Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Tuesday March 3, 2020 — Primary Election
Invest in unbiased information

With your support, we can reach and inform more voters.

Donate now to spread the word.

United States

United States of America — Democratic PartyCandidate for President

Photo of Mark Stewart Greenstein

Mark Stewart Greenstein

Businessman, Educator, Philanthropist
3,190 votes (0.1%)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.

My Top 3 Priorities

  • Spend and do ONLY what's Constitutional. Remove the laws and regs that are not Constitutional. That's most enactments since 1905.
  • Sensible immigration. Illegals make restitution for welfare they took, or are deported; let GOOD people enter in droves.
  • Abide by term limits. In my case three years and out is a good model. An above average VP can be a good President.



Profession:Businessman, Educator, Philanthropist
Beautification Committee Had, Spring 2010, WestFarms Village I Association — Appointed position (2010–2010)
Restaurant Work - Various from 1980 - 1997, Various employers in Connecticut, Colorado (Vail), and California (1980–1997)


Dartmouth College B.A. - Dartmouth College 1986., Government! (1986)



SAT Prep – Since 1987

AP U.S. History Prep – Since 2008

LSAT Prep –1988 - 2004

GRE and GMAT Prep 1988 – 1995


Business Experience: 

Founder – Education Excellence  2014 - present

Founder and Lead Instructor, Ivy Bound SAT Prep 2000 - present

Franchisee – College Nannies & Tutors, New York City and Hartford CT 2007-2013

Creator and Developer – Hyperski and S – The All-Night Snowboard Magazine, 1995-1997


Taught for Kaplan, TestMasters, privately, and for the West Hartford (CT) public schools prior to founding Ivy Bound / Rising Stars in 2000. 

Legal work for two firms and a small mutual fund following law school.

Worked in food service in various restaurants three winters in Vail Colorado, and in Hanover NH.


Formal Public Service:


Never made political promises that couldn’t be kept.

Never spent donors’ money

Never compromised a public principle

Campaigned vs Al Gore & Bill Bradley in 2000 (New Hampshire Primary)

Campaigned vs Hillary Clinton in 2006 (for U.S. Senate in New York)

Founded “The Resistance” in 2015



The Loomis Chaffee School, 1982

Dartmouth College, B.A. 1986

Univ. of California Berkeley (Boalt Hall) Law School, J.D. 1992




The Resistance is an advocacy group dedicated to helping candidates from all parties challenge the leftists and big-government statists who have taken too much control over the federal government.  Candidate profiles can be found at



The Resistance supports candidates running in EITHER the Democrat or Republican parties who are dedicated to freedom. Reducing the power of the federal government and increasing competent governance at all levels are what Resistance seeks.

Questions & Answers

Questions from League of Women Voters of California (3)

What financing method(s) would you support to repair or improve roads, rails, ports, airports, the electrical grid, and other infrastructure in the U.S.?
Answer from Mark Stewart Greenstein:

User fees are best.  Those who don't fly shouldn't pay for airports; those who don't fly private jets shouldn't pay for private airports.  There are very few infrastructure elements that are "universal".  The electric grid, the broadcast spectrum, and to a small extent ports and roads used for military purposes, is about all. 

Localities and users should pay for their upkeep and expansion.  And they should PROFIT from expansions that are GOOD.    When municipalities act more like businesses, everyone wins.  We have more control of the building and regulation of infrastructure this way.  Improvements are not as political - a future president can't blockade an improvement if it's done locally, beyond federal reach.  That's beautiful. 


Note that some municipalities will recognize that private entities will run their roads, airports, and schools better than the government will.  They can and should auction off these "public" goods to  private businesses who compete to give users better services at lower prices.  

What programs or legislation, if any, would you support to help Americans of all ages to secure affordable health care?
Answer from Mark Stewart Greenstein:

The Free Market + Private Welfare are best.  The federal Government reduces choice, creates higher prices, and causes higher deductibles.  States are not much better, in part because government care/insurance means big HMOs, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance companies are the first to get to them.  


Some state plans are reasonable.  But let states adopt them, NOT the Feds.  States can look to reasonably good systems in Germany and Switzerland.  But the best is the  WELL-tried, good outcome nation called the USA prior to 1965 (before Medicare).  

Immigration Policy Question

Describe an immigration policy that you would support if presented to the President.

No answer provided.

Who gave money to this candidate?


More information about contributions

Source: MapLight analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.

Political Beliefs

Political Philosophy

Libertarian for public purposes.  Conservative for private purposes.  


Mark Stewart is a "Conserv-atarian." He emphasizes a liberty ideology that focuses on decisively scaling back government in order to promote freedom. He is a staunch critic of socialism, opposes income taxes, and is an advocate of strictly balanced budget policies. He is an entrepreneur, businessman and educator. Politically he is a "culture warrior" in helping preserve the American creed. Tolerance, individualism, capitalism, and e pluribus unum exemplify this creed, and all nationalities can take part. He would replace government welfare with private welfare, public schools with private schools, and government health care with free market care. He would repeal 50% of laws and 100% of regulations that were never legislatively approved.  Mr. Stewart considers political correctness cowardice, deplores transformation of true feminism, and finds the indulgence our "esteemed" educators give to snowflake sensitivities lachrymose. 


For almost any public concern, Mr. Stewart's answer will probably be "more liberty".  The interesting part is getting us untangled from the restrictive knots our governments have created.   But with a shared goal of "Liberty - SOON!" we'll get there.


Mark is conviced that 50% of the public, and at least 70% of those under 40 are "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative".  These voters finally have a candidate who shares this mantra.

Position Papers

The Leftist Agenda, Pt. VIII: Socialization Explains Female/Male Differences


This describes the wayward agenda of Leftists using high school athletes as pawns.

The Leftist Agenda, Pt. VIII: Socialization Explains Female/Male Differences



98% of us know that letting males compete in girls’ athletic events is as ludicrous as letting 18 year olds who “feel young” compete against 11 and 12 year olds and win all the medals in a “12 and under” competition.  Let me attempt to explain where the 2% who sincerely see this differently might be coming from.


The 2% are those who’ve been accultured by Leftists to believe that the only important differences between males and females have been brought about by “socialization”.    Not by genetics.  Certainly not by God, who does not exist for Leftists.  The Leftists preach that girls like to play “house” with human figurines and boys like to play “firehouse” with trucks and ladders because of  early socialization by adults.  When studies show them this divergent behavior starts at age 2, and occurs across race, class, and geographic lines, they’ll say that “parents distribute the sexist, capitalist, repressive model from the earliest weeks of childhood”.  When their OWN children are given a toy truck and boys race and smash it with the girls cuddle and care for it, the Leftists will contend “even I as a ‘woke’parent can’t escape the powerful forces of our sexist society.”


So the ‘woke’ Leftist will use government to try to combat that colossal societal power.  They’ll retain the silly argument that we should treat the sexes exactly the same.  And they continue this even when there are consequences to one sex – like males being emasculated, females being forced to compete angst males in high school competitions, and women having their privacy invaded by men who have “broken through and feel their femininity enough to claim they are female and invade women’s bathrooms.


“It’s all male repression”, the Leftist will say.  So if there really are no differences in how Nature or Nature’s God built us, the Leftist should explain how one sex became dominant.  If the sexes are by nature equally tolerant what explains social norms that have favored males for centuries?  Might it be that males are genetically disposed to more use of force and less compromising than females!  Ah, but then you have spotted, wonderfully, a genetic difference.  It really IS more than just the physical. 


Their last refuge MIGHT be that “we are equally disposed to aggression and coercing others, but since males are physically bigger and stronger, they succeed at coercion more”.  Well, that doesn’t wash either.  At age 12, 13, and 14, girls are almost always taller than their same-age boys, usually stronger, and statistically more numerous.  But they don’t form repressive groups to subdue the boys around them.  American girls who’ve hit puberty have a few years when instead they generally snicker at boys and stay away from them. 


So the progressives just MIGHT feel there is an equalness and a fluidness between sexes (or “among sexes”, since many of these progressives also believe there are a dozen or more sexes).  Thus, keeping a boy who looks like a boy but feels like a girl out of events meant for girls really is to them an injustice.


When states adopt this ludicrous progressive policy, they immediately hurt every girl athlete.  Not just the ones who might lose the top place medals to high-testosterone males, but to all girls who begin to view competing at any level as worthless.  It’s even worse than that, it represents a state eviscerating a STANDARD at the behest of a few radicalized people who “feel, but rarely think things though.


Think it through.  The policy clashes with every worthy aspect of feminism.  It makes girls’ competitions worthless. 


Let them explain why there should even now be competition for girls’ sports.  And if they can do that….then they can explain the repressive hierarchies among the 57 sexes they claim exist.  Until then, recognize that females are different from males.  It’s a beautiful aspect that God gave us.  We should glory in the differences, not use government to erase them. 


Feminism and Progressives


By Mark Stewart Greenstein

April 2016, Updated June 2017.

I am a far better feminist than many of the women at the forefront of the “progressive” movement.  Here are some of their progressives’ characteristics.

Progressives start with a belief that except for anatomy, females are the same as males.  They see no inherent differences in our emotions, our aggressiveness, our protectiveness, our passions, or our risk-aversion.  The differences we exhibit, they claim, are all a product of culture. Many of them believe male-dominated culture keeps these trends in check across the world.  They fail to explain how cultures that are so different in every OTHER way are remarkably the same in their female-male differences.

Progressives believe that since society has constructed these differences, society can undo these differences.*  Progressives typically believe that since society has unfairly constructed these differences, society should remedy these differences.  

But some differences can’t be remedied.  Here are some destructive examples in progressive attempts to remedy things on behalf of females.  

Co-education, a progressive “must” that puts boys and girls in the same classes, at some point impedes the learning for both sexes.  By ninth grade, boys are consumed with girls. They don’t learn as well when girls are in the classroom, especially if dressed provocatively.  Girls meanwhile have to put up with boys’ ogling, musing, and sometimes overt rude commenting.  

Move to college, where young where progressives have fought for Title IX equality for recruited athletes.  Insisting that women take the same number of athletic slots as men, Title IX advocates have caused some colleges to shut down football squads.  Other colleges “make up” the deficit by recruiting girls who are not especially athletic and sometimes not scholastically deserving. They fill slots on the field, but might be at a deficit in the classroom.

Now, progressives don’t yet demand girls’ football.   They are content to stifle a male activity, and indeed a male route to careers in sports, nutrition, fitness and media, all the while artificially pushing women to sports they are not passionate about.  

In the post-college workplace, progressives demand paid maternity and paternity leave.  Though the latter sounds “nice” for caring men, it actually hurts women. A company can budget only so much in benefits.  The more it pays men who don’t need a benefit (but will usually take it if offered) the LESS it has to pay women who to need to stay home with their newborns.  Even the demand that women receive paid maternity leave can have bad consequences for women -- it means that rational employers who don’t want new recruits taking too much time away may avoid hiring women of child-bearing age.  Progressives then want to legislate against that, but this is almost impossible. Once done, the remedy it engenders involves lawyers, scrutiny of HR records, and “thought-crimes” (looking into the intent behind a withheld hire).  Meanwhile the litigating woman twists in the wind, jobless and potentially stigmatized from being hired elsewhere.

What does the TRUE feminist do to help women in the workplace?  I for one say the woman who has been unfairly discriminated against because of her sex doesn’t need lawyers.  She could use an advocate, and plenty of law students are available in legal clinics to remedy injustices. Savvy, experienced lay professionals can help, showing how there might be a sex-related difference in pay.  Armed with data and not emotion the feminist doesn’t have to say “poor, weak woman, we’re going to have the government get you a remedy”. We, the true feminists, say “you’re getting yourself a remedy -- a different job and a cadre who will punish that company by boycotting their products.  We the true feminists maintain databases on companies that are most friendly to women employees. And we publicly scorn male pigs in the workplace. (My latest “feminism consumer revenge” is against Uber, whose execs proved themselves unmoved by women’s harassment complaints; for the rest of the year, at least, I will use Lyft instead of Uber.)

How does the TRUE feminist apply child-care to the workplace?  Here I say that nurturing a baby, fostering a child’s growth, and running a household all demonstrate skills I want back in my workplace.  Women who choose to have a home career can probably help my company part time as productively, per hour, as men who are full time. Many jobs can be done well from home these days.  For women wanting to return to work after a full severance to raise children, I accord the same status, and maybe even HIGHER status. The woman has been managing a home successfully and after 20 years has sent 3 kids off to college or a successful non-college life; that compares more favorably than a man in a stodgy go-along position for twenty years.  There are very few roles where experience trumps talent. Women leading households successfully demonstrate their workplace talents every week.  

These are just a few elements of feminism that if recognized, will be truly better for women.  Modern feminists need not try to foist the falsity that male and female are inherently the same.  Our differences are beautiful, and playing to differences is far from subordinating, but instead is uplifting.

Mark Stewart Greenstein

April 2016, Updated June 2017.


* The higher the level of education, the more a person typically believes this.  PhDs are at the forefront of desiring to undo the differences. Meanwhile the least-educated know that generally girls are inherently different than boys, and women are inherently different than men.  The PhD seems unwilling to deny the simple observation that with almost no societal influence the three year old boy presented with big rubber ball is likely to kick it or roll it while the three year old girl is likely to cradle it.  If given a toy car, the five year old boy will want to race the toy car or smash it into another toy car; the five year old girl will want to decorate the toy car or even care for the toy car.

Most remarkable are differences in our willingness to care for children.  Across all cultures, women have a higher willingness and a higher ability.  If this were just a cultural construct, at least some male leaders would want to continue the species and take on the child-rearing roles.  If “men work, women stay home” were a cultural construct, then matriarchal societies would turn that around; but they don’t.  

Progressives usually deny the existence of God.  Here’s why it fits so well. Without God, humans are solely the product of molecules replicating.  The combination of molecules that created the first female (or first male) was an accident. Yet somehow no other accidents have created a third sex, not for any creature.  The idea that a creative Creator might have planned this out ruins the progressive’s world view. Even though far more plausible, God-as-creator is not acceptable to most progressives.  That may be because a good God also foists timeless values upon us, and many progressives don’t want to be bound by the values and demands of God.

English-Only Ballots, English-Only Signs


Mark Stewart's plan to help immigrants fully participate in the business and culture of this nation.

In the United States, where we let beautiful cultures flourish, the language of business and the language of our shared culture happens to be English.  We want all immigrants to fully participate in the business and culture of this nation.  To leave a segment of Latino Americans without the fullness of America is to cripple opportunity for some of our most vibrant people.
Please do not confuse people who believe in English-only signs and English–only ballots with lacking compassion.  I am compassionate; I have a deep empathy for immigrant-Americans.  I know that learning a new language is HARD. But I know we can’t throw out STANDARDS in the name of ease. We who believe in English only know it’s MORE compassionate to immigrants who want to assimilate, to immigrants who WANT to be inclusive.
To immigrants who do NOT want to assimilate, please know that America will still make you comfortable.  America will never restrict your ability to worship in your own way, to speak your own language, to celebrate your own holidays.  If you are not on the road to citizenship, you will always be free to work here, attend our schools, and use our infrastructure, so long as you pay for their use. 

Please know that English ballots and English signs are issues for more than just a few immigrant groups.  EVERY one of us has a stake here.  We do not want to ever again be a divided nation.  Look at the problems with other nations who have competing groups.  Indonesia has 8 official languages; it has the fifth largest population in the world, but it’s nowhere near a world power.  France was once a world power; it’s becoming a basket case in part because of its leaders’ blindness to the problem of having a permanently divided citizenry.

Latino Americans will be the prime beneficiaries of my program of “Affirmative Education”.  Every legal immigrant, young and old, will be offered English immersion classes for a minimal charge.  Every immigrant on the road to citizenship will have the ability to learn about American citizenship.

I’m proud that American immigrants have routinely become among the most patriotic Americans.  I fear losing that.  Please recognize that we who want a better “melting pot” don’t believe in Anglo superiority, but in the superiority of ONE.  E-Pluribus unum.  Latin speakers know what that means (too few Anglo-Americans do): from many, One.

I thank God that my Russian and my Lithuanian ancestors embraced learning English when they came to these shores.  Was it comfortable?  Almost certainly not.  By contrast, I weep for those who refuse to let their children be immersed in English, who are dooming them to at best a lower-middle class existence.  We hold out the hope for every one to have an upper-echelon life.  Isn’t that why you came here in the first place? 

Please don’t listen to progressives who try to tell you what’s good for you.  Think as individuals, and know that every individual here will flourish with English immersion.

Videos (4)

— February 19, 2020 Stewart For Liberty - Mark Stewart

Good immigrants enhance the USA  Thus my policy would be simple :


We will protect good immigrants.  Good =

   1) learned basic English before coming here 

       2)  espoused American values to their own community before coming here.

           3) once here have not taken welfare, or are repaying the welfare they obtained


These are the immigrants we should WANT.  I will protect them. 


In the name of CULTURE, the great American culture that some recent newcomers (egged on by Leftists and nihilists) wish to dilute, we have the duty to acculturate newcomers to the American way.  That means communities that teach their children Sharia law to replace American law, and those who disdain English immersion for their children should be considered "child abusers" and stopped.


For all newcomers, we should take the opportunity to steer them to communities where their presence is an asset and not a likely burden.  Some cities are overburdened (not because of population, but because they don't let free markets properly serve a growing population) while many rural areas are losing population.  We could condition residence for the first seven years in the USA on staying in an underpopulated area "of need".  New immigrants create economic vitality of their own.

— February 19, 2020 Stgewart for Liberty - Mark Stewart


Government can't practice virtue as well as individuals.   Government can't teach virtue as well as pastors, parents, rabbis, and private counselors.  That's because the most well-meaning, selfless people within government service are inevitably part of a political process that dilutes their ideals.  Whatever an individual wants or needs, the bureaucrats want and need it less.  The bureaucrat typically has to compromise to get some instead of none.


Individuals do not have to compromise.  Single families and private groups get more done, better, than legislatures and bureaucrats.  We need to frame debates on how to return more power to the individuals and private groups, and remove power from those who cannot completely enact our best interests.


The beauty is that free markets and minimal regulations have proven themselves to bring us more goods, more services, better health, and higher prosperity than governments ever will.  This part of Mark's Civic efforts is an as EDUCATOR.  He routinely speaks with student groups to elaborate in areas of economics, civics and ethics in ways their school-teachers often can't.  


— February 19, 2020 Mark Stewart - Stewart For Liberty

We should increase state spending for enviromental protection.  Environmental protection is not yet Constitutional.  But it's properly in the state's orbit because individuals can't enforce their own property rights  to clean air and clean water without the state's help.


States can also be a forceful "driver" of environmental improvements nationwide.  Regional cooperation makes great sense.


Good environmental science deserves to be strengthened.  We must stay wary though.  Many good organizations that are concerned about the environment get hijacked by bad science and bad politics.  The environmental movement at the national level has been overrun by Marxists.  These people use "the environment" as a sledgehammer against small business and small property owners.  They  even put a harness on food production, and their national policies make food prices unnecessarily high, especially hurting poor people.  These Marxists delay construction needlessly; they derail good projects.

— February 19, 2020 Mark Stewart - Stewart For Liberty

Aftican Americans are ripped off by a progressive creation: Social Security.  They should be irate: Black pay into the system longer and get LESS from it in benefits.  It's a regressive tax in the first place, and Black suffer the hardest from work and life expectancy tables.  The system should be abolished, and African Americans SHOULD be leading the way.

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.