Talk:United States Green Parties

Untitled

For the sake of consistency, this page should be moved to United States Green Party. See List of political parties in the United States. --Jiang 19:27 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Rename Article to "Green Party of the United States"

The full and proper name of this organization is "Green Party of the United States." This is a legally recognized and established name, so "United States Green Party" is technically incorrect. If the name were simply "Green Party" then it would make sense to clarify by listing it as the "United States" Green Party; but this is not the case, so this article should be renamed "Green Party of the United States" to accurately reflect this organization's name.

Thing is, until your recent round of edits, this article was not about the GPUS specifically, but was more generally about GPUS and G/GPUSA. So, we were evidentally using "United States Green Party" as an umbrella term to refer to both groups together. It has occurred to me sometimes in the past that maybe we should split them up into two separate articles. It seems a little unfair, though, to do this simply by altering the article to discuss one and not the other. One solution is to make "United States Green Party" a disambiguation page that links to the GPUS and G/GPUSA articles. Alternatively, we could have mostly everything just go straight to Green Party of the United States but have a disambiguation link at the top of the page going to Greens/Green Party USA. - Nat Krause 23:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The history version of the page, now buried underneath the new section, makes the important point that for all practical purposes, the GPUS is the Green Party in the United States. The GPUSA has essentially no membership or infrastructure at this point, and there is no longer any credible controversy as to which organization constitutes the official Green Party. A disambiguation page linking to both organizations as competitors for being the party would be misleading on this point. RadicalSubversiv E 16:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. 99% of people looking for the Green Party in the United States will be looking for GPUS. We can link to G/GPUSA within the GPUS article; and maintain that article seperately, allowing anyone wanting to write about G/GPUSA to do so.

I agree that, currently, the GPUS is much larger and more significant, and therefore more likely to be what someone is trying to find information about. However, the G/GPUSA was a significant player in national green politics until at least the late 90s. On this basis, I propose the following solution. Most of the current article should be moved to Green Party of the United States and should be specifically about that group. We should make sure that all references to the US Green Party vis a vis recent history (since 2000) point there. It should contain a reference and a link to G/GPUSA in its opening paragraph. There should be a sep'rate Greens/Green Party USA article which also mentions and links to Green Party of the United States. - Nat Krause 06:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can agree to that. There will be a seperate pages for "Green Party of the United States" and "Greens/Green Party USA." "United States Green Party" can be a disambiguation page with links to both of the other pages; however, the disambiguation page should also contain information indicating that GPUS is the larger and better known organization that nominated and ran Ralph Nader for president in the 2000 election, to help distnguish between the two. Agreed?

Agreed. I would go further and say that any references to "the Green Party" (in the context of the United States, I mean) that are referring to it after about 2000-2001 should skip the redirect and go straight to Green Party of the United States. Also, I think the redirect should be United States Green Parties to avoid confusion. - Nat Krause 05:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Mcarling 18:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed here as well, though I believe both United States Green Party and United States Green Parties could be redirects. - Scooter 19:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Will this change finally be made? Shem Daimwood

Nevermind, I've done it myself. 203.214.145.43 15:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Membership Numbers

Someone attempted to remove the reference to GPUS having over 300,000 members nationwide. Their claim was that registered voters are not party members. Registered voter are considered party members by law in most states. In addition, the 300,000 number includes only registered voters--GPUS actually has more members, in states where registration by party is not permitted. The elimination of this reference number has been reverted.

See this site for an independent, nonpartisan analysis of GPUS membership. The Green Party already had 298,701 registered voters in Janurary 2004, not counting membership in states where registration by party is not permitted, and has grown significantly since that time. The claim that GPUS has fewer than 300,000 members nationwide is clearly false.

It is not correct that registered voters are considered party members by law in most states. If fact that couldn't be correct as the SCOTUS has repeatedly and consistently rules that the states have no right to legislate anything at all about political party membership. The assertion that the Greens have anywhere near 300K members is absolutely false. Reverting. User:Mcarling 15:00, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

I disagree but am willing to clarify as a compromise. I will state that the Green Party has over 300,000 "registered voters" nationwide. That's a fact. Here's another website with an analysis showing those statistics.

Good compromise. About 300,000 is a fact. Over 300,000 is wishful thinking. When Ballot Access News says over 300,000, then I'll believe it. Made that minor correction. User:Mcarling 18:00, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

I'm fine with that change. Good compromise.

Should this be a disambiguation page?

I have just reverted changes that turned this page into a disambiguation page, moving most of the content to Green Party of the United States. While there was some discussion above of a similar proposal, it was well over a month ago and did not reach a consensus. I would like to once again renew my objection to such a move. The article is primarily about the history and activities of the Green Party (much of it before the ASGP/GPUS ever existed) not about the national organization specifically, and it deals with the split (which is basically over), quite well. RadicalSubversiv E 00:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not clear as to your reasons. From the above discussion on the move, which concludes with five responses in agreement, I would say that consensus had been achieved. Secondly, "the Green Party" in the U.S. was always one of the two organizations mentioned (GPUS or G/GPUSA); the GCOC became the ASGP which became the GPUS. Finally, as mentioned in the previous discussion, most users will be looking at this page for info on the GPUS. My suggestion would be to make GPUS the main page for all post-1990 links, turn "United States Green Party" into a redirect to GPUS, and create links on GPUS and G/GPUSA which refer to each other...however, a disamb page would be a reasonable compromise. - Scooter 19:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The history of Greens in the U.S. is that until very recently there hasn't been a consistent "the" Green Party that everyone agreed on. There's been several national organizational formations which have morphed and split in various ways (you've actually got it a little wrong: the GCOC became "The Greens", which suffered a split of sorts -- became the G/GPUSA -- which resulted in the creation of state parties, which resulted in the formation of the ASGP), and this article deals with all of that, and presents the current situation in appropriate context. I don't know what's special about 1990, but attempting to link references to Greens would become much more complicated under your proposed scenario. RadicalSubversiv E 20:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But now there is a consistent "the" Green Party near-everyone agrees on, and that is the Green Party of the United States. G/GPUSA is of very little (if any) consequence in America's political scene today, though I wholeheartedly agree that their history should be included. Placing that history on a disambiguation page with links to GPUS and Greens/GPUSA seems the best way to do this (while also referencing the split in each individual article). Regardless, most readers will be looking for Green Party of the United States when they come looking for "United States Green Party." At some point, it must be accepted that Greens/GPUSA is a dead party, and that it should not have equal prominence with the GPUS. Shem 16:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one's claiming that the GPUS and the G/GPUSA should be given equal prominence. What I am accurately stating is that this article is not specifically about the GPUS, but about the politics and history of Greens in the United States generally. Moreover, there's a precedent for this in articles about the major political parties. We have separate articles for the United States Democratic Party (akin to United States Green Party) and the Democratic National Committee (the organization equivalent of the Green Party of the United States, which is also an FEC-recognized national party committee). RadicalSubversiv E 22:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Save that in the GPUS's case, their party and national committee are one in the same. The Democratic National Committee's equivalent within the GPUS is the Green Party Coordinating Committee, not GPUS itself.

Not quite. The coordinating committee of the GPUS is an internal decision-making body, not a legal organization. The legal organization, precisely equivalent to the DNC or RNC, is the GPUS. This was all made very clear when the GPUS re-organized and filed with the FEC after the 2000 elections; you can go back and read all the supporting documents for confirmation. The party is a set of national, state, and local organizations and individuals, with a relatively broad history and politics relative to the GPUS, which is the Green Party's national committee. RadicalSubversiv E 19:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why Greens do not hold higher office

Removed from article:

"This is mainly owing to the campaigning and voting systems of that nation which are heavily weaighed in favor of the Democratic and Republican parties due to their size, as well as the failure of Green Party candidates to get very many votes. Most American Greens support election reform as the appropriate avenue for addressing this skewed system."

I don't think the lead paragraph needs to get into speculation into the systematic causes of the party's lack of success. Others may disagree. Regardless, Nat Krause's addition "as well as the failure ... to get very many votes" is totally superfluous -- it basically amounts to saying that the party does not win elections because it does not win enough votes. Absent fraud, that's always why candidates lose elections. RadicalSubversiv E 20:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, that addition on my part was not very well considered. My point was that the reason Greens are not elected is not necessarily because of the election system, but it's better to simply not worry about discussing this in the intro. - Nat Krause 23:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)