Thoughts on the election.

• Position: Politics and Election

The electoral college, an archaic institution understood fully by few, will determine who wins the election. The win is based on the accumulation of electoral college votes in a collection of what are mostly "winner take all" plurality races in the 50 states and District of Columbia. Knowing that the rules of the institution are unchanged and that the electoral college will still choose our president, the relevant differences between the 2004 and 2000 elections will then be in the relative power of candidates and the political issues that motivate voting

The electoral college structures presidential elections, and as a consequence a Green Party presidential nominee or any other third party presidential nominee has little or no chance of winning the presidency. Considering our current political environment, the struggle would be even more daunting for a third party candidate speaking for our values. Running a Green candidate in 2004 would be a big mistake on our part; a distressing waste of energy. Local and state elective offices are where Greens need to apply these electoral energies. Winning in state and local races is possible, and this would give us the ability to build a party and change our nation from the bottom up. The White House in 2004 is an implausible goal, and it is not in our best interest to run a Green candidate and take momentum away from our already hugely demanding task. If the Democratic Party will nominate a candidate willing to campaign for our values, then that candidate deserves our support. We ought to stand in solidarity against George W. Bush, and that means we must stand in solidarity behind the candidate we choose to oppose him.

-by Sarah Bartlett & John Hickman

When running a Green presidential campaign in a "safe state" campaign, our job is to basically convince the electorate that our candidate and party are best suited to govern because the wasted vote argument runs in our favor. Our campaign, in itself, becomes a selling point because it visibly demonstrates a new found political savvy. On the other hand, running a Green presidential campaign in swing states is the political equivalent of fighting in quick sand. It would be whistling in the dark to expect Greens in swing states to make sacrifices such as the loss of their ballot status in the absence of sensible quid pro quos.

Pursuing a "safe states" strategy would, in essence, enable Greens to both hold out an olive branch to such political rivals and...