[Marxism] Green Party US on the edge?

[Craig Brozefsky]

"Mark Lause" <markalause at gmail.com> writes:

> McKinney's alliance to the GPUS was always tentative.  If nominated by
> the GPUS, it will largely be because of the peculiarly undemocratic
> structure of the GPUS, which rather equates state parties with little
> or no membership to state parties with large, engaged memberships,
> such as California.

I think you are misrepresenting this:

http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/Delegation-Size.php

California has 168 delegates to the nominating, with the next closest
being Illinois and Maine with 44, then New York with 40.

The formula for figuing out how many delegates each state gets is
complicated by the fact that not all states are registration states.
There is simply NOT a national definition of "Green Party" membership
that is uniform across all states.  Illinois is an example, with it's
open primaries.  People can't register as Green, they have to fill out
a form on the state website and pay dues.  It also takes into
consideration the "density" of greens, and also the size of the
legislative bodies of the states.

> Where that leaves the Greens is a very good question.  Certainly,
> Obama's likely success is also certain to undercut a lot of the
> potential appeal of a McKinney campaign.  This may leave the GPUS with
> another lilliputian campaign focused largely on denouncing Nader.

I don't see them wasting any time denouncing Nader.  It WILL make it
difficult to get ballot access for Nader AND the Green candidate,
because you cannot collect signatures for both in many states.
Nader's decision to go independant is going to result in him not
getting on as many ballots as he would have had he gotten the Green
nomination.

Of course, it's much more fun to speculate about the implosion of the
party, then to actually do the work of organizing the convention,
getting ballot access for candidates, and building the party.

-- 
Sincerely, Craig Brozefsky              <craig at red-bean.com>