All the far left parties do; even after examining them in detail I cannot see any differences worth mentioning between the Peace and Freedom, Justice or Green Parties (and the only difference between them and the Grassroots Party is its obsession with legalizing pot.) Consequently it is hard to conclude any of them are doing anything except splitting the liberal vote. Not only is that a bad idea in terms of winning elections, it is a bad idea in terms of getting ANY third party the 5% polling it needs for FEC funding or the 15% it needs for a seat at the NEXT presidential debates.

I am obliged to note Rocky Anderson is only on the ballot in 16 states, and only a valid write-in candidate in 14 more. That is technically enough; winning every single one would earn him 307 electoral votes, but since he is a write-in candidate most voters have never heard of in TX, NY, IL and PA, he has no realistic chance of victory. Conversely, Jill Stein is on the ballot in 37 states (with 441 electoral votes,) a valid write-in candidate in 5 more (with 48 electoral votes) and has petitioned for access in all the rest except OK and NV. Same platform, but FAR more electable. More importantly, unifying behind a single slate of candidates could well win the combined party local or even statewide races critical to the credibility, candidates and infrastructure needed for eventual presidential wins.

Just a suggestion; again, the policies are so indistinguishable, and so infinitely better than the GOP, Dem or Lib offerings, I would cheerfully vote for whichever candidate the combined parties agreed on unless the policies radically changed. However, there is little question who has the best national organization, which is what national relevance requires. I could beat Roseanne and Cindy Sheehan for even running; they are not policy makers and cannot legally win, but will dilute the votes of candidates who are and can.