election is helping Trump. I can't think of anything worse than having Trump in office.

I'm with her.
@ 9, Stop making up things that I never wrote. It doesn't win an argument, and it's just bizarre and petty.
Andrea Merida was my district's school board representative for a while, and she was a colossal failure. She set the tone by having herself sworn in before the meeting that that was scheduled to take place, and spent the rest of her single term grandstanding and getting nothing done. As far as I'm concerned it was perfect that the Greens chose this unaccomplished blowhard to write their response. (I found her decision to include the ridiculous "only 24,000 Florida Dems voted for Gore" bit particularly hilarious, since those 24,000 votes would have been plenty to keep Florida out of reach by any means.)

No wonder The Misanthrope relates so strongly.
@ 16, it's also simply how the system works, until such a time as third parties declare that they will focus on local office only, and figuring out how to appeal to a broad cross section of the electorate instead of hardliners.

Personally I think the effective road is the one where we take back the Democratic Party.
@16 "All I read was "blah blah blah I'm a dirty party-line whore who isn't accountable for what I say."

You are talking about a guy who started "It gets better" project, that was probably one of the best tools against a serious problem, gay teen suicides and teenage bullying against Gay Teens. I would show some respect, no matter if you are trolling or trying to give some constructive criticism..

Besides, Mr. Waving Your Hands in Impotent Fury, you can learn from Dan about writing.

You may not agree with Mr. Savage, but at least stop acting like you are recreating a role in "Idiocracy"
@2: Excuse me, but you seem to be a little confused as to what argumentum ad hominem is.

@6: what Solk512 said.

@16: I like how you managed to combine argumentum ad hominem, strawman-beating, and whataboutism into one big vacuous dismissal of an argument that you don't like. Nice dodge.
Dan, you could do a little more to highlight just how good Hillary'd policy positions are for progressives. I'm been watching the "true progressives" long enough to know that they won't take the initiative and read Hillary's exhaustively detailed proposals on their own.

They are going to keep calling her a calculating, triangulating bitch unless someone like you stands up and asks them what's calculating and triangulating (or not "really progressive") about fighting for universal pre-k for 30 years?

(It's not as sexy as free college because it benefits fewer pasty white green party shits who bitch about student debt but live in a state with no income tax!)

What's calculating or cynical or not really progressive about supporting PrEP? Who do they think was beating down Hillary's door to get a pro-PrEP position on her website? What evil under handed game is she playing with that one?
@16 That is not my argument at all. Third parties are pretty much locked out of leadership by existing fundamental rules, primarily the first-past-the-post electoral system. Yes, you can win a race now and then (and third parties do!) but a third party has virtually no chance of winning enough to matter in any legislature. My question to anyone voting for a third party is: what do you want to accomplish with your vote?

If your answer is that you want to elect that person to office, that can be fine so long as it's plausible that the person will be elected, and Jill Stein is not a plausible candidate. Your mileage may vary on local elections, of course.

If your answer is that you want to stick it to the party you would otherwise vote for, had you not had ideological purist grievances, then you are not accomplishing much at all, unless you think that allowing people to suffer under the greater of two evils can satisfy some craving.

If your answer is that you want to send a message to the leadership of the party you would otherwise prefer, then you will fail outright. The leadership of large parties ignores the fringes that slip off when they have to balance the demands of large and diverse constituencies. You won't matter, except as a nuisance.
'I condemn you without data for your lack of data!' It's sad to watch Dan's descent, though not without entertainment value--witnessing the unhinged little tantrums that precede psychiatric hospitalization . . . or 'wellness retreat' as its called in his income bracket.
@16 - We shouldn't vote for third-parties for high office until those parties show that they have the organization and the support to win lower offices. Right now, the Greens don't even have the competence or the backing to get on the ballot in more than a handful of states. That they can't bother to do this basic task and then ask for people to vote for them in a Presidential election is an insult and a waste of their resources that could be going to winning seats on city councils and county legislatures.
Dan: I'm a long time reader, fan and supporter of yours, so I don't say this easily: you are seriously over-reaching. You give sex advice, not political critique. Or maybe I missed that you've been working on your poli-sci PhD at Harvard. Just because you have a big microphone doesn't mean what you should use it. Stick to anal and such.. that's your job. This vitriol not only does not serve your political aims, it hurts your actual job as sex columnist. For example, you just lost a longtime reader, fan and supporter.
Looking at the number of Greens actually elected and claiming that it's the same as the number of Green candidates running is a little misleading. Running for president is a pretty effective way to bring national attention to your party that no one's ever heard of, thanks to the biased reporting of mainstream media. The hate seems a little uncalled for.
You love the views and clicks this is generating, Dan. Enjoy your vacation. Content! Content! Content! Ansel is killing it for you- I assume there was no snark intended towards him. Also, you continue to be disturbingly presumptuous from your pasty bully pulpit. If you love the idea of third parties, put your (click-bait generated) money where your mouth is.

Apparently the accusation "insulting the Green Party" is actually telling the Green Party truths they don't want to hear... Delusional and revelling in their visions of Bernie glory and mental masturbation of eachother, they will e ensure a Trump presidency.
Dr. Jill Stein is a medical doctor who thinks all children should be vaccinated. This bs about her being an anti-vaxxer is propaganda and lies. You threw quite a few strawmen in there too Dan Savage. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump? Huh. If I couldn't vote for Stein, I'd vote for Johnson. If I couldn't vote for Johnson I'd abstain or write-in. If I couldn't abstain or write-in...I've vote for Trump. At least he's somewhat anti-war, and his anti-immigrant junk would have to get passed by a hostile congress. Clinton's super-hawkness could be enacted immediately (if she can still find a way to out-hawk Obama).

So you might as well say a vote for Stein is a vote for Clinton. But that wouldn't be true either. It's a vote against military aid to an apartheid state. It's a vote against allowing conflict minerals to fuel horrific conditions in the Congo. It's a vote against human rights injustices in Saudia Arabia. It's a vote against black sites. It's a vote against the President claiming and using an ability to kill anyone regardless of citizenship, regardless of whether they are on a battlefield or not, with no oversight or due process.

You seem pretty convinced Trump is SO much worse than Clinton. Good for you. I wish I had your blinders. And if Dr. Stein, respected medical doctor, WAS somehow impossibly an anti-vaxxer? How could it possibly matter compared to the institutionalized murder, rape and injustice fueled and enacted by our Presidents of both parties for far too long? I'd happily vote for an anti-vaxxer who was honestly against such evils. Wouldn't you?
In multi-party systems like Canada and Britain, the prime minister is chosen by the party with the most MPs. Minority parties form coalitions with other parties that they explicitly disagree with on certain issues. They can influence the coalition platform by threatening to withdraw from the coalition. In terms of the Greens, how is our current system significantly different? Obviously, there is no scenario where there is a Green candidate and a Democratic candidate for president and one of them beats a unified Republican party candidate. But even if we had a multi-party system, there's no way that a Green candidate gets to be president unless they have *more* support than the Dem candidate, right? I'm trying to figure out how the Green candidate gets to be the leader of the country before capturing the most voters of any left-leaning party. It sounds like what the Greens want is a two-party system where they win without having to convince more voters.
No, what they want is ranked choice voting so that voters can dispense with worrying about strategic voting/lesser-evilism. They are fighting for ranked choice voting at grass roots levels in plenty of municipalities and counties. The anti-democratic corporate parties don't want this because they want people to vote out of fear so their plutocratic candidates get support from people they are screwing. Choose vote reform!
@32 Indeed many Green supporters are certifiable flakes like yourself. The evidence from previous elections, specifically 2000, tells us that a significant number of Green supporters would have voted for the Democratic candidate if the Greens were not running a candidate however. This fact is most likely the prime motivator behind Dan's vitriol. Bernie Sanders accomplished quite a bit by running a strong campaign for the Democratic nomination. Jill Stein will accomplish nothing, except possibly handing the presidency to Trump.

This refrain from the Greens about the 2 party system being 'broken' is so unintentionally hilarious. They are going to fix the broken 'duopoly' by pushing an absolutely unbending fringe left agenda? How is that supposed to work exactly?
@2: Insults and cheap shots (deserved or not) are not Ad Homs.

@34: Funny, then they should fucking put that in place instead of these shitty failures they've been running.

What a waste of money. I see nothing about IRV put on the ballot anywhere from the Greens. Their words mean nothing when they have no action, just impotent grandstanding (and anti-science platforms.)
@35: It's a weird hundredth monkey scenario for wingnuts, apparently a hundred persons nationwide vote green without changing the system and poof, everyone is "woke".

But without doing anything locally, which should be their goals.
@32 - Genuinely curious. How will voting for Jill Stein in this election stop human rights injustices in Saudi Arabia or fix these other issues you are, admirably I think, concerned about? Not trolling, genuinely trying to see your logic. Are you thinking that enough people will vote for her in this election that she will win and then she will get legislation for this through congress or fix it with an executive order? Are you thinking that a Trump presidency will be so bad that a huge number of voters will realize the error of their ways and support a Green or Libertarian candidate in 2020, who will then get elected and make these policy changes you seek? Are you thinking there will be a legit, fire-in-the-streets revolution that will end up fixing these problems? In your most ideal scenario, how do these changes happen as a result of your protest vote? On the other hand, I can name several issues that were massively affected by the makeup of the supreme court: campaign finance, voting rights, gay rights, women's access to healthcare. It's very easy to see realistic - mundane, really - scenarios where policy on these issues can move far to the left or the right in the very near term, based on who wins this election. Again, not dismissing your commitment to the issues you name or saying you should just forget about them. Just wondering if a protest vote in the presidential election is the most effective way to reach those aims, and if the consequences of that protest vote will be the suffering of vulnerable people. Are you willing to say that, for example, if abortion becomes impossible to obtain in the US in the next four years, you are confident that your impact on Saudi human rights will have been worth it? I would really like to understand your math here (so that I can figure out how to undermine it in arguments on facebook, lulz).
@ 33, the difference is that those countries have parliamentary systems, as well as a history of multiple parties. For whatever reason, Americans culturally prefer having two parties. Possibly because early on they were very resistant to parties existing at all, and so when they inevitably formed anyway, people still felt that there shouldn't be so many, so they formed coalitions within the parties themselves. Historians and political scientists have noted how these alliances have formed and broken apart over the centuries.

In the short term, we can't have what parliamentary systems have because alternative parties only appeal to fringe hardliners. That's partly because of culture, partly because alternative parties don't seem interested in building themselves up into a viable alternative because doing so will mean making compromises along the line. The idea is repellent to hard liners.

In the long term, maybe something will happen to make it work. But I wouldn't hold my breath. The only time a third party was successfully formed in America, it primarily rose from the ashes of the major party that crashed and burned when the coalition holding it together broke up. Americans on the whole seem comfortable with the two party system.
117 candidates? The Libertarian party is running over 500 this year.

Stein is also an advocate of the repulsive Swedish model of sex work, BTW.
@32 "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump?"

Yes it is. The Presidential Election is not a non binding referendum. It the core of our Constitution and how we govern this nation. It counts, we elect our leader. We don't elect leaders who get .9% of the vote. I am not going to get a bike riding, vegan animal loving President, who wants to ban Costco, double the tax on gasoline, get rid of all firearms, created community organic gardens, and promote hemp clothing.. no matter if I dream of that or not. There is no mulligan or do over vote. We have to elect a President that can at least identify with, no matter if we have some problems with the candidate.

A vote for Stein just makes Donald Trump reach closer to the 270 electoral votes finish line. If anyone who went through the 2000 election, knows that what Ralph Nader accomplished. He accomplished getting George W. Bush the Presidency, even though Al Gore got 500k more votes.. It was not only Florida that was close in 2000, but it was New Hampshire as well. Nader went out of his way to try to hurt Gore in the campaign.

I have my issues with Hillary Rodham Clinton, but I am an adult enough to know what is at stake if she is not elected President of the United States. If you have any Latino/Latina, LGBT friends, Non Grifter friends, you will also vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton as the 45th President of the United States.

I am not that interested in Ivanka Trump selling the same dress that she wore at the inaugural ball, as she is doing now with the dress she wore at the Convention on Macy's Department Store. Voting for a nutball like Gary Johnson or less of a nutball like Dr. Jill Stein just makes a characters from court of Pope Alexander VI running the US, a family of grifters. Your choice.. I don't need a repeat of the 2000 election.. Hillary is the only sane adult in the room,and the choice is between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump.
As someone who's actually been on the ground doing the hard work of state and local politics for some years now... here's my thoughts on this.

The Green Party's minor successes to date have been isolated instances, because there's no real "party" of which to speak. It's just a name, it's not an organization (at least not at the state and local level). When county and state Democratic parties are functional (and they aren't always, for sure), they do much more than just recruiting candidates to run for local races -- they organize phone banks and canvasses; they train volunteers, candidates, and campaign staff; they actively recruit, manage and engage volunteers and supporters; they provide services to candidates (the most important of which is often access to a voter file with robust data and the technology to take advantage of it); they manage an office to serve as a hub of activity; they fundraise to support all of these activities (and it's much, much harder to fundraise at the local level for party infrastructure vs. for candidates -- it's like with nonprofits, everybody wants to fund the programs but no one wants to pay the electricity bill).

It's possible to build that kind of operation without paid staff at the state/local level, in isolated instances. But, it would be difficult to rely on all-volunteer operations to actually build a party from the ground up in a systemic and organized (and durable) way. If the Greens truly want to build a viable third party in the way that Dan describes, they probably need a benefactor billionaire, who might be interested in investing $100 million to make it work. That investment would go to staff to build the infrastructure (some of it would go to contributions to candidates, although I think that's trickier for a variety of reasons). Bare minimum, to build a truly grassroots operation, you'd want an organizer in every metro area with a population >200k that's likely to be attractive to potential Green party demographics (maybe 150 or so), a management structure to support that (20 regional directors), national level operations (policy director, communications, fundraising, etc.), money for offices & other costs, etc. So, that's something like $15-20 million a year.

One of the reasons you need staff is that many people really like to talk about politics (especially national level politics), but few people like to actually do the work associated with electing candidates and even fewer like to do the work associated with managing an active local political party. You eventually need someone whose job it is to manage volunteers, raise money, deal with all the logistics of keeping the lights on. And, honestly, it's also really difficult to get qualified candidates willing to actually run for many local offices -- they're not as sexy as state/national offices, they're often unpaid, and it can involve a huge amount of work to win them. The Democratic Party has an operation that's willing to find politically-minded people and cajole, motivate, and/or excite them into actually doing the work (running, volunteering, donating) -- it's a constant battle, but we have staff (and committed super-volunteers) to help us get there. The Green Party might have politically-minded people who are willing to do the work, but they don't seem to have an organization to make it happen. And so it appears like they are all talk and no work.
@12 I may have felt the Bern, but I'm happily voting Clinton. I had forgotten that Trump was an anti-vaxxer - there's so much crazy there it's hard to keep track, you know?

@18 If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

@22 *high fives*

@32 Dr. Jill Stein is a woman who ignores the mountains of evidence for the efficacy and safety of vaccinations in favor of appropriating the language and methods of anti-vaxxers to cast doubt on one of the greatest medical inventions in human history. She also supports homoeopathy and other similarly bullshit scams.

Perhaps it's time for her to hand that degree back.

@34 [citation required] Why haven't we seen an initiative for this here in Washington State? If some shithead from Mukilteo can get initiatives on the ballot here year after year, why can't a whole political party?
Also, see Matt Gonzalez, the former highest-ranking-elected-Green-in-the-country-TM. He did a total Sarah Palin tantrum move after he failed to become mayor of San Francisco. He just up and quit the Board of Supervisors. Because! Because... The greens had accomplished their mission, presumably. So yeah, that's the example.
Come on Savage! You couldn't even manage to get your stupid ass behind Sanders and you want us to believe that you are for 3rd parties? You must think your readers are all some kind of morons.
@34: Because greens would rather sign Internet petitions and forward articles about GMOs than do groundwork.
The anti-vaxx link questioned corporate science, not the importance of vaccination programs. Nor did it address the millions of dollars spent by the DNC to keep Green candidates off of the ballot. (Only recently in Pennsylvania, for example, did a judge find it unconstitutional that the bar is so much higher for third parties to get candidates on the ballot than it is for Reps and Dems).

I have to admit that the organization is not great with our party (GPUSA). I also think that Trump is an extinction level event for Western Democracy. It is the shift to a purely corporate, fascist state (consider Ivanka Trump's speech that was the "best" last night - it was all business jargon) where conspiracy nuts will rise to the mainstream - albeit that has more to do with the Internet than anything.

But repeating the same crap that progressivism outside of the mainstream is a product of white privilege (a riff on criticisms of the hippies in the 60's), particularly when the antipathy of the DNC toward its own progressive candidate has been revealed in the Wasserman Schultz emails, is deeply irresponsible. It is reminiscent of the Scottish Independence referendum in the UK, where the non-representation of the Scottish in UK politics (in their view) was paternalistically dismissed in London. If it is so obvious that the DNC wants the same things as the Greens and that it is ridiculous for us to vote otherwise (the view uniformly expressed to me person-to-person when I say I'm voting as a Green), then maybe it can be pointed out more clearly in the DNC platform and BACKED UP.

Progressive challenges force the party to the Left. When the DNC refuses to prosecute white collar crime (see the Matt Taibbi article on Chuck Schumer and the lack of Wall Street prosecutions), no serious agenda to end the war on drugs beyond changing sentences (rather than decriminalization), continues to align with human rights abusers around the globe for the sake of stabilizing the price of oil (apparently, only Iran is the only Middle Eastern country with human rights abusers), and receives millions in corporate money from energy and other financial interests like PayDay lenders (Wasserman Schultz), people will have a problem with it.

It would be a mistake for the DNC not to view this election cycle as a major wakeup call, in the same manner it wants the Green Party to "wake up."
@45: Huh? The Stranger does support Sawant, a member of he Socialist Party. If you don't know what you're taking about, don't bother.
Can we get the Green Party and all other forward thinking 3rd parties to agree not to run for president for this election? It's not helpful given the potentially devastating outcome of a Trump presidency. Run for everything else! Keep building your movement! Get some rad press by dropping out! If you don't think it makes a difference, would the Iraq war have happened if Nader hadn't siphoned Florida votes from Gore?
So the real complaint is the Greens need to work harder? Build more of a party before they have the nerve to ask for a seat at the adult table? I recall some assholes making the same arguments about LBGT rights. How can gays expect to get married? That's too big a step! No, they should settle for domestic partnerships for a generation. Let everyone ease in, slowly, and have them build support instead of asking for everything all at once. (Who was fiercely saying that was bullshit? Not the Democrats! Nope, that would be the Green Party and Libertarians that was right there holding a fucking sign and screaming for change.)

Republicans are not right about much, but they are right about one thing and that's that Democrats are fucking assholes to people who disagree with them. "But I'd like to see a breakdown of Green Party membership by race." Really? You want a list of the races of party members? Did that just fucking happen? How about a list of who is a Communist or a homosexual, too? That bring back any memories? Let's drive that point home, maybe the non whites can wear some insignia, I don't know, like a star maybe, so we can be sure they are really of the race they say they are. Shame on that shit, shame.
@47: Concern trolling IS antivax.
@50: "So the real complaint is the Greens need to work harder? Build more of a party before they have the nerve to ask for a seat at the adult table?"

Yes, that's literally how running for national office works.

You can throw tantrums about fairness all you want, but the entitlement without groundwork is still infantile.
Aaaaand "Really? You want a list of the races of party members? Did that just fucking happen? How about a list of who is a Communist or a homosexual, too? That bring back any memories? Let's drive that point home, maybe the non whites can wear some insignia, I don't know, like a star maybe, so we can be sure they are really of the race they say they are. Shame on that shit"

This is why your preferred party is a failure, and while I supported Bernie, why some of his fans are fucking terrible.
You're not just an embarassment to white prople everywhere, you're an embarassment to any "cause".
@39 - I don't think culture has anything to do with it. Its the First Past the Post election rules. The "two party system" fits into the electoral structure the way a river fits into its bed. That is to say, its not really a system at all. Two parties is the optimal way of brokering power given the rules of the US Constitution. The UK has a completely different set of rules for electing its legislature and they end up with 2.5 parties. Italy has another system and they get a whole bunch.

The Progressive Party emerged 120 years ago as part of the 19th century Republican coalition was peeling off. They got some people elected, ran some folks for president and eventually folded into the Democratic party because they wanted to actually get something done. If the Greens were to actually start seeing some success, they'd end up doing the same thing.

But their relentless failure gives them the luxury of being able to live without compromising their principles. Good for them, I guess.
Dan Savage is a fucking moron when it comes to politics. Jill Stein went to Harvard Medical School and is not an anti-vaxxer. And there will ALWAYS be a Republican villain to worry about, but if we always think that way, we'll NEVER get a viable third party. Which is what this country needs desperately (and a fourth party, and fifth...).

Stick to sex advice Dan, your politics are shite.
Also - this article states pretty well why a third party needs a Presidential candidate in order to gain any viability.…
@48 How many other 3rd party candidates are they supporting? how many progressive Democrats are they supporting against Patty Murray, Del Bene, Kilmer and all the TPP cheerleaders?
@21 when I disagree with him, which is frequently lately, I always show Squishbrain the amount of respect that he shows to anybody else he disagrees with. See how respectful he is when arguing for the Iraq War? Or how about when he calls Green Party candidates a fungus in shit?

I'm just not treating him with kid gloves because I respect him and thinks he deserves to hear it point blank.

The meat of your argument still relies on the premise of lesser evilism, the idea that everyone must submit to Hillary for fear of Trump. Your rant was just another iteration of this over used argument w/accusations of privilege and pasty whiteness added for maximum insult.

As a gay latino talking to a pasty white man, let's dial it back to issues that actually matter to racial minorities. Under Obama, a democrat you may have heard of, the prison population and # of undocumented deportations have broken all deplorable records previously held by republican administrations. Thanks largely to the 92 Crime Bill signed by Clinton, our for-profit prisons are bursting at the seams.

What's most ironic about your blanket accusations of privilege is that you don't know what it's like to have a family member shipped away before you even have a chance to say good bye. Your child does not have a 1 in 4 chance of incarceration for the mere color of his skin.

These issues will obviously suffer under a Trump presidency, but demanding that we people of color kneel to a Clinton dynasty that has already worsened our condition is the epitome of privilege.

We know where Jill Stein polls and we support her all the same because she has spent her entire life at the picket line fighting for our causes tooth and nail. Minus Bernie, she's the only candidate providing acceptable solutions, not least of which is a jobs program inspired by FDR's new deal that would employ millions. Those are the kind of structural reforms a neoliberal like Hillary will never deliver. Even a broken family of first generation americans can take the time to learn the nuances of Citizens United, Glass-Steagall, Dodd Frank, and the need for meaningful campaign finance reform.

Corporate money floods our political system. Across the board--prog taxation, tuition free college, single payer, climate change, our bloated military industrial complex--we understand the reforms most crucial to americans will only be made possible when you take money out of politics. This was the cornerstone of Bernie's campaign for a reason. The 5 billion dollars MSM is earning this election cycle from political ads alone affecting the way they frame the political discussion.

As we speak, wikileaks is in the middle of a huge +9,000 email leak proving the DNC colluded w/mainstream media to smear bernie's campaign, push completely unfounded narratives, and shame progressives to fall in line, much like you've been doing. I suggest you put your instinctual need for rebuttal on pause, look up the twitter account @wikileaks, and take a good hard look at the party you're really defending.
@22 Substantial post. Would read again.
"Sexist shitbag" seems like kind of a stretch. Stein maladroitly tried to criticize Clinton's war record (which is a completely legitimate criticism, btw...Clinton's record suggests that she'd be far more inclined towards interventionism than President Obama, and, to the extent one can discern any thought process behind Trump's foreign policy, he actually seems like the less bellicose of the two) by linking motherhood with peacemaking (I guess).

The "anti-vaxxer" thing seems a bit off too. Here's a link to her remarks (quoted by a hostile source I might add). She seems to be bringing up the point about regulatory capture, which is a valid one.

Again, both of these issues point to her being a really bad politician (in the sense of being able to get a clear and coherent point across). "Sexist shitbag" and "anti-vaxxer" seems rather over-the-top.

If you're going to accuse someone of lying, it's probably best if you get your own facts straight first. The last thing we need is another Donald Trump.
I saw your piece come up on the stranger fb page, then their response on another site.
Well said Dan, all of it. You are a brave man and I salute you.
After hearing bits of The Great Lunatic's speech, how can any US voter not see the utter danger your country and by implication the world is in.
@8- Sorry I don't listen to your podcast (or watch your TV show. I think most people didn't). So here's SLOG, the game I am playing, and all I see from Dan Savage is "KISS HILLARY'S ASS OR FUCK YOU."

The fault is your's, Mr. Savage. You use this forum to shit on the people who most want change in our society. Of course, now that you've got marriage and weed, there's not much you personally need anymore, is there?
For a scientific explanation of why the United States' system pretty much locks us into a two-party system, you can read up on Duverger's Law here:…

Locally, Greens have worked well in at-large elected bodies where it isn't a first-past-the-post system (like some city councils, school boards, etc.), where coalition politics can work better. But nationally, I think within our current system, it would make more sense to operate within one of the existing two parties, like the Progressive Caucus operates within the Democratic Party and the Tea Party operates within the Republican Party rather than trying to create a separate party.
Oh my god, can we stop with the "entitled to my vote" reflexive cry in the comments section. You know who isn't entitled to my vote? Somebody who rides on bullshit and fairy farts.
Jill look rich and happy and not Black or Latino. Certainly not a Muslim. Too old to worry about abortions.
FF@66, it's true. Each person's vote is their democratic choice to make. If they vote green, they do have to accept that they are indirectly voting for trump.
And if he gets in, and you know, hell rains down.. this will often be a question to see if someone if friend or foe.
Did you vote green in '16. The yes people, they will be the foe.
@62 I would agree that name-calling may have been a bit over the top but the bit about homeopathy quoted here certainly appears damning:…
An MD who does not simply outright laugh at homeopathy is pretty appalling. She actually seems like a thoroughly intelligent person who knows full well that a high percentage of Green party supporters are anti-science, conspiracy-theorizing loons, and so she is bending over backwards to not alienate them.
This a a great piece from Dan Savage because it is so unhinged, even the title is misleading. Stein is sexist for calling out the deaths Clinton always pulls for but calling her a shitbag isn't i guess. And she's not anti-vax but it's great he thinks so as it shows how little he cares for facts.

Greens have a lot of work to do, why not, "Greens: be better"? I think the answer is simple: Dan Savage is desperate. He likely recognizes (at least unconsciously) that a party training death squads to go after environmentalists, funding "rebels" who make behading a 14yo a publicity stunt, helping to starve some 14 million Yemeni and keep the Bahrain monarchy in place, had to be dragged to supporting gay rights, and supports maintaining the low-caste status of blacks through anti-science drug and incarceration policies, amongst other things, really does not care about his rights at all so he has to suck up at every opportunity, and be vicious despite no expertise.

He is a good vehicle for this sort of stuff because his career as an advicist is full of blunders that he appologises for simply, and faces no consequences.
@23: But, but, Hillary is totally a conservative who is only pretending to like the things she's proposing! No way would she actually enact the agenda she's been pushing for decades!

@27: So, you joined up just to bitch about how you don't want to hear Dan Savage's political opinions?
Well, buh-bye, I guess.

@47: Oh, well if people are worried about "corporate science", well then THAT makes casting baseless suspicion on routine lifesaving vaccinations totally okay!
It's not skepticism. It's contrarianism. Learn the difference.

@56: Yes, and Ben Carson went to Yale and Ron Paul went to Duke Med. Having an education doesn't make one not an anti-science nutcase. Did you miss the part where she defended homeopathy by claiming that pharmaceutical research is less trustworthy if it's conducted by people connected to the pharmaceutical industry, and therefore terms lik "medically proven" are meaningless?
While i'm sure the stranger does have a few readers outside of Washington its pretty dumb to think that this state would go any way but blue this election. So greenies, please realize that it doesn't matter if you vote for Hillary or Jill Stein, or even write in Bernie.

The past 6 years have pretty much shown that divided government means that not much will happen. So maybe if any of the greens could get elected to the house they might actually matter. But until then the focus should probably be where the actual governing happens, state and local offices. gotta learn to walk before you can run

@60 "Minus Bernie, she's the only candidate providing acceptable solutions,"

Once again, Is Jill Stein going to implement those acceptable solutions with .9% of the popular vote?

We have a Federal System of Government, all third parties from Free Soil to the Progressive Party merge with one of the two mainstream parties. We have factions in the two mainstream parties. Dr. Jill Stein rather be a gadfly than pushed those acceptable solutions.

If the US had a Westminster style of Government, the Greens in the US would thrive as much as the NDP thrives in Canada. However a Westminster form of government gives absolute power to a party with the majority of parliamentary seats, even the party gets around 35-40% of the vote.. It is a dictatorship of a party for around five years..

I am very well aware of the problems with the Dems, but they are not going to cut medicaid, food stamps, keep mandatory minimums, re install DADT, try to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. They will help put on SCOTUS Justices that will over turn the Citizens United decision, make reproductive health, a health issue, rather than in the schematics of religious belief..

There is give and take, and the candidate that will help with the "acceptable solutions" and has a strong chance of winning the election, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Voting for any other candidate in this election just helps Donald Trump. If Latino, and don't want to be profile because of your ethnicity or speaking EspaΓ±ol, than vote for Hillary. Dr. Jill Stein is not going to move the needle, just try to get media attention so she can try for 1.2% of the popular vote rather than .9% of the vote..
Vaccines represent a small fraction of all the pharmaceuticals approved each year. If Stein is concerned about regulatory capture she can do so within mentioning vaccines at all. It seems like she is winking at anti-vaxxers while reserving enough wiggle room to deny it.
@ 50, to expand upon @52's response, political parties don't have any inherent rights, unlike LGBTQ individuals. Comparing the two causes is absurd.

But yes, as long as the Greens are in a state of arrested development, they have not earned any place at the adult table. That will be earned when they have become an effective political party.
@ 59, yes, we can feel the respect in the childish insults.
@ 28 said:

"Looking at the number of Greens actually elected and claiming that it's the same as the number of Green candidates running is a little misleading. Running for president is a pretty effective way to bring national attention to your party that no one's ever heard of, thanks to the biased reporting of mainstream media. The hate seems a little uncalled for. "

The problem is that we went through this already, in 2000. Regardless of whether you think they contributed to Bush's election or not, one thing that can't be denied is that the Greens did not get any attention for it - not the kind they said they wanted, anyway. Democrats didn't decide to nurture the progressive bloc or pursue progressive causes, progressives didn't flock to join the Greens, and they failed in any way to make an impact upon the debates in Congress or the discussions in the media.

No matter what happens in November, the Greens still won't be any more viable after the election than they are now, or ever have been. They'll either be a footnote in history as contributing to Trump's election (just like the Progressive Party in 1912, the Reform Party in 1992, and the Greens in 2000) or forgotten until some future point where they will have either gotten their shit together or gotten popular enough to impact another election in just this fashion.
@76 What childish insults? Squishbrain? That's Dan's own term from the Yes to Iraq! article for people who can't think for themselves and are falling for propaganda. In Dan's case, it's Democratic Party propaganda.

Or maybe you're objecting to "dirty party-line whore" which, we all know is not totally true; Dan pays money to the DNC and doesn't want to see his donations go to waste. But, he'll do anything to push his agenda, no matter how questionable that agenda is. Do you have a better term for that?

Of course, we know exactly how respectful you are of people who don't agree with you, don't we dear? Bless your heart, your concern has been noted!

@77 The Democrats and Hillary Clinton are doing just fine in making sure Hillary doesn't get elected all on their own. The Greens are just trying to pick up the votes from the ones who are so disgusted with their choices that they're going to otherwise stay home.
So many people terrified of a Trump Presidency. If you think he's bad, think of all the people who are going to run, and win Primaries, now that he's been this successful! We have to choose between Trump, and all that means, and Clinton who voted for the Iraq War, for the Patriot Act, wasn't even wanted by Democrats eight years ago, and will be our oldest ever President if she wins. But, someday this choice will look great! Because good people now did nothing. And just voted for the same old system that brought us endless war, world records in prison population, and blah blah blah.

If you think the two person system is good, and working for you, then you should hang in there. But if you don't, and believe third and fourth parties would help, when do you imaging this would miraculously happen? Are you leaving that for your kids to accomplish? Stop being afraid. It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime! Sing with me!
@52 and @53 and I think maybe @54, my party is not a failure. We aren't droning anyone right now or listening in on Americans phone calls or seizing property without due process or tossing Americans into jail, or shooting them in the streets. You're just angry because you know I'm right.
By the way, we have ranked choice voting for local single-office elections in San Feancisco (single offices as in Board of Supervisors, which are by district, but not School Board which are top ___ get elected). I supported it, I love it, I wish we had it for all state and federal offices. It would really change the two-party system we have, in my opinion. Third party candidates would have a real shot and at the very least, people could cast a protest vote for their passionate choice and still have their vote roll over to a second choice. But after over ten years of elections with it, I am amazed how many people are still confused, still explain it wrong, still think their vote counts more if they only vote once instead of two or three times (e.g., not ranking second or third choices), still wonder why the person who "lost" ended up winning, and so on. I try to use the term Instant Run-Off Voting, hoping that conveys what's going on better, but it doesn't seem to. Maybe the public education campaign around it could have been better, I guess. The way elections are handled at the state level, though, we probably couldn't implement this for presidential elections without a Constitutional Amendment and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a vested interest in that.
Dan, Dan, Dan. (A) Apparently you can't tell the difference between being against vaccines and being against regulatory capture of government agencies by the industries they're supposed to regulate. Stein said that vaccines were a tremendous public health benefit, but people need to be able to trust that the agencies who regulate them aren't controlled by the industries they're supposed to regulate. That sounds anti-corporate, not anti-vaccine.
(B) You've completely moved the goalpost; in your original comment, you said the Greens need to run candidates for other offices besides President. Then, when we show you that we do, and have actually won elected office, you say that doesn't count because it's a tiny percentage of the elected offices around the country. Can't have it both ways, Dan.
(B.2) Filing deadlines for most elected offices (where there won't be primaries) are not for at least a couple weeks (my filing deadline for OCC Board of Trustees is Tuesday). So the fact that we only list 100-and-whatever in the database right now is meaningless.
(C) Finally, you simply double down on the "don't run Presidential candidates until you've won something lower" argument, COMPLETELY ignoring the really important part of the response: Presidential campaigns *help* us gain at the lower levels by earning us state ballot line, fundraising, more volunteers, more registered voters, and more candidates to run for those very same offices you want us to focus on. When we don't run aggressive, national Presidential campaigns, we *lose* ballot status, we raise *less* money, we recruit fewer* volunteers and candidates, and we *lose* registration. Dan, you clearly don't know how third parties work, so please don't tell us what to do. Don't vote Green if you don't want to, but after that, kindly shut up.
@83 you are proven right by the fact that, "pasty face" referred not to some School Board candidate in Montana, but to the Presidential Candidate.
Hey, Dan: Remember Jason West, the Mayor of New Paltz, NY who started issuing same-sex marriage licenses before anyone else did? Green Party.
@82 We actually wouldn't need a Constitutional amendment, because almost all of the rules and regulations regarding the specific mechanics of voting are left up to the states. That's why, for instance, Oregon can have all of their elections by mail, and Michigan still makes you give an excuse when you apply for an absentee ballot.
Wow,difficult to use commenting system! Anyway:Interesting comments thread .I hadn't heard of Ms. Stein's Ant-Vax position_Disgusting/Shocking if it's true !
Anyway,I think that Dan was Overly Vitriol,as he can sometimes be,even when he's right,BUT agree totally that even legitimate 3rd Parties can steal votes and lead to the election of the Greater of two Evils,as famously happened whenMr. Unsafe at Any Speed ran against W and Kerry. Very Hapy that Bernie Sanders hasn't pulled that Shit.
Dan, I was running as a write-in candidate in the Green Party primary for Congress in AZ-08 because no Democrat filed to run against homophobic anti-abortion fanatic Rep. Trent Franks. But this morning, after the GOP convention, I reregistered as a Democrat and quit the race. I was already supporting HIllary Clinton and had donated to her campaign and in fact started a PAC with the Federal Election Commission called Greens for Hillary. But this year, beating Trump is too important for me even to be associated with a party on the left that is as gleeful about "Lock her up" as the most rabid right-wingers we saw in Cleveland.

(I've tried to run against Republican congressmembers in districts where no Democrat has bothered to file, and in 2014 I actually won the statewide Democratic primary for Congress in Wyoming because no one else bothered to run. And even though I didn't spend a dime and I don't even live in Wyoming, I got 23% of the vote compared to 24% for the previous two Democratic candidates and I managed to win Teton County, the Jackson Hole area, when the native-born, money-spending Democratic candidates for governor and U.S. senator lost it. Maybe being openly gay helped?)

Anyway, as a sometime Green Party member, I can't disagree with anything you said here. A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump. I guess if you live in a state that will go safely Democratic or safely Republican like Vermont or Wyoming, Texas or California, your vote won't matter -- but if Trump is elected, you will never be able to say that you voted for the only woman who could have beaten him. How many progressives today are proud to say that they voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore? Two. And both of them are freaking assholes.
I hear a ton of things like "Dan just talks that way, but his point is valid." I would disagree that the premise is valid. Third parties function to pull the two main parties along. The Populist party did it, those dirt bags Thurmond, Byrd, and Wallace yanked the whole blasted nation to the right, and John Anderson forced Ronald Reagan to moderate his tone. Look, if you are in a safe blue state, vote for a third party like the Working Families Party or the Green Party. Heck, maybe even throw in with Johnson and Weld. But if your Dem candidate fails to inspire - like Al Gore failed - then instead of calling people names, convince them of the quality of your candidate. Is the goal here to work as the insult wing man to shame/scare the left into staying so Hillary can shift right? How about you talk up how progressive, dynamic, and left-leaning Hillary is. Convince me she won't continue to get my friends in Mexico shot up by financing this stupid war on drugs. Convince me she'll stick with her pledge to end private prisons. Convince me she'll end the current "Deporter in Chief" programs that are dumping good working class Latinos and locking them up for profit. Convince me that Henry Kissinger isn't going to be her role model. But name calling? Threats? Bad history? Puh-lease. Use your national voice to pull Hillary left on policy instead of insulting the people that would potentially support her if she were to do so. As for pasty white ... well, we can talk about the VP pick some other time.
@87 as several comments have pointed out, Stein is not anti-vaccination. People like to say that because they need to change the subject from Democrat policies like the TPP that make vaccines and other medicines more expensive. Doctors Without Borders amd others have pointed to this, even now the MSF (the French DWB) is battling for cheaper vaccines, because they have to pay 22x more than they should to innoculate refugees due to Pfizer's greed, but these people act like anti-vaxxers are the real problem in the way of a healthy humanity.

I don't read everything Greens/Stein put out, but I do follow them and I cannot think of one instance where vaccines came up, except from people wanting to smear. People still think that death panels are real because of absurd readings, and that is all you are getting from these folks so desperate to discredit they accuse Greens of acting like the people they say you should vote for.
People used to say, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." The aspect of the election game that you should be hating is the lack of preference voting in the US two-party system.

Here in Australia, you can vote for the Greens, the Sex Party, or whatever tiny fringe party you like the best, and your vote isn't wasted. That's because if your candidate doesn't get past 50%, your vote goes to your second choice β€” and third, and maybe fourth, until someone does get past 50%. Minor parties actually get a shot, third-party candidate get elected, and the major parties have to take notice if a small party does especially well.

If you'd like to see Greens, Socialists, or anyone else have a chance in the electoral process, then have a look into this. I think it's called Instant Runoff Voting in the USA.
I'm a fan, Dan, but you're dead wrong on this. If third-party votes are really so important to y'all, you and other Democrats should be figuring out why people are willing to run when they can't win and why people support them even though their vote is "wasted" or might indirectly support someone they don't Loki. If y'all aren't willing to address those reasons, you don't get to scream and complain. The US had a proud history of third-party politics until the Democrats somehow established the narrative that losing the election of 2000 wasn't their own fault. Frankly third-party politics might be what saves them this time around, as Johnson is polling higher than Stein. I'm waiting for someone to actually compete for my vote instead of condescending or screaming at me, but nobody's doing that except the Greens. I can only conclude that y'all don't really want it that much, which let's be honest, is probably fair.
So penchy is the new male version of hill's....the agenda continues...these puppets masters...either you swallow or we must shove it down?....well well the subtle deceit is with no shame no more....but I guess we should be thankful of the blunt if you still support these duopoly farse you really don't care of your love ones AT ALL...."you don't have to be black to be enraged" must hear deep down and....
Funnel your concerns with the green party can vote or not help anyway u can... fighting for all not just the few SUPPORT the global cry and hope for change a reality......
....w w w. j i l l 2 0 1 6. c o m join for peace of mind for your love ones forever.... now! not later the truly alternative plan to check...join...hiring common sense and honest people and share the wisdom...
πŸŒ βœŒπŸŒŽπŸ’―πŸ’«β€πŸŒŽπŸ’―πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ’«
Dr. Jill Stein check her Facebook page check out mine..for peace with peace in peace!
The only doer working for and by the people and the planet...for your and all peace of mind in all concerns all of them....because a true real leader unites and uplifts not divides and oppress!
Trumpy's hill's trick....
Obviously you got paid with monopoly money....
You repeat perpetual ignorance instead of real research....Wikipedia is not facts fox news or alike are NOT FACTS...
obama and romney have united to block 3rd parties from the American people....because Dr. Jill Stein won the 1st and LAST online instant LIVE POLL....THE AMERICAN CHOICE BEING BLOCKED....OPEN THE DEBATES NOW!
Thr DUOPOLY is the real cause and effect of these MASSIVE run for your lives exodus because of PRIMITIVE OPPRESSIVE toxics for profits WARS....
It's very easy to criticize an organization that's only sixteen years old and essentially just getting started. I've been a fan of yours since pubescence, Dan, but perhaps you should stick to writing about what you know (and incidentally this year's DNC theme) and that's getting fucked.
Interesting how Savage does not offer any examples to back up his negative opinion of Dr. Stein except one that is about as valid as the Benghazi claim against HRC. Additionally, when facts are presented that refute his erroneous claims, he simply minimizes them. It's obvious that he realizes he wrote an ill-informed article and he is unsuccessfully trying to justify it. The more time he spends bashing progressives instead of the neo-liberals running for office, the more apparent that is.
@ 79, that's right, it's always the girl's fault. Silly me.
Savage is wrong here.

First, he stated that maybe in 35 years he would vote Green or whatever he said, but he fails to see that is exactly the kind of thinking that the two party stranglehold has been using to keep third parties down.

Secondly,Hillary supporters will try to convince you to vote for her like the Kerry supporters did in 2004 and that didn't work. The real data shows that the "spoiler myth" is just that. People who vote their conscience as opposed to the lesser of two evils HAVE A CONSCIENCE. Why can't Savage see this?

Now get back to lubricants and pegging, that is your forte. Clearly you know very little about politics except how to stir the pot so that your twitter feed trends, or whatever. I like you Dan, but you should stay out of politics, and I will stay out of penis piercing advice.

plantation mentality. if we elect the war mongering, bank coddling, regime changing, multi millionaire drone queen clinton, maybe a few crumbs will fall down to us commoners as she shovels the food into the mouths of banks, hedge funds and defense contractors. the democrats have fatally screwed up. they had a chance to nominate a progressive who polls substantially better than trump, but chose instead to nominate a morally corrupt individual who polls essentially even with trump.
if trump becomes the next president, blame yourselves democrats for lacking the courage to nominate a person who could have made a difference in favor of one who is the status quo personified. don't blame sanders, the republicans, stein or anyone else. you chose her now live with the consequences.
Not that this is makes much of a correction, but of those 520,000 elected positions, about 300,000 are non-partisan, that is the party affiliation of the candidate is not recorded.
So, I'm supposed to choose between a toxic Republican and a toxic Democrat? Fuck that! I don't support that cynical, lesser-of-the-two-evils system, and it will not have my vote to support it any longer.

I'd rather my vote go towards something that I actually believe in, such as helping to build a legit third party alternative to this cynical Republicrat duopoly. This corrupt electoral system only maintains its power, so long as we continue to slavishly provide it with our consent.
There have been some arguments here to suggest that America can only support a two party system. I (and history) disagree. If we were to strive toward a more perfect union, envisioned by our founders, we'd have at least as many parties as they had, no?…
Voting is a fart in the wind. Let people vote how they want, jeez. All this threatening just leads to non-participation. I'd rather have Greens/Berners show up and vote down-ballot Left than stay home on the couch. But that's nuance, and this is the internet. *ducks the punches*
Dan you just helped me decide! I was going to sit this one out but now I HAVE to vote for Jill Stein.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.