In an email to the National Committee, Ms. Rotzler, a national party co-chair and elected Green in New Paltz NY wrote:

Steve and I were in communication prior to his switch in order to run in the dem primary which was an excellent idea, in my opinion. If we would have communicated further I would have advised, rather, insisted against any comment regarding the green party regardless of how he felt at the time as I know perfectly well that the corporate press with their backroom democrats would eat it up and that would become the focus, not his run against a woman whom I cannot believe can be a mother to a child and agree to war. Nothing against any men, Steve is a wonderful father (as is Sander from what I have seen) and I know that adds to his motivation, that is just my opinion as a mother. I am also against negative campaigning, period. It tends to bite you where it becomes difficult to sit down. Steve has admitted that he erred, we are a party of peace therefore further a public whipping is not in order, I suggest punching a wall or a board placed between two cinder blocks(you will look cooler and it will hurt less) to vent the frustration and anger. Can we accept his apology, let it be, and get back to doing what we can to get people elected and put a stop to this war?

Rebecca R.

Just a thought- everything a candidate does and says is public information in a national election. (Don’t blame politics- the Green party has no problem pointing out the foibles and missteps of Dem. and Rep. candidates. ) But think about the credibility of the Green Party as a whole- does this type of impulsive, incoherent writing ACCURATELY portray the Green Party’s philosophy and mission?

The voting system the Greens and all third parties should want, is
RANGE VOTING. It is simpler than IRV. It runs on today’s voting machines (IRV does not for many machines). A yardstick called “Bayesian Regret” finds
that range votign is robustly superior to all
commonly proposed votign methods.
Range Voting experimentally leads to vastly more
votes for Greens. Our exit poll in 2004 showed Nader would have got
approximately half the vote count Kerry & Bush each got, if we had
used range voting, i.e. about 80 times larger than Nader actually DID get
under plurality voting. That (factor 80 handicap) is what you Greens
are suffering by living in a country that uses the undemocratic plurality
system of voting rather than range voting.

Do you like political suicide? Do you have a death wish?
Can you think of any other politician, ever, who intentionally tried to
get 80 times fewer votes?

If not, I suggest you support range voting. You can learn vastly
more about it from the Center for Range Voting website
http://rangevoting.org . You can then ENDORSE range voting by
clicking ENDORSE on that web page (top) and filling out the form
that then appears. I want the Green Party to party-endorse range voting
instead of IRV asap, but so far have been unable to reach GP leaders,
so they continue on in blissful ignorance.

We’ll see if this attempt gets dumped into the electronic garbage like
all my others.

Warren D. Smith
co-founder
Center for Range Voting
631-675-6128