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."
But C-Span is supposed to rebroadcast it at a later time according to badnarik's site
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
They could broadcast it on the web, or at least record it, and bittorrent the video.
He has been invited to EVERY third party debate, however he has not accepted any of the invitations.
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
From the Cornell site: "Independent candidate Ralph Nader declined the Mock Election group's invitation."
Nader turned them down, for whatever reason. No great conspiracy going on here.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
I'll go this far, the first two CPD criteria are reasonable. 1. must meet the age and other requirements to BE president 2. Must be on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win. It's #3 that is a catch 22. Must have an average of 15% support in four national polls to be included in the debates. Problem is, polls do not ask about third party candidates because "people havent heard their names", and people can't hear their names, because they are not included in the debates. We went from a non-partisan system under the League of Women Voters to the CPD which is run by the former national committe chairmen of both the Republican and Democratic parties....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Constitution
Libertarian
Green
Socalist
Now that I've trolled for your attention, I want to say that there's no such thing as a wasted vote.
.01% of the vote is treated differently from a party that got 1.01%. If a party gets even 2% of the vote, they start to look mainstream. After all, getting 2% might be enough to alter the balance of power between the two major parties.
The election process is about more than just who wins. Sure, the winner is important, but there are other factors that have an impact on the behavior of government. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that one of the two major parties will win in November. Why vote for someone else?
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.
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.
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.
A vote for a third party lends them authority when they speak out. A press release from a party that got
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.
Most people want to vote for a winner. To vote for a third party you have to get past that sense of wanting to be on the winning side and remember to vote your own mind. If you only vote for the candidate you think is going to win, you have effectively allowed someone else to vote for you.
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.
sigs, as if you care.
why they weren't eligable?
Maybe because it's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to hit 15% in a preliminary poll unless you happen to be a member of one of the two ruling parties?
Jesse Ventura shows however that in a 3 way race, you can rise from below that staggerringly high marker to win an election. From a good Debate, no less.
Ross Perot was on track to be a serious contender for the presidency when he ran the first time. He would not have met the CPD's criteria either.
15% is way, way, way too high.
AFAICT there are only two fair ways to do debates. 1. if you are on enough ballots to theoretically win the presidency, you are in. 2. widespread polling of who the people want to see in the debate.. not who they would necessarily vote for on Nov 2, but who they would like to see in the debate.
You are happy with a duopoly, apparently. The silent majority of this country who no longer vote because they have realized nothing in this system represents them, and that all they are fed from presidential candidates is bullshit stacked on crap do not agree. At the very least including more candidates in the debates stands a chance of raising voting participation rates.
Saying GEE IF YOU WANT MORE THAN TWO WE HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL OF THEM is simply stupid, simplistic, and shows you have no idea whatsoever what the words "healthy democracy" means, nor do you care. I care. This is not abstract theoretical stuff. It's simple, practical and real; a two party system that shuts out all other voices hurts us all.
I would not at all include polling, so long as you qualiy in enough state to win the election (270 EV's) you should be allowed in the debates. I also think that membership of *any* party should also not be a requirement.
Bring a whole new level of dishonesty and idiocy to the White House.
False, and flamebait.
First, conservative and Republican are not synonymous, any more than liberal and Democrat are.
Second, I'm quite conservative, and it's because of that that I dislike the dirty tricks and cynical electioneering of either side. Why don't the two sides devote themselves to convincing people which philosophy of government is best?
It makes me think they don't really believe what they say, and that makes me want to vote Libertarian. I don't agree with the stance of the LP on some issues, but at least you know what their stance is.
sigs, as if you care.
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.
Fair enough -- s/conservative/Republican/, as I said abobe.
I really don't understand anyone who says the parties are identical. Identically dirty? Maybe. But there is a real ideological difference between them; only from the perspective of Us-vs.-Them fanatics do Kerry's and Bush's positions on most issues of the day look the same.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Bring a whole new level of dishonesty and idiocy to the White House.
Hard to beat the Bush-Cheney combination on idiocy and dishonesty, though. I was focusing on the idea that these two would be able to reform where the country is heading though- and that seems like an anti-instinctive assumption, since both of these broadcast personalities mimic the neoconservative line quite closely.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
C-SPAN lists the third party debates as one of today's "events": http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan. csp?command=dprogram&record=181858431
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
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.
It might be broadcast on Radio 5 Live's Up all night programme. The Presidential and Vice Presidential debates were broadcast at least.
Allergy advice: Contains eggs.
They all are, however if you are asking in terms of ballot access then that would be "Libertarian". The Libertarian candidate is on 49 state ballots, well ahead of the other parties.
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
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
To continue to preserve democracy in the United States, we MUST have at least a 3rd, and hopefully a 4th, 5th, 6th, Xth, party.
HOWEVER, voting for a 3rd party presidential canidate IS a wasted vote and considering how bad the current state of affairs today, IMNSH opinion irresponsible.
There are a lot more offices up for election on Nov 2nd than just the president. If you really want to get 3rd parties in the running vote for the lesser evil for the national offices, but start voting in 3rd party canidates for say, your local alderman, mayor, county clerk, sherriff, treasurer ect. Your decleration of disgust will mean about nothing in a national election - especially with the whole messed up electoral system - but your vote will COUNT in a local election. If only 100 people bother to vote for county clerk and you and 10 buddies vote 3rd party, or write in, then that is a 11% vote for the non duopoly canidate - enough to get them on the ballot next year.
We will not diversify government by only aiming at the big apple on top. Thats just tilting at windmills. It has to been done by a grass-roots effort. Not Grass Roots as in the Buzzword, but as in starting at the bottom and infiltrating and saturating all the small positions to provide a real foundation. Then, Then, you can start climbing the tree.
The big players control the big media and the big rules, but the little stuff is beneath the radar. Take the problems and turn them into solutions.
Smoke screens, though I will point out that in terms of % income the poor got a muvh larger tax cut that the rich did (the top 50% of American tax payers pay ** 96 ** percent of the taxes..
George Bush has mishandled the economy, run the nation for the benefit of the millionaires and the Halliburtons
9/11 had more to do with the economy going sour (that and a stock market buble bursting 9 mos before he went into office) than anything Bush has done. But I suppose when Clinton bobmed Kosovo and gave Haliburton no bid contracts that was for the children right?
Or how about the idea that the private sector can do everything better? That's given us the excesses of Halliburton.
Having worked for USACE I can tell you the government could not have done anything Haliburton has done any cheaper..
Maybe there is a time and a place for third parties. But not this election- too much is at stake. Yeah, I'd like to be able to vote for a candidate I truly believed in deeply. It's unfair that I can't. Well guess what? Life isn't fair. Get over it. We have to make tough decisions between unpleasant choices, and that's life. Given a choice between Bad and Really Bad, I'll choose Bad every time.
Hey, its your vore to throw away. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I could not stand the thought of a man who considers the internal combustion engine as the most dangerous thing man has invented in the whitehouse. Im not rich but I dont like the class warfare that gore ran on so I voted the other way.
I have seen Bush come in, grow government (46% increase in education spending alone), and ignore his constitutional requirement to get an actual decleration of war. I see Kerry vote for an 'authorization of force' rather than uphold his constitutional responsability to *demand* a declariation of war, support the war until dean caught his footing, then vote against the body armor he now complains bush did not provide.
So Im done, neither party gets my vote this time around. So when Bush or Kerry comes in and continues the aweful groth of the federal government more and more restricting your freedom dont complain because you chose one of them..
My dog will be holding an important press conference in the backyard tomorrow at 3pm. He will discuss his agenda if he's elected President.