Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, they won't make that mistake again, unless it's in their interest, of course. Bad things happen once you start bringing corporate influence into government:

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank described the first 2000 presidential debate:

The whole campus is closed -- (ostensibly) to thwart terrorists, more likely to thwart Nader and Buchanan. Nader gets kicked out of the debate audience, even though he got himself a ticket from a student. He's threatening lawsuits. But I'm not worried about such things. I am inside the debate area, and I am delighted to find an Anheuser Busch refreshment tent, where there is beer flowing, snacks, Budweiser girls in red sweaters, the baseball playoffs on television, ping pong and fusbol.

why is it better to hear no debate

Because the average voter may just as well listen to an hours worth of candidate commercials. That's what they are getting. They are making decisions based on commercials. That's a **bad** decision making model. This group lays the problem out nicely. http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/

Some slightly modified version of the following would be better. Let's get the candidates campaign people on stage too. They'll end up in powerful positions within the Administration.

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

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

Sadly, I'm no troll.

Although it didn't come up in this story with Stephen Colbert, I believe I can address why the Democrats and Republicans are part of the problem when it comes to American electoral politics: Ralph Nader is currently suing the Democrats for the stunts they pulled to keep him off the ballot when he ran in 2004 as an independent. It's worth your while to learn why Nader is suing and ask yourself if you are better served by having a few corporate candidates to choose from or more candidates spanning the political spectrum of ideas on the ballot. Voters aren't sufficiently outraged to support non-Democrat/non-Republican candidates, choosing to not vote at all most times. But their anger at the process is rising while the two major parties put up what Lawrence O'Donnell calls "virtually indistinguishable candidates" (and, let me assure you, after canvassing for signatures to get someone on the ballot in a local Congressional race, I know there's plenty of anger out there on this issue).

If you want to have a more informed view of the power which the Democrats and Republicans hold and how they use that power to keep candidates off the ballot, I suggest looking into

• the materials Nader's lawyer Carl Mayer referenced in his interview on yesterday's Democracy Now! (video and audio in a variety of formats),
• the Open Debates website, particularly their criticisms of the current American presidential televised presentations by which most American voters learn about the allowable range of debate in the US—the televised "debates" are a sham run by a partisan and corporate-sponsored group called the "Commission on Presidential Debates" which is headed by former Democrat and Republican higher-ups
• both discs of the 2-disc DVD "An Unreasonable Man" (a related entry from my blog), the recent documentary about Nader. In the candidacy portion of the movie (which isn't most of what's on these discs), the question before you isn't whether you agree with his politics, it's why he and so many other candidates have a hard time running. The second disc has a series of short videos on apropos topics including "What happened to the Democratic Party?" and "Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S.".

The real rub in Colbert's rejection is that he was polling higher than some Democrats (according to one brief clip Colbert played on his show last night). Perhaps the Democratic Party wanted to be the group that shut those Democratic Party candidates out, not let some citizen show them up and point out how managed American elections really are.

Although it didn't come up in this story with Stephen Colbert, I believe I can address why the Democrats and Republicans are part of the problem when it comes to American electoral politics: Ralph Nader is currently suing the Democrats for the stunts they pulled to keep him off the ballot when he ran in 2004 as an independent. It's worth your while to learn why Nader is suing and ask yourself if you are better served by having a few corporate candidates to choose from or more candidates spanning the political spectrum of ideas on the ballot. Voters aren't sufficiently outraged to support non-Democrat/non-Republican candidates, choosing to not vote at all most times. But their anger at the process is rising while the two major parties put up what Lawrence O'Donnell calls "virtually indistinguishable candidates" (and, let me assure you, after canvassing for signatures to get someone on the ballot in a local Congressional race, I know there's plenty of anger out there on this issue).

If you want to have a more informed view of the power which the Democrats and Republicans hold and how they use that power to keep candidates off the ballot, I suggest looking into

• the materials Nader's lawyer Carl Mayer referenced in his interview on yesterday's Democracy Now! (video and audio in a variety of formats),
• the Open Debates website, particularly their criticisms of the current American presidential televised presentations by which most American voters learn about the allowable range of debate in the US—the televised "debates" are a sham run by a partisan and corporate-sponsored group called the "Commission on Presidential Debates" which is headed by former Democrat and Republican higher-ups
• both discs of the 2-disc DVD "An Unreasonable Man" (a related entry from my blog), the recent documentary about Nader. In the candidacy portion of the movie (which isn't most of what's on these discs), the question before you isn't whether you agree with his politics, it's why he and so many other candidates have a hard time running. The second disc has a series of short videos on apropos topics including "What happened to the Democratic Party?" and "Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S.".

The real rub in Colbert's rejection is that he was polling higher than some Democrats (according to one brief clip Colbert played on his show last night). Perhaps the Democratic Party wanted to be the group that shut those Democratic Party candidates out, not let some citizen show them up and point out how managed American elections really are.

I could give a rat's ass about having permission to freely edit the presidential debates unless the debates themselves were opened.

Wasn't that road crossed back in 1998, with far less justification than there is now? Is it your opinion that impeachment ought never be used under any circumstances? If not, when should it be used?

We need a 3rd party...

Agreed... in fact, we ought to have several. Unfortunately, until a few procedural issues (like the spoiler problem and the media lockout of 3rd party candidates from Presidential debates) are solved, it isn't going to happen, no matter how much we need it.

The democrats are moderates.
The Repubs are neo-conservative right-wing nut jobs.
There is *nothing* representing the left.

And furthermore, to the guy who replied there were "plenty of candidates, go check out what the big 2 do to the debates

You make very good points. However, I think you're too quick to dismiss the notion of a conspiracy. Granted, a big claim like the existence of a conspiracy to keep third parties down requires a great amount of evidence.

George Farah, the founder and executive director of Open Debates, argues in his book No Debate that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is dominated by Republican and Democratic Party operatives.

I am not a Green Party strategist. I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I'm concerned that our democratic republic is owned and ruled by the rich in their own interests. As useful as your advice might be in advancing the Green agenda, I'm much more interested in discussing the shortcomings of the two-party system and the collusion between the major parties.

While Nader argues that he isn't a spoiler, a Zogby poll suggests that if he weren't on the ballot, 41 percent of his supporters would go to Kerry and 15 percent to Bush.

First, framing the debate in terms of "spoilers" means votes are owned and that we should do nothing to challenge an inherently undemocratic system where the two entrenched parties push other parties and independents off the ballot (or make it harder to get on the ballot in the first place). Don't even get started about the exclusion from the televised debates run by the DLC and RNC.

Second, Nader has been saying that this Zogby poll shows a three-way split: half of his voters would not have voted at all. The other half is evenly split between those who would have voted Republican and Democrat. Thus only 25% of his voters would have otherwise supported Kerry, not a majority (not that there's anything wrong with that, as I said before, it's fine to compete and everyone is taking votes from someone else). Nader talked about this Zogby poll last night on Letterman's show.

Ironically, this is why some of the prime movers in getting him on the ballot have been Republicans.

All of the prime movers getting Republicans on the ballot in Illinois were Democrats. That's not irony when you consider that Republicans and Democrats are both fighting for the same corporate dollars and corporations are pleased to have either of those two parties win (hence a lot of large multinational corporations donate to both of those parties and set their agendas). It works well for both of these parties to exclude anyone that would question global corporate hegemony (as many third parties and independents do).

As per the article, Terry McAuliffe - the democratic party chairman - says he should 'end the charade' of a campaign being kept afloat by 'corporate backers.' Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph."

Please provide proof of this corporate backing and please supply evidence the Republicans and Democrats aren't taking corporate cash. My guess is that you'll have problems with both ends of this because (as far as I know) Nader/Camejo's campaign takes no corporate or PAC cash and only takes money from individuals (and each individual contribution is capped). McAuliffe is fine with misrepresentation: filling an Oregon ballot rally with Democrats who had no intention of signing the petition to put Nader on the ballot, thus Nader's people would think they had enough participation to get on and then be short signatures when they got the petitions back.

George Farrah, author of no debate was on NOW with Bill Moyers to discuss the history of presidential debates and how they've turned into bi-partisan press conferences.

You can read the transcript here.

The text below is from a PDF document:

In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement for the "parties to take over the presidential debates." Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk created the CPD, which immediately seized control of the debates from the genuinely nonpartisan League of Women Voters.

The link comes from a PBS program web page, Now with Bill Moyers. Was the League of Women Voters actively undermining America enough that both parties got together to change the debate rules?

Oh Please.

There are plenty of reasonable criteria for screening out the kooks. One is having ballot access in enough states to win the Presidency, so that all those voters who have the ability to vote for you can make informed decisions. How many candidates make that? Just 6, including Bush and Kerry. There were nine in the Democratic Primaries.

Another is commisioning polls to find out if a majority of voters want to hear from each of these candidates. Open Debates commisioned a poll and found that Nader should be included. Badnarik has commisioned his own polls, using different verbiage, that show he too should be included.

These are reasonable, easily applied criteria that will allow alternative viewpoints be heard without stealing the show.

This country needs real Presidential debates. If we'd had them in the past, we may not have been left with Bush and Kerry as our candidates now...

Oh Please.

There are plenty of reasonable criteria for screening out the kooks. One is having ballot access in enough states to win the Presidency, so that all those voters who have the ability to vote for you can make informed decisions. How many candidates make that? Just 6, including Bush and Kerry. There were nine in the Democratic Primaries.

Another is commisioning polls to find out if a majority of voters want to hear from each of these candidates. Open Debates commisioned a poll and found that Nader should be included. Badnarik has commisioned his own polls, using different verbiage, that show he too should be included.

These are reasonable, easily applied criteria that will allow alternative viewpoints be heard without stealing the show.

This country needs real Presidential debates. If we'd had them in the past, we may not have been left with Bush and Kerry as our candidates now...

Take a look at http://www.opendebates.org/

go to OpenDebates.org. Click on "issue" if you want the full scoop on the objections. Do you support scripted debates with no invites to 3rd,4th,5th party candidates?

From OpenDebates.org: Under CPD sponsorship, the major party candidates secretly design all the elements of the formats. Consequently, challenging questions, assertive moderators, follow-up questions, candidate-to-candidate questioning, rebuttals and surrebuttals are often excluded from the presidential debates. The CPD's formats prevent in-depth examination of critical issues, and allow the candidates to the deliver pre-packaged soundbites that are repeated over, and over, and over again on the campaign trail.

Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded and non-partisan League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties seized control of the debates by establishing the bi-partisan, corporate-sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as a nonpartisan institution committed to voter education, the CPD has continually and deceptively run the debates in the interest of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people.

Well said. It makes me feel better that someone else out there is actually thinking of the broader picture. Keep fighting the good fight, no matter how much you're ridiculed over your view.

IMHO, the only "wasted vote" is the one cast out of ignorance. All too often people vote for a candidate simply because their friend, parent, or - God forbid - the TV told them to.

I can only hope that organizations like Open Debates will actually succeed and once and for all provide this country with a meaningful alternative to the duopoly that has grown so far out of touch with mainstream America.

In Illinois, the Democrats control the state government and recently changed the law to allow Bush on the ballot. According to state law, the Republican convention must be held before Sept. 1. The Republican convention was on Sept. 3rd, so it was later than it needed to be to legally allow President Bush to appear on the ballot in Illinois. The Illinois Democratic Party response: Change the law by altering the deadline so that the Republican convention would be within the new deadline (Senate Bill 2123). The Pantagraph published an article about this on June 29, 2004, the first few sentences of which you can find online. State Rep. Bill Mitchell (R-Forsyth) was quoted as saying "The bottom line is people should be able to vote on the President of the United States and voice their opinion on him." and Democratic Party Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich concurs. But what goes unmentioned is how this need to vote for a candidate does not extend to third parties or independents.

Nationally, the two major corporate parties know when to get along as well. Some readers may recall that the official-sounding (but privately-owned) "Commission on Public Debates" which hosts the presidential debates (taking that away from the League of Women Voters) is owned by the RNC, the DLC, and a few of their mutual corporate friends. These debates excluded Nader and Buchanan in 2000 despite a majority of the country wanting to see them in the debates. They were excluded by setting the barrier to entry high (15% interest level in pre-debate polls) and (as Nader points out in his book "Crashing the Party") gathering poll data from corporate-run news agencies friendly to the cause of third-party exclusion. This year, there is a movement to provide a more reasonable set of debates but Sen. Kerry and Pres. Bush are contractually bound to their CPD debates and will probably not appear in any Open Debate-run debate.

If the Democrats spent as much time opposing the Republicans as they spend opposing competitive third parties (like the Greens) and independents (such as Ralph Nader this election year), the Democrats would probably be a different party. Illinois is not a contested state, it is a "safe seat" for Kerry.

In Illinois, the Democrats control the state government and recently changed the law to allow Bush on the ballot. According to state law, the Republican convention must be held before Sept. 1. The Republican convention was on Sept. 3rd, so it was later than it needed to be to legally allow President Bush to appear on the ballot in Illinois. The Illinois Democratic Party response: Change the law by altering the deadline so that the Republican convention would be within the new deadline (Senate Bill 2123). The Pantagraph published an article about this on June 29, 2004, the first few sentences of which you can find online. State Rep. Bill Mitchell (R-Forsyth) was quoted as saying "The bottom line is people should be able to vote on the President of the United States and voice their opinion on him." and Democratic Party Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich concurs. But what goes unmentioned is how this need to vote for a candidate does not extend to third parties or independents.

Nationally, the two major corporate parties know when to get along as well. Some readers may recall that the official-sounding (but privately-owned) "Commission on Public Debates" which hosts the presidential debates (taking that away from the League of Women Voters) is owned by the RNC, the DLC, and a few of their mutual corporate friends. These debates excluded Nader and Buchanan in 2000 despite a majority of the country wanting to see them in the debates. They were excluded by setting the barrier to entry high (15% interest level in pre-debate polls) and (as Nader points out in his book "Crashing the Party") gathering poll data from corporate-run news agencies friendly to the cause of third-party exclusion. This year, there is a movement to provide a more reasonable set of debates but Sen. Kerry and Pres. Bush are contractually bound to their CPD debates and will probably not appear in any Open Debate-run debate.

If the Democrats spent as much time opposing the Republicans as they spend opposing competitive third parties (like the Greens) and independents (such as Ralph Nader this election year), the Democrats would probably be a different party. Illinois is not a contested state, it is a "safe seat" for Kerry.

In Illinois, the Democrats control the state government and recently changed the law to allow Bush on the ballot. According to state law, the Republican convention must be held before Sept. 1. The Republican convention was on Sept. 3rd, so it was later than it needed to be to legally allow President Bush to appear on the ballot in Illinois. The Illinois Democratic Party response: Change the law by altering the deadline so that the Republican convention would be within the new deadline (Senate Bill 2123). The Pantagraph published an article about this on June 29, 2004, the first few sentences of which you can find online. State Rep. Bill Mitchell (R-Forsyth) was quoted as saying "The bottom line is people should be able to vote on the President of the United States and voice their opinion on him." and Democratic Party Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich concurs. But what goes unmentioned is how this need to vote for a candidate does not extend to third parties or independents.

Nationally, the two major corporate parties know when to get along as well. Some readers may recall that the official-sounding (but privately-owned) "Commission on Public Debates" which hosts the presidential debates (taking that away from the League of Women Voters) is owned by the RNC, the DLC, and a few of their mutual corporate friends. These debates excluded Nader and Buchanan in 2000 despite a majority of the country wanting to see them in the debates. They were excluded by setting the barrier to entry high (15% interest level in pre-debate polls) and (as Nader points out in his book "Crashing the Party") gathering poll data from corporate-run news agencies friendly to the cause of third-party exclusion. This year, there is a movement to provide a more reasonable set of debates but Sen. Kerry and Pres. Bush are contractually bound to their CPD debates and will probably not appear in any Open Debate-run debate.

If the Democrats spent as much time opposing the Republicans as they spend opposing competitive third parties (like the Greens) and independents (such as Ralph Nader this election year), the Democrats would probably be a different party. Illinois is not a contested state, it is a "safe seat" for Kerry.

I frequently get asked why I "throw away" my vote by voting for a third-party candidate for President.

Sometimes people are nice about it, but too often it is an accusation. Apparently *I* am responsible for the fact that Al Gore did not get elected in 2000.

I have written on this subject before, but I wanted to cover some other information today.

One reason I vote for third party candidates is that they bring to the table issues that the major candidates may not normally mention. In order to try to sway third-party candidates, the major candidates will co-op some of the platform of smaller candidates. Had Al Gore paid more attention to *why* people were voting for Nader, he might have pulled in some more votes. Had he pulled in about 600 more votes in Florida, what would have happened?

From Open Debates: "Third-party candidates have introduced popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by the major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, unemployment insurance, social security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the 40-hour work week, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools like the initiative, the referendum and the recall."

In related news - "The Commission on Presidential Debates may have violated federal election laws when it refused to allow any third-party presidential candidates into the debate halls to watch the 2000 presidential debates, a federal judge has ruled."

I would definitely suggest checking out the entire Open Debates sites. Pay special attention to the New section that has editorials from tons of newspapers calling for the inclusion of third-party candidates in the debates.

I frequently get asked why I "throw away" my vote by voting for a third-party candidate for President.

Sometimes people are nice about it, but too often it is an accusation. Apparently *I* am responsible for the fact that Al Gore did not get elected in 2000.

I have written on this subject before, but I wanted to cover some other information today.

One reason I vote for third party candidates is that they bring to the table issues that the major candidates may not normally mention. In order to try to sway third-party candidates, the major candidates will co-op some of the platform of smaller candidates. Had Al Gore paid more attention to *why* people were voting for Nader, he might have pulled in some more votes. Had he pulled in about 600 more votes in Florida, what would have happened?

From Open Debates: "Third-party candidates have introduced popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by the major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, unemployment insurance, social security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the 40-hour work week, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools like the initiative, the referendum and the recall."

In related news - "The Commission on Presidential Debates may have violated federal election laws when it refused to allow any third-party presidential candidates into the debate halls to watch the 2000 presidential debates, a federal judge has ruled."

I would definitely suggest checking out the entire Open Debates sites. Pay special attention to the New section that has editorials from tons of newspapers calling for the inclusion of third-party candidates in the debates.

Check the gang leaders.

Make special note of Paul M. Weyrich, infamous for the 'drown government in a bathtub' quote. Want to know why the debt is so high? Not a bug, by design, by thugs like Weyrich.

Now take a look at the astroturfing in this thread, the dreaded 5th column.

Kerry may want a more open debate of this type, but Bush has politicized science enough that I don't think he would enjoy the forum. The truth, though, is that I have seen both parties politicize science. In any case, there are mechanisms in place that make it unlikely that a more open debate of this type does not occur. Take a look at http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/exclusionofiss ue.html.

I was an early TiVo owner. I paid for Cable. I upgraded my TiVo's HD, and got DirectTV... Then I got a DirectTiVo...
But one day, I realized that I was paying too much for the limited number of shows on TV I watching... so I stopped paying at all, because the net is a good source of all media now.

Now, I download my favorite TV shows from the net. Within hours of the Simpsons airing on 'free tv', I can download a DivX of it, watching it on my MythTV box, which outputs to my 60 inch TV, with no commercials either. Looks as good as Cable or DirectTV ever did. HBO shows like the Sopranos? CBS/ABC/Fox/NBC? The same thing. Pretty much all of the 'good' tv programs, I can download right away, thanks to Bittorrent.

Mixing Mythtv, RSS and Bitorrent is the killer app for media. It's coming soon... I'll just subscribe to shows, and they will just appear on my box... And every other Myth-style Box out there will help spread them. Even better than Tivo, since I can trust someone to manage an good RSS feed and I'll get everything they think I'd like... Or I'll pick 2 feeds, or 3 feeds, or a dozen... Or run one of my own for friends, etc etc.

We are already seeing things like this:
Michael Badnarik (the 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate) using Bittorrent: He's put his entire Constitution Class on downloadable video, for free over the Internet, using BitTorrent. 7 parts, each one hour long.
What would buying Primetime TV for this sort of exposure cost? And who would watch it, all 7 hours, if they did? But this way, grassroot politics, simply by bypassing traditional media! Watch on demand... Educate people... Expose people to ideas they aren't getting on Mass Media.
I want to see this man in a debate with Bush and Kerry now...

Death of traditional Media, due to Growth of Net, predicted, Film at 11.com

And you are proposing that this be done how? The current voting is between two parties that agree on many, if not most, matters.

Help another party grow. There are many third parties in the US. Help an independant candidate run. Find one that meets with your political beliefs and help them do their work so their ideas can be heard on TV and more people will be inclined to vote for them.

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy to do as Jack Black recently told Amy Goodman in an interview on "Democracy Now!"--he said he'd vote Green if they had a prayer (of winning). When people throw their vote behind the leader they devalue their vote and help make sure they will always have to choose between the best of the worst.

What you're saying is quite true--in the 2000 American presidential election Bush and Gore agreed on a number of important issues. Both supported the death penalty and both benefitted from excluding Nader and Buchanan from the televised debates (even though a majority of the public wanted to see these two candidates in the debates, probably to learn what they had to say). As a result, most voters had little to base their choice on and we got a roughly down-the-middle split. The Democrats and Republicans also ended up working together to keep thousands of would-be Democratic Party voters in Florida from excercising their voting rights in the 2000 election (the majority of which still do not have their voting rights, according to one Slashdot poster). More people were not allowed to vote than the number of votes which separated Bush and Gore in Florida.

So if you want to break the duopoly you should find another party or an independant candidate and volunteer for them. You can look into helping Open Debates get off the ground and bring us real TV debates. Nothing I'm suggesting will cost you much money, but it will cost you a great deal of time. Real political candidate volunteer work is repetitive and long. It is mostly not something you can do on the computer. I helped a local candidate run for Congress and I learned a great deal, it was very rewarding.