Slashdot Mirror
Libertarian Party Suit Could Mean A 3-Party Debate
v4mpyr writes "The lawsuit initiated by the Arizona Libertarian Party against the ASU and CPD has been successfully scheduled for a hearing. If the CPD cannot present a decent case for excluding Michael Badnarik from a private debate funded by public sources, they will have to exercise one two options: Let Michael Badnarik debate this Wednesday or reschedule and relocate the debate. Either way it will be a major win for the third parties. The official press release can be found here."
It's a request for a temporary injunction, and it's scheduled for the day before the debate.
Yes... and what a lot of people like to forget is that the third party was the Republicans.
The debates are not created by any sort of national mandate but set forth and run by the debate committee setup by the Republican and Democratic parties. The debate commission is can invite who ever it wants to the debate without anyone overrulling them. They've set the bar pretty high at a consistant 15% in the polls in order to bar any candidates from their party.
If it was a national law there would of been no "negotiation" about how many debates and all the silly rules those debates entail and Buchanan would of been let into the debates in the last cycle because he was a federally funded candidate. (Probably Nader as well since he was polling higher than Buchanan).
bad link, here is is register
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
You seem unaware that the Commission on Presidential Debates is a private concoction created in 1988 by the Republican and Democratic National Committees to bring the debates fully under control of the major party campaigns. The CPD works for them. The CPD also provides a means for corporations to give additional soft-money contributions to those two parties.
A third party is only permitted if the Democratic and Republican campaigns believe it advantageous to their interests. The CPD is not "official" or "federal" in the sense you seem to assume.
From page 3 of the complaint:
:)
"Cost associated with hosting the debate are estimated at about $2 million. ASU will seek donations and corporate sponsorships to cover expenses. No state appropriation of tax dollars has been received to find the debate."
The commission is the one spending exactly 0 dollars in this whole operation.
The New York Sun is running an informative story on the case.
The point of the lawsuit is that the state of Arizona recognizes three parties - Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. That means when you register as a voter, you either register as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Independent. When you go to the polls, you see the candidates of those three parties, plus any Independents, on your ballot.
Despite that fact, there are only candidates from two of those parties. That would be perfectly fine if this debate were privately funded, but it is in fact funded by Arizona taxpayer money and held at Arizona State University, which is a taxpayer-funded institution. That means that the debate is obligated to include candidates from all three recognized parties, or move to a privately funded location and host the debate using nothing but private funds.
If all 54 of the parties you listed were recognized by the state of Arizona, then yes, a publicly funded debate would have to include candidates from every one of them, unless those candidates declined to attend.
live(free) || die;
We do. The problem is that Bush, Kerry and the Repugnicrats are FORCING the taxpayers of Arizona to fund a partisan event, which is against their State Constitution and also against US IRS tax codes allowing tax-free status. Libertarians would never refuse access to the Repugnicrats attending because htye provide so much fodder and entertainment to us. In case you were unaware, the Libertarian Party is actually a RECOGNIZED party in many states. Not some write-in movement. Ignorance of the facts is simply your fault. This is why we've been on the ropes for so long. Mike Bellman - MikeMac Specialist Columbia, MO "The voters are free to ACCEPT us or REFUSE us, but to be ignorant to us is to believe the LIE that there are only two evil choices. The power of an American Revolution is still possible with the vote."
It doesn't matter whether people want the Libertarian candidate to be included or not -- the judge has to rule on the case as the facts fit under the Arizona and US Constitutions, and state and federal law. The LP's case is pretty strong.
If you want to learn more,
get mirc (free chat prog)mirc.org
The channels are #libertarian and #badnarik on EFNET
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
2) The lawsuit in Arizona is based on the fact these private debates are using PUBLIC funding.
Please don't mod me down redundant, I'm just responding to his post - not my fault he didn't read :(
I think it's perfectly consistent for the Libertarian Party to use one part of the state (the Courts) to stop another part of the state (the legislative, funding the university and therefore the debate) from behaving in an abhorrent manner, engaging in election fraud. Here's why:
Let's be very clear: the state should not be excluding legally qualified candidates from any context featuring candidates just because they are not part of the dominant party. That is election fraud, and is exactly what single-party states do. That's how Saddam Hussein got 99% of the Iraqi vote.
Libertarians roughly believe that Government force should only be employed to protect the citizenry from force and fraud. The orthodoxies vary upon what should be considered force or fraud, but that's the core thought.
The suit is being file to prevent government force (ie, money collected under threat of force) to fund election fraud. That's perfectly consistent.
And that's all beside the delicious maneuver of using the political system's hypocrisies against itself.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Just because Libertarians can be really annoying at parties doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a voice in political debates.
Not all libertarians are annoying at parties. Some are like Linux geeks eager to "sell" their lifestyle to random party participants. Others have recently discovered objectivism and are actively proselytizing for their new religion. Others just have no social life. But most of us are just like anyone else. We go to parties to have a good time, and NOT to talk politics.
Now, all I have to do is figure out a way from keeping them from bringing up Ayn Rand at my next party
If they're bringing up Ayn Rand, then they are not bringing up libertarianism. Most objectivists are libertarians but most libertarians are not objectivists.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Secondly and much more importantly, that private entity is non-partisan... there is nothing in their rules which on it's face discriminates against the Libertarian party.
No, it is a bi-partisan entity. That is the whole complaint! Read a little...
Congressman Ron Paul is a libertarian, though officially a member of the Republican party. Hardly some naive idealist.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Parties whose candidates can win the White House:
i tution (under varous names mentioned above)
Democrat
Republican
Libertarian
Green
Const
Candidates on the AZ ballot for President:
Bush
Kerry
Badnarik
Candidates included in the publicly-funded debate at ASU who are on the ballot:
Bush
Kerry
Candidates not included:
Badnarik
It's that simple.
Any questions?
Class dismissed.
Wow. I mean WOW. You really don't get it.
If you know anything about the Libertarian party platform, I think you would understand this move. Government money (OUR money) is being used to fund a political debate that is purposefully excluding candidates that will be on the ballot. If Libertarians just sit back and accept that, they aren't encouraging the Government to be hands off, are they?
It's very Libertarian to step in and try and stop the Government from robbing (sorry, 'collecting taxes from') taxpayers to selectively fund the infomercials of the two major candidates while ignoring legitimate candidates that aren't as popular.
This can't possibly be even remotely legal, at least not until we have an official United States Department of Propaganda. Should be coming around 2006.
I can't help but feel that democracy can't be the pinnacle of systems of government. There's got to be something better.
Churchill once said something to the effect that democracy is the worst form of government around, except for all the others.
Democracy sucks, but there ain't nothing better.
As for the wasted vote argument, so you should choose your lesser of evils candidate, remember, if you choose the lesser of evils, you have still chosen evil.
Not to mention, a political party only needs 5% of the vote to get federal funding in the next election which is a big step forward. The media *never* mentions that. If Nader, Badnarik or Peroutka could hack out 5% of the vote they would have a legit shot at the next election.