askchapo

22822 readers

371 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

In All Seriousness: PSL or Greens? (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There's been a lot of memes going around, but I genuinely have a question. If PSL were on the ballot, I would obviously vote for them. However, they're write-in only in my state. Would writing in PSL have the same effect, or could the vote more easily be invalid or ignored.

In other words, is it better to vote for Greens if PSL is write-in only?

EDIT: THANKS FOR INPUT! I've decided to write in Hilary Clinton, have a wonderful day!

But really probably writing in PSL. Elections don't matter too much though, so I'm ever in an area where PSL is active, I'll make sure to join (which has been the plan for a while). Thanks again!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 52 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't matter in the grand scheme. If one is on your ballot and not the other, vote the easy one. If they're both write ins or both on the ballot pick whichever one you like best. If neither are write ins or on the ballot leave it blank.

At least in the case of the greens, Jill Stein is not running to win president. She is running because she has to run for president in order for down ticket greens to be eligible to be on the ballot. Those down ticket greens could actually win and do sometimes in local elections so that's why she's on the ballot.

PSL is on the ballot for publicity and to spread discussion and conversation about socialist values.

Both of these are valid reasons to be on the ballot and both of these are valid reasons to receive a vote. Both parties are anti genocide and neither will win so it's not too big of a difference either way.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

She is running because she has to run for president in order for down ticket greens to be eligible to be on the ballot.

where can I read more about this? is this partisan ballots or something?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

List of 150 greens in Office

Yeah like local offices. The Green Party is very adamant about not recieving corporate money. They believe in people powered elections and representstion. The presidential election helps establish certain thresholds for public funding and ballot access instead of having to "start over" in signature drives just to be on the ballot in local and state elections. Public funding is funded by people who check on their tax returns the $3 to public election funding.

You'll hear this 5% threshold mentioned often and this is the reason why.

Receiving a public funding grant for the general election - FEC.GOV

Public funding for major party presidential nominees in the general election takes the form of a grant of $20 million plus the difference in the price index. (The general election grant for 2024 is $123.5 million.) To be eligible to receive public funds, the presidential nominee of a major party must agree to limit spending to the amount of the grant and may not accept private contributions for the campaign.

Minor party candidates and new party candidates may qualify for partial general election funding, based on their party's electoral performance, or upon the candidates' electoral performance in the preceding election year. Although minor and new party candidates may supplement public funds with private contributions and may exempt some fundraising costs from their expenditure limit, they are otherwise subject to the same spending limit and other requirements that apply to major party candidates.

....

Minor party candidates: A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding presidential election. The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Since the Greens have never breached 5% (highest 2.7% for Nader), would that mean they have never received FEC funding for their presidential campaigns?

I know that Greens are in local offices obviously, that work is good, but I don't understand how specifically running Stein is required for "down ticket greens to be eligible to be on the ballot" as Infamousbit said. Seems to me that she's running for the same reason PSL is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It depends on the state as each state has different ballot access requirements for down ballot candidates. Say you want to run as a Green or PSL candiate for state office. Does the state recognize the party and thus put your name on the ballot without having to resort to costly signature drives for both party recognition and putting yourself in as a write-in?

Many of them have requirements of X% of the vote of Y office for their major candidate in the last election. Major candidate being the Presidential candidate. You'll have the whole state vote for president rather than a single local district office. Much easier to get say 20k votes from the whole state rather than one district.

I.E. Michigan

Maintaining party status

In order to maintain qualified status, a party's principal candidate (i.e., the party's candidate who receives the greatest number of votes of all candidates fielded by the party in a particular election) must win at least 1 percent of the total number of votes cast for the successful candidate for secretary of state in the most recent election for that office. For example, in 2010, 1,608,270 votes were cast for the successful candidate for secretary of state, meaning that a party's principal candidate had to win at least 16,083 votes for the party to retain qualified status. A party that fails to meet this requirement must petition again for state recognition.

So for example, if you want future Green party down ballot candidates to be able to have an easier time getting on the ballot, Jill Stein (Presidential Candidate) needed to 16,083 votes for the Green Party to keep their status in Michigan ballot elections. Otherwise they would be subject to grueling and expensive (which are getting worse as 3rd parties become more of a real threat) signature drives to regain their status with the state.

Yes there are advocacy for issues, and promoting the party that comes along with it.

The after effects of Nader yielded a few states getting over 5% percentage for the Greens as Governor candidates.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Thanks. This is the most thorough treatment I've seen of higher races leading to lower ballot access.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

I don't know for sure. Google I guess? I just heard her in an interview on Democracy Now and that's what she was saying. I don't think she'd have much reason to lie about it in that space