Column: Greens planting problems in elections

By Jack McMillin

The Green Party likes to claim that there is no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. I would like to make a suggestion somewhat along those lines – there is no difference between the Green Party and the Republican Party.

In the majority of elections they participate in, Green Party candidates do not have a realistic chance of winning. However, in a lot of these elections, the progressive Democratic candidate they are running against does. This is the situation in the election for State Representative from the 103rd Congressional district, a seat currently held by Naomi Jakobsson. Jakobsson is a strong progressive who represents the best the Democratic Party has to offer, and she has a strong chance of being reelected. By opposing her reelection, and bringing the Green Party’s impressive ground game against her, Tom Abram increases the chances of Naomi losing the seat to her Republican challenger.

Members of the Green Party claim that even when they field candidates in closely-contested elections, such as the one for representative for District 103, they are not being “spoilers” because the majority of people that vote for their candidates are people who would not have voted if the choice were simply between Democrats and Republicans, or that the support for Green candidates comes as much from disaffected Republicans as it does from Democrats.

The latter claim is absurd on its face. What kind of a disaffected Republican is going to vote for someone from a party whose ten key values include “Non-Violence,” “Respect for Diversity,” and “Feminism and Gender Equity?” Those haven’t big drawing points of the Republican Party for a long time.

The first claim deserves more attention. There may be a very small group of people, who are already disenchanted enough with government that they refuse to vote for a candidate from either major party, who will go out of their way to show their support for democracy by casting a vote for a third-party candidate that they know has very little chance of winning an election.

Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!

  • Catch the latest on University of Illinois news, sports, and more. Delivered every weekday.
  • Stay up to date on all things Illini sports. Delivered every Monday.
Thank you for subscribing!

I can understand wanting to support democracy, but given how democracy currently works, third parties aren’t viable. If there were runoff elections for the races Green candidates participate in, it might make sense to run on a third party ticket.

When the Green Party’s quixotic quest for “ballot access” gets them involved, Democratic candidates, who represent the only realistic chance to get progressive voices in government, are hurt. The Greens talk about the choice between Democratic and Republican candidates as choosing between the “lesser of two evils.” But when you are part of an organization that pulls support from viable progressive candidates, you aren’t on the progressive side.

While Greens may not understand this, the Republicans do. The Republican Party is known for backing Green and other third party efforts, from Nader’s 2000 campaign to now. One prime example is Socialist Equality Party candidate Joe Parnarauskis’ attempt to get on the ballot for the State Senate’s 52nd district race, an attempt stalled in the state election board along party lines.

Members of the Green Party claim that by participating in a third party, they intend to move political discourse to the left. Once again they have an argument that doesn’t make sense. How is throwing stones at the Democratic Party, a coalition of progressives and moderates that can actually get people elected and have an effect on policy, going to move the Democrats in a more progressive direction? How is attempting to bleed progressive Democrats away from their party going to make the Democratic Party as a whole more progressive?

Let’s go back to the claim by the Greens that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. One easy example of the difference between the two major parties, and also the effectiveness of the Green Party is the 2000 presidential election. If Al Gore had become president, I doubt we would have invaded Iraq. Thanks, Green party! Thanks for Bush.