Why is independence so crucial? Because without it, the minor party will never become a major party. Without it, the minor party will become a mere tool of one of the major parties. If the Green Party (for example) were to make special arrangements to help out the Democrats in a presidential election, well, in that case they might as well be Democrats. We might say the same thing about the Libertarians going out of their way to accommodate the Republicans. Why should any minor party adjust its strategy to benefit one of the majors? What's the point? I know from experience it did no good for the Greens in previous presidential elections. It might have aided the Democrats, but all it did for the Greens was set them back about ten years.
Independence makes an organization (or a party) responsible for its actions, because its members cannot blame anybody else when they screw up, just as no one can take it away from them when they succeed.
Independence also clarifies things for everyone inside and outside of that party. Everyone will know what the party's mission is, and will not have to guess how much of their strategy or their actions are designed to give aid and comfort to some other political party. Independence helps the voters come to a better decision on Election Day. It promotes honesty all around. It clarifies. It makes sense.
________________________________________
The most obvious way that Stein has shown leadership in 2016 has been with her handling of the inevitable "spoiler" question that people always throw at competitive Green candidates. This was evident in the way she handled the issue in interviews on CNN (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7qgJu9n6Us ) and on Al-Jazeera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCc4CXxxf0g ). In effect, her answer to the spoiler question (as I understand it) is that a major political breakthrough--a major change for the better for the vast majority of Americans--can only happen if we break out of the two-party trap.
Far from spoiling anything, Stein is bringing fresh, new life into an American political scene that is rotten with corruption. Proposals for electoral reforms such as ranked-choice voting are all well and good, but do not address the basic decision we have to make in 2016. It seems to me that we have to choose the candidate we want--the one who really represents us. We have to let the billionaires and multi-millionaires do their own dirty work with their own candidates, while we support candidates of our own.
The spoiler argument is based on the idea that voters have only two "realistic" choices in most elections: the Democrat or the Republican. You must shun other candidates of other, smaller parties, the argument goes, no matter how much you believe in them and no matter what you want for your country's future (or your state's future or your city's future). You must choose the lesser of the two evils between the two major-party candidates, even if both of them nauseate you. You must obey the dictates of a two-party system for which you may have no respect at all. You must choose a Democrat or a Republican simply because they are in power and you are not (or not yet). On Election Day, you must not do what your own conscience tells you to do. Instead, you must let someone else's conscience be your guide. In effect, you must allow other people to make up your mind for you.
In fact, the spoiler argument is designed to keep power in the hands of two political parties and effectively shut out all others. This is wrong, of course, because it is absolutely undemocratic. What good is a democracy that privileges some voters and discriminates against others? That restricts debate and discussion instead of expanding it? But in addition to being wrong and unjust, the spoiler argument is downright irrational. It shuns the newer political organizations that have usually been the source of positive change throughout American history, while it elevates the older and vastly more corrupt organizations--such as, let's say, the Democratic and Republican parties--that over time become flabby, complacent, arrogant, and contemptuous of their lower-income and middle-income supporters. Under today's two-party system in the U.S., the "progressives" have become more and more timid and frightened with every election cycle. Observing this, the hard-core right-wingers then feel free to get stupider and crazier all the time, as life for most people just gets worse and worse and worse and worse.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
