2010 proposed amendments to the 2004 Platform of the Green Party of the United States

Suggestion: If you’d like to see this page with bigger font, try typing command and + at the same time.

Call to Action
10 Key Values

Chapter 1: Democracy
Proposal to rename Chapter 1 to Grassroots Democracy (CA)
Proposal to reorganize and rename Chapter 1 to Government Reform (ME)
Political Reform
Free Speech and Media Reform
Education (CA)
Civil liberties
Foreign Policy: Middle East (DC)
Foreign Policy: Human Rights
Foreign Policy: Trade (CT)
Foreign Policy: Trade (WI)
Foreign Policy: Trade (DC)
Foreign Policy: Women’s Rights (National Women’s Caucus)
Foreign Policy: Demilitarization of Space (DC)
Foreign Policy: Puerto Rican Independence

Chapter 2: Social Justice
Women’s Rights (CA)
Women’s Rights (National Women’s Caucus)
Racial Discrimination (GA)
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Indigenous Peoples
Veterans Rights (CA)
Veterans Rights (GA)
Consumer Protection
Environmental Justice
Health Care (CA)
Health Care (National Women’s Caucus)
Education: Privatization (GA)
Education: Halt Militarization (GA)
Labor (CA)
Labor (WI)
Criminal Justice (GA)
Criminal Justice (MO)
Criminal Justice (CA)
Population (DC)
Population (CA)
Immigration/Emigration (IL)
Immigration/Emigration (WI)
Immigration/Emigration (NWC)

Chapter 3: Ecological Sustainability
Proposal to rename and reorganize Chapter 3 (IL)
Introduction (MD)
Introduction (CA)
Climate Change (CA)
Climate Change (MI)
Energy (CA)
Energy (WA)
Energy (MD)
Land Use and Sustainable Communities
Ethical treatment of animals
Ocean Protection
Biological Diversity

Chapter 4: Economic Sustainability
Ecological Economics
Measuring Economic Progress
5 Million Green Jobs
Banking and Insurance Reform (MO)
Banking and Insurance Reform (CA)
Curbing Corporate Power
Pension Reform
Liveable Income
Fair Taxation
Local Economic Development
Work and Job Creation
Trade (CA)
National Debt
Intellectual Property and Technology

Chapter 5: Non-violence
Proposal to establish Chapter 5: Non-Violence
United States
Middle East (CA)
United Nations
Demilitarization of space (CA)
Military (DC)

Chapter Name and Sections Changes

28 Responses to “ 2010 AMENDMENT PROPOSALS ”

  1. Jess says:

    As a Green activist with a disability, now a county central-committee woman in a state with a newly recognized Green Party, I feel compelled to point out that I see sections about racial, gender, and sexual orientation equality, but no section about people with disabilities.

  2. Melissa says:

    I disagree with some of the comments on this being too “wordy.” For a summary the 10 points is great but as someone who is not affiliated with any party but is investigating the stances of parties the detail on each point is very important to me. It helps me understand exactly what the party’s beliefs are and I found myself thinking, “Yes, yes, I agree with that…” while reading it.

    I agree with the other points on what is the stand on the legalization of marijuana? I read the 2004 platform and saw that growing hemp is in there but what recreational and medical uses of pot? Personally I think it should be treated like alcohol; age limits on it’s use, no using it when driving, tax it like those items when it’s recreationally used, etc.

  3. victor says:

    following a facebook page link, i went to http://www.monetary.org/greenpartymonetaryplank.html, which claims to be your platform… it is much shorter and easier to read.

    i agree with Wanna, way too much, and also way too wordy…

    my fantasy of what the greens party is about in one word, is – respect.

    if so, have the short platform, about – respect.

    Respect for ALL people, regardless of race, religion, financial class, etc.

    and Respect for Nature.

    i think that about wraps up the basics.

    more if you want…

    you know how to reach me if you’re interested…

  4. David says:

    I like the idea, but I still think that we need to tone down the size of the government.

    Now, that’s not to say that I support toning down rights and freedoms. No, what I support is keeping the laws, but getting rid of the expensive executive agencies that really do nothing that either private citizens, or the regular police can’t do.

    Discrimination is a good one. If I’ve been discriminated by my employer, why must I wait a friggin YEAR for the EEOC to finish its investigation and give me an EEOC Notice of Right to Sue? Why can’t I just sue him?! I may get my job back, plus back pay, a year from now, but I have to eat now! I have to pay my bills now! Why can’t I just SUE him?!

    The EPA is another good example. If someone gives an anonymous tip off that his neighbor is illegally polluting, why can’t the POLICE handle it? I mean, the regular police handle pollution laws at the city level, don’t they? They handle littering laws, and, in Nevada, they handle violations of water conservation laws! Why can’t the regular federal police just handle the investigation and prosecuting of federal CRIMES? The FBI investigates accusations of federal crimes, and the marshals will go and arrest those who have warrants. Its that simple.

    So, reduce the size of the government, and put the power to enforce crimes in the hands of the police, and the power to enforce torts in the hands of tort victims. Period.

    Support that, I will support these amendments.

  5. Vandough says:

    What happened to the stand on drugs and the vapid “war on drugs”? I’ve left the green party because increasingly instead of championing causes all the party has succeded in doing is grandstanding and being directly responsible for 8 of the most destructive years in American history – the socalled “Bush Years”. What’s your stand on the California marijuana initiative or isn’t that of any interest to you?

  6. Rob says:

    I’ve assisted with Greens abroad and was happy to find Greens here in Arizona. After checking the Arizona Greens web site I was surprised by the GP platform and key values; really very admirable but clearly focused more on big picture social justice issues than on the daily life experiences of the everyday voting public. Work definitely needs to be done on social justice issues, but in order to do that you first need to get elected. That means sorting out a simple platform that the majority of voters can identify with, e.g. economy and jobs, security and defense, and healthcare. Then, the key values can be a factor in how you propose to address those issues on your platform. I would not list the key values as a separate document; that leaves the GP core open to attack, and if a potential supporter disagrees with just one they may turn away. The key values as stated now give the GP an appearance of being relatively extreme leftists. That may or may not be the case, but again this impression opens the GP to potential attack from right, center, and left, and may alienate potential membership and voters. Take these off the (Arizona) website site. The site has far too much reading material on the home page; to attract voters keep information short and on-point. This is the world of Twitter; make your case in one minute or less. Include photos and video clips. Your solutions may be valid, but to get them the attention they deserve you need to give voters something they can identify with rather than a social manifesto to read.

  7. J. T. Miller says:

    The party platform does not need amendments, it is what our general stand is. drastic socio-political changes need to have occured for amendments. Let’s just keep it simple…

  8. Eliot says:

    I believe that “Feminism and Gender Equality” should be changed to “Gender Equality”. The many definitions of Feminism from 1895 on leave this word at best ambiguous and at worst a hot button term causing immediate distaste and anger. For some versions of the definition it even seems to be antithetical to gender equality. More that one friend read the 2008 platform and declined to vote Green Party because of a single word. Gender Equality exactly and succinctly describes what is desired. Why muddy the waters?

  9. Wanna says:

    You’ve got way too much going on here. Everyone has their own agenda and we can’t agree to get focused on any one issue. People are falling off the cliff. We’ve passed the point of getting organized and trying to work within the system. Continuing to play by their rules is like going to the casinos expecting to win. Only the house wins in the end. The rest of us are fleeced in the process. It has come down to a matter of basic survival. It’s time to do triage and set up alternate systems by the people, for the people.
    I think we need to have one focus- the establishment of local, self sustaining communities. Anything else supports the funneling of the wealth from individuals to the Elite.

  10. Newton says:

    With regards to the poverty issue, everyone I knew who grew up poor grew up without one of their biological parents; often this is their father walking out on them, leaving their mother to work and raise the children. To truly make an impact in reducing poverty in America, we need the government to be more effective in findin and punishing deadbeat parents and getting them to pay adequate child support.

  11. David - Independent says:

    I just downloaded the 2004 platform and will read it.

    Frankly, even the 10 key values are lengthy.

    Consolidate and simplify is my suggestion.

  12. Arthur M Howard says:

    Educational policies which do not take the most recent, newest, discoveries in brain research and how these discoveries are affecting our concepts of cognition and learning into consideration will be leaving an immense opportunity out of the platform equation.

    Modern educational practice must be neurologically oriented and upgraded constantly as our knowledge of brain function advances.

    From a political standpoint, a party which would facilitate the intellectual cross fertilization of knowledge between educators and brain research neurologists, possibly through study groups, lectures and ultimately a conference to work out a dynamic 21 century educational policy would have a strong plus in it’s political war chest.

    This approach has the potential through its revolutionary approach to a miserable educational system to become the Green Party’s most powerful and potent grass roots platform agenda.

    Teaching to tests is an educational oxymoron and is anti cognitive and must be fought for the sake of the country’s future.

    Suggested reading: “The Other Brain: From Dementia to Schizophrenia, How New Discoveries about the Brain Are Revolutionizing Medicine and Science” – an easy, educational read.


    Arthur Howard
    US voting citizen
    8 CD NY

  13. marnie says:

    Hi Michael. We are a diverse party. Our platform reflects the policy upon which most Greens agree, not the policy upon which all Greens agree. Please take a look at our 10 key values. That’s the best way to figure out if you would feel at home in our party.

  14. Mike F. says:

    I want your opinions: is it possible to be pro men’s rights and pro free trade and also a Green Party voter?

    Yes, I’m serious, believe it or not… (having REAL trouble figuring out who to vote for this year!)

  15. marnie says:

    Hi Joseph. Thanks so much for checking out our platform proposals. Check out the platform proposal on net neutrality at http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/comments/?p=556. Let us know what you think about it. I encourage you also to share your opinion with the Green Party leaders in your state. Peace, Marnie

  16. Joseph says:

    Has the GP ever considered adding internet issues such as net neutrality to the platform? I think this is a good opportunity to add some upcoming issues that will matter over the next few years.

  17. Richard Clark says:

    Please keep a strong abortion rights for women in the Green platform.

  18. I guess I agree, but only to an extent. Patriarchal systems need to come to an end, I totally agree. But what if a matriarchal one was to appear?

    I recall the 2004 version having “Feminism and Gender Equity”.

    Why not just “Gender Equity”? It just seems like an odd double-qualifier to have Feminism.

    And I know that it is unfortunate how Feminism has attained a sort of negative connontation, probably to do with the anti-pornography movement, but that is not my reason for disliking the term. It does intend for equality to that of men, yet the term itself is always going to be geared towards women being unequal.

    So I take back my suggestion of “humanism”, which is more of a philosophy anyways, and suggest “Gender Equity”

  19. Stephanie Ward says:

    I think feminism is an accurate word. Although the term has gained negative attention that distracts from the true meaning of the word, it should not be avoided because of these misinterpretations. Feminism includes the study of all genders and how everyone, not just women, is harmed by heteronormative and patriarchal structures built into our government and local communities. Feminism also encourages many other types of activism, because so many social and political issues relate to gender and gender discrimination.

    Please do not allow the people who fear feminism to take away the power it has.

  20. For the 10 values, instead of Feminism, which seems a bit too inclusive towards females, why not use the term Humanism? This would cover both men and women, so Feminism is defacto included in the definition.

    Just my thoughts, it would seem better to have an all encompassing term, and then explain the goals, such as reproductive rights, and total equality.

  21. Hector Lopez says:

    I propose that the word “America” be used in the platform to name the continent and not the U.S. This is absolutely false even if it has been repeated a million times, according to the logic of Goebbels. Following that logic, then Kansas is Central America. To do such thing is imperial arrogance. Latin Americans also have an America.

  22. Midge Potts says:


    I wrote the current proposal offered by the Progressive Party of Missouri to amend the Green Party platform to reflect much of what you have said here.

    Have you read it?

    It will be up for discussion on the May 15th conference call:

    Peace & Freedom,
    Midge Potts
    Co-Chair PPMO

  23. Dave says:

    I agree with Andrew ….. not only that – but this specific stance will allow our party to gain attention from whole group of Voters that allow their opinions to go unheard do to their unwillingness to come forward due to social exile … Tobacco is legal – I think hands down, we all know this is far worse then the aforementioned marijuana …. It is not something people would sway away from our party if we took that stance…. I know one battle at a time – but this could be a great way to gain A HUGE support base …..

  24. Andrew says:

    Please push for the legalization of recreational cannabis use for adults. Decriminalization does nothing to address the issue and only adds confusion over its use. How can something be alright to own and use, but illegal to grow and sell? Sure, it helps out the everyday user, but criminal gangs will still operate the billion dollar industry. Not to mention it is safer than not only tobacco and alcohol, but nearly all other legal, prescription, OTC, and illegal drugs. I don’t have time to go into more detail, but please do more research on the topic. It’s for the good of all mankind.


    Also, look up the documentary called “The Union: The Business Behind Getting High”. It is a very informational film on the subject.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks:

  1. [...] Their official platform, which has undergone some changes in 2010, can be found here: http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/comments/?page_id=823. It should also be noted that the Green Party in Australia, called the Victorian Greens, has just [...]

  2. [...] Party US Platform Amendments By monte letourneau </object> That's:  http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/comments/?page_id=823 (navigation at top of [...]

Leave a Comment