Slashdot Mirror
Ask Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb
Today you have the opportunity to ask questions of the
Green Party's candidate for President of the United States,
David Cobb. Standard interview rules apply: we'll select a dozen or so of the best questions and Mr. Cobb will give us his answers next week.
How do you respond to accusations from Democrats that a vote for your party is a vote for George Bush?
In this world of political campaigning via direct attacks and dancing around the real issues, I am curious to know how you and your party have reacted to these attacks.
Additionally, what is your party and personal stance towards using the very methods I'm mentioning as return fodder for the 2 large parties?
"It's not stealing if you don't get caught!"
Obviously with the current unpopularity of Bush and Kerry the final vote is down to either you or Ralph Nader. What decisive advantages do you feel you have over Nader that make you more likely to win the presidency? ;-)
Thank you for taking our questions.
The first of the ten key values of the Green Party is "Grssroots Democracy". Over the past few years, the American Green Party has made significant steps forward, but (as best I can tell) is still growing at a local level. While I understand the appeal of national coverage, is running a presidential campaign really in the spirit or the best interests of the party? Wouldn't those funds be more effective in campaigning for more local offices, or launching a statewide candidate in an area where the Greens have a solid foothold? Isn't that how grassroots is supposed to work--from the bottom up and not from the top down?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Is it easy being Green?
In a two-party system like the U.S. has, what is your strategy to draw voters and most importantly have them take you seriously?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
The Green Party is best known for its progressive policies on the environment, however its other policies are often shrouded by this, most people not knowing where the Green Party stands on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
What do you think might be the best approach to educate the masses about the rest of Green Party polices?
If I was a Repubican or Democrat, what would you say to me to make me switch to the Green Party?
Mr Cobb, As a registered member of the Green Party for the past several elections, I am concerned about the verbage in party information I've received concerning the November 2004 election. It seems I am being encouraged (strongly) to vote for the Democratic ticket. Is the Green Party no longer holding to it's grass-roots past and is it abandoning the philosophy of presenting a viable third-party point of view and candidate? Thank you.
Decentralization.
Does that include divesting the Union government of the powers it has accrued after its formation?
Specifically, would you support decentralizing all environmental law, by leaving it to the states and private citizens?
-Peter
One thing I've wondered about third party candidates is their motivation; do you really think you can win races? Do you think that if you run long enough, eventually you can break through the two party system? Or is it just a "protest candidacy" because you don't agree with the Democratic Party's platform? Would you be a Democrat if they became more of a leftist party (for lack of a better way to put it, but you know what I mean; if they had policies more in line with the Green Party). Or do you really and truly believe in your party, and want get them elected and into the political system?
Bottom line, do you ever think that you can truly win political office in the United States, now or in the future?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
How does the Green Party's view on affirmative action (from what I could gather from your website) coincide with key value #2 (social justice and equal opportunity)? It seems that someone who is pushing for monetary reparations for past injustices as well as affirmative action programs cannot say they also confront things that "deny fair treatment" (also from key value #2).
What is your opinion of Ralf Nader's actions after not gaining the Green Party Nomination for president? Do you think the Reform Party and the Green Party share any ideological common ground? If the first major Reform Party candidate, Ross Perot, is at all representative of the Reform Party platform, I would think there would be a clash of believes between the two parties. Is Nader selling out for another bid at the presidency?
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Since the Green party (as other minor parties) has no chance of winning the Presidency, how does the party evaluate and justify spending resources on this contest instead of on Congressional and state-level contests?
Is it a PR thing? If you look at the Greens in Germany (granted, very different system) you see that they rose slowly over time from the smallest contests to eventually having Cabinet positions.
What is the American Green Party's overall strategy to increase their representation, and how does an unwinnable Presidential election fit into it?
This Like That - fun with words!
I recently watched your very good and very friendly debate between Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. One issue you brought up was universal health care that taxpayer would pay for. If you are elected president, what do you think is a fair tax percentage for the average American, 10%, 20%, 30%? If you say it depends on how much you make, then for the sake of this question, say I make $75,000 a year. What percentage would a Green party president expect an average American making $75,000 a year pay to support all these social plans?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Thank you for your time. Recently in San Francisco, Matt Gonzalez, a popular local Green Party politico, has been pushing for the ability for noncitizens to vote in some of the local elections. While there are other places that offer this long before SF, it seems as though this erodes the differences between having citizenship or not. Rather than expanding the franchise this way, why not work to streamline the process for getting citizenship and encourage people to seek it?
Can you expound and explain a bit on your stance on this?
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
Hello, Given that the current system of voting tends to reinforce the positions of the two major parties (e.g. you must vote for a candidate or for their closest challenger), have you given any though to supporting election reform as a method of making inroads for your party? It would seem that if all the 'second class' political parties supported election reform you would be able to make larger strides than trying to play the republicrat's game.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
As President, you would at best be able to veto bills and direct some agency policies (within the confines of legislation).
Why are you seeking the presidency, particularly? Why is it the best strategy for achieving your goals?
Mr Cobb,
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
There's much talk about the security and reliability of current electronic voting machines. What do you think needs to be done about it (if anything), and can it be done without being elected by them in the first place?
Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
No, technically he was elected.
The Florida Supreme Court tried to apply alternate vote-counting rules not allowed under Florida law to ballots in specific counties. This was overturned on a 7-2 decision of the US Supreme Court. The FSC also tried to extend the date of certification when the certification date also was clearly stated under Florida law. This is the vote that was overturned on a 5-4 decision. The USSC basically said that the election results as then-currently counted under Florida law had to stay put, because the FSC was trying to rewrite election law on its own, which is not its role in the system.
And to correct your other point, the limit is ten years in office, which usually translates to two elected terms as president with some overlap in case the VP is moved up a notch. So no, even if you were right, he wouldn't be able to run twice more.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
No, he was elected. I'm so sick of people saying that "Bush stole the election" and a bunch of other leftist bullshit. You should read this before you go on FUDing the president:
Recount analysis by NYT (no reg required)
I don't like Bush either, but you don't see me resorting to FUD to try to sway people's opinions.
-Jem
On the Green Party website, it states that you support "reparations for people of color in the form of monetary compensation."
Where would this money come from, if this plan was enacted and how would the recipients be determined? If the money would come from tax dollars, what do you say to people, such as myself, whose ancestors had no part in slavery or major racial discrimination and don't think their tax dollars should be spent on these reparations?
Supposing the usual 2-party congress, what would be the most realistically achievable yet significant accomplishment a Green president could hope to make in the first hundred days ... or the first year?
"But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
Obviously we here at slashdot are a bit on the techie side. I know that I have personally watched my rights being taken away from me over the past few years. Mainly my right to fair use. Under current law it is illegal to watch CSS encoded DVDs under Linux or any other Open Source operating system. What are you and your party's feelings on loosening certain restrictions to make the act of fair use a right again.
Also, on the concept of intellectual property and copyright laws. What are your party's and your feelings on the current trend of extending the length of copyright terms? Do you have any plans to reverse the current trend or perhaps to set the lengths back to their original terms?
Thanks.
---Nick Fury
What is your stance on the use of medical-marijana? What do you think can be done to change the way in which the war on drugs in America is being fought, either legalizing/decriminalizing and taxing or otherwise?
Furthermore, How will you deal with our budget deficit and reform the GOP's relentless tax cuts and the Democratic Party's exorbanent spending?
What is your stance on the DMCA and surrounding issues (upcoming acts like the INDUCE act)? Should legislation like this be curbed, watered down, or tightened?
AccountKiller
My Bad got sidetracked there and cut the first question out....
Mr Cobb,
What is your view of our national debt versus
current entitlement programs? How would you
balance the federal budget and would you support
paying off the national debt?
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Why doesn't the Green Party support nuclear power?
Not trying to be an overall pessimist, but one of the most difficult parts of being the president is that having a very partisan congress makes any proposed "good idea" from anyone a big target. I would really like to see legislation for Industrial Hemp, Biodiesel, and many other non-fossil fuels take root as an energy policy, but special interest lobbying groups would make passing any major changes through the legislative branch almost impossible.
Mr. Cobb,
What do you believe is necessary for your party or any other to become a viable third party in American elections? Even though George Washington warned against having a partisan political system in his farewell speech, America seems to have developed a two-party system that forces third-parties out of the political process.
Also, what do you think of the Democratic and Republican parties shift away from what's good for America toward what is good for their respective parties and the businesses / people that support them while leaving the majority of Americans out?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
What do you see as the greatest problem with US News media? What do you think is the best way of restoring more objective news outlets? How would you change current media regulations and how would you encourage independant non-profit news outlets?
Thanks!
What is this desire to aim directly for the Whitehouse? Why not pool resources and fight the local battles? By aiming for the presidency (and ignoring the local politics), you are setting yourselves up for a fall. We all know that in a 2-party system, rigged the way it is, your chances of winning the Whitehouse are somewhere between 0.00 and 0.000. Then why waste the resources on this race?
How many members of Congress do you have? How many locally elected officials does the Green Party have? How many judicial appointees do you have? See the pattern here?
Maybe this isn't a question as much as a rant, but if you feel like, please answer why you are wasting the time and effort on a run for the Whitehouse, when the same resources, applied at local levels, would yield immensely more benefit.
Voting to give W the authority to go to war != voting for W's war. Many Dem senators went along with this vote because they were repeatedly assured that the administration viewed war as a last resort, that the sanctions were still in place, the WMD inspectors were still on the ground, and the decision to commit troops would be made only on the firmest of evidentiary and moral grounds.
We all know no what a crock that was. Kerry has said as much. What's unfortunate is that this inaccurate right-wing trope has also become a soundbite for some on the left.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
what the purpose of allowing snowmobiles in national parks is
I think it's acceptable in some parks not in all. You can't ride in all areas... ask a better question. A park isn't museum, it's also a recreational area.
what the point is behind conflict of interest stanzas in employment contracts
what do you think the point is?
ask him why we have a national oil reserve
We have a national oil reserve so that if the production of oil stops and there is a dire need for oil, we will have some. dire need does not include assholes w/ SUVs who are sick of paying $2/gal at the pump. It's dry friendly wells and a world war where real American's need to put their lives on the line in tanks, planes and boats to save your sorry ass while you sip a mochachino and debate which broadway play you liked better you noodle armed nancy pants.
Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically
According to the laws of this country Bush was elected. Get over it.
Meanwhile MTV has their bullshit voting campaigns where they brainwash millions of already-mindless american youths to vote a certain way...
I'd love to know (not with some bullshit poll, but with some cosmic brain that knows all or by asking god or something) what percentage of voting americans (or anyone) actually knows anything about the candidate they are voting for, except for what they've seen on TV commercials or other biased media?
How many go out and actually look at the record of this person's voting in the senate? Or the bills that this person vetoed/approved while in his last term? Or this persons personal actions in life? Bush has made some fuck-ups and so has Kerry... almost every politician has, because they're generally power hungry and assholes to boot.
Thanks for your time, Mr. Cobb. How do you reconcile your more socialist-leaning positions with the letter of the U.S. Constitution? Meaning, how are they a valid function of the Federal government, as opposed to, say, state and local jurisdictions? Also, I understand that "social programs" are a large part of what comprises the GP platform, but how do you plan to actually create these new programs, remain fiscally responsible, and at the same time quell the [very] valid arguments against large increases in taxation? Please define what compells your candidacy to further a notion of "greater good" while perhaps others do not share your definition thereof.
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
I think it is now becoming conventional wisdom among the American Left that America politics as a whole has moved rightwards (more conservative) in the last 30 years. Among the most cogent analyses of the move to the right are those that trace the flow of money (over $2B) from the ultra rich and the large multinational corporations to conservative rightwing foundations and thinktanks (see for example the essays at www.tcfranks.com, and google "tentacles of rage").
The more visible component of this propaganda machine are the talk radio shows and the cable tv news shows. But they sprang from, and still largely depend on, fodder from the think tanks and foundations.
Many on the American Left now accept that unless this inexorable flood of rightwnig propaganda is somehow countered or neutralized, electoral politicking (e.g., fighting to elect Kerry, or voting 3rd party) is somewhat moot, because this decades-old flood of propaganda has also moved the Democratic party to the right much the same as the GOP. Also, the undemocratic structure of the electoral political machine in America (single member, winner take all districts, etc) would seem to disempower 3rd parties except for a spoiler role.
Given the situation outlined above, what good does it do to engage in 3rd party electoral politics?
And more to the point, what can American leftists do to move America to the left, given the power that 3 decades of rightwing propaganda has had on the American political mind?
Would it be more productive trying to land a talk radio gig somewhere?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I'll ask the same questions I posed to the Libertarian candidate:
Would you approve of, and what would you think would be the results of, the following election reforms:
1. Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.
2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.
3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.
Lastly a question: is the democratic system as instituted in the United States hopelessly mired in a two-party stranglehold, leaving corporate interest in defacto charge of the discussion? Is legal election reform necessary, or even possible?
MORTAR COMBAT!
Firstly, thank you for responding to our questions.
The name "Green Party" conjures images of a party interested in environmental concerns. Of course, environmental legislation isn't the only issue to have environmental impacts; international trade and energy policy both have substantial environmental ramifications. However, it seems some Green issues aren't environmentally related. For example, while I too believe that gender equity and diversity are good values, why are they part of The Green Party's Ten Key Values, given they don't appear to be substantially related to environmental issues?
Why does it seem that the Green Party takes on issues that aren't related to "green-ness"? Is it essential for a modern US political party to have a stance on every issue, even those not seemingly related to core beliefs?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Declare that if you win, you'll give the Whitehouse an environmentally friendly paint-job, so we can then call it the "GreenHouse".
Will make it a more difficult target for terrorists too. Camoflague!
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
America is ready for a third party -- the Democrats seem to have lost their thunder, and many Republicans feel that their party isn't meeting their needs.
However, the name "Green Party" invokes in many people images of socialism and even ecoterrorism. The ecological movement has been painted as an anti-worker and even anti-American concept by people who believe that conservation and the reduction of pollution should be voluntary undertakings. I know that's not what the party is about, but that's doesn't stop older voters like my father from equating the movement with, for lack of a better term, neo-hippism.
How does the party plan to improve its public image and distance itself from more radical anti-corporate, anti-ecological groups? And how do you intend to endear your humanistic social goals to the institutions that currently fund the political system, namely rich individuals and corporations?
Hey freaks: now you're ju
What exactly does that mean? Registration? Licensing? Confiscation?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
When The Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik was interviewed on Slashdot, there was a comment made about how disruptive it would be to implement his (and his party's) ideas. His response, in essense, was that since the only way he would get elected was if hell had frozen over, that it made sense to create a platform for that situation. While that makes for a nice way for people to give the finger to "the man", it hardly provides a real alternative to the current system.
My question is: are you guys ready or able to play on the same stage as the Democrats and Republicans, can you get the attention of the media, and can you sell your message to the average american? Convince me that voting for you would be of more use than voting for the lesser of two evils.
You mention support for public financing of elections, how would you stop private financing of the candidates but still allow freedom of speach? For example would Fahrenheit 9/11 classify as private financing or comercials that are critical of candidates?
Since the green party platform calls for the banning of homophobia would you make it illegal for Christian preachers to preach on that topic? It has happend in Europ.
Mr. Cobb,
Some future technologies may deliver unparalleled energy efficiency, resource utilization, and the ability to reduce or reverse many of the ecological problems that current technologies and societies have created. As examples, molecular nanotechnology may enable atomically precise manufacturing and widely adopted fusion power would reduce greenhouse gas emisions from burning fossil fuels. However, both of these technologies also present major risks to the planet and the human species. Nanotech gone wrong may lead to grey goo that would destroy the biosphere, while fusion power requires (moderately) radioactive materials that could poison water supplies if released. Given that such technologies both serve to meet the Green Party's goals of energy independence and environmental responsibility, and could seriously jeopardize those same goals, where do you stand on advanced technologies?
And, because I'm curious, a space question: If affordable space travel becomes available and people can easily colonize other planets or moons, how would you answer calls for teraforming to help ensure the spread and long term survival of humanity?
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
you must understand, now is not the time for social experiments regarding the feasibility of >2 parties running for president. Making politcal stances is fine, I mean - I hate Bush and John Kerry is a douche bag (but im voting for him anyways.com), but it's not worth having Bush for another 4 years, because let's face it -- republicans are lemmings that hear nothing else and are much less likely to take independent stances. It's a sad state of affairs we live in now, but we free-minded people must band together a defeat this buffoon monster.
I know I'm going to be modded up on this
Hi there:
I'm wondering why ALL third parties in the United States don't band together on one issue that would help all of them: changing our voting procedure.
Whether you are Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist, Natural Law, Reform, or anything else...you would benefit if the United States adopted a voting system similar to Australia's, where instead of voting for one (and only one) candidate, we could put our candidates in order of preference, so that if our preferred choice wasn't a contender, our vote would automatically be cast for our second choice, and so on.
It seems to me that our two party system is guaranteed by the mathematics of the constitution, and that a simple modification like that would make third parties more viable, in that even though they still probably wouldn't win, at least people would feel free to vote for the candidate who most represents their ideals, thus enhancing the visibility of the platforms you espouse.
Wouldn't it be in your interests to spearhead public debate with all third parties (even if you don't agree with them on other issues) in order to make change like this possible?
gameDB
Thank you for taking our questions, Mr. Cobb.
Your party's issue statement on nuclear power calls for "the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible." Could you please explain your party's position on nuclear energy (1) in light of new, safe reactor designs and (2) in light of the necessity of the United States to wean its dependence on foreign oil?
Thank you.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
the Green Party and your candidacy in particular has been accused of being dominated by Democratic Party insiders who seek to undermine Nader's campaign using un-democratic methods.
A well-researched example of this is Marnie Glickman, one of the three members of the Green Party's National Co-ordinating Committee, who has a history as a committed and succesful (over $10 million) Democratic Party fundraiser.
The article referenced above concludes:
Given that your campaign would appear to have a number of recent "ex Democratic Party" activists and that your campaign seems mainly to have served to attack Nader's candidacy do you feel that you've been played for a patsy by more experienced politicos?
* PGP = Pacific Green Party
Perhaps the dems voted for the war due to relatively broad public support and the upcoming 2002 congressional elections? Of course not! They couldn't be that cynical, could they?
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Mr. Cobb,
The Green Party platform states in section II.A.2 that,
"Education starts with CHOICE and within public education we believe in broad choices. "Magnet schools," "Site-based Management," "Schools within Schools," alternative models and parental involvement are ways in which elementary education can be changed to make a real difference in the lives of our children."
Since the Green Party believes so strongly in school choice, do you support giving parents the option of receiving vouchers with which they can send their children to private schools (secular or religous) or to pay for the expense of home schooling? If not, why do you only support choice within government-controlled schools?
I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood.
Mr. Cobb:
I am what is usually described in the United States as a 'liberal' or 'progressive'. As such, I share most, if not almost all of your party's ideals and goals.
Nevertheless, neither I nor anyone I know who shares my political views plan to vote for you in November. While your positions on the issues may match my own more closely than any other candidate, I believe I have a better chance of seeing at least some of my positions enacted as public policy if I vote for John Kerry.
With all due respect, Mr. Cobb, you are not going to win the election this year. To a certainty, the winner will be either John Kerry or George Bush. If George Bush is the winner, then he will continue to govern according to his extreme right-wing beliefs. Most, if not all progressive causes that you and I support will suffer significant setbacks. As President Bush will most likely be able to nominate one or more Supreme Court judges during a second term, those setbacks would long outlive his administration.
If, on the other hand, John Kerry is elected, he will govern according to the political preferences of the Democratic party. While Kerry and the Democrats are, in general, quite a bit more conservative than I am, the simple fact is that the progressive causes I support would fare far better under Kerry than they would under Bush. I am sure that a President Kerry would do things that I strongly disagree with, but I am also sure that his goals and mine are not fundamentally incompatible. In short, I am certain that I can live with Kerry, just as I am certain that I cannot live with George Bush.
According to the polls, this election is going to be extremely close. If John Kerry is to win, he needs every vote he can get. I do not have the luxury of knowing that whoever ultimately wins the election will be at least somethat acceptable to me. Bush must be defeated or the ideals I stand for will be in serious jeopardy.
Thus, my question to you is: How is voting for you, as opposed to Kerry, make it more likely that the ideals I support will be reflected in public policy? Is there a *pragmatic* reason why I and other progressives should vote for you?
When Ross Perot was stealing votes from George Bush... it was OK. Now that Nader or whomever is stealing votes from Kerry... it's a crime.
"We support universal health care and a single-payer insurance program, that is publicly financed at the national level, administered locally, and privately delivered with freedom of choice of provider. It would cover all standard medical procedures, as well
as drug treatment, dental care, medication for chronic and terminal illness, equal coverage of
mental illness, and abortion."
Does this mean that you would make it illegal for a person to pay for medical care themselves? If not, how do you plan on inforcing the 'single-payer' portion of your plan?
What about wages in the medical field? Would you limit how much hourly workers like nurses are paid?
On a similar train of thought, do you feel that Nader's campaign in 2000 will be more helpful or detrimental to the Green party going forward? Clearly there's been a backlash against Nader, but how much of that has carried over to the greens. Is the backlash offset by the higher visibility that the green party might now possess because of it?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Do you plan to force Home School and private schools to teach your diversity plan? IOW, to you plan to force religious schools to teach that other religions are just a good as the religion they believe in?
With over 400 Green Party candidates in 40 states in 2004, wouldn't it be wiser for the Green Party to be building local support throughout the nation as opposed to quixote quest for the Presidency which could be considered a waste of money and talent as well as a lack of focus?
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.
Given that Political Campaigns have been reduced to which side can out-litter the other with non-biodegradeable liver-poisening plastic signs on public property, roadsides, intersections, lamppoles etc - how does a responsible environmentalist participate in an (illegal)littering campaign?
If the price of admission is trashing the environment - so how does the good side compete?
(Arrested in NC for cleaning up illegal signs - including political signs.)
AIK
Do you support the following part of the Green Party's platform?
"Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income, regardless of source, over ten times the minimum wage. With this Ten Times Rule in effect under today's extremely unequal distribution of income in the U.S., a 100% tax on income above ten times the minimum wage would allow us to cut the income taxes of everyone in the bottom 99%, by over half for the top brackets, by over three-quarters in the middle brackets, and totally for the lower brackets--and still generate about 40% more tax revenues than under the current income tax structure."
Regardless of what anyone thoguth about getting involved in the first place, the current situation needs be dealt with. I'm sure you were against it, but thats not a reason to elect you now. We can't go back in Time and correct any mistakes that we have made. What would you do to achive a peaceful resolution in Iraq? Do you have any idea on how to deal with radical millitant Islamic fundimentalism in regards to the danger it represents towards the rest of the world that do not share their beliefs?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
you must understand, now is not the time for social experiments regarding the feasibility of >2 parties running for president. Making politcal stances is fine, I mean - I hate Bush and John Kerry is a douche bag (but im voting for him anyways.com), but it's not worth having Bush for another 4 years, because let's face it -- republicans are lemmings that hear nothing else and are much less likely to take independent stances. It's a sad state of affairs we live in now, but we free-minded people must band together a defeat this buffoon monster.
Take your statement. Switch the sides. You have exactly what some other of my friends believe.
You have been taken in the professional wrestling match that the media has presented. They are both 99.99% the same. They also would ALWAYS have you believe "now is the not the time to experiment" because they would prefer to POSSIBLY lose to the other party than DEFINITELY lose to a third.
Make your vote count! Vote Independent. Green, Libertarian, Freedom, WHATEVER!
Vote for real change.
Much of your campaign focuses on wealth distribution, and I agree with you that corporations have no rights, only actual people do. But what I have not been able to resolve with the Greens is the role corporations play in producing the goods and services that satisfy society's needs. The laws of economics prove that taxing wealth-creation (income taxes, dividend taxes, etc.) creates a disincentive for society to produce, and subsidizing consumption (of health care, etc.) creates an incentive to consume more. Before wealth can be distributed, it of course must first be created by someone. How do you get around this dilemma of decreasing production and increasing consumption as a side effect of wealth equalization? Do you have a plan to overcome the problem of distributing wealth without decreasing the amount of wealth produced for distribution?
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
No. The Florida Supreme Court followed Florida law that the "clear intent of the voter" must be followed. SCOTUS said the Florida Supreme Court should have adopted "statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote" - they claimed that they wanted the Florida court to create law.
And an impossible law at that, given the different (and biased) balloting systems in use in different counties. (Biased in that rich counties used systems less likely to fail to register a ballot - fewer Republicans had to deal with the chance of "hanging chad" blocking their vote.)
This of course not considering the illegal disenfranchisement of thousands of voters, or the illegal "butterfly" ballots, or the failure of Scalia to recuse himself, or Cheney claiming to be a Wyoming resident depite living in Texas (electors can't vote for both a president and a vice president from their own state).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
What about the new pebble bed reactor designs? The original generation of nuclear reactors were terribly complicated, required constant monitoring, and were almost by design, prone to accidents. New pebble bed reactors can be completely fail safe.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
While I'm sure this at least partially stems from neither of you having entrenched political positions to protect, it also mirrors my recent experience. I lean towards the Green platform, and I have many friends who are Libertarians. Our political discussions, while spirited, show some fundamental agreement on the kinds of urgent systemic change required in this country.
My question to you is, do you see an opportunity to build consensus among those of us who see through the corporate oligarchy masquerading as democracy and focus on our areas of agreement rather than our differences? Specifically, would you support the Green party and the Libertarian party running joint drives in support of campaign finance reform, control of corporatism, ballot access and voting system reform?
Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!
The biggest beef a lot of us have is the whole issue of the tens of thousands of people who were wrongly prevented from voting because they had the same name as a felon.
Not to mention, this *HASN'T BEEN FIXED*.
Since wishing it away is not going to end the two-party system at Presidential level, would it not be better if people of a 'green' persuasion were to try and influence policy from within the Democratic party?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
With a deficit of 700 trillion dollars, do you think that what is essentially a socialist platform has a chance to provide the services you would like to? As president would you immediatly lobby to provide the federally funded social services outlined in your party platform or would you try to reduce the deficit and build wealth first? Or would you just tax the extreamly wealthy?
I very humbly think that the Iraq issue should be the starting point for the green party to finally become a strong, third US party. Your party was clearly opposed to the US/British invasion on Irak, while the Democrats were somehow shy in their criticism before the military actions started, and explicitly supported the so-called war afterwards. Shouldn't you be making it more clear that the two big parties are essentially the same, and that you represent a fundamentally different, actually progressive perspective ? Are you doing it ? What are your thoughts in this regard ?
- Nuclear energy.
- High-temperature garbage incineration.
- Genetically modified foods.
All of these technologies have drawbacks, but they also have many advantages over the alternatives. Nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases, incineration destroys toxic chemicals and does not require land fill, and GM foods can greatly reduce the amounts of pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer, or water needed to grow food.What is the Green Parties' stance on these, and do you see them changing their stance in the near future?
Florida never sent a legitimate set of electors - that is, a set of electors selected according to Florida law - to the Electoral College.
Statewide recounts show that Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida.
Gore played bad politics by not demanding such a recount (in keeping with the Democratic party's generally poor play over the past few decades), and SCOTUS's decision wouldn't have allowed one (because, you know, it's not like the will of the people is supposed to count for anything), but that doesn't change the fact that more people in Florida cast ballots for Gore than Bush. (Not even counting the illegal disenfrachisment of thousands, or the tampering with absentee ballots, or the illegal "butterly" ballots).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This is the same question I ask of all third party candidates and supporters, and I have yet to receive a good answer.
Why the presidency? I have read your campaign materials and spoken with some of your representatives and the universal and overwhelming impression I get is that your party's agenda is almost entirely based around policy and the amendment of it or contribution to it. Given that that is the case, why are you standing a candidate for our country's foremost executive position? It would seem that since your goals are legislative in nature, you would be better served by standing candidates for election to those bodies, namely the House and Senate.
The only answer I have been given to date is that it would be a good way to get the message out and apply the powers of the executive to support your agenda (by vetoing key policies, etc.) This is a basic abuse of the system, however, and there are more appropriate ways to go about it. I refuse to believe that your party's only reasoning in this election is to strong-arm Congress out of its Constitutional duty and to use media time granted the President for political gain on non-executive issues.
So please, tell us, why are you standing for election to a post whose Constitutional duty is solely to put into effect the very policies which you find so abhorrent?
adam b.
Has the Cobb/LaMarche campaign and the US Green Party considered cooperative efforts with Nader/Camejo (IND), Michael Badnarik (LIB), and Michael Peroutka (CON) to break the Commission on Presidential Debates' stranglehold on the debate process?
Do you think that coordinated press conferences and press releases from all four campaigns regarding the issues raised by Open Debates and the Citizens' Debate Commission would have a beneficial long-term effect?
You often point out that pretty much every developed western country except the US has some form of single payer healthcare, and I think it is a valid issue, worth dicussing. However, having lived in a few countries that operate such a system I have generally found the governments involved to be having difficulties sustaining the system.
The dilemma amounts to this: as medical science continues to advance, and as we in general live longer and longer, the amount of things that can be done continues to expand, along with the costs involved with any new technologically advanced treatments. Because of this, the costs of providing complete healthcare continue to expand at a rate faster than we can pay for. With healthcare, if something is possible, people tend to demand that it be done, even if we do not have the resources to do it.
Complete provision of healthcare simply isn't a sustainable practice as the costs are not proportionally bound by population (and hence very roughly speaking, government income), but instead by the ever expanding limits of medical science.
How do you intend to deal with this dilemma? Do you only plan to provide single payer healthcare for core and emergency services only? Do you intend to allow a parallel private health system to provide the more expensive treatments?
Thank you.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Are you working actively to change the voting system to the Single Transferable Vote voting system, where voters are "safe" voting for a candidate they fear won't be elected? Assuming you support it, are the other U.S. players opposing it or in favor of it?
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
What is your opinion of the proposal in Colorado to award electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote? It would seem this could potentially be a great benefit to your party, firstly by making the state uninteresting to the Democrats and Republicans (it would only have one or two electoral votes in play instead of nine), and also by allowing third parties to win an electoral vote with only 11% of a state rather than needing a plurality across a state (or district). How signifigant would such a change be for your party? Of other changes to the voting system that have been proposed, such as approval voting, Borda counts, etc. which would you favor to improve the viability of third parties?
Mr. Cobb, I voted for the green party in the last election, because I wanted to get you 5% of the vote, to help create a third party system. It seems like this election, you won't get anywhere near 5% of the vote, because democrats are so disillusioned with Bush and Republican are so concerned that their guy will lose. What is the goal of the Green Party in this election, raise awareness, publicity, fundraising.
For those who haven't followed this: The Green party is divided into two factions, the "realos" (also called the Demogreens) and the "fundis". The realos are who nominated Cobb. You can read about it in several places including the Counterpunch article "Rigged Convention; Divided Party - How David Cobb Became the Green Nominee Even Though He Only Got 12 Percent of the Votes". The fundis want to build our party and win elections, the realo/Demogreens are more concerned about the Democrats winning than the Greens. Cobb is a realo/Demogreen.
The article makes the very good point that the states where there is a large green base and where voters actually voted in the primaries (California, Massachusetts, Washington DC), Camejo (who is a Green "fundi", and is now running as Nader's VP) got 72.7% of the vote. Cobb only got 12.2% of the vote. Nonetheless, in the Green version of the electoral college, Cobb managed to win due to delegates from states like Iowa voting for him. Iowa has 90 registered Greens and had 9 delegates to the Green convention - 1 delegate for every 10 Greens! California had 132 delegates for the over 150,000 registered Greens in California. So in the case of California, 1 delegate represented over 1,000 Greens. This sort of thing is how someone who got 12.2% of the vote (from Demogreens) versus 72.7% of the vote (fundis) nevertheless won the election.
Cobb's candidacy has probably destroyed the Green party which is probably what the Demogreens wanted anyway. Anyhow, in some ways I am not sad to see it go because the Greens are a little too hippy-dippy granola and Birkenstocks anyhow. Nader attracted me to the Greens (even though he was never a Green party member) because he talked about things I care about like repealing Taft-Hartley and so forth which the DLC Democrats never talk about any more. 70% of white men in the US voted Republican in 2000, which tells you how far these DLC Democrats have drifted from the working class roots it had on some level in the early 20th century. Now they are all for NAFTA, screwing workers and so forth just like the Republicans, they're just for gay marriage, abortion and things conservative Christians in rural areas are against.
The only solution for change I see is to do what happened in England a century ago - for militant rank-and-file run unions to be formed, and, if they find it strategically wise to do so, to form a Labor party like they did in England. It might not even be strategically wise to do so, but it would beat backing the Democrats if they were going to get into the electoral game.
So my question goes back to what I was saying earlier: do you feel you are a legitimate Green candidate if most of the Greens in the country prefer Nader and Camejo to yourself? In many ways your election was like Bush's, except the majority vote went way against you instead of by a few percent.
I have some questions about the second of the Green Party's Ten Key Values, "Social Justice and Equal Opportunity". As described on the Green Party's site:
"All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law."
First, does the claim that all persons should have the right to benefit equally from resources imply that no person should have the right to benefit more than another from these resources? What, exactly, are these resources, and how are they afforded by society and the environment? What exactly do you mean by "benefit", and how do you propose to measure it, that you may ensure that nobody receives more than anybody else?
Second, I'm a little concerned about the claim that we should confront all of these "isms" in society. Can racism, for example, even exist in society, or only in a person? While we can confront racism in anybody and everybody, can we really do anything about the racism that resides in another person? Is it perhaps possible to remove only the racism that is inside oneself? How does one reconcile the right of the citizens to equal protection under the law with the right of a person to his beliefs? Is government's proper business with action or with belief?
Mr. Cobb. Given that you're on record saying you won't even vote for yourself if your state is close, how can anyone possibly take you seriously as a candidate for President? Given that it seems you won the nomination over Nader by taking this position, how can your party be seen as anything but an astroturf campaign for the Democrats?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Large powerful companies have a vested interest in keeping Americans consuming products and generating 3-10 times as much pollution and waste as anyone else in the world. Americans are taught from birth and continually reinforced by tv and society that stupid levels of excess at any cost is cool, including driving toy tanks (hummers) and eating so much that morbid obesity is the acceptable norm.
How will you educate Americans to stop being so selfishly greedy and gain some of the same sense of proportion and responsibility that the rest of the world has, especially in the face of powerful self-serving political, business and religious groups?
If not, why not?
What can the Green Party, or any third party do to make their candidates more relevant at the national level? Unless/until the national polls put a third-party candidate beyond potential "spoiler" numbers, as happened with Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992, the national media provide scant coverage. I think this exposure is critical to achieving relevancy, let alone victory.
What can be done to coerce the media into covering third-party or independant candidates? Most people are unwilling to vote for a candidate they don't believe can win. Most identify canditates they haven't seen on the news as candidates that cannot win.
Short of spending 30 years building a national party infrastructure from scratch to rival the Democrats or Republicans, what can be done? Does relevancy require infrastructure?
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
This isn't a question to the Green party candidate, but to the slashdot person(s) who organize these interviews; well, where are the interviews with Kerry and Bush?
I would tend to think that a medium with the traffic and mindshare of slashdot, the credentials in terms of all the people it had interviewed in the past, the political nature of many of the issues discussed on slashdot in 2004, and the fact that these elections may prove to be a one in which every vote counts would be ver persuasive to them to respond. After all, and without meaning to disrespect other candidates, it's either one of those two that is going to be the next president of the US and "leader of the free world".
The electoral college is not, technically, the cause of the winner-take-all system. That's a decision by the individual state governments on how to allocate their electors. Maine and Nebraska split their electors by district, so they're not (as) winner take all.
/. Q&A) because of this last reason (reducing the sway of large urban populations.)
Were every state government to do a parliamentary-esque division of their electors to each party by % of popular vote, the electoral college system could remain in place, and you'd ahve viable third party candidates. In fact, they'd have the power to give their votes to one major party or the other if there was no clear majority. Which would put the selection of president even farther away from the popular vote, and even more contingent on the decisions of select party leadership, but eh, whatcha gonna do?
What the electoral college does do is allow for the possibility of a president who didn't win the popular vote, weigh the election in favor of the eastern seaboard's tiny states, and gaurantee that candidates have to campaign in every state, rather than focusing (as much) on the major population centers.
Badnarik, the libertarian candidate, supports the electoral college system (look up his recent
Totalitarianism cloaked with the name of "Socialism" is a proven failure, but here in Europe, actual Socialism seems to be alive and well.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
It's commonly accepted that power corrupts politicians. The Greens are always speaking out against politicians who sell favors to their corporate buddies or other special interests. But the Green party also espouses a system where the government strictly regulates most industry.
How do you propose to have such strong government controlled regulation, without falling victim to the corruption inherent in a bureaucratic system?
Would you be in favor of a constitutional amendment that forces any taxation changes to be enacted 10 years prior to taking effect, so that citizens can make rational long term financial planning decisions and so that politicians can't pay off special interests by adding another hundred pages to this years laws that may or not last beyond the next election?
Mr. Cobb, I would like to thank you for doing so much to help build the Green Party in Texas as well as across the entire USA.
As a Green, I feel that the "Safe-State" strategy you advocate is detrimental to the process of keeping the Green Party growing. That is, if Greens fail to run in competitive elections and only run candidates in states/districts/etc. that are not competitive, how can the party continue to grow? Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign?
In short, how does the "Safe-State" strategy translate into growing the Green Party?
Oil is near or at the Hubbert peak for global production. Greens apparently are opposed to both fossil fuels and fission-based nuclear power. Hydrogen, while perhaps a viable storage mechanism, is not naturally available chemically unbound in measurable quantities, much less enough to constitute a fuel source. Modern American civilization is highly dependent on economical electricity and low-cost long range transportation of manufactured materials. And the Nixon era demonstrated the nasty effects of supply shocks on the economy, especially for something as fundamental as the cost of energy.
Annual energy use in the United States is on the rough order of 100 quad. How would you propose that the United States continue to meet demand? Or, in three specific parts: What long-term technologies do you think we should pursue? What percentage reduction by conservation in the US annual energy use do you feel we should realistically try to achieve? And, most important, what technologies to you propose for use in the short term to sustain the supply needed (despite conservation) until whatever long-term technologies you plan for are successfully deployed?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
You propose giving the government even more power over our lives and business while giving us more power over our government. How can you garrentee that we will be able to keep power over our government when we lost it once already?
which seeks to concentrate libertarian activism in a single state to effect major real changes in a localized area as a demonstration that Libertarianism can work.
Do you think a similar push by Greens would work, and would would you personally move to a place where green activists chose to concentrate their presence?
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Your web site states that you advocate an "immediate withdrawal" of troops from Iraq. How would you propose to clean up the mess we've made in the region without a military presence? What do you see as the chances of survival of the current Iraqi government without America's support? And what do you believe would become of Iraq if this new government is overthrown or rendered irrelevant by popular uprising?
Thank you very much for your time.
Ok, this is going to come from five weeks of education in my Intro. to Business and International Business courses, plus a video I watched on the success of Hong Kong:
There are three types of economic systems: Free market, command economy, and mixed market. The US is a mixed market, not quite command, and not quite free market. What this means is that our businesses aren't dictated to by our government, but there's still government influence in almost everything a government does. Todays businesses are riddled with regulations, laws, and restrictions to the point that our economy is no longer efficient.
To take an example: According to Wikipedia, Hong Kong [wikipedia.org] is the perfect example of a free market economy. "But wait," you might say. "Isn't Hong Kong in communist China?" And I would say to you, "Why, yes, it is." However, when Hong Kong began, about 50 years ago, it was agreed that "China's socialist economic system would not be practiced in Hong Kong and that Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters" (Wikipedia). It's China's "little experiment" with capitalism. And, guess what? It's a thriving economy. People move from the US, Scotland, Japan, Australia, just to start a business in Hong Kong. It's success is due to it's limited government interaction. One paper is all one needs to start a business, and unlike in India where there is no guarantee your business will even be reviewed and approved, in Hong Kong, the paper is copied and stamped. Poof. Business started. There is a fixed tax for everything, only for government. There are no regulations. When did there ever need to be regulations, anyway?
It's a simple theory. If a business produces diseased food, nobody will eat from there any longer. The business will go bankrupt and another business will fill it's place, the peoples needs. It that business begins abusing it's power and begins to charge too much, another will arise and fill the need. If people aren't limited by work hours they can work longer and get more pay for that TV they've wanted. If people just want to deliver a flippin newspaper for $4.00 an hour, they aren't denied the job because the employer can't pay the $6.00 minimum wage. It JUST WORKS.
My question: What can the Green Party do to make this country more of a free market?
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
In addition of being quite destructive to the environment and making the US dependent on foreign oils, the automobile addiction is a prime source of economic disadvantage, because of the cost of operating an automobile (both the individual and the collective & social cost) is forcing salaries to be higher than in countries the USA is competing against.
The recent outflux of high-tech jobs to third-world countries because salaries over there are cheaper is certainly a cause of the obligation for employers to subsidize the indispensable automobiles of their workers.
Emerging countries want in some way or other to equal the US standard of living; this includes the obligatory automobile. Now, being quite doubtful that the planet Earth would be incapable of sustaining the BILLION additionnal automobiles that would be needed if China and India would raise their standard of living to match the US, it is quite obvious that, just for the reason of being the example everyone else wants to emulate, the USA would have to significantly decrease it's dependence on automobiles.
What does the green party intend to do towards this inescapable goal?
" The electoral college is largely the cause of a two party state in America. It's basically a first past the post winner take all system which punishes extremely heavily any votes for parties which are not the outright winners or potentially outright winners in elections. There is simply no point voting for any party which is not likely to receive 35%+ of the popular vote."
Sorry buddy, you are flat out WRONG. The electoral college is not to blame for winner take all states. That is up to the states.
You see, under the US Constitution, it is up the state legislature to determine how electors for the college will be chosen. 48 states have decided, ON THEIR OWN, to allow direct election for those electors in a winner take all system.
Frankly, each state could take away it's citizens "right" to vote for President, and simply chose their electors.
None of the problems you mention have ANYTHING to do with the Electoral College, but rather the fact that the states have abused the right to given to them in the constitution to decide how electors are chosen. Therein lies the problem. Blame the states, not the Electoral College.
And how about actually READING the Constitution before yapping about the Electoral College being the problem?
Do you feel that the voting system is inherently crippling the strength of 3rd parties such as yours? Do you think implementing a preference voting system would significantly increase the number of votes for 3rd parties?
For slashdot readers:
Preference voting is a sytem where you rank each candidate by whom you would prefer to win most.
Example:
A ballot might like look this:
1. Cobb
2. Bush
3. Kerry
Suppose that the ballots were collected and they count all the votes in the number one slot. The candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated from the list. Now we have:
1. Bush
2. Kerry
The process is repeated until one name is left on the list. It is clear that this voting system reduces down to our current one, save that there is no "throwing away of the vote".
"Recursive bipartite matching"- try it!
.... and if you vote for whom you really don't want, then it's wasted, because you lied. Lied. You voted a lie. And we been electing lies for a long time now, e-vile lies and the liars who tell them.
Been hearing apologetic statist dumbasses like you for close to half a century. Half a freeking century. WAKE UP! Stop repeating lies! People have been so brainwashed into "not wasting their votes" that they have WASTED THEIR VOTES voting in Ds and Rs over and over and over and over again, and GUESS WHAT? It's the same old crap! Vote for D&R crap, get D&R crap! How simple does it need to be, how many clues you need?
Every election if enough people voted for non-crap, the NEXT election gets MORE non-crap votes, and less crap votes. See how that works? It builds from there. Tedious, but how it works, and it takes every single person who's aware of it to do it to make it effective. It has to be consistent. A vote for a third party is THAT, you are not voting for anything but that. You will NEVER get anything but a D or R if you keep voting for a D or R. NEVER. Not one time will a D or R vote get you any political action except what Ds and Rs always do, which is screw you, screw me, screw the other guy, stuff their pockets and lie to you every chance they get. Get it yet? El comprehende?
There will never be any magical time where all at once everyone will switch, NOPE, it needs to build momentum, a tiny amount at a time, and that momentum comes from one-single-vote. You only get one chance every election to add to that momentum, so make it count!
We also need a miniuum number so that third parties can be GUARANTEED TO BE ON THE BALLOT every cycle, so they don't have to waste their resources time and money just to get on the ballot. Ds and Rs are automatic! We need to break that! They don't own government, but they have seized control. It's not theirs to own! It's a freeking shared junta, a criminal cartel for profit. They need to be on the ballot in all 50 every election so we can DEMAND they be included in debates and SHAME the news media into more coverage than just Ds or Rs.
Here's an analogy, it's exactly like "stop using linux, you are "wasting your desktop and time", because next week everyone WON'T be using linux! See how retarded that sounds? Same exact deal with politics. You have to be consistent and relentless. Re-lent-less and not be dissuaded from your goal, not be pressured into this "lesser of evils" crapola. Evil is evil, there is no "lesser" and if you had been watching long enough you'd realise that.
You have to build critical mass, and it's ONE VOTE AT A TIME, EVERY TIME, going for a third party or an independent. It WON'T MATTER that much if skull and bones millionaire globalist lying scheming goon A or skull and bones globalist lying scheming goon B "gets in power" this cycle, not near as much as if the numbers of non D or R votes keep steadily rising every election, from local dogcatcher all the way to prez. BOTH those dunderheads are A-liars, first and foremost, and B globalists who care not a whit about you, and C-actors and script readers, they get told what to say and when to say it, and D, most importantly D-they are puppets. Marionettes. They are figureheads of the real powers that are behind the seat of power, and you got to not vote for that sorta action, for any reason, its anathema to what this nation was designed for.
The only "wasted" vote is one THAT IS NOT CAST.
Canadian politcs has always been dominated by the right wing Progressive Conservative party (PC) and the usually-left wing Liberals. In 1986, the very conservative Reform Party of Canada came out of nowhere. By 93, they had taken so much support from the PCs that the liberals were completely unchallenged til just this year's elections when the two parties merged - with a Reform Party member as leader.
Now a *5th* party is picking up on the left -- the Greens. In the 2004 elections, they received enough votes to qualify for federal funding. This is huge. Apart from the cash, this will make it harder for them to be denied a place in debates and in news stories et al.
In a few more election cycles, the Greens may even gain official status, particularly given the frequency of elections being won by voting against very unpopular leaders.
It's a shame Reform and the PCs merged. Strong alternatives on both the left and the right would have made for something resembling a true democracy. (The other parties are the "New Democratic Party" just now coming back from the dead and the Bloc Quebecois, the Quebec separatist party).
I'm a Green, and have been since I was introduced to the ideology in Germany. After my return to the US, I was happy to find the Green party growing, although not to the level we had in the Old World.
Recently, I took the test at Political Compass, and you came in as a great match for me. I wasn't surprised at all. I've often held firm to the Green ideal. I was happy to see the Greens here were similar to the party in Germany.
Then, I saw the 3rd Party Debates on C-Span. You came across as bitter, mean, and just plain angry. I can understand your anger, but presentation is key and after seeing that display, I was almost ashamed.
Were you instructed to come across that way? Did your consultants direct you to come across as an angry bitter person? Hopefully you'll change your personal presentation. It really drives people away. I was completely turned away from the party although I still hold the ideals. I'm experiencing a real Catch 22 here.
Plant a tree in a developing country.
What bills would you have vetoed in the first place if you had been the president in the previous years?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
For hundreds of years, the people of the United States of America have voted for our president in such a way that the views and interests of the majority of the people do not necessarily align with the views and interests of our president. The very idea that the people must choose one, and only one, person that represents their views and interests is fundamentally flawed.
In a democracy, voters should not be deterred from voting for a third party simply because by doing so they are "voting for the opposition". People should be free to vote their conscience instead of going with the most popular party line that is closest to their views, or choosing the lesser of two evils.
Using technology available today, a voting system could be developed that would allow candidates to be ranked in order of preference, so that the peoples' most preferred candidate always wins. What is the Green party's stance on reform like this, and what would it take to push such reform through the top levels of our government?
What would be the top 3 priorities of a David Cobb presidency?
There is much public policy discussion regarding changing or reforming the US Intelligence Community. What are your views on this? What changes, if any, to you propose.
As president, what will your foreign policy grand strategy be?