Talk:Green Party of the United States

See also: Talk:United States Green Parties

Template:Election box metadata

non-hierarchical participatory democracy?

What in the world does the phrase "non-hierarchical participatory democracy" mean in terms of how the Green Party understands the term? A Google search for that precise phrase turns up just under 600 results, all of which appear to simply state that the Green Party is in favor of it without bothering to define the meaning or explain it. There is no explanation anywhere of what that phrase specifically entails. Either remove the phrase or spell out the meaning for us neophytes who aren't familiar with the Green Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.197.2.6 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It means what it says. Participatory democracy means fully enfranchised democracy where as many people participate as possible. Non-hierarchical means no class-like power structure (grassroots organization).

2004 strategy, continued

It seems to me that it this article presents only one side of the Cobb/Nader-Camejo debate, and as such is deeply misleading. It presents Cobb as promising "to run a campaign focused on building the Green Party" without presenting anything about what the other side said their campaign was about (my suggestion would be, full independence from the Democrats). I understand from the edit summaries and comments on this Talk page that Ben Manski doesn't think safe states was really the big issue in the campaign. That's fine, but plenty of Greens did -- that's why it was so commented-upon in the time. I think it is a very flawed encyclopedia article on this issue that does not acknowledge that many Greens did not support Cobb's campaign because they saw it as a capitulation to "Anybody But Bush." Whether or not you agree with them, that perception among a segment of Greens is undeniably an important part of Green history. Catsv 18:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)catsv

2004 strategy

I added an explanation of the differences between Nader and Cobb in 2004 in two places.

This sentence: "The principle practical difference between Nader and Cobb was in electoral strategy; Nader advocated fighting in all states, while Cobb advocated focusing on states very likely to go to Democrat John Kerry regardless of the Green vote."

I'll address why I think this is counterfactual and biased. Biased in its framing of the debate (as being over abstract electoral strategy, rather than practical candidate preference, when both were factors) and in its language ("fighting" for example). Counterfactual in that Nader and Cobb were both inconsistent in their advocacy of electoral strategy, whereas Camejo was the candidate consistently pushing the "all-out" message. Counterfactual in that Cobb's position was not the one described, but rather, a "smart states" strategy putting party needs first (i.e. ballot access, state party preference, etc.), and potential impact on the outcome of the election second (thus Cobb actively campaigned in most of the so-called "swing states"). And unnecessary in that these issues are mentioned elsewhere in the article, where they are treated with more care.

Ok. You're more informed on this than I am, certainly. I'll agree with dropping this sentence. But more below.

Gotcha.

And this: "However, while remaining firm supporters of the party, Camejo and others have criticized the nomination process as non-representative, since the state-based selection of delegates means that each member's vote is not given equal weight. In 2004, although a majority of members favored endorsing Nader's campaign rather than Cobb's "safe state" strategy, the majority of delegates felt the opposite. This controversy has led to the formation of the Greens for Democracy and Independence."

Again, the use of the word "firm" is open to debate, and as language it is biased. The description of the options facing members (endorsing Nader versus endorsing Safe States) is counterfactual. The options were to nominate Cobb, Camejo, Mesplay, Salzman, etc, or to endorse Nader, Kucinich, or some other non-Green candidate. My opinion is that the majority, or at least a plurality, of Greens supported a hard all-out run, but that is only my opinion, and the results of the party primaries do not reflect one way or another on this question, since it was not on the ballot.

The paragraph wasn't framed with sufficient care, I agree. Regarding the opinions of a majority of Greens, I am following Camejo, who I've heard make this claim - as part of the rest of the argument for reform above. I think his/GDI's argument ought to be mentioned in the article. If you agree, I'll re-add a slightly shorter version, clearly attributing the argument as a position rather than as fact.

If you do, I think it would be good to address the other positions re: the claims about representation as well. And to address the criticisms of the process that came from other sectors of the party. For example, that endorsing Kucinich was not an option. Or that only votes for candidates seeking the nomination should have been counted in the first round of voting. Or that a vote on whether or not to back a candidate should have preceded the nomination/endorsement votes. Or that party registration should not have factored into counting party membership at all, as registering Green at a state-sponsored polling place is a different thing than affirmatively joining a political party.

The statement that a "majority" favored endorsing Nader is completely unsupported by any evidence, and counterfactual. By his own decision, Nader did not appear on most Green primary ballots, and thus, he received fewer votes in Green primaries than did Cobb.

I think the relative vote counts in the presidential election is fairly strong evidence, if not conclusive.

I don't. The majority of regular Green voters did not vote for either of them. Nader outspent Cobb by a factor of 100. And Nader is a much more widely known figure. I would guess that most of Nader's votes came from people who do not usually identify with the Green Party. These were alienated independents, the folks he was most concerned about getting support from.

Ben Manski removed them as "biased and counterfactual, and unnecessary."

I think some explanation of why Greens supported two different presidential candidates in 2004 is certainly necessary. The article as it was had essentially nothing to say on the subject; it didn't mention any difference serious enough for that kind of split vote to happen. This made it subtly biased towards the Cobb side, in that no reason was presented for Nader/Camejo supporters' desertion.

On the contrary, the strategic questions are addressed earlier in the article, and references are provided. "In the Spring of 2003, as the 2004 elections loomed, Greens began an often-heated debate on party presidential strategy. Democrats, liberal activists, and liberal journalists were counseling and pressuring the Green Party and Ralph Nader not to run a presidential ticket. In response, a diverse cross-section of U.S. Greens issued "Green & Growing: 2004 in Perspective" a statement initiated by national party co-chair Ben Manski. Green & Growing's 158 signatories declared that "We think it essential to build a vigorous presidential campaign," citing as their chief reasons the need to gain ballot access for the Green Party, to define the Greens as an independent party, and the failures of the Democrats on issues of foreign and domestic policy. Other Greens, most prominently Ted Glick in his "A Green Party Safe States Strategy", called on the party to adopt a streategy of avoiding swing states in the upcoming presidential election. A third, intermediate "smart states" position was drafted by Dean Myerson and adopted by David Cobb, advocating a "nuanced" state-by-state strategy based on ballot access, party development, swing state, and other concerns."

Adequate information about the basic positions present in the party is there already, yes. However, the article as it stands does not really make it clear how these various positions played into the selection of candidates, or the actual split in voting, in 2004. The strategic debate is referenced only the in run-up, and while Cobb's position is described, it's described as a compromise, which makes its relation to the ensuing campaign - practically, one between Cobb and Nader - obscure. Perhaps a clarification should not be in the same section as Camejo's criticism of the existing delegate-selection process, but it should be there.

I think you're talking about a level of analysis and debate that is just not practicable for this format.

Ben, if you think my facts are wrong or you see bias the other way, please be more specific in your criticism, and please modify my additions rather than removing them entirely. The article certainly ought to make some mention of the strategic debate! It's important! I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm not going to make any changes as of now. I would appreciate a reply, however.

You bet. I think the strategic questions were important, but they were not on the ballot. The confusion of the strategic questions with the candidates themselves is fraught with peril because the candidates in many cases were inconsistent as to their positions, and because the reasons why individuals supported them varied greatly, and were often contradictory, and finally, because many in the various camps attempted to ascribe positions to the candidates (for example, that Nader welcomed GOP money, or that Cobb was a Democrat, or that Camejo was a red stalking horse, etc) that are at the least controversial and at most immobilizing as far as understanding the 2004 primaries is concerned.

I think there's a sense in which the strategic questions *were* on the ballot - see above. Perhaps some of the various criticisms/smears you mention should be brought up, too. In fact, I'm leaning towards that conclusion. I think an uninitiated person reading the article would really have very little understanding of how the 2004 campaigns were run and debated. That was the concern that prompted my initial edit. I do share your concern about an overly obsessive description of the nastier bits of infighting being unnecessary and/or immobilizing, but the information ought to be available. Perhaps most of the 2004 section could be split to a new article? The main article is quite long... Kalkin

I don't think wikipedia is the place for this. You're talking about a level of discourse and debate that is still going on within the party, and has not settled yet. If information, debate, etc. is still unsettled within the Greens, how can it be ably detailed here?Ben Manski

Why does this article exist

Why does this article exist? The subject seems to be pretty well covered in the United States Green Party page.

Because it contains the basic details of a particular organization, as opposed to a comprehensive overview of a party which encompasses several organizations. RadicalSubversiv E 00:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a general rule, the same information should not be duplicated two places, which you've done by simply cutting and pasting from the United States Green Party article. I'm not sure the right way to divide information between the two, but this isn't it. RadicalSubversiv E 05:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Migration from USGP article

Consensus was reached long ago that most of the content at United States Green Party should be located here, save the distinction between GPUS and G/GPUSA, which would become a disambiguation page. It's been done, and I'd like any dissenting users on this move -- namely Radicalsubversiv -- to discuss any other migrations before making reverts or mass changes.

No such consensus existed, unless you count a handful of people popping into to suggest a move, me disagreeing, and the conversation ending at that. Shem acted without any sort of discussion, and freely admits to doing much of his editing while intoxicated; moreover, his moves destroyed at least one set of revision histories. I have now moved and re-formatted this article to match the naming schema for the Democratic and Republican Parties (best I can tell, the Libertarian Party has always existed as a single national organization, so I wouldn't see the need for separation there). If a clear consensus (that is, significant discussion involving people other than Shem and myself) emerges that Green Party material should not follow the larger pattern, I will defer to it. RadicalSubversiv E 00:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Troll w/ Sockpuppets alert

FYI:

See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ollieplatt

Technical evidence found by Tim Starling confirms that Libertas has multiple sockpuppet accounts. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Proposed decision#Sockpuppets 2.

Salazar, Ollieplatt, Razalah, Jennypratt, Suna, Dean12, Viewvista, Fylc, Billclinton, Anilingus, and Nutrosnutros are all sockpuppet accounts of one user (as acknowledged by technical evidence), likely Libertas.

"He's a troll." said RickK

Davenbelle 09:29, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

me bad; re: removed troll talk

that was a mistake; sorry; goodnight. Davenbelle 10:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Merge?

If these articles are to remain separate, there needs to be more differentiation between them, much as there is between the Democratic Party (United States) and Democratic National Committee articles. It seems silly to have articles styled as "Green Party of the United States" and "Green Party (United States)" to me; it really must to total outsiders. Rlquall 01:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to run that by RadicalSubversiv, participant in this Talk's earlier discussion, I think. Be prepared to hear that your proposals "belie a clear lack of understanding both of how political parties are organized, and how articles about them are organized on Wikipedia"; if you're known to drink while editing, be prepared to discuss that as well (see above). Or at least that's the response he gave me, before dismissing my proposal for such changes. At least the "United States Green Parties" (plural) page doesn't exist separately anymore; there used to be three tiers to Wikipedia's American Greens tangle, as opposed to two. I'd love to discuss a change again, if skipping the unecessary rudeness with Subversiv is possible. Shem 09:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to admonish against unilateral changes, let's not play the "lecture against unilateral changes, then make several of them ourselves" game. Shem 09:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still, one must take into account the fact that Green Party history in the U.S. is pretty complicated and has had a lot of groups in it. Why don't we merge Green Party of the United States into Green Party (United States), while continuing to make it clear that the latter is not limited to the former? - Nat Krause 09:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and would in no way wish to omit such context. When I last merged the two, that is precisely what was done. No content was removed outright, save content from Subversiv's old "United States Green Parties" page to the (now-defunct) Greens/GPUSA's article. To be 100% clear, since this debate has been misrepresented before, I hold that only two "American Greens" articles need exist: Green Party of the United States merged with Green Party (United States), and Greens/Green Party USA. Shem 09:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The distinction between Green Party (United States) and Green Party of the United States is almost exactly equivalent to that of Democratic Party (United States) and Democratic National Committee -- yes, the name is confusing, but you'll have to take that up with the GPUS. I don't see any reason why the two articles need to be merged, but if they are the result should be located at Green Party (United States) -- what Shem attempted to do a while back was to locate the article at Green Party of the United States and erase any distinction between a specific organizational entity (the national committee) and the broader party. Also, it would be helpful if we could have this discussion without personal attacks, please (especially the completely bogus one about your drinking, a subject which you brought up and I have no interest in). RadicalSubversiv E 17:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subversiv, there's no kind way to say this: you are (again) misrepresenting what took place, though for what reason I have no idea. I did not attempt to "erase any distinction," at all, and if you'd stop talking past me (with an air of undeserved rudeness I also cannot understand), you would see that and move along with business. As for the "bogus" bringing up of my drinking, the earlier discussion on this page (see "Migration from USGP article" above) is in plain view. For you to discourage personal attacks after having engaged in such deliberate rudeness, and to discourage unilateral editing while doing just that in these two (three, four was it?) articles, is very confusing. Shem 19:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I apparently did make some mention of your drinking after you brought it up repeatedly -- I apologize. (You might find that people will stop mentioning it if you stop bringing it up incessantly.) Aside from that, I stand by all of my comments. But really, this is pointless -- the germane question is whether to merge the two articles, a subject on which I'll wait to hear some response from Rlquall and Nat Krause (both experienced and respected editors to whom I'll defer if they both see a need for a merge). RadicalSubversiv E 20:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned in one place: My User page, in humour. Beyond Wikipedia User space, I have not mentioned it in any way, shape, or form; given it being a joke, the background to my discovering Wikipedia, it's hardly relevant while I'm editing articles. I do not "bring it up incessantly" -- you are the only user on Wikipedia, ever, who has missed the humour or moved to bring it up as a point in Wikipedia's article space. Though if the apology is sincere, it is accepted, and I hope that future encounters with you can be free of the antagonism present here. Shem 21:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be best to merge here. Currently there are a lot of pages out there pointing to Green Party of the United States that obviously mean to be pointing to Green Party (United States). I think that adequate distinction can be made as to the subtleties using a footnote or section on this page. If, however, RadicalSubversiv or others believe that a separate page is necessary for the Steering Committee or whatever, there can be specific pages linking from here for that... It's just important to remember that the average user wants the most general information first, and might stop there. The average user definitely does NOT want the current Green Party of the United States page before they have seen this page. Unfortunately that is what is happening now. Anyone who wants the Green Party of the United States information should be able to find it, either on here or linked from here, but first that page should redirect here because Green Party (United States) is all that the first-time visitor wants. 65.28.237.180 20:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's important to consider which articles link to Green Party of the United States, and do they actually intend to link specifically to the national committee, or to the party in general? We should look through these pages and gauge their intent. If most or all just reference the party in general, I say we just move Green Party of the United States to Green Party of the United States, Steering Committee or something like that, and leave a redirect to Green Party (United States) in its place. 65.28.237.180 07:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There's about 53 links to Green Party of the United States -- we can easily go through those and correct any which seem to be referring to the party generally, rather than the GPUS organization specifically. I'm also adding a disambiguation notice to clarify any possible misunderstanding for readers. The correct title for an article about an organization is the name of the organization -- that the Greens have taken the somewhat confusing step of using a generic-sounding organization name for their national committee doesn't change that. RadicalSubversiv E 04:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That is no longer true. Within the past two months, the GPUS has voted to change the name of what used to be called its Coördinating Committee to the less confusing National Committee, or, externally, Green National Committee, so the nomenclature is now identical among the DNC, RNC, and GNC. I happen to sit on the GNC.

While the GNC is the highest decision-making body within the GPUS, it is not considered to be synonymous with the term GPUS. The party also has a Steering Committee comprising seven (currently six) Co-chairs, a Secretary, and a Treasurer, which is delegated with day-to-day operations, and a variety of standing and select committees, working groups, and identity caucuses, which are also under the GPUS umbrella.

I do not see a distinction between articles that refer to "the party generally" and those that refer to the organization specifically, since the organization is the party. --Jeepien 18:27:32, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

You're still somewhat misrepresenting the relationship. As the FEC will tell you, the "Green Party of the United States", a legal corporation (with a bank account, officers, etc.), is the national committee of the Green Party in the United States, the same way that the DNC is for the Democrats, and the RNC is for the Republicans.

I hadn't heard that the GPUS had renamed its coordinating committee to be the "Green National Committee" -- that should be reported in the GPUS article, BTW -- but that doesn't change the name of the organization itself, which is still a "national committee" in the generic/legal/FEC sense of the term. If anything, the internal name change makes it even more important to maintain the separation for the clarity of readers. It is not synonymous with the Green Party writ large, which existed before the GPUS or its predecessor organization was even founded. (At one point, there was even an ongoing divide among Greens as to what national organization constituted their official national committee. I suppose whoever's still running the G/GPUSA these days would claim that there still is.)

RadicalSubversiv E 02:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, what about having Green Party of the United States (national committee), linked to from this page, and then do Jeepien's redirect? That way you keep the distinction you want, and users aren't sent to a page they don't want. I understand the national committee distinction, but honestly, that distinction matters only to the FEC and the GPUS national committee, and they don't come to Wikipedia to have it explained to them. You say that this isn't our problem, because it's the GPUS that chose a confusing name, but really, they didn't. That national committee distinction is just for the FEC; it isn't something that the GPUS put up as a major facet of their public image, and it makes little sense to make such a big deal of it here. The distinction is useful for the FEC, not Wikipedia users. Is there anything wrong with Green Party of the United States (national committee)?

--65.28.237.180 08:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, I've already added a disambiguation notice to the GPUS article, pointing here, and I've just finished going through and fixing links which pointed there while referring to the party generically. That should make the distinction very clear for readers. It's a distinction which matters a great deal, not just because of the FEC, but because of how American political parties are structured and the long and sordid history of Green Party organizational disputes. RadicalSubversiv E 02:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not merge them? What's the problem? No one is suggesting that we should not make the distinction between "Green Party of the United States" and the Green Party in the U.S.A. in general. - Nat Krause 01:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. There is currently so little information at Green Party of the United States that the distinction does not have to be made by having two separate pages. I maintain, however, that if the party's page ever became too burdened with national committee information that a separate page was necessary, that page should be "something something (national committee)" and Green Party of the United States should remain a redirect. Perhaps, then, in anticipation of such time, and to avoid having this same confusion arising in the future, we should simply create the "something something (national committee)" page now.

What I'm really angling for is a redirect from Green Party of the United States to Green Party (United States), for usability's sake. I then ask, is that better accomplished by a full merge, or by moving the current "national committee" page to a page explicitly named "something something (national committee)"? --65.28.237.180 19:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Did one editor above just state that GPOTUS has renamed itself to "Green National Committee," and shouldn't that change take effect if true? Shem^(talk) 02:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that he is saying that the leadership of the GPOTUS changed its name (the name of the leadership) to Green National Committee. This certainly implies that GPOTUS doesn't see itself as a national committee. - Nat Krause 04:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It would seem to imply that, but it doesn't -- the GPUS spent a lot of time and money proving to the FEC that they constitute the national committee of the Green Party, and their website currently reads "As the Green Party National Committee, we will devote our attention to establishing a national Green presence in politics and policy debate while continuing to facilitate party growth and action at the state and local level" ([1], emphasis added). They've simply made matters more confusing by deciding to call the leadership body of the GPUS the "Green National Committee."

As for the question of merging the articles, with all due respect to Nat, I don't think "why not?" is the appropriate question, and over the course of my involvement with this article, numerous people have specifically attempted to erase the distinction. The articles are on two distinct but related subjects, disambiguated properly so as to cause a minimum of confusion for readers. Could the subject of the GPUS as an organization be dealt with in this article? Probably, but so could Democratic National Committee in Democratic Party (United States), and I don't see anyone clamoring to do that. What I do see is a a number of Greens with involvement in the U.S. deliberately trying to blur the distinction, and proposing completely novel schemes for article naming. Neither is acceptable in my view.

Incidentally, I believe there used to be more content at Green Party of the United States, until someone (I think Shem) page-moved over it -- an admin might still be able to retrieve the old content.

RadicalSubversiv E 13:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You really do have an awful memory, Subversiv. Shem^(talk) 06:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"They've simply made matters more confusing by deciding to call the leadership body of the GPUS the "Green National Committee." Well, what is your hypothesis as to why they did that? It seems quite likely to me that the GPUS does not see itself as a national committee, but, for practical reasons, they want to legally qualify as a national committee under federal law. Otherwise, they could have called it "Green National Committee" instead of Green Party of the United States, and called the current Green National Committee something else less confusing.

Anyway, I think "Why not?" is a very reasonable question when we are discussing two pages with such closely related content that also happen to suffer from confusingly similar titles. If there is a problem with people attempting to confuse the distinction between GPUS and not-GPUS, then there's no reason we can't deal with that problem on this page. In fact, it might be easier to watch if what we're watching is on one page instead of two. (I am, for the record, not any kind of Green, much less a member of GPUS). - Nat Krause 01:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If there was old content lost it would be great to get it back by admin if possible. I haven't seen Greens deliberately blurring the distinction, but maybe you've seen something I haven't. The distinction is important and nobody in this discussion is suggesting that it should be discarded or muddled (in fact, as I suggested above, a "(national committee)" page would be a great place to protect that distinction, as it is appropriately out of the way of anticipated edit wars). But I don't think that having these two similarly titled articles (wherein one article covers a subset of the other), no matter whether disambiguated, constitutes "a minimum of confusion for readers"; I think that including "national committee" in the page title would cause less confusion than your purported minimum. Pulling out the Democratic National Committee may be instructive, but in light of the confusing names here, whether that be the fault of the GPOTUS itself, it looks to me like "a clear consensus (that is, significant discussion involving people other than Shem and [your]self) [is] emerg[ing] that Green Party material should not follow the larger pattern". --65.28.237.180 21:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There is still confusion, by the way, not only amongst readers but editors as well: which article to link to? See [2] then [3]. Leaving Green Party of the United States with its current title, even with disambiguation at the top of the page, is going to result in more of these mistakes, which means more and more cleanup afterwards. --65.28.237.180 21:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As a Green Party member, a member of our local county's "County Council" (equivalent to a Democratic Party Central Committee), an officer of the party at a national level (delegate to Accreditation Committee from the National Lavender Greens Caucus), in my opinion, when a party organizer/activist thinks of the "Green Party of the United States", they think of the party itself as a whole, definitely not the National Committee, which your average activist/party organizer refers to as the NC (formerly the CC, co-ordinating committee). 99% of Greens on the street have no idea the NC even exists. If you want a page that refers specifically to that particular body (only one of many varying bodies at a national level), then you should have a page that says that: "National Committee of the Green Party of the United States"... with a redirect from"Co-ordinating Committee of the Green Party of the United States". No one in the party thinks of it as "Green Party (United States)". In fact, if you type "Green Party of the United States" into Google, you get www.gp.org, which has the title "Green Party of the United States" and the text "The official policy platform and position documents of the Green Party of the United States." The platform is NOT the product of the National Committee's deliberations. As someone said above, the only people who refer to the "Green Party of the United States" as the "National Committee" are the FEC's lawyers. User:Tvleavitt 01:27, 23 August 2005 (PDT)

Although I agree with your conclusion to merge, I'm afraid you might be misunderstanding what's at issue here. RadicalSubversiv is making a factual claim, which I've never heard anyone dispute, that, legally, the "Green Party of the United States" is itself a national committee. Assuming this is true, then, the so-called "Green National Committee" would more accurately be called a Central Committee or an Executive Committee or something. The GPUS is clearly not the same thing as what we mean by "Green Party (United States)" because "Green Party (United States)" includes the G/GPUSA as well as all the state parties, some of which were quite active before GPUS ever existed. So, we don't mean to say that GPUS's platform is produced by the Green National Committee, but that, since GPUS is a national committee, its platform is by definition the product of a national committee.

However, I completely agree with you that the fact that GPUS is a national committee is an almost totally irrelevant legal technicality, so we shouldn't base article structure around it. - Nat Krause 11:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

So the GPotUS is a national committee; I'm not sure anyone wants to dispute this. Regardless, people (including Wikipedia editors) are going to (and linking to) Green Party of the United States when they intend to arrive at Green Party (United States). There may or may not be a merge in the future, and there may or may not be an ASGP page split. For right now, I would like to get the current GPotUS page out of the way, so that a redirect can be left behind, leaving whatever confusion may remain as an academic matter for interested editors, rather than a usability issue for everyone. Thus, I am requesting a move, from Green Party of the United States to Green Party of the United States (national committee). Anyone who would like to vote please go to Talk:Green Party of the United States. --65.28.237.180 02:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say that we should use Green National Committee when we're talking about the GNC and not pretend like the GNC and the whole of the GPUS are the same organization. We've already merged Green Party (United States) with Green Party of the United States, but let's keep the distinction between the whole national organization and the leadership committee, just as we do with Democratic Party (United States) and Democratic National Committee or Republican Party (United States) and Republican National Committee. --Leep4life 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be merged unless someone adds significantly more to this article in order to differentiate it. I think this article could be a great section in the Green Party article. --Njfellow 18:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Leep4life: the Green Party has three national committees now, one of which is the Green National Committee. I've already added quite a bit of material on the GNC. Please take a look. Also, I don't think that the history of the Green Party in the United States should be whacked out of this article as it has been; the Greens existed here long before the GPotUS. As now written, the history starts in 1996, rather than, say, 1985 when the first Green candidate ran in this country. Deirdre 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Social Democracy?

Seems like this reference to political ideology is misleading. Social Democrats distinguish themselves from Greens, see Social Democracy, in particular this: Many social democratic parties have shifted emphasis from their traditional goals of social justice to human rights and environmental issues. In this, they are facing increasing challenge from Greens, who view ecology as fundamental to peace, and require reform of money supply and safe trade measures to ensure ecological integrity. In Germany in particular, Greens, Social Democrats, and other left-wing parties have cooperated in so-called Red-Green Alliances. Greens also distinguish themselves from socialists. See [4], in particular: There is a worldwide movement advocating socialism and then there is a worldwide movement for Green politics. In fact, the latter arose in the wake of the sixties as an ALTERNATIVE to the former, and The Greens' eco-communitarian vision of living more lightly and more locally is quite distinct from the traditional socialist vision of industrial-scale planning. And within the context of a future Green world of diverse bioregional communities, while an economy based on collectivized property relations would certainly be a viable option, there is no need to elevate it to a universal principle as socialists do. As Green ideology may be tolerant of, but is nevertheless distinct from, Social Democratic ideology, and the US Green Party doesn't seem to be any more socialist than other Green Parties, I would suggest removing this reference. --65.28.237.180 03:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Done --Jeepien 05:05:30, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

G/GPUSA

Ben Manski (a rather high-profile former co-chair of the GPUS), has just made some good additions to the article. However, I am somewhat concerned about this change (about the G/GPUSA):

Though for a time they represented themselves otherwise, today they describe themselves as "a national non-profit membership organization," not as a political party.

I can find no indication of any such thing on their website, which continues to call the G/GPUSA "American's oldest and original Green Party."

Can anyone provide a source? If not, I'll probably revert this change.

RadicalSubversiv E 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply re: G/GPUSA

I can - no worries - it's at the bottom of their front page:

http://www.greenparty.org/

You'll also notice that they refer to themselves as an "organization" throughout. Finally, they are no longer registered as a political party committee with the FEC.

 In Solidarity - Ben Manski

Carbondale, Green Alliance, Identity Caucus pages

I just created separate pages for The Green Alliance, Carbondale (the G/GPUSA meeting at which the Boston Proposal was rejected], and Identity Caucuses, all of which are more or less inter-related. User:Tvleavitt

ASGP page

I feel that there should be a separate page for the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP), even though the current Green Party of the United States is more or less a direct historical and organizational successor to that organization (only in a separate page can the level of detail necessary to fully document that organization's history and role within the larger Green Party movement be appropriately included). Note: I've created redirects that point Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) to the Green Party USA page, and a redirection for Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) that points to the Green Party (United States) (same as ASGP or Association of State Green Parties), as I used those links in the various articles I recently created. User:Tvleavitt.

Under the current scheme of things, shouldn't Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) redirect to Green Party of the United States? - Nat Krause 01:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Logo

Nice logo! I'm glad they changed it. --Revolución (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

So much work yet to be done...

Folks who are looking for stuff to do could do worse than starting some of the biographical pages we need to connect to US Green Party history - Howard Hawkins, John Rensenbrink, Carolyn Estes, CT Butler, Margo Adair, Mike Feinstein, Brian Tokar.... [...]there are literally dozens of people who have made significant enough contributions that they ought to be noted.

Also, there is lots of room to expand on basic Green political theoretical and philosophical constructs.

I would also like to see some material regarding the similarities and (more importantly) differences between the Greens and other groupings such as socialists, libertarians, etc. etc. etc.

?

Has any member of the green party ever won a seat in congress?

...not yet. Deirdre 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I still think that Green Party (United States) should merge with Green Party of the United States, and I'd like to start making moves in that direction. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I effected the merge today, although I didn't find anything at Green Party of the United States that wasn't already included in this article, other than a "See also" item. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nader's 1996 running mates

Evidently in some states Nader's running mate on the ballot was not Winona LaDuke. Does anyone have more details about why that was, and who was on the ballot in which states? Шизомби 03:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

History incomplete

The history section concentrates exclusively on the history of the political party named the Green Party of the United States, which began in 1995, rather than on the history of the Green Party in the US, which began in 1985 or a bit earlier. This page used to have this broader history; why was this deleted? If this is one specific party, then it makes sense, but my reading of the title of this page is that it is not. Perhaps there should be another article, History of the Green Party (United States). Deirdre 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and started this article. It needs work. It would be good to have more detail on the Green Committees of Correspondence and the founding papers of the Greens in the US. Deirdre 15:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• My understanding from close friends who were directly involved is that the early Greens were radically different than the party that bears the label today. Given the very short duration of the present configuration, and given the controversial nature of the transformation (some would say takeover), it seems wrong to relegate the earlier history to a separate page. Doing so becomes a de facto POV -- that the current electoralism is the only "legitimate" expression of a "party". This kind of ignorance is exactly what the power brokers of GPUS would like people to believe. Knappster 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "relegating"--it's typical to have histories separate from the main current pages so that one doesn't have to deal with a huge long page. The Democratic Party (United States) page is enormous, and I think would benefit from having its history separated. Admittedly, the Green Party in the US has a pretty short history, so perhaps a case could be made for reuniting the pages, but I still think it's more digestible this way. Deirdre 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

controversy

There is no mention of the fact that Nader's candidacy resulted in a Bush win in Florida, nor of the GP's alliance with Santorum's campaign in Pennsylvania. Most politician websites have a "controversy" section, and I think one ought to be added to this page. I'm pretty anti-Green, so I think someone else should do it in the interest of fairness.

• I agree that the 2000 election represents a turning point in the both Green Party's perception of itself, and in the way it was perceived by others. The section should be expanded, but POV will be importnat. For example, the Florida elections were hotly contested, with a margin of victory smaller than the number of votes for either Reform candidate Pat Buchannan or Libertarian Harry Browne. I think the "Jews for Buchannan" vote did Gore in. :) But like you, I don't think I'm the one to do it -- I'm more than a little bit pro-Green. But I'll be watching over the shoulder of whoever does bell the cat. --Robertb-dc 23:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• There is definitely a controversy, and it is NOT a fact that Nader's candidacy resulted in a Bush win in Florida--this is flatly false, as the Gore campaign itself has admitted and subsequent investigations by various investigative journalists, such as Greg Palast have proven--Gore WON, and Nader did not cause him to lose. The Supreme Court did, by cutting off the time for a recount, and the Gore campaign did, by not insisting on a statewide recount. I am a Green, and so shouldn't be writing about it (can we get a Libertarian or nonpartisan to do it?), but this idea keeps getting repeated like the urban legend it is. It is not true, and has no place in a factual article except as a report on a controversial and false rumor. Here's what the Green Party says about it; here's an interesting discussion of the liberal/conservative tenor of the country and the factors that played in the election. Deirdre 21:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Candidates aren't entitled to to votes. Saying that Nader caused Bush to win in Florida is rediculous. In any case with such logic it's more rational to say that Bush caused a win in florida (he "stole" more votes than Nader) but I digress. Exit polls indicated that Nader supporters came from a wide variety of groups, and the majority of Green voters vote for the green party specifically because they do not like either of the two primary parties and had Nader not ran would have abstained from voting entirely. You should look into Katherine Harris - she played a pivotal role in this. Nader didn't.
• Nader made the pie bigger; he did not take a bite out of Gore's slice. §

I actually think the section that addresses this issue is a little biased. Here is a paste: "This criticism is based on the premise that if Nader supporters, who were extremely liberal, had voted for the liberal-leaning Gore in the Florida election, Gore would have defeated George W. Bush in Florida and won the presidential election. Nader supporters argue that his candidacy probably did not affect the outcome in Florida, as proponents of this argument claim, because Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan likewise took votes away from Republican Bush, and these two probably canceled each other out. Nader received 97,421 in Florida; Buchanan received 17,412 votes." This is insufficient, as the above poster comments, there are lots of reasons to reject the notion that labeling Nader a "spoiler" is inaccurate, not just the votes for Buchanan. If you compare the language here to the language in History of the United States Democratic Party you'll see that the language in that article is strongly accusing of Nader and rejections of it are considered inappropriate since the article is about the Democratic Party view, and therefore not a POV issue. This one should be similar then, with a stronger statement of the Green Party view, and thus in support of Nader's candidacy without raising POV issues. I'll make some changes, feel free to comment. Banyan 05:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

2006 Elections Page

• It seems like the following section of the 2006 elections page isn't really specifically related to the Green Party. Could this be clarified, with references on how it relates to this party, or be deleted:

8.7 million Americans voted for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and for impeachment resolutions on local and state ballots that were initiated or supported by Greens. Troop withdrawal initiatives won in 34 of 42 localities in Wisconsin, including Milwaukee, Madison, and La Crosse, and all 11 communities in Illinois, including Chicago. Of 139 cities and towns in Massachusetts voting on the troop withdrawal measures, only a handful voted nay on initiatives demanding that Congress and the White House end the war immediately.Bangfrog 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These resolutions were touted by Green Party members as a largely Green Party led effort. I can't say whether or not that's true, but it is the claim. Banyan 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
• n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick

Kristen Olsen

On the Steering Committee section, each name has a link, but it appears that Kristen Olsen's name links to another Kristen Olsen. I'm 99% sure the GPUS SC member is not also a championship figure skater. I don't know how to make the link go to a blank Kristen Olsen page... --Banyan 01:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:David Cobb.jpg

Image:David Cobb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This page makes no mention of a single Green party policy!

Surely a little odd? Jossy's Giant (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was getting ready to add that in here. The article desperately needs an outline of the party platform. Now. Auror (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The National Party GP is suppose to pass a 2008 platform at the national convention in Chicago. We could wait until then for updated policies.

AfD discussion

Folks here might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cavlan.--Appraiser (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideology section

I was surprised to find no section dedicated to the party ideology, so I copied the "Ten Key Values" from their web site. It should be reworked and expanded in original language, by someone more skilled than myself, but the need for an ideology section in a political party article should be perfectly obvious.

Also, I take issue with calling the GP "center-left" as in the info box. Their latest presidential debate can be seen in its entirety on YouTube (part 1, part 2) And although he wasn't contending, Ralph Nader made some comments, if you're interested. I'd say that, based on the party platform, and the statements of party members and candidates, that the GP qualifies to be called "left-wing" rather than "center-left," both fiscally and socially, at least on the U.S. spectrum, which is the relevant one in this case, and that the info box should reflect this. But I'll leave it to someone else to change it, if they agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.222.133 (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)