I must respectfully---and forcefully---disagree with Randy Shaw's misdirected assessment of the Green Party of the United States, and the party's current development, direction and prospects ("Green Party Must Rethink National Strategy", Aug. 16). First, a few preliminary facts about the Green Party are necessary:

Since its founding in the late 1980s, the Green Party has expanded exponentially. As of 2006, the Green Party now holds 220 elected offices in 28 states, including 60 elected officials across California. At least 371 Green Party candidates nationwide are seeking elective offices at all levels---local, county, state and federal---during the 2006 election cycle. By any conceivable measure or standard, the above Green Party elected official and candidate numbers represent nothing less than an extraordinary achievement for a relatively new political party formed only a decade and a half ago.

As the November 7 general election approaches, the Green Party's electoral successes and party building activities will continue to grow and strengthen.

In his commentary, Mr. Shaw is critical of the Green Party for fielding federal level candidates for the US Senate in Connecticut and Pennsylvania. As a developing, maturing party, the Green Party's long term policy has been to tactically expand it's candidate base from the local/municipal/county levels to higher level elective offices as the party evolves.

As a sovereign, independent political party, the Green Party's electoral strategies will not be modified to accommodate or defer to other, separate political parties.

If the Democratic Party is genuinely concerned about third party candidates and their potential impact or dynamic upon election campaigns, then why hasn't the Democratic Party endorsed/worked for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)---also known as "ranked choice" voting---to avoid "winner-take-all" election results? (IRV is a central Green Party platform)

And why haven't Democratic Party candidates offered to negotiate with Green Party candidates to form working coalitions, or "fuse" their respective campaigns together in return for tangible, mutual agreements between the two parties?

The answer, pointedly, is that both the Democratic and Republican parties are interested only in maintaining their two party monopoly---or stranglehold---on the electoral process at the state and federal levels. To be blunt, the Democratic Party would prefer to see the Green Party marginalized or, if possible, extinguished.

The two party web of collusion can be broken, and the Green Party will continue to actively work toward breaking this overt and covert "bipartisan" collusion.