Slashdot Mirror
Cornell Hosts Third-Party Presidential Debates
clonebarkins writes "Tonight at 8:00, Cornell is hosting the third party presidential debate. Candidates debating are Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walt Brown (Socialist Party), David Cobb (Green Party), and Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party). Unfortunately, I cannot find any information about whether or not it will be broadcast anywhere."
They could broadcast it on the web, or at least record it, and bittorrent the video.
Imagine going to a convention and not knowing in advance the whole ticket...
Okay, I should have said "Republican" rather than "conservative." And believe me, as a "liberaltarian" who generally votes Democratic but has been known to bolt for the Libertarians when the Dems get too statist, I'm glad to see at least some principled conservatives considering alternatives to Bush. I guess the main question I have is, why aren't more of them doing it? How can anyone who believes in the traditional conservative values of small government, fiscal responsibility, and prudent foreign policy still support the guy? I don't mean this as a flame -- I'd really like to get some insight here.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Take a look at the url "MockElection-prezdebate.html". So who are they mocking?
I'm going to the debate tonight (my organization is a co-sponsor). As others have already mentioned, Nader won't be there, although he's coming to Ithaca tomorrow night for a campaign stop (8PM, State Theater). C-SPAN is definitely taping the event, but I am not sure when they will air it. After seeing the past two televised debates between the major candidates, I am looking forward to some different political perspectives. There should also be many "interesting" people in attendence (people you can only find at a university). Personally, I am definitely on the left but have yet to decide which third party to support (although I am leaning towards the Green Party based on their platform). I just received my absentee ballot yesterday, so I need someone to write in.
Now that I've trolled for your attention, I want to say that there's no such thing as a wasted vote.
I disagree.
The election process is about more than just who wins.
No, the lobbying, polling, debate, and forum process is about expressing wants. The election process is simply there to choose a president. During polling and so forth, you get to say "I want someone who pushes anti-abortion more strongly than Bush does".
A vote is a statement of your general favor for a given candidate. It's a winner-take-all proposition; you don't get to divide it among three candidates you like. It's assumed that you don't believe the candidate is perfect for you; he was just good enough to get your vote.
Yup. And this is exactly why we need IRV or some similar system instead of the existing first-choice-only. If such a system was adopted, a vote for a third party wouldn't be wasted. Under today's system, however, it is a waste.
Voting for a third party or write-in candidate sends the signal that A) you care enough to vote and B) neither of the two major party clowns was good enough for you. To the extent that your vote matters at all, you have used it to tell the major parties that if their policies were more like the one for whom you voted, they might get your vote.
I don't buy it. Consider what you're trying to say: that if "Party X" had just changed their politics, they would have gotten your vote. Presumably, this is to try and convince "Party X" to adopt your politics for the next election. However, we can demonstrate that this approach doesn't work. The 2000 elections were incredibly close, and the 2004 elections are shaping up to be the same way. This is the *ideal situation* for your claim to be coming true, if it ever was going to do so. If you didn't like, say, the Demms in 2000 and voted against them, but they didn't change to your favored policies in their running for the 2004 election (and they cannot have done so, or you wouldn't be voting against them now), it will *never* happen, as this is the time that they are most likely to need to bend over for your policies.
A vote for a third party encourages that party, and also the other minor parties. They see the number of people who voted for them, and know where their support is.
These parties can run polls if they want public opinion. Voting is there to choose the next President, not to express feelings -- there are better forums for that, where one can give out more detailed information, like *why* one prefers a different candidate.
But, it might be argued, doesn't that split the support for one of the major parties, causing the Most Evil Party to win instead of the Not Quite So Evil Party? Possibly, and that is part of the choice. Unless your tiny party is at one extreme of the spectrum occupied by the two majors, support for it will come proportionately from both of them.
A vote for a third party is one-half of a vote for your less-liked mainstream party. I hate to say it, but that's how it is. I'd be estatic if IRV or a similar voting reform gets adopted, but that's the only way to fix the system. Trying to come on Slashdot and get a majority of Americans to vote for a third party just isn't going to happen. Vote reform is a prerequisite.
Finally, voting for a third party encourages those who don't want to "waste" their vote that it's not such a waste. Voting is a herd phenomenon. When others see your party's vote total rising from past elections, they'll be more likely to vote that way themselves.
*If* this is actually true, it would simply strengthen your less-liked of the major parties.
May we never see th
Also I have a serious issue with any 'world' party, be it the world socialist or the greens. Any part that considers itself part of a global movement cant be good for this nation..