Slashdot Mirror
Real Presidential Debates
slithytove writes "As many of us are aware, the presidential debates are currently controlled by an organization called the Commision on Presidential Debates. As anyone who's seen a presidential debate recently could guess, the CPD does just what our two major parties want: exclude third parties and impose rules that make the event more of a joint press conference than a debate. Non-establishment candidates Michael Badnarik and David Cobb will be having an actual debate this Thursday. After debating each other, they will be rebutting the points Bush and Kerry make in their pseudo-debate. Free Market News will be streaming it and providing a download afterwards."
I don't think I would expect any more from Kerry. The debates are tightly choreographed and neither candidate's "handlers" are going to allow them stray far from a safe script. So, the debates end up being more about style than substance. Which candidate looks more "presidential," more like a "leader," and makes people feel good about them. Style over substance has been the rule for these debates for a long time.
http://www.busyweather.com/
I don't expect Bush to actually answer any of the points presented by Kerry this week anyway.
I don't expect Kerry to actually answer any of the points presented by Bush this week anyway.
Evolution or ID?
The opinions of people like Mr. Larry J. Schutter of the Turtle Party and Darren Karr of Party-X are every bit as valid as those of Badnarik and Cobb. Likewise, they all share the same chance of winning said office. What makes Badnarik and Cobb more deserving of a debate than any of the other "Dark Horse" candidates?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
In the last third party debate Badnarik mentioned eliminating the Federal Reserve. He suggests using the American Liberty Currency as an alternative currency that is backed by gold and silver. I think this is an excellent idea.
The "official" debates are highly flawed, but to call them pseudo-debates because you don't like them is absurd. They are real debates, with real moderation and real issues. Many complain that there's really one Republicrat party with the same ideals, but I suggest that it only seems that way if your own interests swing wildly to one end of the political spectrum. Wake up, radicals, most people congregate somewhere near the center. It's generally only the unstable nations with strong factions at the extremes. I grow weary of people who demand instant change, and don't care if it's against the public will or good because they're sure they're right. That kind of thinking got us the Alien and Sedition acts and Prohibition.
That being said, I'm happy to see an alternate party debate and hope it is a success.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Bush: the paragon of "staying the course".
Unless you are talking about the Department of Homeland Security (was against it, then for it)
Unless you are talking about a comittment smaller government (has ran at least three times on that platform) yet created ANOTHER cabinet seat.
Unless you are talking about fiscal conservativism (and ran up the deficit).
Face it: Bush and Kerry are the same in more ways than they are different.
Republican: a Democrat without guilt.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Where would you suggest they set the limit?
It's simple, if you make the ballot in enough states to possibly win the elections, you should be part of any debate. Since you can get on enough ballots simply by mobilizing regular citizens, that would open up the debates to anyone with actual grassroots support across america.
Really. This is what happens: smaller, single-point parties get swallowed up by the whole. This is how the Republican party came about, in fact, but at that time they were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives! Don't believe me? See what party Abraham Lincoln represented when he entered office.
Badnarik's name is on the ballot in 49 states. He's not on the ballot in NH because someone in the NH Libertarian Party failed to get the paperwork in on time.
If Badnarik and Cobb were invited to the debates, then people would know who they are and could hear them speak.
Maybe, if 3rd parties weren't so roundly shut out by the ruling oligarchy, more people would actually be interested enough to vote, and just maybe we could have some real change in policy, instead of six or one or half-dozen of the other.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
What are your objections to the rules of the presidential debate? they seem pretty reasonable to me.
Are you joking?
* Exclusion of third-party candidates: This is a problem because, without appearing on debates and being otherwise shut out of the media, third-party candidates have a hard time getting their message across. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans want more views expressed and candidates present in our debates, but the commission denies them this.
* Under-handed questions: Not only are topics that are to be discussed known beforehand, but there are virtually no surprises or tough questions. Answers are therefore heavily scripted, repetative, and boring. Viewership for the debates has declined steadily over the years.
* "Taboo" subjects ignored entirely: I think it is important to hear the Greens/Libertarians/Independants view on the legitimacy of the multibillion dollar war on drugs, and to hear Kerry's/Bush's defense of it. How come this issue is not discussed? Oh, that's right - its off limits for some reason. The War on Drugs is just a drop in the bucket - there are many more issues that deserve thorough and diverse debate, but are ignored entirely.
The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush would have a hard time defending themselves against any of the three parties I mentioned. The "Commission" (which is made up of the two major parties) is really just protecting their interests by excluding them, at the expense of an informed American public. How anyone could continue to vote for the two major parties is beyond me...
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Oh, I wish that there was a way to get a third party involved in a legitimate run for the president.
All we have been able to do for years is to select the lesser of two evils.
We have become the government of the people, by the lawyers, and for the corporations.
The "powers in charge" will never to do anything to jepoardize their power in this country and the world.
It's also interesting that our choice this time is between two members of skull and bones.
Paul
Wherever you go, there you are.
We're in a two-party system only as long as people believe we're in a two-party system. It's not a legal or constitutional arifact.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I've said it many times ... we have got to get a strong third party in place and soon to push the political mountain or we are going to watch these two parties merge into one uncontrollable monster.
Words are cheap. You can say it many times, and you can be right. What's the difference between somebody who can't read, and somebody who doesn't read? Nothing. Your wisdom doesn't matter if it's not translated into action.
Why don't YOU start such a party? You say "we" which implies you and at least one other person. Start this party you speak of - get funding, find a candidate if not yourself!
See, the USA is politically "open source". Anybody can make their dent, and the rules are reasonably simple and apply to everybody.
Just as we have Microsoft ruling the computer technology scene as a Monopoly, the Right/Left wings grapple in
a Machiavelian struggle, swinging us "right" and "left" while moving us forward towards....?
Ross Perot almost did it. For a while, there, it actually looked as though he was going to win the presidency!
You could, too. We need an impassioned, trusted, charismatic, reasonable-sounding candidate who's willing to go the mile, and it would be a LONG mile.
I've considered joining the fray a few times, myself. Whether or not I'm "impassioned" enough or "charismatic" is an determination best left to listeners.
You have tremendous power in cable-access media. You can produce a broadcast quality show with a budget of under $50/week. (I know, I've done it!) FCC rules require this community-access television to be funded - it's just that few people actually stand up and produce the programming. Once a show is produced, it only requires a local sponsor to air the show in each community.
So, who's going to actually do it? You?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
and the u.s. will always be that way because of the nature of the system. in a presidential election, second place (let alone third or fourth) counts for nothing.
in a parliamentary system, by contrast, parties with lower levels of support get to have input. either they form the opposition or join the opposition coalition or, more effectively, become part of a governing coalition and weild some degree of political power.
witness canada: the dominant liberals alienated both the conservative and liberal portions of the population (no mean feat). however, none of the other parties were generally considered experienced enough to rule... so the electorate handed the liberals a minority victory.
to govern, the minority government now has to form coalitions with other parties to acheive enough votes to pass bills. in this case, the party the liberals allied with was the left-of-centre new democratic party. the result is that the ndp now has a fair amount of "pivotal power" - and given that helth care and other social programme issues were a big deal during the election, this is probably a Good Thing.
in a minority government situation, the opposition parties also have increased power. since the the government can fall to a well-organized attack by the opposition, the liberals are less likely to antagonize stornaway.
the result is: less people are alienated in a parliamentary system. if you voted for gore in 2000, your vote was completely wasted. but no matter who you voted for in canada last april (unless you voted green, as i did) there's someone in the government representing you.
2 1337 4 u!
You change the system by listening to the 3rd parties.
The two main parties have zero interest in diluting their mindshare. Things will never change if you leave it to them.
Currently, the sole purpose behind 3rd party candidates is to be heard. The more good points they make, the more people will question the dominant parties. Eventually it reaches a critical mass and change will happen.
We have had other parties in the past BTW, but basically we've always had 2 parties.
... like a third-party candidate winning.
What you're describing is basically a Catch-22 situation. The 2-party system has to be changed before someone not in one of the two major political parties can win, but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up
Sorta. In the past typically one party becomes very un-popular (federalists, whigs, etc.), and the other party sorta takes over. Then that party fractures into two parties. Lather, rinse, repeat. Though we have had the current parties for some time, and they are still pretty evenly-split, so it's doubtful that any other party will really have a chance.
What I *do* see as a use for the third/forth/fifth/etc. parties, is that they are a sort of test as to what the non-two party affiliated folks are thinking. For instance, the Democratic party can look to the green party members as sort of it's "far left", and gauge whether that's the direction the party may need to move in (or away from). Should the Green party start to gain momentum, I'd bet the Democrats would start picking up some of their platform (and similar for Republicans and Libertarians).
Just a thought...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Ahh, somebody else who sees it like I do.
Most people fail to see that the parties are malleable. I'm guessing it's because a lot of folks here are young, and don't know history...
The democrats today are *not* the party that they were even when Kennedy was president! And the parties will continue to change as their members change. The third/forth/etc. parties serve to show where the 'extremists' are IMHO. The bigger the Green party gets, I'd be the more liberal the Democrats get. And the bigger the Libertarians get, the more Libertarian the Republicans would get. But since we've only got two parties, neither will stray very far from each other. Extremists are rarely popular.
Not that there are exceptions (witness the civil war, Hitler, etc.), but they aren't common (and the civil war was mostly because the 'lines' were drawn on geographic terms [North v. South] as well as political ones).
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
As a Libertarian I don't think I can agree with this. Lately the Republican party does not speak to the issues I care about, mostly being smaller government, and more self determination.
I think, unfortunately, who the republicans are listening to these days is the "Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right", depending on who is describing them.
There is all too much of both parties telling me what is right for My Own Good as opposed to just governing our society.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.