What percentage do the names of the literal entirety of current elected green officials you listed, as granularity as local elections, represent of the total elected positions? Hint: in 1992 that total was about 520,000 people.
Edit: lol didn’t even realize you included former appointments.
Friend, I’m not voting for her. But the green party does more than just run for president. Now if you wanna argue percentages, ok, cool. But they do run for offices, as I’ve shown you.
With something like 50% appointment rate, largely due to uncontested elections. In other words, less than 250 run compared to 520k other party contenders. This is less than .05% green, yet they think they should be on 100% of presidential races.
The percentage a party receives in elections doesn’t automatically reflect its seriousness, especially when a political system is structured to suppress alternatives.
Ok, so what’s the “magic number” for a party to be taken seriously in your eyes, and how can they possibly reach it when the two major parties manipulate the rules, funding, and media access to keep third parties down?
Bruh, even in this very forum, Lemmy users often resort to guilt, pressure, and insults to force people into supporting the duopoly, calling those who back third parties “idiots” instead of fostering genuine political diversity. As I know from personal experience. lol
What percentage do the names of the literal entirety of current elected green officials you listed, as granularity as local elections, represent of the total elected positions? Hint: in 1992 that total was about 520,000 people.
Edit: lol didn’t even realize you included former appointments.
My point was they don’t only run pres elections.
Friend, I’m not voting for her. But the green party does more than just run for president. Now if you wanna argue percentages, ok, cool. But they do run for offices, as I’ve shown you.
With something like 50% appointment rate, largely due to uncontested elections. In other words, less than 250 run compared to 520k other party contenders. This is less than .05% green, yet they think they should be on 100% of presidential races.
So you think people should only vote for who they think will win? Not vote with their values then?
Not what I implied at all… Defensive much?
A party that is only interested in moonshots isn’t a serious party.
I just gave you a list that shows that they run in other elections.
Less than .05% of “other elections.” How obvious does this need to be for you?
The percentage a party receives in elections doesn’t automatically reflect its seriousness, especially when a political system is structured to suppress alternatives.
Ok, so what’s the “magic number” for a party to be taken seriously in your eyes, and how can they possibly reach it when the two major parties manipulate the rules, funding, and media access to keep third parties down?
Bruh, even in this very forum, Lemmy users often resort to guilt, pressure, and insults to force people into supporting the duopoly, calling those who back third parties “idiots” instead of fostering genuine political diversity. As I know from personal experience. lol