Press "Enter" to skip to content

Jill Stein rebuffs Al Gore’s “baseless attack on Green Party”


(Via ATPR): Press release from, September 1st, 2016:

Challenges former VP to support ranked choice voting

Jill Stein, Green Party Presidential candidate, responded today to former Vice President Al Gore’s recent statement repeating the myth that Ralph Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. At the same time, Gore urged voters concerned about climate change to vote for Hillary Clinton.

“I sincerely appreciate Al Gore’s efforts to raise awareness about climate change, but while Gore and Democrats talk the talk on environmental issues, they don’t walk the walk,” stated Stein. “Friends of the Earth founder David Brower said that the first 4 years of the Clinton/Gore administration were more environmentally destructive than the preceding 12 years of Reagan and Bush. The Clinton-Gore administration rewarded its corporate campaign contributors with special deals, like allowing sugar cane growers to accelerate destruction of the Everglades and allowing unrestricted logging in many national forests. Particularly devastating was their passage of the NAFTA trade deal, which empowered multinational corporations to challenge environmental legislation in international tribunals dominated by large corporate interests.”

“Gore’s call to vote against the candidates with the strongest environmental agenda raises questions about whether he is seriously committed to the kind of emergency mobilization that we need to prevent climate meltdown, which my Green New Deal plan calls for.”

“What Gore calls ‘spoiling’ we call participation. Voting for what you want should never be a ‘problem.’ So we challenge Al Gore– and Democratic Party leadership– to join us in support of ranked choice voting, which will instantly eliminate vote-splitting concerns. Ranked choice voting empowers voters to vote their values rather than their fears. It lets you rank your choices, and if your first choice loses, your vote is automatically assigned to your second choice. This improved voting system is used in cities around the US and is now on the statewide ballot in Maine.”

“The regretful tone of Al Gore’s support for Hillary Clinton suggests that he understands how the two-party system has failed Americans who care about leaving a livable world for our children and future generations. I ask Gore to publicly declare support for ranked choice voting and ask his fellow Democrats to do the same, so that America can finally have a truly democratic electoral system where voters who care about our planet’s future won’t be intimidated into voting against a climate future we can survive in.”

About Post Author

Krzysztof Lesiak

I've been a contributor for IPR since January 2013. I consider myself to be a paleoconservative. I'm also the founder of American Third Party Report. Email me at


  1. Luchorpan Luchorpan September 1, 2016

    “Ranked choice voting” is an excellent idea, but it has the best chance at success if the Left, Right, and Libertarian all three support it.

    Stein should be talking with the other third party candidates and leaders (such as Ron Paul). I would say Castle is the best representative of the “Right” currently, or Chuck Baldwin, Pat Buchanan.

    The point is just that someone truly conservative would need to be included.

    If done well, you might could get Trump to support this. He’s running as a sort of third party anti-establishment candidate. And Trump has ties to the Reform Party.

    Part of the problem is the tired narrative of the Left yelling at the Right, and vice versa. The real political opponent is this entrenched “centre”.

    All of us, with the exception of Egghead McMuffin, are anti-war. That alone has to mean something. The US would be radically different without all these wars.

  2. Deran Deran September 1, 2016

    Gore is such a sad sack. I heard his 2000 campaign boss, Donna Brasil made similar innuendos the other week. She still resents not getting to be Gore’s White House Chief of Staff.

  3. steve m steve m September 1, 2016

    Vice President Gore,

    if you had wanted to avoid a similar situation to the Presidential Election of 2000 there are at least two ways you could have done so other then just telling 3rd party candidates that we have no right to run candidates and participate. You haven’t done so and thus have demonstrated your preference for the two party duopoly that offers no real changes to the status quo.

    Let me help you. There are two changes that could be done and if the Democratic Party wasn’t so worried about 3rd party participation rather then continuing the two party duopoly you would have done so already.

    1) All states could switch the selection of electoral collage to a system such as Main uses. Where each congressional district gets one collage member based only upon that district vote.

    2) We could switch each state to some sort of ranked choice or instant runoff election. This would allow voters that prefer a 3rd party candidate to vote the conscience and then their lesser evil.

    Now I am not the only one in the last 6 years to point out these two fair solutions and thus I am left with the firm belief that you care more about the dominance of the democan/republicrat duopoly than you do about a Democrat winning the office of the President.

  4. steve m steve m September 1, 2016

    last 16 years…

  5. Bondurant Bondurant September 1, 2016

    If I recall my electoral college math correctly, Al Gore lost his home state, Tennessee. The same Tennessee that sent he and his father to the Senate and the same Tennessee that Clinton won in ’92 & ’96. It is also my recollection that had he won Tennessee the results of Florida wouldn’t have mattered.

    Am I wrong?

  6. Deran Deran September 2, 2016

    Yes, Gore lost Tennessee to Bush by abt 3.8%. And Nader got .abt 95% in TN.

  7. Tony From Long Island Tony From Long Island September 2, 2016

    ” . . . . Donna Brasil made similar innuendos the other week. She still resents not getting to be Gore’s White House Chief of Staff. . . . . ”

    I’d be frustrated too when your candidate got half a million votes than the “winner.”

    Yes, Bondurant,, it all would have been unnecessary if he had won his home state. That doesn’t change the fact that the whole thing was a bunch of crap.

  8. Bondurant Bondurant September 2, 2016

    The point is, Tony, that Nader didn’t cost Gore the election. Gore did. His insistence that he was entitled to the votes of Nader and/or GP voters is claptrap.

  9. Luchorpan Luchorpan September 2, 2016

    Had Gore won, it would have been Democrats invading Iraq. The Great Recession and 9/11 would have occurred under Gore, and the federal spending deficit expansion would have also been under him.

    How many left wing converts did George W. Bush help create in reaction? Without Bush, there never would have been an Obama.

  10. Tony From Long Island Tony From Long Island September 2, 2016

    ” . . . .The point is, Tony, that Nader didn’t cost Gore the election. Gore did. His insistence that he was entitled to the votes of Nader and/or GP voters is claptrap. . . . ”

    I agree that it was not Nader’s Fault. However . . . the counting was stopped by a partisan terrible decision by the court. . . . Sadder than losing his home state was losing New Hampshire by 1%. (Nader had 3%) Also, I love the word CLAPTRAP!

    Luchorpan: you are out of your mind if you think Gore would have had anything to do with Iraq. Would we have been in some sort of military excursion post 9/11? Very Likely, but not Iraq (unless things led there). It’s pretty well accepted that Iraq was a complete mistake and the worst foreign policy decision ever made by this country. It was a DICK Cheney production (with assistance from Rumsfeld)

  11. Luchorpan Luchorpan September 2, 2016


    there were a lot more behind the war than just Cheney and Rumsfeld. Paul Wolfowitz, author of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, is really the mastermind. Rumsfeld is just more “respectable”. Cheney is important.:

    “Others include Douglas Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé who is Cheney’s chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council. On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, who has just resigned his unpaid chairmanship of a defense department advisory body after a lobbying scandal. Most of these “experts” never served in the military.”

    “Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard – edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) … The National Interest … Washington Times”

    Frum wrote Unpatriotic Conservatives (article can be found with a search) which smeared many of the conservative critics of the war.

    Michael Ledeen etc. were behind Niger yellowcake fraud:

    And they aren’t simply “Republicans”. Many are former Democrats; many support Hillary this year. These men have no party loyalty. Their loyalty is to war.

    Maybe things would have been different under Gore, but George W. Bush is the greatest nemesis, the greatest recruiter, the US and global Left have known in recent times. And for a time many conservatives cherished the embattled Bush. Neocons aren’t academically conservative, but they were perceived as and labeled “conservative”.

    Maybe things would have been different under Gore. I’m not a believer in the two parties being much different from one another, but perhaps so. I didn’t like Clinton’s foreign policy either, btw.

  12. langa langa September 2, 2016

    Bush and Gore were two peas in a pod. In fact, Gore campaigned a more hawkish foreign policy than Bush.

    Tony just can’t bring himself to admit that because he has drunk too much of the Democratic Kool-Aid. He probably believed Obama when he claimed he was going to bring the troops home, abolish the surveillance state, bring “transparency” to government, and so on. Anyone who hasn’t been brainwashed by one of the major parties can see that they are just two sides of the same coin.

  13. Tony From Long Island Tony From Long Island September 2, 2016

    Luchorpan: You are naming names of people who would not have been in those positions during a Gore administration.

    Anyway . . my work week is over. have a great three-day weekend everyone (except Andy – I hope the x-rays attacking your tin foil hat singe your hair)


  14. Luchorpan Luchorpan September 2, 2016


    you are invading my safe space. Regardless, I really wish Gore had won.

    Have a nice weekend.

  15. Luchorpan Luchorpan September 2, 2016


    Lieberman is friendly with McCain. McCain is frequently called neocon, but Lieberman is sometimes as well.

    I expect langa is correct, but it’s too far in the past for me to argue right now. I’d have to ask one of the underpaid paleo experts. Or, maybe langa could make the case.

    For those interested in truth, this could be a really interesting debate topic. I would like to see a larger group interested in truth rather than partisan mythology, donor money, and power.

  16. Bondurant Bondurant September 2, 2016

    Gore was part of an administration that bombed Iraq for 8 continuous years. As an establishment politician he would have sent troops into Iraq just as Bush II did after 9/11. The establishment was just waiting for the perfect cover.

    Clinton = Bush II = Gore = Obama = McCain = Romney = Clinton II

    They’re all the same piles of pure establishment evil.

  17. Brad Brad September 3, 2016

    If Gore had won in 2000, there would have been little to no difference in the 1st 4 years of Gore presidency vs. the Bush one. They were, in many ways, alike. And yes, Gore was a bit more hawkish & Bush came across as somebody more geared to towards empathy for others. Party label doesn’t usually matter.

  18. Bob McSurly Bob McSurly September 5, 2016

    Range voting (where each voter gives each candidate a score on a certain scale, 1 to 10 for instance, and the candidate with the highest average score (or median score under certain systems) wins) is better for third parties than IRV (which is what Stein seems to be advocating). In IRV, strategic voters will often give their favorite major party candidate an artificially high rank, and their least favorite major party candidate an artificially low rank, in order to have greater affect on the election. This results in preferred third party candidates being given a lower rank than the voter’s favorite major party nominee. This isn’t a problem in Range voting, since a voter can give each candidate any score, and thus give their favorite major party nominee an artificially high score, but still give their true favorite candidate any score they want. And even if she specifically wants ranked choices rather than rating, Coombs’ voting or Condorcet voting would probably be more beneficial to third parties than IRV. In fact, Coombs’ voting is arguably fairly biased toward candidates that are less known or seen as less likely to win. IRV is better than what we have now, but not by all that much.

  19. Root's Teeth Are Awesome Root's Teeth Are Awesome September 5, 2016

    Tony From Long Island: . . . the counting was stopped by a partisan terrible decision by the court. . . .

    Nonsense! The liberal New York Times found that Bush would have won the Florida recount even had the Supreme Court not stopped it:

    So to recap:

    Bush won the first count.

    Bush won the second count.

    The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the third count, which was by hand. Its decision was no more “partisan” than any other of its decisions. Indeed, it made Constitutional sense to me. .

    But as noted above. Bush would have won this third count anyway.

    I don’t like Bush. I opposed his wars. But this Leftist Myth that Bush “stole” the election is the Left’s own Birther Myth.

    Indeed, this Myth that Bush stole the election, along with the Myth of Manmade Global Warming (later renamed to “climate change”), are two of the least rational, faith-based superstitions circulating on the Left.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.