Slashdot Mirror

http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=about-cpd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

I honestly hope Colbert wins in SC. The only better guy for president would be Jon Stewart!. Either of them would spank those Dem/Rep around in a debate until they cried.

Heh, I'd love to watch this as well. I was curious about what the requirements were to get into the debates, so I did a little googling. I can't find the criteria for the 2008 Presidential election (which are presumably pretty different, considering a number of the candidates in the debate don't meet the criteria below), but for curiosity's sake here's the criteria used in the the 2004 election debates:

http://debates.org/pages/candsel2004.html

* Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility: yup, Colbert's >35 years old and is a natural born citizen (born in DC, actually)

* Evidence of Ballot Access: he needs to get on enough state ballots to be able to theoretically win the election (270 electoral votes). I'm not familiar with the requirements for each state, but I imagine this could be tricky.

* Indicators of Electoral Support: He needs to poll at least 15% nationally. He's already polling ahead of Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. He also got 13% in polls which pitted him against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

Political parties are a big part of the problem here in the states. The framers of our constitution did not anticipate the rise of political parties, and George Washington spoke against them in his farewell address. The two major parties here in the US have consolidated power and intentionally impeded the ability additional parties to have any influence in elections or legislation.

One good example of this is the current rule on filibustering which has made the process to a simple administrative chore requiring a 60% vote to break. No longer can one man halt all other activity against the will of even his own party and stand for what he knows is right. Another good example is the change to eligibility requirements and governance of the presidential debates. Where previously the League of Women Voters maintained a fair and open debate process, now the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization controlled by corporate sponsors, has created minimum eligibility requirements that include a 15% share of the popular vote "as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations." This puts the requirements out of the reach of third party candidates who need the national exposure that the debates would give them to garner that much popular support.

The last reference above has a great comment from Alan Keyes that I feel deserves inclusions here.

Regarding the criteria regarding who should be admitted to the Presidential Debates, Keyes said it wasn't a difficult question and shouldn't require too much imagination. Keyes went on to say that one reasonable criteria would be that any Presidential Candidate who qualifies for ballot position in enough states to have the possibility of winning the 270 votes necessary to be elected president - should be included in the debates.

Political parties are a big part of the problem here in the states. The framers of our constitution did not anticipate the rise of political parties, and George Washington spoke against them in his farewell address. The two major parties here in the US have consolidated power and intentionally impeded the ability additional parties to have any influence in elections or legislation.

One good example of this is the current rule on filibustering which has made the process to a simple administrative chore requiring a 60% vote to break. No longer can one man halt all other activity against the will of even his own party and stand for what he knows is right. Another good example is the change to eligibility requirements and governance of the presidential debates. Where previously the League of Women Voters maintained a fair and open debate process, now the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization controlled by corporate sponsors, has created minimum eligibility requirements that include a 15% share of the popular vote "as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations." This puts the requirements out of the reach of third party candidates who need the national exposure that the debates would give them to garner that much popular support.

The last reference above has a great comment from Alan Keyes that I feel deserves inclusions here.

Regarding the criteria regarding who should be admitted to the Presidential Debates, Keyes said it wasn't a difficult question and shouldn't require too much imagination. Keyes went on to say that one reasonable criteria would be that any Presidential Candidate who qualifies for ballot position in enough states to have the possibility of winning the 270 votes necessary to be elected president - should be included in the debates.

Your facts are wrong.

Funding:

http://www.debates.org/pages/natspons.html
http://www.fec.gov/info/checkoff.htm#anchor1394115

Broadcast rights:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6179153.html

I don't remember the debates in 2000

For a fee, tapes are available in BETA version, which is broadcast quality and requires a C-Span release, or in VHS format, which does not require authorization. To order by phone, cite the ID number listed below.

I don't remember the debates in 2000

For a fee, tapes are available in BETA version, which is broadcast quality and requires a C-Span release, or in VHS format, which does not require authorization. To order by phone, cite the ID number listed below.

I don't remember the debates in 2000

For a fee, tapes are available in BETA version, which is broadcast quality and requires a C-Span release, or in VHS format, which does not require authorization. To order by phone, cite the ID number listed below.

I do support a national patient's bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the State of Texas to get a patient's bill of rights through. It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. You see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside, and that's what we did in my state. We have one of the most advanced patient's bill of rights. It says, for example, that a woman doesn't have to go through a gate keeper to go to her gynecologist. It says that you can't gag a doctor, doctor can advise you. The HMO, the insurance company, can't gag that doctor from giving you full advice. And this particular bill, it allows patients to choose a doctor, their own doctor if they want to. But we did something else that was interesting. We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage.

Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He had his insurance commissioner draft into law some of the less controversial bits of the bill -- like letting women choose gynecologists as their primary-care doctors -- but constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects. Faced with a vetoproof majority in 1997, he had his legislative aide, Vance McMahan, do everything he could to sabotage the bill, to the point that Republican legislators complained on the floor of the Texas Senate. Then, faced with a vetoproof majority, Bush let the bill become law without his signature.

BUSH: [...]We'll be implementing a missile-defense system relatively quickly.
And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century.
[...]
LEHRER: [...] if you're reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected, the single most serious threat you believe, both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation?
BUSH: In the hands of a terrorist enemy.

That is a presupposition and not something that should be allowed by the legal system.

Absolutely! I agree completely. And in fact we're there already: the legal system does not currently determine who can participate in presidential debates. The debates are not organized by a government body -- they are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which despite its official-sounding name, is a privately run nonprofit organization. That private organization determines which candidates are invited to participate in the debates it sponsors.

Claiming that its refusal to invite your candidate of choice to a particular debate represents a failure of the legal system doesn't really make sense, short of saying that a government body should have the power to dictate a list of required debate participants to private organizations. And if that is what you're proposing, then there are a whole lot of rather disturbing free-speech implications: What constitutes a debate? Does everyone who claims to be running for president get to participate, or if not, what's the cutoff below which you don't make it onto the official must-be-invited list? If the Greens and Libertarians have a debate on a college campus, are they required to invite the local Democrats as well? And so on.

Yay! Election '08 will include podcasts... of course the podcasts will be of politicians trying very hard not to take a firm stand on controversial issues, making vauge and completly meaningless promises ("I promise to help every American achieve the 'American Dream'"... "I promise to protect America"), and lots of issueless propoganda human interest videos designed to make a candidate more "human" and "likeable" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhv15EKJNo&search= al%20gore%20unseen ).

So called "Democracy Activists" will hail it as a great victory for "people power"... meanwhile elections will take place in gerrymandered ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander ) districts to keep incumbent politicians in power, "Campaign Finance Reform" laws like McCain-Feingold will be used to censor political speech ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html ), and third parties will be banned from elections by catch-22 regulations ("Your party needed to have recieved 10% of the vote in the last election in order to be on the ballot this year"... Yeah, but if you are not on the ballot, how the hell do you ever get on the ballot? Essentially the law only allows Republicans or Democrats to run), or banned from gatherings or fundraising by legal harrasment ( http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/07/10/nude-liberta rian-fundraiser-foiled/ ), etc. And the FBI will be used to spy on political adversaries (done by both Dubya and Clinton).

I expect podcasting to even further degrade journalism and become more sensationalized. Check out the lowering in the quality of debate in 24 years:

1980 Carter Reagan Debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans80b.html
2004 Kerry Bush Debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

Here is an example of the difference in questions asked in 1980:
"Mr. President, when you were elected in 1976, the Consumer Price Index stood at 4.8%. It now stands at more than 12%. Perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader, underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7% to 9%. Now, a part of that was due to external factors beyond U.S. control, notably the more than doubling. of oil prices by OPEC last year. Because the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? If so, what measures would you pursue in a second term?"

And the type of questions asked in 2004:
"Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?"

I challenge anyone to tell me that the debates haven't turned into a completly idiotic parody of Democracy.

Sorry folks, Democracy was supposed to be about people governing themselves... and by governing themselves, I mean people making decisions for themselves. Having a popularity contest for 300 million people to elect a centralized executive branch and legislative branch with no limits on power whatsoever is not Democracy - It is popular authoritarianism. You doing whatever you want (so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else) is Democracy, electing a tiny oligarchy to have total power over your life, your education, transportation, health care, lifestyle choice, and economics is not democracy - It is popular totalitarianism! Giving the handful of eligble people in the elite political class better viral marketing is not going to do anything to make the country better. It is only going to create the presidential version of the Subserviant Chicken the norm.

Yay! Election '08 will include podcasts... of course the podcasts will be of politicians trying very hard not to take a firm stand on controversial issues, making vauge and completly meaningless promises ("I promise to help every American achieve the 'American Dream'"... "I promise to protect America"), and lots of issueless propoganda human interest videos designed to make a candidate more "human" and "likeable" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhv15EKJNo&search= al%20gore%20unseen ).

So called "Democracy Activists" will hail it as a great victory for "people power"... meanwhile elections will take place in gerrymandered ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander ) districts to keep incumbent politicians in power, "Campaign Finance Reform" laws like McCain-Feingold will be used to censor political speech ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html ), and third parties will be banned from elections by catch-22 regulations ("Your party needed to have recieved 10% of the vote in the last election in order to be on the ballot this year"... Yeah, but if you are not on the ballot, how the hell do you ever get on the ballot? Essentially the law only allows Republicans or Democrats to run), or banned from gatherings or fundraising by legal harrasment ( http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/07/10/nude-liberta rian-fundraiser-foiled/ ), etc. And the FBI will be used to spy on political adversaries (done by both Dubya and Clinton).

I expect podcasting to even further degrade journalism and become more sensationalized. Check out the lowering in the quality of debate in 24 years:

1980 Carter Reagan Debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans80b.html
2004 Kerry Bush Debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

Here is an example of the difference in questions asked in 1980:
"Mr. President, when you were elected in 1976, the Consumer Price Index stood at 4.8%. It now stands at more than 12%. Perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader, underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7% to 9%. Now, a part of that was due to external factors beyond U.S. control, notably the more than doubling. of oil prices by OPEC last year. Because the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? If so, what measures would you pursue in a second term?"

And the type of questions asked in 2004:
"Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?"

I challenge anyone to tell me that the debates haven't turned into a completly idiotic parody of Democracy.

Sorry folks, Democracy was supposed to be about people governing themselves... and by governing themselves, I mean people making decisions for themselves. Having a popularity contest for 300 million people to elect a centralized executive branch and legislative branch with no limits on power whatsoever is not Democracy - It is popular authoritarianism. You doing whatever you want (so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else) is Democracy, electing a tiny oligarchy to have total power over your life, your education, transportation, health care, lifestyle choice, and economics is not democracy - It is popular totalitarianism! Giving the handful of eligble people in the elite political class better viral marketing is not going to do anything to make the country better. It is only going to create the presidential version of the Subserviant Chicken the norm.

According to Gore, global warming will end it all in 10 years. Yet he felt no need or responsibility to do anything about it when he was a Senator or Vice President.

He felt no need to campaign on the issue in 2000

I do. I think that in this 21st century we will soon see the consequences of what's called global warming. There was a study just a few weeks ago suggesting that in summertime the north polar ice cap will be completely gone in 50 years. Already people see the strange weather conditions that the old timers say they've never seen before in their lifetimes. And what's happening is the level of pollution is increasing significantly. Now, here is the good news, Jim. If we take the leadership role and build the new technologies, like the new kinds of cars and trucks that Detroit is itching to build, then we can create millions of good new jobs by being first into the market with these new kinds of cars and trucks and other kinds of technologies. You know the Japanese are breathing down our necks on this. They're moving very rapidly because they know that it is a fast-growing world market. Some of these other countries, particularly in the developing world, their pollution is much worse than anywhere else and their people want higher standards of living. And so they're looking for ways to satisfy their desire for a better life and still reduce pollution at the same time. I think that holding onto the old ways and the old argument that the environment and the economy are in conflict is really outdated. We have to be bold. We have to provide leadership. Now it's true that we disagree on this. The governor said that he doesn't think this problem is necessarily caused by people. He's for letting the oil companies into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Houston has just become the smoggiest city in the country. And Texas is number one in industrial pollution. We have a very different outlook. And I'll tell you this, I will fight for a clean environment in ways that strengthen our economy.

and he feels no responsibility to run for president in 2008 in order to get the power necessary for him to save the world.

But let me tell you, point blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every scientist in the country will tell you, "Not adequate," because they're contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70 -- they're are only about 11 to 20 now -- and there aren't enough to be able to do the research because they're contaminated.

BUSH: I really don't think your rights are being watered down. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't support it if I thought that.

and little else (see this for the full text. Kerry said:

KERRY: Former Governor Racicot, as chairman of the Republican Party, said he thought that the Patriot Act has to be changed and fixed.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, he is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said over his dead body before it gets renewed without being thoroughly rechecked.

A whole bunch of folks in America are concerned about the way the Patriot Act has been applied. In fact, the inspector general of the Justice Department found that John Ashcroft had twice applied it in ways that were inappropriate.

People's rights have been abused.

I met a man who spent eight months in prison, wasn't even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn't allowed to get -- finally, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois intervened and was able to get him out.

This is in our country, folks, the United States of America.

They've got sneak-and-peek searches that are allowed. They've got people allowed to go into churches now and political meetings without any showing of potential criminal activity or otherwise.

Now, I voted for the Patriot Act. Ninety-nine United States senators voted for it. And the president's been very busy running around the country using what I just described to you as a reason to say I'm wishy-washy, that I'm a flip-flopper.

Now that's not a flip-flop. I believe in the Patriot Act. We need the things in it that coordinate the FBI and the CIA. We need to be stronger on terrorism.

But you know what we also need to do as Americans is never let the terrorists change the Constitution of the United States in a way that disadvantages our rights.

Saying there is no problem doesn't make it go away.

You may be right about the records. The record isn't everything for this issue, though. Sinse almost everyone on the hill voted for the Patriot act, correcting it will either take politicians admitting they were wrong (aka flip-flopping), a massive turnover of congress-critters (you can thank gerrymandering for that not happening), or some intervention by the supreme court (hopeful). Badnarik is another possibility, but pretty remote.

I must have watched a different debate than you. In the debate I watched, Bush mentioned it exactly once.

KERRY: ... Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops.

I missed the last debate, but something i caught reading a transcript and sounded alarms in my head was Bush saying (and i quote):

"...So I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs.
We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there. That's why he called him a grave threat.

I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why.

But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without him in power.
And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous."

So, in few words, first it was about terrorists, then about WMD, since there were no terorrists there, and now there's no WMD, it's all about Sadaam being an evil, dangerous man. Which is not something i disagree with, but it begs the question: why the fuck did the Bush administration was so eager to rush into war with Iraq - so much that they bypassed the UN completely? To this day, just like you, i have no idea.
Oil? I thought it was far fetched back then. Now i don't know.

What scares me is that so many people over the USA not only accept this, but embraces and defends this actions.

Why third party candidates are excluded:

http://www.debates.org/pages/news_041006.html

CPD Announces Application Of Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria For October 13, 2004 Debate

The non-partisan, non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") announced today that it has applied its Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria for 2004 General Election Debate participation to determine eligibility to participate in the presidential debate to take place at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona on October 13, 2004.

Pursuant to the criteria, which were publicly announced on September 24, 2003, those candidates qualify for debate participation who (1) are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (2) have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and (3) have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results.

The Board of Directors of the CPD convened today to apply the criteria with the assistance of the Editor-In-Chief of the Gallup Polling Organization, Dr. Frank Newport. Of the declared candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry were found to have satisfied all three criteria. Accordingly, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry qualify to participate in the October 13 presidential debate. No other candidates satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the October 13 debate.

The candidates who have qualified to participate today previously have committed to participate in the debates sponsored by the CPD.

As previously announced, President Bush and Senator Kerry will participate on October 8 in a town meeting-style debate sponsored by the CPD. That debate will take place on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

The CPD's candidate selection process already selects candidates based on that and constitutional ability to be president. There's no problem there. The complaint is in their third requirement, indicators of electoral support. A candidate has to have a level of support of at least 15%. But how is a candidate supposed to get public support when they can't even get on a televised debate? It's a catch 22.

More importantly, how is a third party candidate supposed to get well-known when there isn't even any media coverage of two presidential candidates being arrested? Seriously, I read Google News and I hadn't even heard of this story! What does a third party candidate have to do to get some attention, crash some planes into some buildings or something?

"The "unwritten rules," in this area, preclude anyone BUT the big boys from playing."

They're not unwritten rules, the CPD have publically stated that they wish to preclude anyone but the big boys from playing.

I find it rather odd that they claim so many times on that page to be "non-partisan", even as they select rules such as to exclude parties they dislike.

Heh.

The real news appears to be that the Commission on Presidential Debates has refused, multiple times, to be served by court papers to halt the 3rd debate.

Show me where Kerry has EVER said he made a mistake/changed his mind/whatever about Iraq.

Debates.org

Senator Kerry: "Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?" [emphasis added]

KERRY: No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.

Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.

And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.

While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.

That happened on this president's watch.

Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send.

If you don't believe Kerry, you could check the facts.

Voting mistakes?

You said a number of times that you made mistakes when you voted for things in Congress. How will you reassure me that you won't make more "mistakes" when signing bills into law? Are you going to sign something and then recant after it's too late? Are you going to veto something that you'll come back later and say you should have signed? You, in effect, basically stated that you vote without knowing all the issues or something.

Your position seems to be that you don't want a le

Meaning that he did and would vote for the illegal occupation of Iraq

You're ignoring all the Kerry quotes I repeated about "seeking UN approval". If a UN mandate doesn't make an operation legal, then what does?

And saying that you're willing to give the President the authority to attack a sovereign foreign nation

The US president has had authority to attack Iraq continuously since 1991. The Gulf War never ended, remember? That authority had been occasionally invoked by Clinton during his tenure.

are just as keen on foreign wars and regime change in other countries as the Republicans

There's nothing to "reveal". That's been their stated platform, for a while. The Democrats are pro-nation building (but against risking US troops). The Republicans are anti-nation building, but lying about it.

He's anti civil rights because either: 1) he's a chickenshit liar as you claim

All Kerry has said is that he opposes gay marriage. But... so do you. It's possible to be anti-gay marriage and pro-civil rights at the same time, by being universally anti-marriage. Kerry hasn't taken that position, because it would be electoral suicide.

(Similar to all the Republican governors that win elections in Democrat states, by convientently forgetting they have opinions on abortion and death penalty)

he's just sneakier than good ol' Dubya

No, Dubya is far sneakier, as are the Republicans in general. (Or maybe it's not really that Bush is wily himself, but his handlers are). Bush ran as a small-government, anti-nation building, pro-Christian candidate, and he's reversed himself on all three, while managing to convince the media that Kerry is the flip-flopper.

Fundamentally, the Democrats are the party that serves the majority of voters, and the Republicans are the party that serves the rich minority. They use that money advantage to convince non-rich voters to support them, voting against their own economic interest by inflating the importance of sexual regulations.

Kerry is going to lose.

True. The USA's voters will get the president they deserve.

Love it or hate it, the LP is a 3rd party, and no 3rd party in the 228 year history of the U.S. has ever had any real significance. Ross Perot ran as an independent, once winning some 18% or so of the popular vote. But he was pulling votes from the left and right, so he wasn't blamed for "stealing" votes from the GOP or Dems (as though by rightful barony they should be given those votes).

And where is Perot now? Sitting on an oil rig somewhere, surely still listening for that "giant sucking sound" he thought he heard with those big ears.

Perot isn't involved because he didn't want to be involved. A few things here.

1. Winning 19 percent of the vote in a three way election is a significant portion. You only need 34% to win. (in a election decided by popular vote). If 15% more of the voters were convinced to vote for Perot a third party would have taken the majority of the votes. That is pretty damn close for a third party in my book.

2. By winning over 5%? of the popular vote the reform party recieved federal funding for the 2000 election and automatically appeared on the ballet on all of the states.

3. What killed the reform party was in-fighting and picking the wrong candidate in 2000. Yes, Pat Buchanan does believe in reforming the government and probably knows more about foriegn policy that anyone in the white house now (or anyone who's been there since Bush 1). However he was a poor choice PR wise, since he is often accused of rascism and anti-semitism. While those accusations may not be true, when you run for president, perception is everything. Had the reform party picked a popular outsider such as Donald Trump, Jessie Ventura, or even wooed Shwartzanneger away from teh Republicans they would have had a good shot in at least winning 5-10% of the vote in 2000.

4. Third partys have been shut out of the presidential debates. After Perot scared the shit out of both the democrats and republicans they conspired to keep third parties out of the debates.

The debate held in a town hall format where normal people were able to ask Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, and George Bush questions was the highest rated debate of all time

69.9 million people watched the debates, if you are wondering how that compares to other TV events, the only thing I know of that draws more viewers is the super bowl which usually draws about 80 million people. The highest rated debate in 2000 drew 46 million.

There is room for a third party in America, and people do want one. They just aren't standing up and fighting for one, and are missing the fact that those in power are doing everything they can to maintain power.

It just requires a candidate in the debates who is willing to tackle them. Hearken back to 1992, when the major party candidates were busy nattering on as they do. Along comes Ross Perot, a quixotic little Texan with a penchant for flip charts and one burning issue: the deficit.

Perot did not win the election, but the man who did ended up moving us from a deficit to a surplus. He didn't want to do it, but being publicly shamed by a Texan with big ears will get someone to change their mind mighty fast.

It's 2004 now and we're in worse shape than in 1992. Thankfully, there's another Texan with big ears who has some good ideas about fixing our economic crisis. All we need to do is get him into the debates.

You can help. These bastards want to keep Badnarik out of the debates. Send a letter to your local paper telling them how you feel about that. Send a letter to the Bush and Kerry campaigns telling them that you will not even consider voting for their candidate unless he debates Badnarik. Let a thousand voices ring out with the cry, "We're not going to take it!"

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...it's time...

When's the last time any candidate actually tried to show some meat instead of dodging questions?

Last time around.

The debates are managed by a group called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). To get into the debates, a candidate needs at least 15% to get in. (To put that in perspective, Ralph Nader has been polling 3%-5% in most polls i've seen; he got 2.7% in 2000).

The grandparent post notes correctly that Ross Perot got in the debates in 1992. The reason he got in was that he was invited by GHW Bush & Clinton.

There had been lawsuits against the CPD to overturn this rule. Perot sued after the 1996 election. Pat Buchanan, John Hagelin, and Nader have sued as well. I believe that Harry Browne and Howard Philips have sued as well.

AFAIK, most of these suits are still being decided.

(In the interest to help non-USA slashdotters, Pat Buchanan was the 2000 candidate of the Reform Party. John Hagelin ran for the Natural Law Party, Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate; Howard Philips ran for the Constitution Party. Ralph Nader ran for the Green Party.)

1. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?

Yep...that's what we have.. and will continue to have until people exercise their responsibility and vote all the scoundrels out!

I'm not big on kookiness, or conspiracy theories, but the two major parties are conspiring even if it's informally to keep third parties out of majority elections. In 1992 Ross Perot captured 19 percent of the vote and participated in the highest rated presidential debate of all time. After Perot's preformance in 1992, the Republicans and Democrats conspired to not include Perot in 1996. Clinton's aid, George Stephanopolous said:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: "[The Dole campaign] didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in it. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."

In 2000 it was announced that candidates wouldn't be allowed in the elections unless they were polling at 15% of the vote ahead of time. Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).

While this has strayed off topic a bit, how can you expect not to have laws against the will of the people when the people are no longer in control of who they can vote for? Politicians do their best to make the Republicans and Democrats look different, and they are on social issues, but surely not on economic issues despite what some democrats and republicans might think. They both spend carelessly, and support big business. As long as these people are in power, you will have crap like the RIAA getting free lawsuits going on.

Do you want a corporation to have the power to decide arbitrarily the outcome of elections?

Whatever. Do you really think your life would be any better or worse if Gore were elected instead of Bush? I mean, yeah, it would be one or the other, but personally I don't know which. As it is now, between soft money and corporate control of the debates, corporations already do have the power to decide arbitrarily the outcome of elections.

What, in this case one single corporation has the power to swing an already close election one way or another? That's already the case.

Amar

3. Indicators of Electoral Support The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.

A minority of eligible voters actually register and vote. If the reason they aren't voting is because of disgust with politics (i.e. they don't think either major candidate will make a difference, or find them homogeneous), this means that these people might vote for a 3rd party candidate if they knew more about them. A 3rd party candidate who can carry the currently undecided/uninterested voters could win by a large majority. No president in recent history has actually been elected by a majority of eligible voters, just by a slim majority of participating voters.

-m

• Anheuser-Bush
  
• US Airways
  
• The Century Foundation
  
• The Marjorie Kovler Fund
  
• 3Com

• Anheuser-Bush
  
• US Airways
  
• The Century Foundation
  
• The Marjorie Kovler Fund
  
• 3Com

• The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.

• The Commission's third criterion considers objective evidence of national public enthusiasm or concern. The factors considered in connection with this criterion are intended to assess public support for a candidate, which bears directly on the candidate's prospects for electoral success. The factors to be considered include:
  1. The findings of significant public opinion polls conducted by national polling and news organizations.
  2. Reported attendance at meetings and rallies across the country (locations as well as numbers) in comparison with the two major party candidates.

Under the 1996 rules, Ralph Nader definitely qualified to debate. Pat Buchanan might have qualified too. Although he's on the ballot in a lot of states (49 or 50 I think) I doubt that Harry Browne would have qualified to debate under the 1996 rules. At least Nader and Buchanan are showing up in the polls.

The CPD is running scared. I hope Nader blows them out of the water and that their wreckage sinks the corporate rafts they've been floating on.

By the way, last night Nader was again prevented from even going near the debate forum.

VOTE NADER

...and let them know that you think they're impeding any progress in the American ploitical process.

I sent them this last night:

I'm just wondering how you people sleep at night knowing that you are hampering any progress that this country has tried to make past the same old crap spewed forth decade after decade by the two parties whom you solely represent.

The American public, as well as the global community, is appalled at your evil nature for not allowing Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan to speak to the American public.

People all over the world are mocking Americans for your exclusion. We know that any non-partisan inclusion in your decision making was removed about 8-10 years ago when the formerly conscientious comittee resigned in disgust at your two party insistence, stating that they would not be involved in "hoodwinking the American public."

I am a patriot, and I love my country, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so due to your heavy-handed control over the political process. How your representatives can stand in front of a live television audience and feel good about themselves while screwing us all is beyond me.

The political process needs to be fair to all Americans. Your process is so self-interested that it leaves us all wishing that someone within your organization would wake up one morning and say, "My God, how can I continue to belittle the American political process and silence the voices of millions in the elections."

Hopefully, someday, your consciences will speak up and you will fight to help us regain some voice in our own political process.

1. Go to http://www.debates.org
2. Click on the "Share Your Reactions To The Debate." link
3. Let them know that you DID NOT FIND THE DEBATES USEFUL, and that YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT [Harry Browne|Ralph Nader|Your Favoriate Candidate Here] HAS TO SAY ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES.

1. Go to http://www.debates.org
2. Click on the "Share Your Reactions To The Debate." link
3. Let them know that you DID NOT FIND THE DEBATES USEFUL, and that YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT [Ralph Nader|Harry Browne|Your Favoriate Candidate Here] HAS TO SAY ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES.

Agreed. I'll be voting Nader as well. I even wrote a letter (and snail mailed it!) to the Commission on Presidential Debates both in protest of their decision to cut Nader and Bucanan out of the Debates, and against their taking corporate donations to pay for them. It's just plain wrong to take donations from corporate organizations that have a vested interest in the outcome of these debates. I think they call that "conflict of interest."