Green Party Of New York Calling For Volunteers And Candidates In 2022 Election Season (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    DarinRobbins

    New member
    Joined
    Jan 28, 2022
    Messages
    16
    Reaction score
    4
    Age
    48
    Location
    New York, United States
    Offline
    Many people are alienated in our local communities, in New York, and in the United States. Alienation restricts people from fully participating in the political, economic, and social decisions that affect their lives. The inability to engage as co-owners of our society has exacerbated social and economic inequality and abated innovative ideas to solve New York’s problems. Voters need an independent alternative that can provide a more transparent, accountable, and participatory society for all.

    The Green Party Of New York is working to regain ballot status in 2022 to be that independent alternative. We will be running candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Comptroller as well as candidates for the state legislature and congress. Our candidates will run on issues such as 100% renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure, worker cooperatives, basic income, a public employment program, a stock transfer tax, a carbon tax, ranked choice voting, a state bank, universal healthcare, and peace.

    The Green Party Of New York needs to build this vital movement through the coordination of candidates, volunteers, and voters. If you believe in the ideas promoted by the Green Party and our work toward a more direct democratic society, please consider joining us. If you are an organizer or activist in social justice movements and know someone who would be a great candidate for the Green Party, contact us today to talk more about it at www.candidates@gpny.org. If you are not ready to run, our candidates need your skills, time, and support. Sign up as a volunteer at https://www.gpny.org/volunteer. We look forward to working with you. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

    Volunteers
    https://www.gpny.org/volunteer

    Candidates
    candidates@gpny.org
     
    Many people are alienated in our local communities, in New York, and in the United States. Alienation restricts people from fully participating in the political, economic, and social decisions that affect their lives. The inability to engage as co-owners of our society has exacerbated social and economic inequality and abated innovative ideas to solve New York’s problems. Voters need an independent alternative that can provide a more transparent, accountable, and participatory society for all.

    The Green Party Of New York is working to regain ballot status in 2022 to be that independent alternative. We will be running candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Comptroller as well as candidates for the state legislature and congress. Our candidates will run on issues such as 100% renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure, worker cooperatives, basic income, a public employment program, a stock transfer tax, a carbon tax, ranked choice voting, a state bank, universal healthcare, and peace.

    The Green Party Of New York needs to build this vital movement through the coordination of candidates, volunteers, and voters. If you believe in the ideas promoted by the Green Party and our work toward a more direct democratic society, please consider joining us. If you are an organizer or activist in social justice movements and know someone who would be a great candidate for the Green Party, contact us today to talk more about it at www.candidates@gpny.org. If you are not ready to run, our candidates need your skills, time, and support. Sign up as a volunteer at https://www.gpny.org/volunteer. We look forward to working with you. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

    Volunteers
    https://www.gpny.org/volunteer

    Candidates
    candidates@gpny.org
    :)

    I made election day get out the vote phone calls, and voted for local candidates with the green party 20 years ago in Missoula Montana. We were the majority party when it came to the local town council.

    :(

    But then Ralph Nader hijacked the party to run for President nationally. Then a succession of hijackers came after him.
     
    :)

    I made election day get out the vote phone calls, and voted for local candidates with the green party 20 years ago in Missoula Montana. We were the majority party when it came to the local town council.

    :(

    But then Ralph Nader hijacked the party to run for President nationally. Then a succession of hijackers came after him.
    Just to clarify, would you consider Howie Hawkins to be a hijacker? I ask this because he is actually one of the founders of the Green Party in the United States.
     
    Just to clarify, would you consider Howie Hawkins to be a hijacker? I ask this because he is actually one of the founders of the Green Party in the United States.

    I see the Green party as strictly a local municipal and county level party. i am a Democrat for the higher levels of government,

    Running a Presidential candidate as well as for Congressional seats nationally, as well as at the state level for Governor and major state offices, taking votes away from the Democratic party in the process is what I regard as hijacking the Green Party, and in effect being supportive of Conservatives.

    So I regard Howie Hawkins as a hijacker, as well as being a fool.
     
    In New York state, in order to get ballot status we have to run a candidate for Governor and president to get 150,000 votes. Until very recently, it used to be only a candidate for Governor getting 50,000 votes. The benefit of ballot status is that the number of signatures for candidate petitions for local office is greatly reduced from 5% of all voters to 5% of those registered in the party. I can not speak about the situation in Montana, but here in New York there needs to be active candidates on both the state level and local level.
     
    In New York state, in order to get ballot status we have to run a candidate for Governor and president to get 150,000 votes. Until very recently, it used to be only a candidate for Governor getting 50,000 votes. The benefit of ballot status is that the number of signatures for candidate petitions for local office is greatly reduced from 5% of all voters to 5% of those registered in the party. I can not speak about the situation in Montana, but here in New York there needs to be active candidates on both the state level and local level.

    Well that's a crying shame. Some people in your state are pulling a stinker. Probably people from both major parties.

    I moved from Montana in 2000. At the local level the Green party was ideal because the Democratic party in Montana is basically the other Republican party.

    Not that I shun any Democrats who do win there. Few do, but some. Senator Tester is one I supported when he beat the Republican Senator named Burns. Burns was the fellow who called Muslims rag heads.

    Here in California I live in a county where Republicans are 60% and Democrats are 40%, but the Democrats are at least Democrats, not local level Republicans making an end run around their own party. In 15 years here at the local level only one Democrat has won a short term as a county supervisor. It's pretty grim. That awful Tom McClintock is my rep, and he likes to cut down trees, and basically salt the Earth.

    And BTW welcome to the board. :)
     
    Welcome to the board! I am a single-issue voter on the environment, and while the Republican Party is 100% enemy no.1 in this country when it comes to addressing the current environmental collapse, the Democrats are also failing, as they can't help but tack on unrelated, and in some cases counterproductive, measures to their environmental proposals. This is why your sentence here bothers me:

    Our candidates will run on issues such as 100% renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure, worker cooperatives, basic income, a public employment program, a stock transfer tax, a carbon tax, ranked choice voting, a state bank, universal healthcare, and peace.
    That's basically just the democratic platform but more extreme. You all need to offer something different, and stop at 100% renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure, and your platform will be a lot more palatable for moderates. I mean, the environment is the driving force behind the Green Party, right? The rest is just left-wing talking points that cement your status as being firmly one one side of our current political divide.

    Also, I don't understand how the economic policies are related. Sure it's a noble cause to lift people out of poverty, but ironically, poverty is the only reason the environment hasn't completely collapsed yet. If all 9 billion people on earth had cars and air conditioning like the US does, we would be cooked already. Addressing the environment needs to come first and the Green Party needs to embrace that cause and get rid of the fluff.
     
    Welcome to the board! I am a single-issue voter on the environment, and while the Republican Party is 100% enemy no.1 in this country when it comes to addressing the current environmental collapse, the Democrats are also failing, as they can't help but tack on unrelated, and in some cases counterproductive, measures to their environmental proposals. This is why your sentence here bothers me:


    That's basically just the democratic platform but more extreme. You all need to offer something different, and stop at 100% renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure, and your platform will be a lot more palatable for moderates. I mean, the environment is the driving force behind the Green Party, right? The rest is just left-wing talking points that cement your status as being firmly one one side of our current political divide.

    Also, I don't understand how the economic policies are related. Sure it's a noble cause to lift people out of poverty, but ironically, poverty is the only reason the environment hasn't completely collapsed yet. If all 9 billion people on earth had cars and air conditioning like the US does, we would be cooked already. Addressing the environment needs to come first and the Green Party needs to embrace that cause and get rid of the fluff.
    The Green Party originated the Green New Deal in 2010 when our candidates for governor in Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California ran on it. We connect the transition to an economic bill of rights because we realize that the transformation would be basically ending the fossil fuel industry and we want to make sure that people are not put into extreme poverty because of it. We also want to make sure that this just transition is done through worker owned and community based means in order to also promote community economics and grassroots democracy, which are two of our 10 Key Values.
     
    Welcome to the board! I am a single-issue voter on the environment, and while the Republican Party is 100% enemy no.1 in this country when it comes to addressing the current environmental collapse, the Democrats are also failing, as they can't help but tack on unrelated, and in some cases counterproductive, measures to their environmental proposals. This is why your sentence here bothers me:


    That's basically just the democratic platform but more extreme. You all need to offer something different, and stop at 100% renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure, and your platform will be a lot more palatable for moderates. I mean, the environment is the driving force behind the Green Party, right? The rest is just left-wing talking points that cement your status as being firmly one one side of our current political divide.

    Also, I don't understand how the economic policies are related. Sure it's a noble cause to lift people out of poverty, but ironically, poverty is the only reason the environment hasn't completely collapsed yet. If all 9 billion people on earth had cars and air conditioning like the US does, we would be cooked already. Addressing the environment needs to come first and the Green Party needs to embrace that cause and get rid of the fluff.
    I'm a member of the Green Party here in the UK (although I inevitably end up voting tactically, because that's what a first-past-the-post system drives).

    I think those 'talking points' you list are pretty typical of Green party policies globally, and I'd say that's substantially because the problems we have in really acting on environmental issues are systemic and if we don't tackle those, any "let's take environmental action!" approach ends up falling apart quickly.

    I'll run through the ones you highlighted and give my take from a purely environmental point of view (in a quick way, because this is a forum post, not a book). I should say in advance I'm not going to have time to debate all these in detail, but hopefully this'll make at least a case for them

    worker cooperatives

    So here, there's a view that worker cooperatives will tend to be more sustainable, e.g. more efficient in terms of use of natural resources, and less aimed at growth at all costs. I can see the case for that: a typical corporate structure might be geared towards the interests of the shareholders, and that tends to be viewed in terms of share value and dividends. An argument can be made that shareholders can express their environmental concerns through votes, or selling their shares, but reality would suggest that's not really effective in practice. Environmental actions tend to end up being effectively negotiated between business and government, and since the lines between the two can be blurred, we end up with relatively weak and ineffective actions.

    Whereas workers in a cooperative will tend to be more concerned about the sustainability and security of their business, and being directly involved in the business, their environmental concerns will be directly expressed.

    That is not to say worker cooperatives are a solution in and of themselves of course, but I think there's a pretty clear case for why they would be part of a Green party platform.

    basic income

    So you suggested above that 'poverty is the only reason the environment hasn't completely collapsed yet. If all 9 billion people on earth had cars and air conditioning like the US does, we would be cooked already.' There's a valid point of view there, but I would argue that a reduction of poverty, particularly on the level of a basic income, doesn't inevitably mean that increase in unsustainable consumption.

    And on the other hand, there's the view that poverty in a developed nation drives a lot of other unsustainable consumption. People with limited income have little choice in what they purchase, it tends to have to be the cheapest option. The cheapest options is frequently the least environmental. Essentially, if a large proportion of the population have relatively little income, that's a pressure on the market to cut as many corners as is necessary to be able to provide products they can afford. So put it this way, where there's a cost in raising environmental standards, we can't take them if it means people can't afford the affected essentials. So to raise those standards, we also have to raise people's ability to afford those higher standard products at the lowest levels of income. A basic income is one way of doing this (subsidies for the producers is another, but they're not mutually exclusive).

    There's also the argument that a basic income has the potential to offer a level of security to better enable people to make more conscious choices about the work they take, and to reduce the impact that transitioning to green sustainable production can have on employment as some people find their jobs shifting.

    a public employment program

    Pretty straightforward, public employment can be used to also help manage the impact of transitioning jobs as we shift to a green economy, and can also be used to employ people for environmental work.

    a stock transfer tax

    This one is a bit more abstract, but I think there's a case that it could reduce volatility in the financial markets, since it's a disincentive to high-volume and short-term speculation, which, arguably, can further drive unsustainable growth and marginalise sustainability and environmental concerns, as well as raising funds to take environmental actions.

    ranked choice voting

    The case for this one is really straightforward. First-past-the-post systems tend to drive effective two-party systems, and it's easy in those for environmental concerns to be marginalised. The more politics is a two-party system, the more parties will align on some contentious (or manipulated to become contentious) issues, while drawing divisions on others. It's easy for environmental issues to get lost in that politicking.

    a state bank

    Again from the point of view that a lack of environmental action is in part driven by the financial sector and the forces that act within it, a state bank can have a beneficial impact on that though, for example, making choices on lending that better support investment in productive sustainable businesses.

    universal healthcare

    More indirect I guess, but it has the clear potential to offer better efficiency, better outcomes, and more investment in preventative measures. There's a case that universal healthcare enables a healthier population, and a healthier population is more environmentally friendly.

    and peace

    I feel like 'peace' doesn't really need explaining? It's not like war and the defense industry are renowned for their environmental friendliness. Additionally it's a global economy, and a lot of environmental issues have to be tackled globally. Avoiding a race to the bottom between nations is essential, cooperative measures are the best way to achieve that, and cooperative measures are easier to achieve in a peaceful state than they are in a conflicted one.

    Without a lot of those policies, there's inherently greater opposition to a lot of environmental actions; e.g. a shift in the energy industry towards green production inevitably involves shifting jobs, which will involve losses in some areas. The harsher the impact of those job losses, and the less availability of investment and alternate employment, the greater the opposition will be. Any environmental platform has to address that. Similarly, any environmental platform has to address the nature of our economy, financial sectors, and political structures. Otherwise, it's just not going to get very far, as it runs into the same issues that have limited action to date.

    So in summary, a Green party has to have policies on these issues - even putting environmental concerns aside entirely, in practice any elected official has to act on all the issues within their remit, and a simple "We're for the environment" is going to leave uncertainty about what they'd actually do which would discourage support in itself - and I hope, even if there's disagreement about particular policies (and I'm not trying to sell them here, just offer a view of an environmental case for them), it's at least reasonably clear that there are environmental principles behind them.
     
    Last edited:
    Thanks for your responses. Re: the basic income, I think DarinRobbins has it right, where any major shift in energy consumption will have huge disruptions and we need to plan for that. But make no mistake, more disposable income = more damage to the environment until we are 100% renewable energy. For every person that buys an electric car instead of a regular one because of their boost in income, there are 10 that will trade their bus pass for a F-150. Not to mention the increase in construction, travel, etc.
     
    I see the Green party as strictly a local municipal and county level party. i am a Democrat for the higher levels of government,

    Running a Presidential candidate as well as for Congressional seats nationally, as well as at the state level for Governor and major state offices, taking votes away from the Democratic party in the process is what I regard as hijacking the Green Party, and in effect being supportive of Conservatives.

    So I regard Howie Hawkins as a hijacker, as well as being a fool.
    Let's double down on the status quo and hope for a different outcome?
     
    Let's double down on the status quo and hope for a different outcome?
    It's not so much that as advancing the Green Party as a national force is an effort in futility given the structure of United States government (which I think sucks). Minor parties hold far more sway in the UK (and most every other western democracy) because of the parliamentarian system.

    A different approach is required here -- one that sees minor party candidates seeking state/local offices and then building a cohesive brand based on policies rather than partisan talking points. If enough traction is made on the state and local levels then you could see some winning federal congressional and senate seats.
     
    It's not so much that as advancing the Green Party as a national force is an effort in futility given the structure of United States government (which I think sucks). Minor parties hold far more sway in the UK (and most every other western democracy) because of the parliamentarian system.

    A different approach is required here -- one that sees minor party candidates seeking state/local offices and then building a cohesive brand based on policies rather than partisan talking points. If enough traction is made on the state and local levels then you could see some winning federal congressional and senate seats.
    Could. I get your point, but I personally don't see how we make a dent in the power structure here playing within the rules that the power structure allows. We are where we are by design.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom