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."

Comments

Not broadcast,

[isotope23]

But C-Span is supposed to rebroadcast it at a later time according to badnarik's site

Re:Not broadcast,

[north.coaster]

There is no mention of this debate on the C-SPAN Debates web page. It appears that C-SPAN is giving this about as much attention as the major networks, which is a shame considering that C-SPAn claims to be non-partisan.

Re:Not broadcast,

[N3WBI3]

Its too bad that it wont be covered live, I saw a special on PBS about the thrid party's which was very interesting. The Libertarian convention was by far the greates thing I ever saw. They had debates, at the convention and based on those the delegates voted.

Imagine going to a convention and not knowing in advance the whole ticket...

Re:Not broadcast,

[h8macs]

Friday on PBS' NOW with Bill Moyers, the four major third-party candidates take on the issues they believe are being ignored by the two main political parties. On the evening of the second Presidential debate in St. Louis, NOW's David Brancaccio moderates a conversation between the candidates that were excluded: Reform Party Presidential nominee Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate David Cobb and between Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik.

NOW with Bill Moyers airs Friday, October 8, at 9 p.m. on PBS: check local listings

isnt Cornell an Internet-savvy place?

[WormholeFiend]

They could broadcast it on the web, or at least record it, and bittorrent the video.

Re:Ralph Nader?

[h8macs]

He has been invited to EVERY third party debate, however he has not accepted any of the invitations.

Re:Right

[singularity]

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.

CPD....

[isotope23]

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....

Party Platforms

[N3WBI3]

Constitution
Libertarian
Green
Socalist

Wasted votes

[RealProgrammer]

Now that I've trolled for your attention, I want to say that there's no such thing as a wasted vote.

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 .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.

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.

Re:Wasted votes

[cavehobbit]

Vote for what you want, not for what you fear.

Voting for what you want, sends the system a message that a change is needed. When enough of these are sent, change happens or an old party is replaced.
See the history of the Whig party vs. the Republican Party in the 1800's. The Whigs were replaced by the Republicans.

See the history of the Socialst vs. the Dems in the 1910's-40's. The Socialists got people elected, even some to Congress, The Dem's responded, absorbed some of the Socialits positions, and the Socialists all but died, while the Dem's got a 4 term president and control of the nation for decades. And then promptly conspired with the Rep's to change the Constitution and ballot access laws to prevent such a successful challenge again.

Voting for what you fear sends no message, but is instead a lie stating you accept the current political environment.

A vote that is a lie is a wasted vote.

Tom

Re:What A Load of Crap

[rhakka]

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.