I am writing from Melbourne, Australia where I am a member of the Australian Green Party in Victoria. Like many Greens throughout the world, I have followed the United States presidential election with great interest. The debate over whom progressives should support for president compels me to weigh in with a global Greens perspective.

The conduct of US Greens and progressives during this presidential campaign is of great concern to all Greens (and non-Greens too) outside of the US. In particular, many non-Americans are concerned that the American left — including some from within US Green Party — may participate in the presidential election in a manner that assists George W. Bush in his reelection effort. For reasons that shouldn’t require explanation, I, and most people outside of the US, are extremely worried about the prospect of George W.Bush remaining Commander in Chief for another term. How much more damage would be inflicted on the world in that time is anyone’s guess. For at least four more years there would be no attempt to build bridges with non- western peoples (and even many from the West who’ve fallen into the administration’s disfavor). Not to mention the damage to ecosystems and non- western economies that will be more acute for Bush retaining control of the US juggernaut. Five days ago the Australian Embassy in Indonesia was blown up by Islamic terrorists. Most people here believe this unprecedented act was a direct result of our involvement in the Iraq war — Bush’s actions have widespread ramifications. The question is, should Bush be removed from office and do Greens and progressives wish to play any role in achieving this? For the US Greens to answer “No” would be to exemplify the unilateralism Bush has made America famous for.

Many commentators, and indeed many Greens and progressives themselves, seem to be recommending that people not vote Green (or for Ralph Nader) in many states. I suspect that many Greens will even pray that the Green vote drops significantly in several swing states, so that if Bush wins in those states, it would be transparent that Greens were in no way to blame. In some respects, this is an astonishing and perhaps embarrassing position — if the Green vote does drop, it might be interpreted by many as a reversal in the party’s growth, and that could cause more damage to the grassroots growth of the party than would not standing a presidential candidate in swing states at all.

As we say in Australia, even Blind Freddy can see that Greens and progressives are wasting valuable resources in actively running for President in all states this year, particularly when there is so much to gain from using those resources elsewhere. I have noted that at one debate, Ralph Nader’s running-mate, Green Party member Peter Camejo, seemed more motivated by a hatred of Democrats than by any logical analysis of the problems we face by having Bush remain in power. Although the Democrats do not deserve ongoing support from the Greens, we should acknowledge there is no chance of defeating them this election. If it is any consolation to those who hate the Democrats, I suspect the Greens will have an easier task branding themselves as a viable alternative to the Democrats if the Democrats take the White House than if they remain in opposition — the Green Party became many fold more prominent during the Clinton years, culminating in Nader’s run for President in 2000.

In the US, some people have suggested that Greens should favour Kerry so that Bush gets defeated. I find nothing at all remarkable or immoral about the US Greens recommending that voters in some states support the Democrats over the Republicans. The party names are different, but an equivalent dynamic exists in every Australian election.

In Australia, we use a preferential voting system (known as Instant Runoff Voting within your country), that has been instrumental to the growth of our party. Under our voting system the Greens decide (often on a seat-by-seat basis) which of the major parties they prefer. Voters can rank all candidates in order of preference. If a voter’s favoured candidate is eliminated, that voter’s votes flow to his or her next most preferred candidate. Most voters follow their parties suggestions. In this way, a vote for a small left party can be transferred to a major left party if the minor party is eliminated.

In some cases, particularly in off-year elections, or “by-elections,” it is not unusual for a party to refuse to run a candidate in a seat — sometimes to avoid the embarrassment of being trounced in a by-election, and sometimes to help a less-hated party win the seat. This is exactly how the Australian Greens won their first Lower House seat in the Australian Parliament.

As I write this, I am the Green candidate in our Federal election being held on 9 October 2004. The nominations closed last week, and party preferences are being lodged. In recent days, I have taken calls from other candidates wanting to negotiate our ranking of preferences. The main issue is where the Greens will recommend that its voters rank the Labor Party ahead of the right-wing Liberal Party versus where we make no recommendation at all. The main parties know that the Greens will get about 14% of the vote in my seat and the incumbent has a 6.6% margin. So the ranking of Green preferences will almost certainly decide the seat. In consultation with the party, I effectively decide who will win my seat. As of this writing, we have agreed to recommend second-place rankings for Labor in 30 of 56 contested seats, in recognition of significant improvements in Labor policy, and because Labor has agreed to direct preferences to us in key Senate races. (For more information about our preference recommendations, www.greens.org.au.) Perhaps Nader and the US Green Party presidential candidate wish they could make a similar decision. The fact is, they can! Unfortunately, to do so in the US they must negotiate concessions from the Democrats, abandon the race and yell their preferences from the sidelines. And they can work to change your voting system to make it more like ours. This strategy is being promoted by a group of US Greens, at www.GreensforImpact.com.

Some suggest that to refuse to run a Green Party candidate in swing states is treating the electorate with contempt. I disagree. On the contrary, it is often a smart strategy, and the electorate knows it is a strategy. In the US, where there is no preferential voting system, the only way for the Green Party to “direct its preferences” to the Democrats in certain key states is to not contest the race in them at all.

So I ask myself, how can any honest Green not be glad to see Bush lose to Kerry? The only reason to field a presidential candidate is because it is in the interests of the community and party to do so. But this year I do not believe running in swing states passes this test.

---