Slashdot Mirror
LP files Suit To Stop State Funding Of 3rd Debate
Mike Oliver writes "Arizona Libertarians have filed a lawsuit that could stop Arizona State University from sponsoring the third presidential debate between George Bush and Sen. John Kerry, scheduled for Oct. 13. The lawsuit maintains that by spending up to $2 million to sponsor the event in Tempe, the university is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties."
seems resonable to me.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think I speak for all right-thinking people when I say:
"...huh?"
I doubt the lawsuit would hold too much water, but it's good press coverage. The Libertarians certainly seem to know how to do that much. I personally agree with their points, but the courts often seem to be stacked in the favor of the ruling party (parties?).
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
--
Twoflower
We could have a whole new discussion on this. Why do you think a member of the Libertarian Party would more closely match the Democratic Party and be opposed by the Republican Party? I am honestly curious because I feel I more closely match the Libertarian Party, but feel the Democratic Party would be my opposition.
As for these debates, I don't know what positive outcome can come from this lawsuit. The college is not going to NOT have the debate. They are in a contract to do this debate and I doubt they are going to find a Judge willing to say that a State University is making any type of political contribution. Now if this was being held at a Hotel Convention center or something for free, that would be different. All that this seems to do is make the people most likely to agree with the Libertarian Party (minimum Govt. interference, let us do as we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, etc.) think the Party has abandoned them for the Democratic (only picked since the parent post picked the Democrats) mantra (If you don't like the rules, sue until you do).
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded. That much seems self evident.
Perhaps, but this is just speculation on your part.
Otherwise by clinging fiercly to a third party system you're essentially giving more power to the main party that opposes your views by taking your vote away from the main party that's closest to your views. This works both ways, whether your liberal or conservative.
Then relax - they cancel themselves out!
That's why third party members piss me off so much. They essentially remove themselves from the main political process because they don't want to compromise their principles in a party that has an actual chance of winning, but in the end they only give the opposition more power.
Incorrect. They do not "remove themselves from the main political process" - they are voting for what they believe in just like everyone else. Dust up a bit on your history, and you will find that third parties have always played an important role - from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage, end of child labor, and many others. They always meet resistance from people like yourself who say they are demanding the impossible, but people eventually come around, realize they were right, and adjust their positions accordingly. There is a quote that I am too lazy to verify or properly give credit for, but it goes something like "The radical ideas of today are the conservative ideas of tomorrow", or some such thing.
You are a mouth-piece for the established system - which is fine if you think the established system is doing even a remotely good job. There are a growing number of us, however, that feel you are wrong.
There's a lot more to be accomplished by being an active member of the libertarian subset of the democrative party than by being in the libertarian party.
Interesting... I truly am curious - who makes up this libertarian subset of the democratic party, and what have they accomplished? The two seem to be polar opposites to me...
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
the CPD is well funded by both parties and numerous corporate backers. They should be paying the school! (leasing the venue, paying for support staff, etc)
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
The LP is the only third party inthe country to have gotten on the ballots in all 50 states in recent memory (this year they only have 48 or so, i think). The requirements to get on a ballot (put in place by the republicans and democrats) shunt out many third parties. Arizona recognizes three parties on its ballot (democrat, republican, and Libertarian. If Arizona State, which is a state runorganization, only gives 2 out of 3 recognzied parties a chance to debate, theres a problem - they're in effect giving goods and services (in this case, they're spending 2 million dollars and providing a location to broadcast the debateinternationally) while the arizona consitution prevents gifts or donations of state funds to individuals, groups, or corporations - and because they're excluding the third recognized party, they're promoting 2 of the parties over the third. hence, problem. You, the satanists, the green part, nader, that dude of fark, and c'thulu are not on the arizona ballot.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
free speech also means we're free to ignore you, too.
Not at a taxpayer-funded facility.
If this were being held privately, there would be objection but not LEGAL action taken.
Hopefully, as with the "ballot access restriction laws", this suit will drive the debate organizers to publish objective criteria about who may and may not be permitted to "debate". Once the rules are published for everyone to see, they can be addressed.
At this time, those rules are not published, or are merely "we only want those two".
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The Green party also has interesting stands on worker protections, consumer safety, and globalization. I'm not in full agreement with them on everything, but they're not a one-issue party. Arguably, the libertarians are a one-issue party, with their solution to every problem being "more free enterprise, less government."
As to the horror of having numerous parties: look at Israel. You have several parties, with fragile coalitions between them regarding different issues. This means that you have to work with party A on issue B, party B on issue C, and so on. I don't know if that translates into less vicious politics, but it is a workable system.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Actually, in most states, the Dems and Reps don't have to jump though the hoops, and are frequently given leeway for deadlines that marginlized-party candidates aren't. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
XML causes global warming.
Think how much less time would be wasted on debates if we had only one candidate! Instead of people having to watch two whole hours of something meaningless like a presidential debate, they wouldn't need a debate at all and people could get on to the more important things like watching Everybody Loves Raymond.
live(free) || die;
That's why these Libertarians, no matter how right they are, can't win any elections. Politics is a social game of leadership, which you lose by alienating everyone. I'm glad they're forcing the issue, and getting the duopoly parties to demonstrate their subsidies to the general public. But their intimidation tactic, holding the popular debates hostage, is doing their organizing as much damage as it is serving their ideology. Which keeps them from effectively representing me, even if I were to join them.
--
make install -not war
Have you not looked at the current set of idiots? I'd take a McDonalds 2nd shift manager, public school teacher and just about anyone with an honest job over a bunch of lawyers and businessmen. The people at the bottom have nothing to loose by doing what they think is right. The people at the top have plenty to gain if they do otherwise.
Someone hates these cans.