Green politicians from across Europe on Friday called on U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to withdraw from the race for the White House and endorse Democrat Kamala Harris instead.
“We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House,” Green parties from countries including Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine said in a statement, which was shared with POLITICO ahead of publication
Why does she need to do this before the election? They can just form a coalition after the election if Kamala doesn’t win
This is to elect the President. In a presidential system, as in the US, you choose the leader of the executive portion of government separately from the legislative leader. In a parliamentary system, as many countries in Europe use, the public doesn’t choose the leader of the executive portion of government. Instead, they just vote for representatives in the legislative portion, and then those legislators form a coalition (if necessary) and choose a leader of the executive (the prime minister). The closest analog to coalition forming in the presidential election is doing exactly what the Greens are proposing above – having a candidate drop out and endorse another, with the hopes that they can sway their supporters. It’s basically what JFK Jr did, for example, with Trump.
While hypothetically the US could form legislative coalitions, in practice, due to the way the US electoral system works, US parties are essentially equivalent to electoral coalitions in parliamentary systems already – we already form “big tent” parties necessary to control a house. In the US, the closest analog to this sort of thing actually happening after the elections is when you hear about something like “an independent legislator who caucuses with the Democrats”. The US also has weak party discipline compared to many countries in Europe, so legislators are much less constrained to vote along party lines anyway.
Different systems, function kinda differently.
But I keep hearing how the American system isn’t democratic since you don’t directly vote for the president, you vote for some middle person who promises to vote for your president? Those people might not be members of the parliment but they can still form coalitions after the fact by voting for who has a chance to win
If Stein is fantastically successful, beyond her wildest dreams, and got 15% of the vote she will win zero electors (the intermediaries that then make the official vote for president). They’re awarded winner take all for each state, and there’s no conceivable way she reaches a plurality anywhere. But if she takes those 15% disproportionately from people who would have otherwise voted for Harris, she could very much make it so Trump wins a plurality and gets all the electors for a state. The structure of the first-past-the-post system always devolves into two parties being viable, and any third parties can only practically influence the outcome in the votes they take away.
Some states are proportional for pres. (Maine Nebraska)
They aren’t proportional. They’re winner take all but at the district level as opposed to the state level.
That’s not a bad point. We consider what Maine and Nebraska have implemented as proportional, but it isn’t truly. It’s a better system than WTA, but it still essentially nullifies a significant number of votes.
districts tend to be proportional but whatever, at that distinction its immaterial to the discussion.
No they don’t. Just having smaller units you take-all in doesn’t make something proportional. Proportionality means that minority vote totals result in a proportional number of seats, but getting 25% everywhere still gets you zero seats. Jill Stein, in her maximum success, will not win a single district.
fair enough like i said its immaterial to the discussion. the point was some states do give up partial electors.