Conniff wrong about Greens.

• Author: Vye, George
• Position: Letters to the Editor - Letter to the Editor

What the hell is this mantra Ruth Conniff keeps repeating about us Greens running against the Democrats ("Greens at a Crossroads," August issue)? Last time I noticed there will be two major party candidates in the general election, not just the Democrat. Bush and Kerry are both odious, but Bush reeks a little bit more. We are running against both of them, to further the cause of our party and the progressive ideals that both major parties have abandoned.

George Vye

via e-mail

It's amazing how Ruth Conniff manages time and time again to miss the main point of any important topic, and take the elitist view of things. The latest example of this was her condescending view that the travesty of the Green convention was a "growing pain."

First, let's acknowledge that the Greens are hardly "new." The sad story of the Green Party is that David Cobb's nomination was made possible by the fact that the Greens, who claim the mantle of "grassroots democracy," have few or no democratic mechanisms in place for the election of officers and nomination of candidates.

Instead, the Greens rely on state conventions, where many attendees have to pay an entrance fee to participate.

Furthermore, the Greens' system was virtually a carbon copy of the U.S. electoral system.

Consequently, it was only a matter of Cobb going to small states with virtually no Green registered base and convincing a handful of members of the central committee to vote for him. Thus, Cobb would get four delegate votes in Alabama or North Carolina, which literally have a handful of registered Greens, while California, which has over a million registered...