Full article text:
Cornel West, a Green Party 2024 presidential candidate, fights to reach ballots in states with differing laws.
With the 2024 presidential election heating up, debates over the role of third parties are beginning to simmer – and Democrats fear the Green Party could offer voters an enticing alternative who could hamper their chances in the general election.
At the center of those concerns is newcomer presidential candidate Cornel West, a philosopher and activist who announced his intent to run with the left-wing, populist People’s Party on June 5 before switching, saying on June 14 he would seek the Green Party nomination.
Bernard Tamas, a political science professor at Valdosta State University, told ABC News that American third-party candidates don’t need to win elections to be influential. Rather, they often “sting like a bee” and shock one of the two major parties to take up issues they’re passionate about.
Tamas believes that the best hope for Green Party members is that the Democratic Party will shift towards their preferred positions in an effort to neutralize the threat that they could siphon away voters.
“I don’t think anyone in the Green Party has any delusions that they’re going to win anything,” he said. “This is a way for the progressives, those on the left, to force the Democratic Party to take [seriously] issues that they take seriously.”
In other words, Tamas said, the possibility that West might cost Biden the election isn’t a coincidence: It’s a core part of third parties’ strategy.
“They’re between a rock and a hard place,” he said of the Green Party. “Stepping aside for this election, well, it would effectively end their impact at all.”
The stated priorities of the U.S. Green Party’s platform are decreasing the U.S. military budget, addressing global climate change through a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, social justice, and democratic reforms like the public financing of elections.
The U.S. Green Party has about 200,000 registered members as of July 2023, according to a party database, and 133 members of the Green Party hold elected office.
So far, the only candidate competing against West for the Green Party nomination is Randy Toler, a co-chair of Florida’s Green Party, who has filed to enter the race but has not yet formally begun his campaign. Toler is also running for Florida’s open Senate seat in 2024.
With the endorsement of Jill Stein, a two-time Green Party presidential nominee who is now West’s campaign manager, and as the only candidate who is actively campaigning so far, West is considered the clear frontrunner in the race.
Like the Democrat and Republican parties, the Green Party nomination will be decided through primaries or conventions across the country starting early next year, culminating in the 2024 Green National Convention. The date of the convention has not yet been announced.
No third party nominee has ever won a presidential election – but some famous third-party bids, such as that of businessman Ross Perot, may have shifted electoral outcomes, and campaigns from Teddy Roosevelt, Strom Thurmond and others even won a few states.
Who is Cornel West and why is he seeking the Green Party nomination?
According to his staff, West, who is a philosopher and former professor of the practice of public philosophy at Harvard University, switched to seeking the Green Party nomination because it is more widely listed on presidential ballots than his original selection of the People’s Party.
In order to appear on the ballot, presidential candidates need to meet state-by-state requirements – a fairly costly and labor-intensive endeavor. In the U.S., only a select few parties, like the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, have the organizational and grassroots support needed to meet those requirements across the country.
“It became clear that he needed a party that could actually get him on the ballot,” said Stein.
While the Democratic and Republican parties also have those resources, Stein argued, West sought a third party nomination because he believes neither party met the Green Party’s standards on the issues of climate change, the influence of corporations and wealthy donors in U.S. politics, and more.
“Dr. West is acting on the reality of the cards that we’ve been dealt,” said Stein. “If you know anything about the polls, you know that American voters have broken with the system. … People are hungry for more choices and more voices in this election and Dr. West is speaking to the deeply felt need.”
West’s candidacy has sparked fears and heated criticism from Democrats that the professor’s campaign could “spoil” the election for Biden, pulling votes away from the incumbent in vital swing states and tipping the election towards former President Donald Trump. In 2016, the number of people who voted for Stein, then the Green Party presidential nominee, exceeded Trump’s margin of victory in Michigan, though Stein has disputed that she cost Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton the election there, arguing that not all of her voters would have voted for Clinton otherwise.
“I think that Democrats have reason to worry,” Tamas said. “1% of the vote, 2% of the vote, could very well shift the election over to the Republican Party.”
Stein dismissed that possibility as “propaganda.”
“This is about the party elite protecting themselves,” she said. “To call that spoiling, when people like Dr. West stand up and offer people another way forward, instead of this pathway that has just been throwing working people, poor communities of color, under the bus, that’s just nonsense.”
West has also drawn backlash from progressives for a recent op-ed where he praised Florida Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis for supporting a “classical education” oriented around the Western literary canon.
Which voters will West woo?
Given West’s background in racial justice, Tamas said the natural inclination would be to believe West could attract African American voters.
But history suggests that might not be the case, Tamas said. Historically, African-American voters have been a fairly risk-averse voting bloc, only voting for candidates that are thought to have good odds of winning.
“They are much less likely to jump on board to a challenge,” he said.
However, West’s left-wing platform could appeal to a certain base of progressive voters, said Melissa Deckman, a researcher and CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute. This is especially true among younger voters for whom socialism is an appealing economic policy divorced from its negative Cold War-era connotations.
“Generally speaking, the term ‘socialism’ is not one that is necessarily embraced by the general public. However, younger Americans, especially young women, I found in my research, tend to be more open to the concept of socialism,” Deckman said.
“Many Americans would say that capitalism as a system isn’t working well for them,” she continued. “For example, many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, increasingly because the cost of living is too high.”
Deckman also named climate change as a factor shaping some voters’ perception of capitalism. West has made the issue a pillar of his campaign, frequently naming “ecological collapse” as one of his key priorities.
The first challenge: Getting on the ballot
The potency of West’s campaign could turn on a set of relatively obscure proceedings surrounding ballot access laws. Each state has different rules for who can qualify to appear on the ballot for a certain office. Most states require candidates to gather signatures or pay a filing fee.
But the Green Party argues these laws unfairly benefit well-funded candidates.
“There’s always been, even in the Constitution, a check on the people,” wrote Tony Ndege, a co-chair of the Ballot Access Committee for the Green Party, in an email to ABC News. “They spin the propaganda of, ‘Well, these are the serious candidates.’ Well, they’re the candidates serious about remaining beholden to big money interests.”
The swing state of Pennsylvania could become a key battleground. The Green Party gathered the sufficient number of signatures for ballot access in that state during the last presidential election cycle, but it was disqualified from the ballot due to technical issues with how the requisite signatures were gathered. The Green Party is already on the ballot in two other key swing states: Michigan and Wisconsin.
Taken together, Ndege said he is expecting an “interesting 2024.”
“There will always be pushback from those in power when you are doing the right thing. I think that will intensify dramatically as the months continue,” Ndege said.
The party has not announced a date or location for its convention.
I don’t really get the mechanism by which you are suggesting this would happen.
All the support for Bernie put no visible pressure on Dems, all the support for Nader didn’t either. Jill Stein did nothing but help Republicans when she ran, and now she’s helping Cornell West do the same.
Only in that it doesn’t push things to the right, which a vote for any third party effectively does in today’s environment.
I don’t claim to have a roadmap to ranked choice voting, but whatever slim chance we have of getting that done at some point is still far more realistic than the idea that voting green is going to have any impact other than putting an R in the whitehouse again.
However much improvement the Dems may need, they aren’t actively rolling us backwards. I can’t fathom how anyone does that calculus and comes to a different conclusion in 2023, after witnessing 2016 and 2020.
The Democrats “aren’t actively rolling us backwards.” This is where we disagree. It’s theratchet effect. The reason the Democrats seem like Republicans from the 70’s and 80’d is because they’re the same. They’re NEVER going left! And voting for them isn’t going to change that. Again, I’m not ceding to fascism. Vote for Joe Biden. But try to understand why someone might be disaffected.
If you’re deciding between not voting or voting for a third party that has no chance of changing any major platform or winning an election, absolutely vote for a third party.
Either way you are consenting to the outcome.
Whether you vote protest to an unelectable third party or vitre strategically, what you do beyond the ballot box matters far more.
But the idea that a vote for the lesser of two evils isn’t a vote for less evil? I don’t buy that. Especially when the progressive needle was moved significantly under Biden, especially for climate.
Have you ever seen the 80’s movie Wargames. When presented with two undesirable outcomes, the best choice is not to play.
You got the point of that movie all wrong. Mutually assured destruction is a game where the only winning moving is not to play, because it is mutual, meaning either choice is equally doomed to the same outcome. “Two undesirable outcomes” is not a good enough excuse to simply not participate. By definition, one of those outcomes must be preferable to the other, and that’s what you should vote for, while you continue to work outside the ballot box to push better candidates and better policies.
“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
See, the thing is; you think you can stop fascism by voting for Democrats. I think a vote for Dems only delays the inevitable. Real, structural change is needed to stop the fascism. The Democrats aren’t going to stop it because they’re owned by corporations. They won’t allow themselves to be reformed because the current system works for them. “If you don’t vote for us you get fascism.” I’m not advocating for not voting. I’m proposing an understanding of why people choose not to vote or vote third party. Regarding mutually assured destruction, both parties aren’t doing enough about climate change. We’re still subsidizing fossil fuels. Biden just opened up more land for drilling. As for the quote, I don’t think it’s analogous. Not voting or voting third party can be a protest vote. So a good man is doing something. He’s protesting.
On that we agree.
Only if both outcomes are equally undesirable.
If they aren’t and you don’t participate, you are consenting to the outcome. Even if that is the outcome that was less desirable.
Everything you write here is the exact kind of cynical, pessimistic motivation many need to hear… in order to convince them to not participate. To not vote. And the kinds of people you’re going to drive away are the ones you need active and participating to further your agenda.
These people who tell you that the Democrats are perfect and great and have no issues that are being invoked don’t exist. Pretty much no one thinks that. And I’m sure, push come to shove, you probably do vote strategically because only a true moron wouldn’t.
But this position you’re out here arguing for isn’t one that is going to let politics get pushed left. It’s going to push it right. You’re achieving the opposite agenda by telling people not to vote strategically.
Some may disagree. If I don’t like either candidate and choose not to vote. I am NOT consenting to either outcome. That’s a false dichotomy. Not voting can be a protest vote. If I give you a choice between dying by gas chamber, or by firing squad. And you choose neither. You’re not consenting to death by firing squad.
But the choice you’re actually getting is gas chamber vs having to buy your own lunch.
Both outcomes undesirable. One of them tolerable. And you’re recommending against doing either. And so when the gas chambers people win the election because you refused to vote for anyone who didn’t promise you free lunch, yeah, you’re complicit. And so much more so because you are advocating for people that want free lunch to stand by and let gas chambers win.
Fundamentally, the insanity you’re espousing is the idea that ONLY elections matter. They’re the smallest effort you can put towards shaping the world. A tiny piece of being an advocate for change. Use that vote strategically and put the rest of your efforts towards advocacy. Instead of advocating for people to not use their votes. It’s genuinely heartbreaking to see someone so obsessed with moral absolutes that they’re actually shaming people for trying to make things even a little better.
It is not my intent to shame anyone for doing what they think is right. If you think voting for Biden is the right thing. Do it. Don’t let some guy on the internet tell you otherwise. But if someone chooses not to vote or vote third party, we should try to understand and respect their choice. This electoral system creates a false dichotomy that you don’t have a choice. There’s always another choice. By not participating or voting third party you’re making that choice. A lot of the left is tired of this game. Advocating for a third party is working outside the system. I’m not a moral absolutist, I’m a realist. Voting for Biden won’t change the system. Insanity is voting for Democrats election after election and expecting substantial change. Raise the minimum wage with executive order. Stop drilling for oil. Our planet is dying. Again, I’m voting for Biden to fight fascism, knowing full well that Democrats aren’t the answer. But I don’t begrudge those that want more and vote third party.
You can also vote for Biden because the IRA was a $1.3+ trillion climate package that is already dramatically improved all models for climate change using a carrot approach that is actually working. Permitting reform is a complex issue, but the best policy experts do think it’s necessary because the same policies that make oil drilling easier ALSO make things like solar, offshore wind, and even things like geothermal or green hydrogen easier to get approved. The US energy permitting process was and still is holding us back. The free market is going to crush fossil fuels pretty fast under the current trends. Not nearly fast enough, but faster under IRA than anything so far. And even that chunk of permitting reform was a concession (to the coal-hearted monster Joe Manchin) because the counterfactual outcome was nothing.
Minimum wage cannot be raised by executive order. That’s just not a thing. It wouldn’t even make it past lower courts, much less the SCOTUS. The only place that can be done is for federal workers… which it was.
BBB contained tons of social welfare reforms before it got torpedoed. By Joe Manchin. It would’ve meant a lot to working class people.
A recurring theme. The fact is, the last time Democrats were able to get real power over all three chambers and free of conservative lunatics, the ACA got passed. Even then, they had to make big compromises to get the GOP to help sign on to do it, seriously watering it down and making it fail to be much better than a bandaid on the problem.
I can’t reply to the inevitable conspiracy theory of “well they wouldn’t have put more forward if they knew it could pass!
!!~”, but the fact is this stuff WAS put forward. And couldn’t pass. So negotiation and compromise happened to get something passed because that’s better than nothing.You say the “Democrats aren’t the answer”, but you don’t even know the question. You’re an idealist, not a realist. A realist votes strategically and encourages others to do the things that will actually work. You have prejudged these politicians and are literally saying it is insane to vote for them in spite of the progress that demonstrably has been made, just because it didn’t live up to your total moral standards. You’re encouraging people to walk away from a winnable fight.
Arguing with bothsiders drives me fucking up the wall.
The issue is that in wargames not playing causes the event not to happen, while in electoral politics not playing just means ceding the decision to everyone else
In rethinking much of this discussion while preparing dinner, I realized I maybe came in a little aggressive on the topic, my apologies. I do understand this. Our primary difference is that I don’t think we can do better than “lesser of two evils” until structural change occurs.
While I agree with you that structural change is not an easy path either, to me it seems an undeniable prerequisite before any flavor of voting for or supporting a third party is going to do anything other than benefit Republicans.
I don’t agree with this choice of words, but I do think I agree with the spirit of what you are saying in this regard. I think the issue is that there’s not a good path out of this. I think your suggested path is an impossibility, and you think mine is.
Edited to add a d and fix punctuation and this:
I think supporting the most progressive local candidate you possibly can seems likely to have the best effect. In my case, the local democrat is very progressive, wins handily, and is truly a good choice. So I admit I’ve got easy mode for this locally. But I feel like these are the folks who can provide change you might actually feel, and who can potentially manage upwards through their party.