Hard choice for anti-Bushies: Green or Democrat?
"Each Nader person has to decide for himself or herself which course is better for 2004: supporting Nader again or converging with Democratic progressives in the Democratic primaries. There are no guarantees. Both courses have grave inherent risks. The first runs the high risk of electing Bush; the second, of ending up with yet another corporate puppet as the Democratic nominee."

The situation in the United States illustrates the importance of electoral reform. Australians do not face any such a hard choice because we have preferential voting (known as 'instant run-off' in the US). However Australia does have single-member electorates, a serious issue because it means that the Greens (or any 'minor' party) even with a million or more votes could still get zero representation in the house, while a major party (either Labor or coalition) will win a parliamentary majority with a minority of votes. This type of distortion/manipulation/gerrymander occurs every election. The best and most complete answer is Hare-Clark or Quota-Preferential Proportional Representation for all representative bodies.

The most important thing however for the Greens is to retain the conviction that speaking the truth is the answer. Whether in parliament or out of it, in govenment or coalition or out of it, whether any listeners or none at all, addressing the ideas and values that are of concern is the most important thing. Representative democracy has failed becaue the 'leaders' say not what needs to be said but what is calculated will win office.

Hard choice for anti-Bushies: Green or Democrat?
"Each Nader person has to decide for himself or herself which course is better for 2004: supporting Nader again or converging with Democratic progressives in the Democratic primaries. There are no guarantees. Both courses have grave inherent risks. The first runs the high risk of electing Bush; the second, of ending up with yet another corporate puppet as the Democratic nominee."

The situation in the United States illustrates the importance of electoral reform. Australians do not face any such a hard choice because we have preferential voting (known as 'instant run-off' in the US). However Australia does have single-member electorates, a serious issue because it means that the Greens (or any 'minor' party) even with a million or more votes could still get zero representation in the house, while a major party (either Labor or coalition) will win a parliamentary majority with a minority of votes. This type of distortion/manipulation/gerrymander occurs every election. The best and most complete answer is Hare-Clark or Quota-Preferential Proportional Representation for all representative bodies.

The most important thing however for the Greens is to retain the conviction that speaking the truth is the answer. Whether in parliament or out of it, in govenment or coalition or out of it, whether any listeners or none at all, addressing the ideas and values that are of concern is the most important thing. Representative democracy has failed becaue the 'leaders' say not what needs to be said but what is calculated will win office.