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.
Squash the 2 headed chimera.
Well, they do have a point. Why can't the DNC/RNC get the Fortune 500 to pay for it the same way they pay for the conventions?
Hopefully they'll include Badnarik... but will Bush and Kerry debate if they have to face a third candidate?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
You, too, can vote Libertarian, and see the resulting doubling of that candidate's vote in the by-county breakdown.
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.
Shouldn't this be a Slashdot Politics story instead?
I fail to see how this has anything to do with anyone's online rights...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
But then again, the Arizona Libertarians and their buddies the Arizona Free Republicans have some very interesting ideas- like wanting to convene a new continental congress to reconsider the constitution in light of 225 years of technological change.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If this works, maybe I should sue the state to stop financing primary elections. Why should all the taxpayers registered as independents finance any party's nomination process?
I'm all for making sure elections are fair, of course... but shouldn't the state at least bill the parties for the costs?
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
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).
AS long as they also open the debate to the libertarian party candidate, the green party candidate, the satinst party candidate, that guy on fark who says hes running, and cthulu. ANd me for that matter. Id like to debate the chimp.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
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?
While they are sort of a blend of the two parties (Democratic social values with Republican fiscal values) it seems like more Libertarians arrive via the fiscal route or more dissatisfied Democrats join the Green or Socialist parties rather than the Libertarian party.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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
Because most libertarians I meet strike me more as socially liberal as opposed to fiscally conservative, but that's probably just because I live in California. The argument still holds though. If you think the de-facto two party system is detrimental to the health of politics in this country, then work for change within one of the two main parties. Otherwise your political impact is less than that of your average knitting circle.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
The debate is being paid for by the private ASU Foundation (which is distinct and separate from the state funded University), mostly with corporate donations. No state funds are being used, so I suspect the lawsuit will be quickly dispatched.
The foundation gets most of it's money from corporate sponsors (SRP, Motorola, etc), and the occasional private individual. Since the money doesn't go directly to the candidates, I can't imagine how it'll violate any campaign finanace laws.
Yes, I'm certain that the sizes and strength of their positions on views are such that the result is the same as if they didn't exist. By that argument all third party members shouldn't even bother voting.
And if the result is that they don't influence national elections, or worse, their influence is actually the opposite of the intended effect, that's OK? I'm all for voting your conscience. That's why I think such third party members should join a party that has a real chance of being able to change the voting system to one where voting the way you really want to doesn't erode reduce your actual political power. I might have voted for Nader in 2000 if I hadn't known that it would be a vote for Bush in pratical terms.
Just an FYI, I wouldn't go around trying to cast the end of slavery in the US as a stunning example of the success of the political process if I were you.
You're missing the point. Whether a libertarian would identify more closely with the GOP or the Dems, my point is that third parties should close ranks with a party capable of accomplishing change on a national level until such time as the voting system in this country is changed such that third parties have a chance. I don't think libertarians or greens or socialists should give up their views or their convictions. But right now voting for Buchannon or Nader or basically anyone but Bush or Kerry is as likely to effect change as trying to teach a brick wall to dance.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
Frankly, I'd rather that both parties wise up and take notice of an ever increasing minority vote that is willing to vote for an good candidate that truely reflects the will of the people of the USA.
I still honestly don't see a difference in policies between voting for Gore or Bush in 2000, I see very little difference in voting records of Bush and Kerry. About the only difference is how they spin their very similar records.
So given a lack of choices between the two primary parties, my choice is to either not vote (giving the power to who ever happens to win) or voting my concious (and hope that enough other people are willing to buy into this rather than the old "wasted vote" mentality).
Why must everyone vote for the winner ?
PS. Pop quiz, who had a larger percentage of the popular vote, Bill Clinton in either 92, or 96 or Bush in 2000 ?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
If the Libertarians stay true to their principles, they would not accept a spot in the debate under those circumstances. On the principle of it, taxpayers are still supporting views they don't agree with. All the non-D/R/L taxpayers obviously, but also the Democrat taxpayers would still be subsidizing the Rep/Lib views, etc.
Campaigns are a way to get your word out, but you should pay for it yourself, not force others to pay your way. Public financing of election campaigns is the worst possible solution. You end up with gov't itself playing a major role in its own future, by deciding who qualifies for finances, etc. Gov't shouldn't be in the business of deciding which political views to support and which to suppress.
Constitutionally Correct
You know them as the GOP (or RNC) and the DNC, and they get their members get those cool little R's and D's attached to their name if they are being interviewed.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
hmmm....need to check that preview thingy more carefully. Although the Lib-terian party might still be better than what we have now.
Well, if you were able to vote in the primaries for one of the major parties maybe the choice wouldn't be that bad. At any rate, I think its better than voting for someone who's not going to win at all.
Yes, it is so much easier to want other people to come around to your point of view than it is to dirty yourself and compromise your ideals by joining a party that has a chance of winning.
Head's up. You helped cause that lack of an appealing choice by not being a member of a party that most closely aligns with your ideals.
Third parties are for people who want to cling to their ideals while the world goes down a shit hole. Saying your voted your conscience doesn't amount to much while civilization falls apart around you, and saying the two main parties are just two evils doesn't count for much when you know only they have the power to elect a president and you don't participate in either.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
If the Commission on Presidential Debates can set the bar to admission such that a 15% showing in the polls is required, can they not also set the bar at 51%? Is it true that an agency can spend public funds to organize and support a single party?
This seems even more ripe for judicial review.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Gore did not run a very liberal campaign, but Kerry's campaign is more liberal, and that is in part to mitigate the effect of ralph nader sniping from the far left votes Kerry needs.
That is what third parties do, they force the major parties to rethink their platforms.
Dude, the lesser of two evils is still better than the greater of two evils, now, isn't it?
Third parties are fine when there is not a really critical choice to be made in an election - and, I recognize that that is the case most of the time. When the choice is critical, however, voting for a third-party candidate is, in reality, saying that you don't really care which of the major-party candidates wins. If that's the case, just don't bother to vote.
The Libertarian party EXACTLY aligns with my ideals, why would I choose a party that "closely" aligns with my ideals!?
... that is "insightful", now I am convinced to switch parties. hehehe
You also stated. "Yes, it is so much easier to want other people to come around to your point of view than it is to dirty yourself and compromise your ideals by joining a party that has a chance of winning."
I find this incredibly funny, you think it is a cut that he chooses to voice his opinion and yet you think it is good to "dirty yourself and compromise your ideals".
Wow
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
You're right about the Libertarians not doing this if they were in the debates. If the CPD wasn't set up to exclude third parties we wouldn't be having this problem at all. So while you may be right about their motivations, you've totally dismissed the fact that there is a problem. Redirection and specious reasoning is a habit that comes with the campaign stickers, I understand.
First, read some history about why we two so extremely dominant parties. I know there have nearly always been two main parties, but the amount of exclusion enforced by them now is just scary.
Something to remember about any third parties (or is that 4th, 5th, 6th, and etc.) is that they have been wholly responsible for every change reflected in one of the two dominant parties. Social security, desegregation, Southern succession, welfare, abortion, emission standards, prohibition... all these things came about because there were third parties pushing these ideas, for better or worse. (Go ahead and pick a few more novel ideas out of political history and trace their origins. Pay attention not to who ratified it but to who first pushed it.) To say that they remove themselves from the main political process because they don't compromise principles is the exact opposite of what they've proven themselves capable of doing. Third parties can grow and change a lot faster than a main party and when the main parties see that that change is approved of by so many people only then do they consider that change themselves. The two main parties do nothing *but* compromise their principles, especially when it runs counter to the other party.
The two main political parties represent the bargain the United States has accepted in order to make things simple enough that most everyone can decide on one of them. Third parties represent the change that is needed that is only understood by the few who bother to care about politics while standing up for what they really believe is true despite what the rest of the country has accepted.
Sadly, all political parties are looking for complete control over the government. Think monolithic versus modular and think about how unstable and vulnerable most OS's are compared to any *BSD. (I'm sure you love analogies.) Until we can individually assign cabinet positions, judges, and all the other move makers in Washington, we're just going to have to jump on one of the two bigger bandwagons until something really important comes along that needs our attention. Right now that's the exclusive debates and ruinous ideas of federal healthcare, and my wagon happens to carry a Libertarian bumper sticker.
Direct away from face when opening.
The thing is though, if everyone who felt the 2 major candidates weren't worth voting for, actually did vote for the 3rd party candidate they wanted, there would be pretty big shift. The "Big Two" candidates would have to work much harder at building coalitions with the minor parties which tends to result in more moderate government. The key above is "everyone". For the moment, too many people feel that a 3rd party vote is wasted vote and so don't vote. It becomes a self fullfilling prophesy.
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
At any rate, I think its better than voting for someone who's not going to win at all.
I would rather continue voting for candidates who agree with my views that bear ANY responsibility for the crap going on by voting for either a Republican or a Democrat.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I am a member of a party that most closely aligns with my ideals. And frankly, they aren't putting tweedle-dee, or tweedle-dum on the ballot. Why would I want to perpetuate the evils that go on in government by continuing to vote for a skull and bones man. I'd rather vote for someone that isn't going to take my rights away
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
So on the November ballot is an Initiative to change to a Top-Two style primary--all candidates are listed, the top two vote-getters advance to the final ballot, without regard to what party they are from.
Damn parties don't like how we do nominations, we'll do it without them, thank you very much.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
OK, we're losing the thread. My point isn't that we shouldn't have third parties. Its that the current voting system makes third parties have a negative impact on the state of politics. I think it would be better if we moved to a better voting system and until that happens, I think third party members should focus their efforts on that. Third parties are trying to dig a canal with spoons. They should join a major party, make shovels available to everyone and then go back to what they were doing before as third parties.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
The problem, of course, is that there are more than one "third party". The only way a real, viable third party can arise (and it's happened before) is by extensive grass-roots organizing well in advance of an election. You have to get enough committed voters for the new party that they can present a credible alternative.
The Libertarians are working on this, as are the Greens. The Reform party had a shot with Ross Perot, but since then have fallen apart. I just don't see a viable third party on the national scene for some time. Any prospective third party needs to get busy electing officials on the local and state levels, first.
Of course, once a political party comes to power it will become corrupt as well (e.g. if the Greens replaced the Democrats). However, it is entirely different if power is significantly shared by 5, 6, 7, or 15 parties with different ideologies. Not saying that it wouldn't happen, but it is a different matter.
Logic, macros, and more
At any rate, I think its better than voting for someone who's not going to win at all.
Yes. I wonder if that is what happens when a dictator claims that he received 99% of the vote.
Logic, macros, and more
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!
By voting for someone you know isn't going to win, and being unable to vote in the primaries for the major parties, you become JUST as responsible for the state of the country. You can't get off that easy.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
By this argument everyone should just vote for themselves. And yes I think its good to compromise in politics. If no one compromises, what you have is not politics, but war. Dumbass.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded.
That's a bogus argument for several reasons. First, as someone pointed out above, Arizona (the government involved in this case) has approved one third-party candidate, the Libertarian. So none of the other third parties has a role there for this election (that's another, ballot access, problem). Second, various of the third parties have a history of joint efforts at ballot access. Third, IANAL, but it probably takes a wronged party (one that is on the ballot yet not invited to the state-sponsored debate) to have standing in a lawsuit. If, in your scenario, the Libertarian party was invited but another third party, on the ballot, was not, the best the Libertarians might be able to do is to offer some kind of friend-of-the-court argument (and I would not be surprised to see one).
I believe that your idea that third parties have a negative impact on the state of politics (from a response of yours below) is also bogus. It sounds like you are alluding to the Nader-nuked-Gore argument. If indeed that argument is true (and there is plenty of dispute on that), the only serious negative impact is on the losing 2-party candidate, certainly not politics. Even the winner must deal with a more limited mandate. On the contrary, it forces the dominant parties to be more responsive the next time; that is a positive impact on politics as a whole. And such responsiveness is extremely unlikely when attempted from within today's primary parties; alternate ideas tend to get quashed.
Thus ensuring that more of your rights get taken away by the more conservative party. Look, if you honestly believe that both parties are going to take away your freedom, then join the one that is going to take away less, and make sure that by being a part of that party they take away even less than they would otherwise. Maybe if more people like you had been in the Demcrative party we'd have someone like Dean instead of a 'skull & bones' man.
Honestly, if you can't tell the difference between Kerry and Bush, that's cause you're so far round the fucking bend you can't see the bend.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
They also appear socially liberal because one of their main tenets (at least what you hear about) is to legalize pot. Placing that as their theme probably drives more like minded fiscal conservatives to the Republican party than any thing else.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I think you miss the point of voting for a third party. There are years (this is one of them) where if I could vote for 'none of the above' and force both parties to recall their canadates and give me new options, I would. I don't even remotely like either choice. I will vote libertarian because as far as I am concerned, both of the two major candidates are roughly equally bad.
Let me put this in words Democrats and Republicans will understand. I am voting 'Anyone But Bush' and 'Anyone But Kerry'. Call my vote a vote against both of them. Honestly, if I could only pick Bush or Kerry, I would simply not vote.
Voting is a method of getting your voice heard. If during an election it was clear that either Kerry or Bush was going win by a landslide, would you simply not vote if your guy was going to loose without a doubt? Of course not. You would vote regardless just so that your voice is heard. You would vote to keep the mandate to to the winner as small as possible. If Bush beats out Kerry 60% to 35%, Bush leaves with a mandate. If Bush beats out Kerry 44% to 43%, then it sends a strong signal that he doesn't have strong majority on his side.
When a Republican or Democrat sees that 10% of the population voted for none of the above, it sends a clear signal to them that people are disgusted. It tells them that they are so disliked that people will happily risk letting them loose just to prove a point.
As a Libertarian, when my two choices are a liberal who wants to enact socialist policies, and a 'conservative' who would take away a woman's right to choose and is one of the worst spenders in history, what how happy I am when I vote for none of the above. I don't want either of the bastards in the oval office, and to be honest, I can't rightly say which one I dislike the most. If the Republicans loose because of the Libertarian vote, good. It will send a very loud and very clear message.
No, the dictator does it by rigging the election rules so that there are no other parties. What the Dems and Reps have done is rig the election rules so that no third parties actually have any real influence. That's what I'm opposed to.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
Couldn't you say that the Green parties solutions are "more government, less free enterprise?"
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
im voting not because i expect him to win, i dont, but because i want to help turn the tide and gain support for 3rd parties. i dont even agree with whom i am voting for any more than i agree with bush or kerry, but i am so completely sick of this 2 party BS that i feel my hand is forced.
Republican National Convention fell a week after the deadline in Illinois for candidates to be certified. Thus, if the law were to be followed, Bush would not be able to be on the ballot in Illinois.
The Republican response: Ignore the deadline 'cause we're important. Nevermind that we'd scream like little girls if you ignored the deadline for the Democrats or a third party. We deserve a double standard, because, uhhhh...well we do.
I AM ABOVE THE LAW!live(free) || die;
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. Since that's likely the case, this means its less about what the two main parties are getting and more about what the libertarians are not getting. Which makes the whole thing bullshit from an ethical standpoint.
What brings you to this opinion? Speculation? Anyway, you're dead wrong. The LP qualified for federal matching funds in 2000 and sent the check back. That's how strongly libertarians believe in their ideals, and no Libertarian candidate would participate in a debate funded by public funds.
Image a system with a bunch of these little parties. Sort of like, say, many democracies in Europe? ;)
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded.
In that situation the Libertarian party wouldn't be a party [sic] to that case.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Why do people hold to this illusion that having 3 parties will fix anything? The third party will be as corrupt as the first two.
Your question was actually answered by a libertarian candidate several elections ago. I seem to recall it was Ron Paul but I could be wrong. To paraphrase: "If the Libertarian party became a dominate party, we might end up as corrupt as the Democrats and Republicans in twenty years. But at least that's twenty years without corruption!"
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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
I like that quote. But what we should do is find a way to eliminate representives altogether and just have everyone vote. Of course, as I'm writing this I'm imagining the Pandora's Box of problems that would open up...like voter intimidation of levels unheard of, and other such things.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Indeed. In at least one case a third party displaced one of the existing "mainstream" parties -- today's Republicans replaced the Whigs. Many third parties tend to be one-issue parties, and cease to exist in any meaningful way after their issue is adopted by one of the major parties. Or more complicated evolutions -- much of the Populist Party's platform was absorbed into Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party, and eventually ended up in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal Democratic platform.
While third parties seldom have success in the sense of winning elections, they can accelerate the pace at which the major parties change. One of these first days I expect to see a new third party based on the "moderate" views that polls suggest are held by 40% of voters -- fiscally conservative (in a balance-the-budget sense) and socially liberal.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The ends do not justify the means in this case. Not that they have to. Nor is it expected that the two parties will follow any rules including their own. In an issue that could be resolved easily, knowingly breaking the law for political or commercial gain is usually considered wrong and selfish. I'm still trying to figure out why the agreement between the two parties seems to be trumping something as solid as a law. They must be worried they will be sued for breach of contract if they let anybody else play.
Someone hates these cans.
The Libertarian party does NOT alighn EXACTLY with my ideals. But they are closer than anything else I've seen.
Jerico seems more concerned with voting for someone 'who has a chance' than what will happen after either Dem or Rep win.
And Jerico, since you took to calling someone a dumbass based on their opinion, you loose.
Someone hates these cans.
Someone hates these cans.
Here's a thought, turn the TV off. That's what I did for Oprah.
Someone hates these cans.
They're only spending $2M on a Presidential debate? We spent $4.2M on the VP debate. Cheap bastards.
When the choice is critical, however, voting for a third-party candidate is, in reality, saying that you don't really care which of the major-party candidates wins.
When you're fucked either way (as we are), that's pretty much the case.
If that's the case, just don't bother to vote.
Then you have to deal with the "if you didn't vote you can't bitch" asshats.
The LP has nearly 600 elected officials in state & local government, hopefully more after this election cycle. Here's a link
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The Republicans replaced the Whigs because the Whigs (and, to a lesser but significant extent, the Democrats as well) were in disarray, and split apart into major chunks, with enough of those chunks coalescing around the Republicans to make them a major party. The same thing happened when Teddy Roosevelt bolted the Republican party -- major realignment of large voting blocs within the existing Big Two -- although in that case none of the names changed. It happened again, later in the 20th c., when the "Dixiecrats" started migrating to the Republicans; again, the names remained the same, but the characters of the parties changed considerably. Absent such a major split within the Big Two, at the highest levels, no third party has ever attained power within the US political system.
I keep expecting a big split in the major parties, starting with the Republicans, but to my frustration it keeps not quite happening. Until it does, the Badnariks and Cobbs and Naders -- hell, even the Perots -- don't have a chance.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Seems awfully hypocritical to me, since Cornel accepts public money and runs a 2-tier tuition scheme for in-state and out-of-state students. But the libertarians were happy to attend a debate there. Hmmm...
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
I'd be interested to see what the legal
justification for ignoring the law was....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Look at this and tell me which major parties the third parties should ally with? I've heard the argument that Nader should offer to differ his electoral votes to Kerry, but who would you assign Badnarick to? Which party between Democrat and Republican most represents the same ideas as each of the third parties?
Direct away from face when opening.
Half the eligible voters DONT vote. That tells me they don't like the Dems or Reps.
By voting for the lesser of two evils, whichever you choose, you are giving them your mandate that their current policies are acceptable.
That is NOT the way to force change. When enough people vote a third party, one of the major parties will try to absorb its political positions. So voting for a third party is the best way to communicate that you do not agree with the current system.
In addition, it is a positive feedback loop. Since voting is a herd phenomenon, the initial growth is painfully slow. However as their vote totals grow (and they are) more people hear about their positions, and more people are willing to "take the plunge". I am sure there is a critical threshold where a large number of disaffected voters will suddenly realize there is a third choice, and it is one that might win.
IMO your argurment is I like saying I have a gun, and I can give it to party A or party B. Whichever I give it to is going to shoot me, but party B may have a smile on their face as they do it.
You are free to compromise your principles if you choose. Please remember however that if the founding fathers had done so, we would still be
ruled from london.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Yes, I'm certain that the sizes and strength of their positions on views are such that the result is the same as if they didn't exist. By that argument all third party members shouldn't even bother voting.
I was joking... just wanted you to make you feel better since you were getting so upset with third parties. I couldn't disagree more with the notion that third-party voters shouldn't even bother voting.
And if the result is that they don't influence national elections, or worse, their influence is actually the opposite of the intended effect, that's OK?
Well, whether it is OK or not is up to the voting individual. For example, if a voter felt that someone like Cobb or Nader were simply "splitting hairs" with Kerry - if 90% of that person's views are shared by both Kerry and Nader - of course it probably wouldn't make sense to vote for Nader. Kerry, who has a real chance of winning the election, is getting you 90% of what you want - that would be the smart and pragmatic choice.
But what if you feel that Kerry isn't getting you 90%? What if he isn't getting you even 20%? What if, based on your particular viewpoints, the only reason to vote for Kerry's 5% is because he is better than Bush's 1%? At what point do you draw the line and refuse to vote for either party?
The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush are a heck of a lot closer to each other than Kerry is to Cobb/Nader. Neither major party will attack the bloated military budget, cut down on partisan media (or create an American version of the BBC), will take on Detroit and the SUV loopholes (Clinton's fault), would support Kyoto or otherwise begin to get ourselves off of our addiction to oil. Neither party would stop taking money from corporations, or hold free and unscripted debates. Both parties actively subvert democracy by trying to limit voter choices, and stifle competing voices from being heard. As someone who believes strongly in these issues, how can you honestly tell me I am wasting my vote by not voting for Kerry, simply because he is better than Bush? In my opinion, Kerry is not going to solve the problems that are important to me, and in this regard, voting for him would be the waste. Besides, history is on my side... Something like 80% of people believe that politicians cater to the money/corporations, and not to the people. Change, in one form or another, is inevitable. Who of us is really doing more harm? The people who play ball with a corrupt and backwards system, or the people who refuse to?
Just an FYI, I wouldn't go around trying to cast the end of slavery in the US as a stunning example of the success of the political process if I were you.
My point was to say that third parties were the ones that started the dialog and pushed the freedom process along. The powers that be decried them as unrealistic and fanatics, and they were wrong.
my point is that third parties should close ranks with a party capable of accomplishing change on a national level until such time as the voting system in this country is changed such that third parties have a chance.
That is a nice thought, but the two major parties are the ones that are keeping us from having a better voting system. They are protecting themselves, again, from competition. It is because I want a better voting system that I will not support either party. You say vote for Kerry because we don't have a better voting system - I say don't vote for Kerry because he won't let us have a better voting system. You make a good point in that the voting system is imperative, and if a Democrat platform included a better, more inclusive method of voting, I may even support them (knowing that the dividends would pay off later because we would have more viable choices going forward). However, the Democrats and the Republicans are both against a better system. Until that changes, you really can't use it as a defense to support the major parties - I can use it as a reason *not* to support them.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Whats hypocritical? They arent saying the debates shouldnt be funded with public money. The lawsuit pertains to a violation of arizona constitution. This has nothing to do with principle or deciding to hold a debate hostage. Its an attempt at using litigation to get them in the debates which apparently should probably be garunteed by the arizona constitution. Your accusation is faceless as such you should be moderated as troll.
That's an easy solution for a scheduled program.
I want to be able to watch the news without getting physically ill.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
You better do some research on the LP. Their stated reason (I can't find the link, this is my recollection from the last election...) for running is president isn't that he will win, though it would be nice. Presidents get attention though, and someone looking for a president is more likely to look at their candidate. Once they are looking they are likely to come across the local elections.
Don't forget that there are libertarians all over. There is nothing someone in Montana should be doing to influence the outcome of an election in Mississippi, just to pick two random states. In that regard, focusing doesn't gain much. Don't forget too that even if you focus hard on one area doesn't mean you will win, at best you have a better chance.
As to the horror of having numerous parties: look at Israel.
Israel, and most other modern Democracies use proportional representaion systems. However there is a newer and even better varient called a Ensemble Councils. It is a proportional system plus a balancing centrist Condorcet group.
Condorcet voting is the system we SHOULD be using to elect the president and many other votes. It looks almost exactly the same as Instant Runoff voting, and in most cases produces the same result. However Condorcet fixes many cases where Instant Runoff can severely screw up.
The website AccurateDemocracy is a tour-de-force on the various failings of different democratic systems and on the best modern knowledge on building the most accurate, fair, rational, and efficent system of democratic representation. I doubt anyone would dispute that there are problems with our current system, problems well documented on that site. However many of those problems ARE solevable. Unfortunatly implementing all of it would require an overhaul of essentially our entire political system, an overhaul that would be rabidly opposed by both the Republican and Democratic leadership. Still, there are some measures that can be implemented without too much difficulty, individual states can easily adopt Condorcet voting.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The LP qualified for federal matching funds in 2000 and sent the check back.
Certainly a noble adherence to their ideals, however is strikes me as kinda stupid and self defeating too. They are forced to suffer the same rules as everyong else in their effort to change those rules, so they are entitled to benefit from the same rules as everyone else in their effort to change those rules. If you want to change the rules then first you need to USE those rules to get into a position to change them.
Personally I'd like to see a strong Libertarian party. Not because I agree with the extreme Libertarian positions (I don't), but because I want to see both the Republicrats and Libertarians compromise on the good and moderate positions. We desperately need to shift in that general direction.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
With the right to bear arms, I can defend my other freedoms, with the right to my money - I can pay for the freedoms that are most important to me. I would actually back Bush to protect my freedoms long before I would back Kerry/Dean
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Jherico,
How can saying "no" mean "yes"? I give the two faces of the Party Of State Power no money, I give them no votes, I do not give them my registration for their false claims of popularity.
I am doing everything I can short of violence to say "no".
Yet to you this is saying "yes"?
Let me guess, you want me to vote for YOUR candidate, and you're angry that I don't. Too bad.
No.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Man I wish I could edit for typos.
It should have been "than bear any", but from replies it seems my meaning came through.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote Republican or Democrat.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
You are correct it does seem like he is more concerned with winning. This is understandable, this is how we are taught to be. Everything in our society is based on competition and only recently it seems we've found a few things to be cooperative about....ie OpenSource community.
I don't mind that Jehrico thinks I am a "dumb", I merely wish to inform. If you decide the Libertarian ideals are worth supporting, it is your decision. And THAT is the whole point.
Thanks,
-james
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
Pure libertarian campaign finance laws look like: "Freedom of speech is for everybody, not just citizens. If you don't like the people that Candidate X accepts campaign money from, you don't need to vote for Candidate X." Foreigners, resident aliens, children, special interest groups, whoever - all of them have the right to free speech, and political speech is one of the most important kinds of speech that the First Amendment protects.
There are some libertarians who'll argue that corporations are a creation of the state, basically done as a favor to the owners who would otherwise operate as a partnership, so it's reasonable to limit that creation by saying that corporations can't do political speech - but corporations are a special case.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks