and in a world of perfect consistency you'd be perfectly right.

But the point I was trying to make is that the motives of the parties in question matter, too.

Third parties wouldn't exist at all if they merely served as extra ballot lines for major-party candidates. WFP has historically been somewhat to the left of the corruption-plagued Brooklyn Democratic Party, and certainly more reformist in nature, so it has sometimes served as a platform for the kind of candidates Kossacks like, while the Democratic line was occupied by a minion of the corrupt and jailed Clarence Norman (former head of the Brooklyn Dem org.). It has other aims, and its own factions, and therefore its endorsements do not always please me - for instance, this year they have endorsed Hakeem Jeffries over Bill Batson, whom I support, and have made no endorsement in NY-11 due to an internal split. But often they and the reformist wing of the local Dems are in agreement, not only on candidates, but, more importantly, on our ultimate goals.

Those of us who care are also working hard on reforming the local Democratic Party; if we are successful (a tall order, and it's not going to happen overnight), we might see WFP lose support to the Dems, who would then be far better able to accomplish the same goals.

The Greens, on the other hand, have a national organization and strategy that should trouble anyone who thinks of themselves as a Democrat.

with him running -- if he wins the Dem primary -- on both Dem and Green tickets? Or (if he gets the chance) on even more tickets than that? The New York system seems odd to those of us in other states, but if a bunch of parties in New York think one person is the best candidate (and that candidate agrees to be supported by them), it looks like a win/win situation to me.