Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidates Arrested at Debates
h8macs writes "Third party Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) were arrested while attempting to enter the presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the land of the free. ;-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
As a Badnarik supporter I enjoy the sentiment of what Mr. Badnarik and Mr. Cobb did and agree whole heartedly with them, but I'm not exactly sure how this help's the "radical" third party's persona.
I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?
Mike
When presidential candidates are arrested for trying to attend a presidential debate.
I can think of no sadder statement of our times than that. I now have absolutely no hope for our democratic system.
They shouldn't be surprised that they weren't let in.
... maybe even a C.
What is sad though is that the status quo is a two party (and they are pretty much as bad as each other when it comes down to it) system in the US, and the complete lack of will to even consider that there are other parties.
A two party democratic system where both parties have corporate needs and their own interests at heart really isn't democracy is it? I mean, even the Russian Communist era had elections, you could choose Communist A or B
Why would Badnarik, who campaigns bitterly against such government intrusions on private citizens and corporations, take part in such an intrusion?
Because somewhere around (i.e. pulled from my ass) 97% of Americans have never heard of the Libertarian Party and 99.9% of Americans have never heard of Michael Badnarik.
He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech. He's making himself impossible to ignore. The right thing to do, IMHO.
It should shake the debate up a bit.
I have a number of issues with the Libertarian platform, but at least Badnarik (and Cobb) are doing the right thing to get the boat moving.
May we never see th
Of course they got arrested.
If you would read the article, it clearly states that they pushed their way through a police barricade. Presidential candidates are still US citizens just like everyone else, and as such, they are subject to the laws of the land.
What do you expect will happen if you push through a barricade? The police are going to welcome you in with open arms? This isn't a videogame where one gets an award for navigating a bunch of obstacles.
They knew exactly what they were doing and fully expected to get in trouble.
A republic implies only that decisions are made by a group of representatives, regardless of how they are chosen.
In our country, the representatives are elected by the general public. That makes our system a democratic republic, and therefore it can be considered to be a democracy.
Restricting the definition of democracy to only mean a pure system like ancient Greece would be pretty useless, since almost no country in history since then has actually used that system. Common usage of the term includes democratic republics. Every president that I can remember has gone on and on about the benefits of "freedom and democracy". Surely they're not talking just about a system of government that is not used currently by any country.
Read some history books. Elected officials were -designed- to be from all walks of life (lawyers, carpenters, teachers, business owners, sailors, soldiers, librarians, philosophers, historians, musicians, explorer, etc). The idea was that you run for office, serve your term(s), and then go back to your job. That is what power to the people was all about.
In my opinion, a big part of the problem with our current setup is that people actually respect career and long-term politicians. I have a different theory: The more likely that a person has been in public office, the more likely they are to become corrupt.
1) Who wrote the rules?
2) How is one supposed to rise from zero to 15% if one cannot be heard?
3) Is the two-party system really the best system? Wouldn't more competition improve the political system?
Sacrificing your prinicples in order to get votes... yup, he sounds like a natural politician to me.
Oh, for fuck's sake. You guys have a political system that makes it essential impossible for anyone without multi-millions in backing to get anything like enough coverage to let voters know that they have choices outside the dualistic monopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, and you still think it's a bad idea for him to bring some attention to that fact?
...that we can choose Miss America from 50 contestants, but we just can't handle six legitimate candidates for President (who are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the Electoral College) in a debate?
Especially since we seem to be able to handle six Democrats in a primary debate...
The cnn.com poll and the poll discussed in their article are not the same. From the article:
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken right after the town hall meeting-style debate found respondents giving a slight, statistically insignificant edge to Kerry over Bush: 47 percent of them went for Kerry and 45 percent for Bush.
The net is not a good sample of voters, and AFAIK there's no fraud protection on the CNN online poll, so it's really not worth talking about.
Visit the
And now an additional 2% have heard of him, and will recognize his name (for the next few weeks) as that whacko from the Liber-whatever party that got arrested.
Not me. I followed the link to their page, then clicked on "What exactly are Libertarians?", or however they phrased it.
Then I went, "Oh. That sounds like my feelings. I agree with that."
With all due respect, this is not an insightful comment, but a naive one. There are not many third party candidates who have been elected to office of any kind because the two-party system controls every lever of power right down to the local dog catcher. In short, whichever party controls the local machinery of government blocks you at every single level. That's the heart of what I have to say. For more details, read on:
I live in Brooklyn, and have been deeply involved with politics since the primary campaign. I helped form an all-volunteer, grassroots organization of 15,000 people. As we citizen activists have learned more about our system of government, it has become clear that the legacy of the Tammany Hall patronage system is still very much with us.
For example, in each district there are these positions called district leaders. District leaders are elected, but largely selected by those who politically control the district. Voter turnout to elect district leaders is extremely low, and quite easily controlled by democratic clubs run by a mere handful of people.
Now, district leaders decide who works the polls on election day. Why is that important? Because the voting machines for the parts of the district that you know don't support you can suddenly stop working. Or the poll workers can tell you that you have to have five forms of picture ID in order to vote. Or they will go into the booth and "help" you vote. Any number of things.
On Sept. 14th, I was a poll watcher for a primary for the NY state senate in the 17th state senate district in North Brooklyn. There was a candidate backed by the local machine, run by the local boss Vito Lopez. Then there was a community activist challenging him. The local boss is the chair of the state housing committee and controls all the housing projects in the district. If he finds out that you didn't vote the way he wants, you may suddenly find yourself thrown out of your apartment.
Now, the local boss didn't need to cheat, but he did. He cheated as facilely as you and I breathe. Every sort of irregularity you can imagine. The two candidates for the state senate seat were members of the same party, but the challenger still got blanked by the political machine. Do you really think that a third party candidate would have a snowball's chance in hell in that kind of environment? Not bloody likely.
"Why don't third party candidates simply organize and run a concerted effort?" you say. Well, that is far harder than you think. Institutions made up of many people do not invent themselves overnight, and even without outside interference it is difficult to get even a like-minded bunch of people working together coherently. Whoever likened such a thing to herding cats was a wise, wise man.
Plus, there are all sorts of structural barriers to becoming a third party. In New York alone, there are very onerous requirements for getting on the ballot. There is this complex formula that is used to determine how many signatures you have to get, but basically you have to get approx. 1500 good signatures in one district to appear on the ballot in that one district.
You have to do the same to get on the ballot in every other district in the state, of which there are very, very many. The rule of thumb is to get at least three times as many signatures as you need, because your opponent might challenge your petitions and get names thrown out. That means 4500 signatures per district. On a good day, it takes one person 4 hours to get 50 signatures.
Do the math. That means 90 people committing one day in each district in order to gather the signatures. Now, multiply that number by the 31 districts in New York State, and suddenly you have 2790 people that you need across the state to commit 11,190 man-hours to getting you those signatures. That's a lot. If you can't inspire that many volunteers to gather signatures, then you have to pay someone to do it. The going rate is $10/hr. That means it could cos
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I agree. There is no zone that disallows the freedom of speech recognized in the Constitution. It is not a right derived from law, nor can it be taken away by any law.
I think the source posting is just another sheep that needs to wake up. Sadly, Mr. sheep is one of many. This reminds me of a despair.com poster-
Meetings- None of us is as dumb as all of us.