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."

Comments

I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Dh2000]

They'll just put off the judegement until after the debate

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Dh2000]

judgement*

Do NOT flame my speeling

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll just put off the judegement until after the debate

judgement*

You misspelled election too.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[v4mpyr]

It is intended to be a quick hearing. Each party will only have a half hour to present their case afterwhich a decision will be made.

I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian overlord to the debates.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Dh2000]

Yes.. I understand that.

But, I was thinking that the decision would be to delay the decision. Color me cynical.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[anthony_dipierro]

It's a request for a temporary injunction, and it's scheduled for the day before the debate.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[rlwhite]

If the debate were allowed to pass without a decision, wouldn't the Libertarians lose standing to bring the suit, or something? This doesn't seem to be a case where you can simply compensate the Libertarians financially after the fact.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[gl4ss]

if they did that, wouldn't it put the election itself in questionable position of being 'fair' or not?

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Shakrai]

I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian overlord to the debates.

Look, this would be one issue where I would disagree with most of /. Do we really want every little minor party involved in our national debate? Do we really want a system like Europe or Israel where the mainstream parties need to make alliances with the little ones in order to govern effectively? Where if somebody blinks the wrong way they dissolve the Government and hold new elections every few weeks?

The United States is not a Parliamentary Democracy. We are a Republic. If you take issue with that then I suggest you start lobbying for a Constitutional Convention to change it -- or perhaps get a time machine and go back to talk to the Founding Fathers. Until then I don't see why we need to make time to include a party that can't even capture 5% of the vote -- let alone the more then fair 15% threshold to be included in the debate.

Ross Perot wasn't excluded from the debates when he actually stood a chance of winning. Or should we run our most important election like a California recall and give the porn kingpins and "Bob the mailman" types a national forum?

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue that our current system resembles Mexico. There were (and are) differing factions of the PRI but they all stand for the same things when push comes to shove. Republican and Democratic congressmen promote and vote for the same socialist programs every year. We could simply merge them under the name "Cummunitarian Party".

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[uncoveror]

The Constitutions of most states clearly establish a two party system. If Arizona's does not, it will by their next legislative session. There is a reason why all minor party candidates are called "third party" even if there are a dozen of them, all nominated by different parties. Right or wrong, that is the system we have, and it will probably never change.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[SandiConoverJones]

Would you really want 3rd party candidates, the candidates who clearly state their positions on the issues to mess with the Democrats and Republicans with their meaningless, but well rehearsed sound bites? What would happen, if in a a debate, a candidate took a stand? {gasp} Would our entire country fall to ruin? Or, might it force the other candidates to answer a question?

Just where in the constitution does it say that we have a 2 party system, and that those two parties should be the Democrats and Republicans?

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. Vote your mind, and your conscience. If you always settle for a lesser of evils, how do they know that you are dissatisfied with the status-quo? Or are you happy with the lack of choice that we are suffering with if you only consider Kerry and Bush to be the only valid, viable candidates?

How many people are on the ballot in your state? http://www.politics1.com/p2004-ballots.htm this site should list who has ballot access in your state. In my state, Ohio, there were 8 names to choose from on the 2000 ballot. (If you don't believe me, I'll make it easy for you to check my facts: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/index.html ) Why should the choice only come down to 2 candidates with 8 people who went to the effort to gain ballot access?

The mainstream press actively avoids reporting on 3rd party candidates. When a presidetial candidate passes though a city 6 times during the campaign, and 2 daily newspapers, and 4 local television channels completely ignore the visits? People were there to greet the candidate, but not a press member to be found, hmm... this smacks of collusion with the press and the Democrats and Republicans.

What we need to fight for is better coverage of the other people who will appear on the ballots of our respective states. If airing the news is an FCC required service of broadcasters, how about equal time for all of the eligible candidates? Oh Horrors! What a concept! Let the people hear of the people on the ballot before they draw the curtain? This would hardly be fair to the powers that be! People might consider voting for someone other than a Democrat or Republican.

We complain about crooked elections in other countries. They can't get much more closed, and crooked than our own.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[psykocrime]

The Constitutions of most states clearly establish a two party system.

Interesting... I've never heard of such a thing. Would you mind posting a few snippets of the relevant sections of a few such State Constitutions, for our elucidation? And maybe a list of a handful of States that have such clauses in their Constitutions?

Not a troll, I'm seriously interested to see this info, as it's news to me.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[SandiConoverJones]

I challenge you to post an excerpt of any state's constitution that sets forth a two party system. I have yet to see any state that has spelled out in its founding documents that there are to be two parties. The closest thing that I have seen would be if you misunderstood the meaning of bicameral. Bicameral does not mean two parties, it means two branches.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Kwil]

And your point is?

After all, the Courts haven't shown much difficulties with this before.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Nimey]

Do you think that most people would care?

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Slime-dogg]

It would go something like this:

Badnarik: .......Something meaningful......

Kerry: That's preposterous! My party's bottom line is to find and kill the terrorists with other people's troops, while ours can have dinner with their spouses.

Bush: It's hard work, being president. The witch-doctor told me to "oooh eee ooh ah-ah, ting tang, falla walla bing bang."

And the masses of American lemmings will oooh and ahhh with the two mindless dopes that are vying for control, and be upset with the stir caused by Badnarik. Yes, I'm a cynical American, and I hate the choices presented by the dems and the 'pubs.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

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. Vote your mind, and your conscience. If you always settle for a lesser of evils, how do they know that you are dissatisfied with the status-quo? Or are you happy with the lack of choice that we are suffering with if you only consider Kerry and Bush to be the only valid, viable candidates?

The problem is that they are all evil. I have examined the platforms of every party fielding a presidential candidate and every single one of them is both stupid and contemptible. Some of them have better intentions than others, but intentions are useless when their methods are flawed.

I've lost my faith in democracy. I don't think we should have a dictatorship or anything like that, but I can't help but feel that democracy can't be the pinnacle of systems of government. There's got to be something better.

I'd propose the following axioms for any acceptable form of government:

1. The government must respect and preserve individual's rights up to the extent that affording an individual additional freedom would restrict the freedom of others.

2. There should be some mechanism whereby any citizen can prove him or herself fit to take on any public office.

3. Citizens must be able to inspect all actions of the government on matters not relating to national security, etc. (those cases are a bit stickier and while in some cases the people should know about things, in other cases it's best that the information not be revealed).

4. There must be some mechanism whereby officials who abuse their power can be removed from office.

I believe that officials should be judged on their ability and their commitment to acting in the best interest of the public. Getting the most votes does not guarantee that a candidate will be the best by these criteria. One of the critical problems is that giving the people what they ask for is not always what is best. People don't always know what they want, and when they do, they don't always know how to get it.

In summary:
"Democracies get the leaders they deserve"

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really want every little minor party involved in our national debate?

Yes.

Do we really want a system like Europe or Israel where the mainstream parties need to make alliances with the little ones in order to govern effectively?

Yes.

Where if somebody blinks the wrong way they dissolve the Government and hold new elections every few weeks?

YES!!!

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

some more direct democracy in our government might do wonders

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Shakrai]

Just where in the constitution does it say that we have a 2 party system, and that those two parties should be the Democrats and Republicans?

Just where in the constitution does it say that we need to have a Presidential debate at all -- let alone that every little party needs to be included in said debate?

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. Vote your mind, and your conscience.

I don't consider Kerry to be the "lesser of two evils" vote. Perhaps you disagree with me. I genuinely like and support the guy but I suppose YMMV. As for the argument of "There's no real difference between the parties" I'm sick and tired of hearing it. I suppose it's good for a cheap +5 on Slashdot but if you bothered to read any major newspaper you'd see that there are huge differences between Democrats and Republicans on any number of issues including foreign policy, abortion, stem cell research, tax policy, the direction of our Federal judiciary, economic policy, military posture, missile defense, homeland security, religion in government, environmental policy, social security etc etc.

These are huge policy differences but all people around here (and the third-party candidates) can focus on are the glaringly obvious mistakes that they both supported (DCMA) without even considering the fact that this is symptomatic of lazy Congressman who don't read bills or understand the issues more then any vast DNC/RNC plan to slice up the country.

Now I've never suggested that a vote for a third-party is a wasted vote. I have suggested that if you are a Green and you truly care about your platform this might not be the best election in the World in which to cast that vote. Even the Green Party itself has said as much. If you happen to be a Libertarian then I suppose you won't like Bush (he isn't a true conservative by any means) and you certainly aren't going to like Kerry -- so by all means vote for your guy.

We complain about crooked elections in other countries. They can't get much more closed, and crooked than our own.

Really? Anyone with the right organization and name recognition stands as good a chance as anybody else of being elected. Ross Parot stood a very good shot until he foolishly dropped out the race only to toss his hat back in later. He wasn't excluded from the debates. He shot himself in the foot -- his was the best third-party campaign since Teddy Roosevelt.

It would also be fair to point out that in American Politics (at least where the Presidency is concerned) the maverick usually loses. It doesn't even need to be a third-party person. Ask the John McCains and Howard Deans of the World how their Presidential campaigns worked out. McCain's loss you might be able to blame on the party establishment (not to mention the oh so lovely tactics Karl Rove used against him) -- but Dean had the effective support of large portions of the Democratic establishment and the primary voters still overwhelmingly picked Kerry. The mavericks and third parties do serve a purpose -- they set the tone of the debate and ensure that important issues (campaign finance in McCains case) aren't swept under the rug. But when push comes to shove the American people usually go with the mainstream and/or more experienced candidate.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Shakrai]

some more direct democracy in our government might do wonders

We don't need direct democracy. Direct democracy is scary and ineffective. Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority?

What we need is people interested in politics again. Especially local and state politics. You advocate direct democracy -- can you name your Assemblyman or even Mayor? Can you name a local school board member? Can you name your County Executive or the legislator from your district?

I'd bet money that most of the people on /. can't name a majority of those people -- and a good portion of the /. readership couldn't name any of them. I'd dare say that most of the /. readership is more into politics then the average American -- so what does that say about most other Americans?

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[SandiConoverJones]

Ask the John McCains and Howard Deans of the World how their Presidential campaigns worked out. McCain's loss you might be able to blame on the party establishment (not to mention the oh so lovely tactics Karl Rove used against him) -- but Dean had the effective support of large portions of the Democratic establishment and the primary voters still overwhelmingly picked Kerry.

The primaries are not exactly a good cross section of the population. A few states decide who the candidates will be. By the time that Super Tuesday, and the even later primaries roll around, it is mere formality. If they had national primaries, in which all of the registered voters of a particular party were allowed to cast their ballots for their choice of candidate, then it could be said that he who won the primary had the overwhelming support of his party behind him, but as it stands, that is rarely true. A question, out of curiosity, are you in a state that actually gets a voice in the primary elections? I am not.

Many parts of our system are due for overhaul, the primary system, and the electoral college are two glaring examples.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[FauxPasIII]

> democracy can't be the pinnacle of systems of government. There's got to be something better.

We could try anarcho-syndicalism...

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Shakrai]

If they had national primaries, in which all of the registered voters of a particular party were allowed to cast their ballots for their choice of candidate

That's a coin-toss. I see your point -- and at times I agree with it. But I also see the point of the current staggered primary schedule -- it gives the electorate more time to evaluate the candidate in question. It's a tough one.

A question, out of curiosity, are you in a state that actually gets a voice in the primary elections? I am not.

That depends on what you mean by a voice. We are part of Super Tuesday (New York) -- but typically by the time that rolls around its usually a foregone conclusion. We still had everybody on our ballot but only Kerry and Edwards were seriously still competing by that time. For the record (not that it's relevant) I voted for Edwards -- I love the underdog. The turnout was depressingly low -- I'm a poll worker and at the district where I was assigned we only had 35 voters all day -- out of about 350 Democrats whom could have showed up. At my district (where I vote -- not where I worked) I was only the 18th voter of the day -- and I voted about two hours before the polls closed.

I'd blame the media for this as much as I'd blame the system though. If the media would have stopped focusing on "who had the momentum" from Iowa or New Hampshire perhaps the race would have lasted longer. I would probably support the idea of a National Primary Day -- I still think the mavericks would have an uphill battle though. Do you think Dean would have won with a National Primary day? He lost Iowa outright -- and most people didn't see it coming. On the other side of the coin Iowa and New Hampshire aren't everything -- if they were then John McCain (or Pat Buchanan) might be President today.

Many parts of our system are due for overhaul, the primary system, and the electoral college are two glaring examples.

I don't think you can fix the electoral college. Can you name 38 states that would ratify such a change to the Constitution? Even the "progressive" states (California or New York) wouldn't be likely to do it -- why should the Democrats in charge give a few million votes to the Republicans when giving 55 (or 31) electoral votes to the Democrat is a foregone conclusion? I'm not so sure I like the options that don't require changing the constitution -- such as splitting the vote based on district or popular vote -- unless every state did it at the same time. Why should New York give 10-15 of our electoral votes to Bush while Texas gives them all to him?

That said if you were going to do it I'd rather see it split like Maine does -- based on Congressional district -- then some imposed split based on the popular vote. Of course I'd also like to see true assignment of Congressional districts instead of gerrymandering -- but that's not likely going to happen either.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[JavaLord]

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.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[MindStalker]

This lawsuit is strickly about tax-payer money visa the university, going to give 2 potential presidential canidates a public forum, while excluding other canidates who are also on the ballet.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[MindStalker]

The tyranny of the vocal minority is what we've got right now in fact.

Personally I'd always been a proponent of what I like to call representative direct democracy. Have all the basic rules you do now so that the majority can't take away the rights of the minority. But instead of a geographic location voting for a representative, anybody can "run" for office and people who agree with their views can set them as their representatives. Get yourself atleast X supporters and you are their representative. You could even pay them say a half cent per person they represent per month so they can spend their time representing those people.. Don't like your representative, choose another that best fits your views. Obviously each representative would get a vote proportional to the amount of people they serve plus or minus some sort of equalitor like we have with our elector college..

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Politburo]

No. The debates are not the election. While we can argue about the fairness of exclusion from the debates, exclusion from the debates is not exclusion from the election. There is nothing in election law that covers debates.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[ArsonSmith]

An aspireing Michael Moore? Your sig is Fact, that's what he said, but it is so far out of context and missing so much information that it might as well be a fairy tail.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still wrong. It's "judgment."

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Golias]

A lot of people think Badnarik could pull a lot of votes away from Bush if allowed into a debate, because he's fiscally much more conservative than Bush.

However, my suspicion is that he's likely to damage Kerry's campaign a lot more, since he's much more steadfast in his opposition to the war in Iraq. Kerry would be faced with a choice between posing as a "moderate" on the Iraq war issue (and risk losing nearly all of the Deaniacs to third-party guys), or step up his anti-war rhetoric even farther, feeding on Bush's "how can he lead nations in a war he believes is wrong?" attacks.

Either way, if I were a big-shot for the DNC, I would be sending my best lawyers in to oppose Badnarik's lawsuit right now.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[aminorex]

Personally, I think it very accurately reflects George Bush's positions, policies, and performance.
I voted for that fascist murdering thief, but we have an old saying in Minnesota -- I know its in Texas, it should be in Minnesota -- "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me, fool me... you can't get fooled again!".

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[randall_burns]

The original idea of the US House of Representatives was that it would accurately represent the population. Voting methods like Single Transferrable Vote and Party Lists hadn't been invented when the constitutional was created.

The Senate _has_ done an ok job of representing established interests--the house has failed to represent the people-which is why the system has no checks and balances and is degenerating into a corporate oligarchy.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[aminorex]

And tyranny of the majority is worse than tyranny of the minority, how?

Personally, I'd like to see the office of the President eliminated in favor of a popular vote for each bill than passes congress, and direct election of the cabinet. All executive powers would be distributed over the elected secretaries and the people. And since voting via internet is so cheap, there should be a confidence vote every three months, where a slight supermajority can determine that a secretary needs to run again.
C-in-C of the armed forces would be devolved to the secretary of defense. And making pre-emptive war would be a capital offense.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

a lot of people think that the moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make it so...

badnarik or any libertarian is about as likely to be president as my cat. once you grow up and realize the sillyness of libertarians you'll change your mind...

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Money for Nothin']

Or should we run our most important election like a California recall and give the porn kingpins and "Bob the mailman" types a national forum?

The Presidential election is *so* important that that is *precisely* why we *should* allow "Bob the mailman" to debate Bush and Kerry.

Perhaps the public will like "Bob the mailman" better than Bush or Kerry? And what would be so wrong about that? What would be so wrong with the public electing the person they prefer to have in office more than either the Repubs' or Dems' candidates?

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[anthony_dipierro]

Your sig is Fact, that's what he said, but it is so far out of context and missing so much information that it might as well be a fairy tail.

It's meant to be a funny/stupid Bushism, not insightful political commentary. It could lead to a discussion about the absurdity of letting Bush determine which lives are kept and which are destroyed, but really it's just meant to be funny.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[BitGeek]

Yeah, anyone who looks into it can see the election is not fair-- there is no way to audit the electronic voting machines.

And yet peopel act as if this election is legitimate anyway.

Hell, excluding third party candidates from ballots, and debates, and from media coverage is so typical, that people never consider that it violates first ammendment rights (mc cain feingold, anyone?.. and using government money for "nonpartisan" debates like this one, is illegal)

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Right! So, why choose the lesser evil? Think big. Vote Cthulhu!

Just picture that debate...

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did the parent say that Badnarik is likely to be president?

Ass.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[Anonymous Coward]

No he said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those
others that have been tried."

There's a big difference between what he said and what you just said. I would agree with what he said, but not with what you said.

Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this

[uncoveror]

I have done some digging, and the reason the Democrats and Republicans have automatic ballot access, and others must collect signatures seems to be in states' laws, not their constitutions. I apologize for just repeating what I have always heard without further research, but it is worth noting that the Kerry/Bush debate went on as scheduled without the Libertarian candidate. Whether by constitution, or ordinary law, there are many hurdles in the way of minor political parties.

What?

[Kirsha]

There are more than two parties? I don't live in the USA, so I wonder which are these?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFT (Read The Fucking Title)

Re:What?

[FooAtWFU]

Here's a list.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Political Parties in America

Republican,
Democrat,
Greens,
Socialist,
Fed eralists,
Libertarians,
America First Party,
American Party,
American Heritage Party,
American Independant Party,
American Nazi Party,
Christian Falangist Party of America,
Communist Party USA,
Constitution Party,
Constitutional Action Party,
Family Values Party,
Freedom Socialist Party / Radical Women,
Grassroots Party,
Independence Party,
Independent American Party,
Labor Party, Light Party,
Natural Law Party,
New Party,
New Union Party,
Peace & Freedom Party,
Prohibition Party, Reform Party,
The Revolution,
Socialist Party USA,
SOcialist Action,
Socialist Equality Party,
Socialist Labor Party,
Socialist Workers Party,
Southern Party,
Southern Independence Party,
US Pacifist Party,
We The People Party,
Workers World Party,
Constitutionalist Party,
American Patriot Party,
Democratic Socialists of America,
Knights Party (Ku Klus Klan),
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party,
Multicapitalist Party,
Pansexual Peace Party,
Pot Party,
Progressive Labor Party,
Revolutionary Communist Party USA,
Social Democrats USA,
The Third Party,
US Marjuana Party,
Workers Party, USA,
Veterans Party of America,
World Socialist Party of the USA,
American Party

I guess we should give all 54 parties a share of the coming debate? They'd each get what - 30 seconds?

You can find out more at http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

Re:What?

[OneDeeTenTee]

There's no Party Party?

Somebody'll have to start it.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no Party Party?

Somebody'll have to start it.

I'm going to start eh Bachelor Party.

Re:What?

[GimmeFuel]

I guess we should give all 54 parties a share of the coming debate? They'd each get what - 30 seconds?

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.

Re:What?

[scotch]

How about the "Pot Party"? They're more fun than the "Marijuana Pary".

Re:What?

[overunderunderdone]

... it is in fact funded by Arizona taxpayer money and held at Arizona State University, which is a taxpayer-funded institution.

The first statement is sort-of true only because of the second statement. The University is covering some costs associated with hosting the debate... Also, they are trying to get private sponsorships to cover those costs. However they are going to cover those costs whether they find private sponsors or not THEREFORE the Libertarian party is arguing that the debate is taxpayer-funded and therefore must allow the Libertarian candidate to take part.

This lawsuit doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell... it's a publicity stunt. No judge is going to insert himself in such a manner into the political process and they have PLENTY of outs. First, the "public funding" is only to host a debate put on by a private entity. There is plenty of legalistic wiggle room here to justify the public expenditure.

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. There ARE rules which discriminate against parties and candidates with with only miniscule discernible public support... Nothing explicitly partisan about that. If the Libertarian party cannot get to a level of public support that qualifies them as serious contenders that is THEIR problem not the debate commissions or the Universities, the States or the courts.

Re:What?

[aaarrrgggh]

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...

Re:What?

[SandiConoverJones]

The university is taking political sides by alowing the Dems and Repubs to express their views, on the campus, on gov't funds, while denying another valid candidates the same right. In effect, the university is ENDORSING Kerry and Bush, at the expense of the other 4 candidates on the ballot.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out the Guns and Dope Party.

Re:What?

[Quixotic137]

The whole question is whether or not they are using public funds. The complaint quotes a statement that they will attempt to find private donors to cover the costs. If they have the donors, it is not a problem. Badnarik or anyone else could legally have an overtly partisan event at a public university as well, as long as he covers the costs.

Re:What?

[overunderunderdone]

No, it is a bi-partisan entity. That is the whole complaint! Read a little...

Yes that is their complaint (I read it). But where it counts... the rules for who can be part of the debate ,they are not bi-partisan... they are NON-partisan. There is nothing explicitly partisan in the debate commissions rules for who is invited. There is nothing limiting the debate to the two parties, or even guaranteeing the participation OF the two parties. The rules, on their face, simply limit the debate to candidates with enough support in public polls to be considered serious contenders (a minimum of 15%). I'm sorry, but it's not unreasonable to limit a debate to serious candidates, and no the libertarian candidate isn't serious. It is a vanity campaign for ideological purists who can't get over the fact that their ideology has only limited appeal. Tough! I'm sorry but don't feel much sympathy for the Libertarians, or the other third parties... I see them as dilettantes and whiners who when faced with the relative unpopularity of their position take to empty complaints and retreat to a fantasy world where "if only we got a chance" the public that rejects their views would flock to their banner.

Re:What?

[overunderunderdone]

*Sigh* If you disagree with the points I made refute them... simply restating the case using the bold tag doesn't make for a very convincing argument.

I'll try again. The university is not ENDORSING anybody. It's hosting a debate put on by a private organization. That organization has opened the debate to ANY candidate, from ANY party that exhibits a sufficient level of public support to be considered a serious contender. There is nothing intrinsically partisan about doing so. You may think that they should invite any candidate, or any candidate that fulfills some lesser qualification that just by coincidence happens to include your candidate. But a judge isn't going to find such limitations to be partisan because strictly speaking they aren't.

The Libertarian party's failure to find support is THEIR problem. If their views were REALLY as popular as they thought they WOULD find sufficient support to show up in the polls, get some media attention, etc. Their complaint is ultimately NOT with the debate commission, the university, the state, not even with the media that won't cover them... it's with the voters that won't support them.

Re:What?

[mikebellman]

>That organization has opened the debate to ANY candidate, from ANY party that exhibits a sufficient level of public support to be considered a serious contender.

how exactly is a third party candidate supposed to garner 15% support if NONE of the major polling & media is mentioning, asking, or offering our candidates as actual CHOICES?

It's like going to the furniture store and they offer you a sofa or a loveseat, but NEVER tell you that there's recliners available. You can't ask because they'll just record that response as "refused the choice" and say you're not significant.

Any free-market model rests on demand of choices and variety. Would Dairy Queen stay in business if they only offered single vanilla cones? No, the lion's share of their revenue is the variety of Blizzards mixed with that crappy soft-serve.

But, politics are too complicated for lots of choices.
"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."

Re:What?

[LP Hyperactivist]

Sorry, you lose. Time to feed the troll heartburn-causing food again.

If this debate was being held on a private university, the suit would have been tossed. That's one of the reasons why this suit wasn't filed on the first two debates. However, the argument is that since the AZ Constitution prohibits the use of public facilities for partisan political activities, and since prohibition of one of the three parites on the ballot makes it partisan by being against one of the three, it's a problem. Furher, as I have pointed out in other posts, the CPD is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, which under IRS rules cannot endorse candidates OR be partisan in any form. The only way to be non-partisan is to include them all, as a DC court has recently ruled. IF the AZ court finds that the CPD is being partisan, then the status of the CPD is thrown into doubt and the whole house of cards comes crashing down at the federal level.

You also fall into the trap that the CPD put forward, that only candidates with enough "public support" can get in, and that support is gauged by polls that are rigged to only mention their candidates anyway, which isn't accurate, so the requirement becoems self-fulfilling. Then you complain about why a lot of the public has not heard of the LP? Where do you think the D/R party would be if the media blacked them out? Why does Nader get so much press, especially in states where he isn't on the ballot!, when he is on less ballots than Badnarik and enjoys less support? It makes no sense UNLESS there is something deliberate going on.

So the problem is that nobody hears of the LP, nobody covers them because nobody has heard of them, and nobody has heard of them becasue nobody covers them, and the cycle continues unabated, simply becasue most people don't have the time to do their own research to fidn out simply because they are too busy busting their a$$es to make ends meet to satisify the ridiculous tax burden imposed by the D/R party. Then they compound the insanity by voting for the schmucks who tax them so much in the first place!

This is the uphill battle we have to deal with, and people like you don't help any and actually contribute to the problem (and your own bankruptcy!).

Re:What?

[LP Hyperactivist]

Parties whose candidates can win the White House:

Democrat
Republican
Libertarian
Green
Consti tution (under varous names mentioned above)

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.

Re:What?

[overunderunderdone]

how exactly is a third party candidate supposed to garner 15% support if NONE of the major polling & media is mentioning, asking, or offering our candidates as actual CHOICE

By getting to the minimal amount of support that gets them to start paying attention to you. It's not the polling organizations job to do your marketing/campaigning for you. It's not the governments job to force them to. It's YOUR job! Your failure to do so is not THEIR fault. Ralph Nader is mentioned by name in almost every single major poll. His campaign is getting fairly decent coverage (considering his poll numbers) in the major media. Stop whining and looking for an electoral handout. If you can't find a way to break through and get the coverage you crave that is nobodies fault but your own. Other third parties have done it, your failure to do so is YOUR failure to do so.

But, politics are too complicated for lots of choices.... the LIE that there are only two evil choices

These two statements display the fundamental failure to understand the current system common to third-party advocates. In this election cycle there were ELEVEN major candidates with a decent chance of victory representing a reasonably wide variety of views. (Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich, Gephardt, Lieberman, Braun, and Bush). To be fair that list tilts toward many "progressive" choices but not many libertarian or conservative ones - because Bush was a consensus candidate from that axis established four years earlier when the choices included (Bush, Alexander, Bauer, Keyes, Dole, Forbes, Hatch, McCain, and Quayle as well as Gore and Bradley) - Plenty of choices there. Badnarik could have been among them, it's that he couldn't WIN and that he didn't bother trying. The hard-core, doctrinaire, uncompromising Libertarian position just isn't shared by enough people to get a majority of the votes. It COULD compromise with other factions with which they agree on SOME general principles and build a winning COALITION - but they are too pure, to ideological, they refuse to compromise to a degree sufficient to get support beyond those very few voters that agree on almost every particular. Consequently the 1-2% support they get at the polls is a pretty accurate reflection of their actual support. If you demand ideological purity you will only get the votes of the ideologically pure... sadly for you that is only a tiny fraction of the electorate that is not worth the bother of including in the polls or in most news stories.

When you are serious about winning 50% +1 vote and willing to make the compromises required to get all those people with diverse views to vote for you come back and complain about being shut out of the system. While you are shutting YOURSELF out don't whine to me about how "unfair" it is.

Re:What?

[SandiConoverJones]

Many polls ask who the participants support, and list Kerry, Bush, and sometimes Nader. It is rather comical when they are conducting statewide polls in states that Nader lacks ballot access, and they list him as an option. When you poll an area, list all of the options available to those voters!

All too frequently the first exposure to the lion's share of the candidates is what appears on the actual ballot itself. The election laws, due to fairness juggle the order of the names on the ballot, so as not to consistently give one candidate the advantage of being listed first, but if your first exposure to a candidate is just as a name you have never heard on the ballot, that's hardly going to be a fair shake.

In my city, at least, I have seen the media actively avoid reporting on 3rd party candidates. If a presidential candidate can make 6 passes through a major metropolitan area, without a mention in either of 2 daily papers, or the plethora of local television news stations, this is an active, not passive, blackout.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://usloonyparty.tripod.com/

This is the closest thing the US has :|

Re:What?

[Undertaker43017]

The 15% rule is not a reasonable test. Any candidate that has gotten themselves on enough ballots to be able to win the electorial vote, should be allowed to debate.

Having more real debate should never be discouraged, unfortunately the two primary parties, in the US, have hijacked the process and have limited debates that produce meaningless diatribe and sound bites.

The most important thing to the RNC and the DNC is that they stay in control, who actually wins the whitehouse (or congressional seats) is secondary to this goal.

It would be interesting to watch the 15% rule climb, if a third party ever gets within 5% of it.

Being a minority and having "limited appeal" should NEVER be a reason to exclude, the US was founded on better principles than that!!!

Re:What?

[overunderunderdone]

Ultimately it doesn't matter to the judge how unfair life is to you. The rules set by the CPD are non-partisan, they don't "endorse" either candidate. The CPD does not conduct the polls you complain about which DO in fact mention third party candidates (Nader is in almost every poll), they aren't the TV networks or Newspapers that don't pick up your story (there ARE stories though their rare frequency reflect your small level of support). The pollsters DO start asking about third party candidates when those candidates start exhibiting in other forums a level of support or relevance that makes them worth asking about. In the every one of the past four elections we have had third parties break through displaying enough popular support in other forums to EARN the notice of pollsters and the MSM: Perot in 1992 and 1996, Nader in 2000 and again in 2004. Get just 5% and you get federal funds next time (if the Libertarians would accept them)

The Libertarian party DOES get coverage, the chance to make their case and win support. Here we are on a pretty popular site talking about Badnarik and not Jack Grimes from the United Fascist Union who is also running this year (supposedly he came in 6th last time). Where is your outrage that he has been refused the chance to be at the debates? Where is the outrage that his name is not mentioned in the polls or by the major media? You aren't outraged about it nor should you be... he's a laughable fringe candidate running an exercise in ideological vanity instead of a campaign. In other words he could just as well be a Libertarian (or a Green, Natural Law, Socialist, Constitutionalist, etc. etc. etc.)

Breaking into a market dominated by two huge rivals consisting of vast coalitions which in their bowels already HAVE component parts that represent your unique appeal is a tough possibly impossible business. I understand your frustration, but I don't see why anyone should be compelled to go out of their way to make it any easier for you. If the two parties utterly failed to reflect a large body of impassioned opinion out there that you did you would start to get the numbers to FORCE the system to notice you... Sadly, that just isn't the case. Libertarian support is what it is, there isn't a huge untapped reservoir of libertarian sentiment just waiting to hear your message at the debate. What does exist are libertarian voters that are imperfectly satisfied voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats because they realize their viewpoint isn't going to get to 50%+1 without allying themselves with, and compromising with, followers of other ideologies with which they can find *some* common ground. EVERYONE "holds their nose" on election day and votes for the lesser of two (or three, or four, or sixteen) evils not because the system is broken but because 50% +1 of the people don't ALL AGREE on everything, the best anyone can hope for is a minimally acceptable consensus which is exactly what the two party system provides in it's messy, idiosyncratic way.

Re:What?

[overunderunderdone]

The 15% rule is not a reasonable test. Any candidate that has gotten themselves on enough ballots to be able to win the electorial vote, should be allowed to debate.

I agree that it is nearly insurmountable. Still it's not indefensible. If you can't get at least 15% support you aren't running to win, only to make a point or be a spoiler. In other words you aren't a serious candidate though your political goals or "point" may be quite serious indeed. It's not unreasonable for the debate commission to limit the debate to only those candidates who are trying to win. It's not unreasonable for those candidates that are serious about actually winning to disdain and attempt to marginalize those that aren't or who are at most only trying to play the spoiler.

Being a minority and having "limited appeal" should NEVER be a reason to exclude, the US was founded on better principles than that!!!

This is the problem I have with third-parties. The two party system does NOT exclude you from exerting influence or even winning significant victories for your "party". You are only excluding YOURSELF. The time for "parties" with limited appeal to make their case is during the *primaries*. Badnarik could run in the Republican primary and with his positions win a fair number of votes, perhaps even win. At the very least he could get his delegates to the convention that would move the larger coalition closer to his position. But he doesn't want to sully hia ideologically pure self with odious compromises, "selling out." But, until we all conform to one common opinion compromise is what democratic government is all about... only dictators can govern without compromise. Third party candidates reflect in their disdain for the dirty compromises of democratic coalition building just a hint of the dictatorial, the desire to have their way and to hell with the vast majority that disagrees. They delude themselves with the illusion that "the people" deep down inside "really" agree with whatever fringe ideology the third party represents "if only they could hear our message". That just doesn't cut it, especially for the Libertarians. Libertarian (small "l") ideology is VERY well represented, widely accepted, and ably argued in our culture. It's known and understood by large numbers of voters very many of whom are even aware of the Libertarian (big "L") party... They still don't get the votes or public support as a party because even though voters ARE aware of the arguments, and the party, the voters either don't agree with them (the majority) or don't support them because they know that the Libertarians would never accept the compromises necessary to actually WIN - and those small "l" libertarians want to at least exert SOME influence. The Libertarian party's preference for uncompromising irrelevance is their undoing, not their failure to get press attention.

Re:What?

[Undertaker43017]

"Badnarik could run in the Republican primary and with his positions win a fair number of votes, perhaps even win."

I seriously doubt he would get many votes at all, for at least three reasons:

1: He isn't a career politician.
2: The pro-choice stance would be quashed by the religious right.
3: The current "starve the beast" mentality in the RNC wouldn't fit at all with the hallmark of libertarians, (L) or (l).

I don't agree with all of the LP's tatics (Badnarik getting himself arrested was not a good thing), but I can't vote for Bush or Kerry, IMO neither is qualified for the job. My hope is that the LP will gain enough support in some key areas to make the RNC take notice and start heading back to their roots. Like you I believe that MANY people have (l) views and if enough (L) vote for Badnarik and potentially cost Bush the race, maybe the RNC will wake up.

Re:What?

[Kirsha]

Thank you very much.

Re:What?

[overunderunderdone]

1: He isn't a career politician.

He is now.

2: The pro-choice stance would be quashed by the religious right.

Opposition is part of democracy. It's your job to try and win, not give up without trying because your opponents don't just lie down for you. If he can't muster enough support to at least make a good showing in a low turnout election against a field crowded with pro-lifers dividing that vote his support is pitiful and he shouldn't bother with the charade.

3: The current "starve the beast" mentality in the RNC wouldn't fit at all with the hallmark of libertarians, (L) or (l).

Why not? It is a tactic to achieve a libertarian end (smaller government), through a libertarian means (lower taxes). Seems like the ultimate libertarian policy. It's not a deficit hawk's policy but there are plenty of libertarians that aren't deficit hawks, some that are explicitly against deficit hawks because they see deficits as having a useful political side-effect related to "starving the beast"... It's a built in argument to oppose any government program. (Granted most would want the deficit to be a reasonable fraction of gross GDP.)

Like you I believe that MANY people have (l) views and if enough (L) vote for Badnarik and potentially cost Bush the race, maybe the RNC will wake up

One of the fundamental rules of politics is you take what you can get when you can get it because you never know what the future holds. Intentionally going down to defeat to set the stage for some future victory almost always backfires. Who knows what policies the Presidency of an unreconstructed statist liberal like Kerry would bring... once you go down the path of entitlement spending going back is utterly impossible. Also, who knows what chances you will have to defeat him next time?

Re:What?

[GigsVT]

Nader has far less support than the Libertarians. Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states... Nader is on the ballot in far fewer states (34). You argue against yourself with you say that Nader is a relevant candidate, and somehow a massively more popular Libertarian isn't.

Mystery solved!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pigs really are flying out my ass.

I know one reason to exclude him.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about excluding him because he and his party are IRRELEVANT.

Look, I'm a libertarian myself, but it's a waste of time and money to split the debates up THREE ways when the third person has zero chance of being elected and almost the same pathetic chance of not even getting a full one percent of the vote.

Really, if you're going to let the libertarian in, why not let everyone in? Why not have a 400 person debate? Why limit it to just those candidates who are viable contenders?

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[dh003i]

firstly, the libertarian party is the largest 3rd party. And your suggestion is ridiculous hysteria. If we let a third person in the debate, why not just have a 400 person debate is a ludacrous leap. Maybe the top 4 contendors, or whatever.

Locking out third parties permanently prevents them from getting elected, as they can't even bring up the issues which our two Socialist parties -- the communists on the left and the fascists on the right -- won't bother with or are in agreement with eachother on. There is very little significant difference between a Dem and a Rep.: both don't think that people are capable of running their own lives, and think that they're better fit to run everyone's lives than everyone else is fit to run their own lives.

The importance here is it allows for a real debate, and for topics to be brought up that may start eroding at the cartel Dems and Republicans have created to systematically keep third parties out of contention.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[crimethinker]

I hope you're trolling; then you're just mean instead of dangerously stupid.

Badnarik is on the ballot in AZ, along with Bush and Kerry. The debate is in AZ, with AZ taxpayer money. Logically, then, it seems like he should be in the debate. But then again, I want Badnarik to embarass the hell out of Bush and Kerry. I'd feel the same way if it was Ralph Nader or any of the other third-party candidates. I want any third-party candidate in there to show the public how nearly indistinguishable the two major parties are these days.

-paul

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make you a deal. Anyone who is projected to get at least 5% of the national vote gets to be in the debate. Simple enough.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[Icyfire0573]

Back in the 1800's? We still had a more or less 2 party system, however there was a lot of dissatifsaction with the issues they were contending with. There a came a 3rd party that was bringing up the issues that the other 2 were avoiding. This party did get a large percentage of the vote and shifted US Politics. It is a good thing to have a 3rd party because they bring up issues that the other 2 parites would otherwise avoid

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[renehollan]

Anyone who csan theoretically capture enough electors should be invited to debate. IIRC, that makes 6 candidates.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[v4mpyr]

Yes... and what a lot of people like to forget is that the third party was the Republicans.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be a black lesbian jew president before there is a non democrat/republican president.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[Anonymous Coward]

The libertarians can start their own debates. The debates in question are privately sponsored events by the two parties that are engaging in them. They are not meant to be open to everyone but, rather, a venue for the dominating parties to engage one another before the public. Just like the two of them started their own debates, the libertariants are free to start their own. It's a free country.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[SecretMethod70]

1) they ARE having their own debates with other third party candidates, and inviting the two major candidates

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 :(

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[burns210]

Simple, people.

the RDC makes the rules for who qulifies, they are:
1.must be legally eligable per the Constitution's requirements.
2.must be on enough state ballots to mathmatically win the election(theoretically)
3.must be able to represent(through the average of 5 polls) that you have 15% or more of the electoral college's support.

Dropping #3 from the list would let in a whopping... 4 third-party candidates. Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Indepdent(nader) along with GOP and Democratic party.

This would be roughly equal to the Democratic primary debates, which hosted ~6 candidates.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[SandiConoverJones]

Ok, whose poll do we go by?

I could do a poll to get any result that I want! I could eliminate Kerry from the running, if I run my poll by the right group!

Polls are b.s. Go by qualifications, he who has sufficient ballot access to have the potential to win, this is a 6 man race in this case.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[SandiConoverJones]

You state that you are a libertarian. If you would step up and become a real Libertarian, if you really believe in the ideals behind the Libertarian party, the party would stand a better chance. You are sporting a defeatist attitude. You sound like a poser. I suspect that you simply choose to call yourself libertarian to be out of the mainstream. If you tire of being a poser, go to http://www.lp.org/, pay your dues, and trade that little 'l' for a real 'L'

Wearing the big 'L' feels much better!

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whee. Over representation is great, isn't it? What if all of the losers from the Rep and Dem primaries ran as 3rd parties and managed to get on the ballots in enough states ... would you complain about over representation by the Rep or Dems? The 15% part keeps the number of participants sane and discourages over representation. Why should a guy with 1% support get 12.5% showing? (if we allow 8 candidates to debate)? The Rep and Dem primary losers have more support than many of these guys.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[dh003i]

The entire system has been rigged to prevent competition to the two main parties, which are cartelized. It is entirely illegitimate bs.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that presumes that the University gets nothing for the taxpayer money, and is holding the debate entirely for the benefit of the two major parties. Such as increased national visibility, and credibility, particularly in light of its reputation as a place to get laid and wasted as opposed to a place of higher learning. Or that the debate will bring the current and future most powerful man in the world before their student body.

It's the same kind of tortured reasoning involved in things like Title IX. This debate is an investment. The inclusion of a loser who hasn't run seriously (sorry lame stunts that get you arrested do not a campaign make) and perhaps can't run seriously makes the debates less relevent. A less relevent debate brings a potentially much smaller return on the university's image investment.

Are the republicans or democrats less than horrible? No. And the real tragedy is there are issues that get kicked to the curb, and there is room for them. But the Libertarians are nearly in total unworkable idealists or outright jokes, much like the Greens and Socialist Workers party or whatever they are.

They're not serious about government. They're not serious about fielding real canidates capable of dealing with the problems of government. They're not serious about attracting the capital to promote them as an option. They're just serious about going through the motions enough to get a spot on the ballot. But otherwise they're content to sulk in their cloistered communities and cloak themselves in victimhood. The truth is they almost have to. A lot of their ideas won't survive contact with the real world, and they just can't suffer giving them up.

I'll sign the petition to get their canadate a spot on the ballot, but if they can't go the extra mile to put someone electable in that slot, they won't get my support or my vote.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[Politburo]

If we let a third person in the debate, why not just have a 400 person debate is a ludacrous leap. Maybe the top 4 contendors, or whatever.

What criteria do you use? If you use any criteria, how is it not as unfair as it is now? Exclusion is exclusion. At some point, people are going to have to be excluded to make it practical. Even if you exclude by ballot access, it is unfair. Just because a candidate is not on the ballot in a state does not mean that people cannot vote for them.

This isn't an argument for a continuance of 2 party debates. I just wanted to point out that the general argument of 'It's unfair' will always apply to somebody. If the "major 3rd parties" (Green, Libertarian) were allowed in the debates, we would have a new class of parties. The '4th parties' would be the Constitution Party, Reform Party, Natural Law, Socialists, etc.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[dh003i]

as many as you can have while having a meaningful debate (they can give longer answers than yes/no).

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[rleibman]

I agree with you. But THEORETICALLY, anyone who has a chance of getting one electoral vote CAN be elected, if anyone fails to get a majority of electoral votes, the vote goes to house of reps, who may decide to choose any of the possible candidates.

Re:I know one reason to exclude him.

[renehollan]

By that reasoning why should anyone with less than 50% support get more than 50% representation? Gee, I guess we should have debates with one or no candidates.

And, just how do you measure "support", anyway?

The best idea I can come up with is being on the ballot.

Bad Idea

[I_Love_Pocky!]

Until a third party has a chance of winning, they shouldn't be in the debate. This would just be a waste, because most people don't care what he has to say. Besides, why his party? Why not the Greens, and the Communists too?

I think the two party system is broken, but this isn't the way to fix it. A debate should be between two candidates for it to be really effective. To fix this I would propose that there should be a run off with all of the candidates, and then the two candidates with the most votes should debate, and a final vote should be done to decide between the two. That would be the real way to bring third party candidates to the table. Until something like this happens, trying to pretend like the third parties have a chance is just a joke and a waste of everyone's time.

Re:Bad Idea

[v4mpyr]

Actually, all you need to have a chance of winning is to be on enough ballots to potentially win 270 electoral votes. There are six candidates who meet that qualification this year:

# Badnarik
# Bush
# Cobb
# Kerry
# Nader
# Peroutka

IMHO they should all be allowed to debate if they can rustle up enough support to make it on the ballots. The second requirement, high polling, is irrelevant because of it does not accurately represent the will of the people. That part should be eliminated.

Re:Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Canada has four-party debates.

Re:Bad Idea

[nocomment]

wouldn't the debate actually give the 3rd parties a greater chance at this? I think most people havn't even heard of this guy, or any of his issues...perhaps if they did it would give a bigger rise to the 3rd party candidates.

Re:Bad Idea

[I_Love_Pocky!]

I still don't think a debate is effective with more than two people. Inviting all of those listed, and giving them all a chance to speak would really cut down on the number and scope of the questions that could be asked. Hence my belief that we should change the system to give every party a chance to be in the final two.

Re:Bad Idea

[ComputerSlicer23]

I'm going to have to disagree there. First, he is actually on the ballot on the state in question. That is why the greens shouldn't be nor the communists (by the way, they are the socialist party, I've never heard of a communist party actually existing in the US). Feel free to correct me on that one. My friend was the president recently, and treasury before that, of the socialist party (he's a nut case, I don't believe any of his politics by the way).

Second, I would suggest that getting the third party candidate on the debate is probably silly. However, I would suggest that the other alternative, of not using government/tax payer money is a grand idea. It's just silly that the Democrats and Republicans can run debate and then use public money to finance the damn thing. It's silly. They can easily put up the money themselves.

I know I'd be unhappy on a tax payer in that state. Finally, getting a third party candidate wouldn't be a bad idea, if only because it could introduce a lot of the public to a third party candidate for the first time in a long while. Other then Ross Perot, I don't believe there has been a legitimate candidate in my life time. I'd love to see them get a chance to be on prime time. They have a lot of good ideas, and can challenge the existing candidates from another point of view. If only to see how the major candidates respond to them.

Kirby

Re:Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada also has frigid winters, and burning submarines. Who cares what some third-world nation does?

Re:Bad Idea

[v4mpyr]

Why do I see a presidential debate reality show in the future? Throw all the candidates on a barren island with nothing more than a can of tuna and roll of dental floss. The last one to be voted off gets to be President. :)

Re:Bad Idea

[Profane MuthaFucka]

They also have abundant beer, and that's why we should care.

Re:Bad Idea

[finkployd]

Well, arguably depending on your age you may have never seen a real presidential debate. since 1988 they have been little more than staged press releases.

I've seen many debates on a smaller scale that involved more than two people, and they worked fine. I agree there has to be some arbitrary limit, but 2 seems awfully restrictive, especially when you take into account the two total losers we ended up with. 3 or 4 would at least give you better odds on seeing someone actually worth voting for, rather than against.

Finkployd

Re:Bad Idea

[finkployd]

Besides, why his party? Why not the Greens, and the Communists too?

Why not indeed. I say have a four or five way debate. However if you are wondering why Libertarian rather than the others, it is because they are by far the most successful third party in the US at the moment.

Finkployd

Re:Bad Idea

[hackwrench]

On what evidence/logic do you reach this conclusion. On the other hand, it's not like the debate is effective now. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4052162

Re:Bad Idea

[Dachannien]

Isn't that a catch-22? A third party candidate can't get in the debate until he has a chance of winning. A third party candidate can't reasonably be expected to win unless he is able to participate in the debate. The current debate system is designed to leverage that catch-22 against third party candidates and to keep the RNC and DNC in firm control.

Re:Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Pocky, didn't you post this exact same comment before?

Re:Bad Idea

[I_Love_Pocky!]

I don't think so. I don't recall ever posting about this before, but I may have. I have always felt this way, so it is possible I posted similarly at another time.

By the way, does anyone know why my post got modded troll? I wasn't trolling. I really feel that way.

Re:Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

A third party candidate can't get in the debate until he has a chance of winning. A third party candidate can't reasonably be expected to win unless he is able to participate in the debate.

I suppose you'll say that Ross Perot is the exception that proves the rule.

And a better question is how many voters change their votes based on the debates?

Re:Bad Idea

[burns210]

That would be an interesting job... Treasurer of the American Socialist party. Heh. Good times.

Re:Bad Idea

[burns210]

Not entirely.

Just because the Libertarian candidate wasn't invited to the debate, doesn't mean he isn't able to get himself on the state's ballot. The Libertarian, along with the Green and Constitution parties(and independent candidate Nader) all are on enough state ballots to theoretically win the election.

The qulification the debate commission is holding against this candidate(all 4 of the 'major' 3-parties) is that you need a significant(15% i believe) support in the polls. Along with the mathmatical ability to win(check) and legal eligability(check).

There is just the 1 rule that is holding these 4 gentleman back, one i think should be revoked.

Re:Bad Idea

[SandiConoverJones]

If you notice, Badnarik and Cobb were arrested together. the 3rd party candidates do work together, and have debated between and among themselves. You just may not have noticed.

Re:Bad Idea

[SandiConoverJones]

Until the 3rd parties can get exposure and coverage, how do you propose that they become viable candidates?

How are 3rd party candidates, the only ones willing to actually take stands on issues wasting your time? When the 3rd party candidates actually answer questions, it sometimes forces the major party candidates to actually admit, and state a position. That is a public service in and of itself, and would be well worth the inclusion of the 3rd parties just to serve that role. But, in reality 3rd parties offer more. Once people quit voting for their lesser of evils candidates, and feel as if their voice may actually matter, and vote their minds, we will get a better caliber of candidates across the board.

Think of it like taking software out of the hands of a monoplistic megolith, and opening it to the free market, and getting better options.

Are you actually backing our current duopoly? I should prefer more choices, real choices. It's like saying with MS, you have a choice, XP home, or XP Pro! They both stink, as do the current Republican and Democratic parties.

Re:Bad Idea

[SandiConoverJones]

What about John Anderson in 1980? He was a real candidate, with a decent showing at the polls. He was not my choice of candidates, but he did fare reasonably well for a 3rd party candidate.

Re:Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really need to be on the ballot to win? I would imagine that if enough people write in a candidate, then that person could get electoral votes from a state regardless of whether or not they were actually on the ballot.

Re:Bad Idea

[mikebellman]

Yep. MS stinks. I'm a Mac user too. The mainstream is for tourists. (I'll admit I am lazy and just hate CLI) Voting third party means never having to say you're sorry.

Re:Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

However if you are wondering why Libertarian rather than the others, it is because they are by far the most successful third party in the US at the moment.

It is because the Libertarians are one of the three political parties that Arizona recognizes. The country-wide success of the party has nothing to do with it, just their standing within the state.

Re:Bad Idea

[neurojab]

>Actually, all you need to have a chance of winning is to be on enough ballots to potentially win 270 electoral votes.

Technically, it is not necessary to be on the ballot in any state in order to win. We've always had the "write-in" option. I guess it depends on what you define as "a chance" but if Arnold can be the Governator, anything is possible. :)

That said, you do have a point. It's rather un-democratic to only invite the Democrats and the Republicans to the debates. However, being that the CPD is COMPOSED of two interests... the Democrats and Republicans, there's little chance they will every invite a third party, high polling or not. What is really needed is an independent organization such as the League of Women Voters (that ran the debates until the CPD was formed) to run the debates again. An independant organization could select candidates based on voter interest. The CPD was formed to wrest the debates from the LWV with the express intention of eliminating third party competition after Perot was seen as throwing a wrench into the two party duopoly.

We can make up any rules about inviting people to the debates we want, but it's all irrelevant until an independant organization takes over the debates once again.

Re:Bad Idea

[drneil1]

Why third party candidates are excluded:

http://www.debates.org/pages/news_041006.html

CPD Announces Application Of Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria For October 13, 2004 Debate

The non-partisan, non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") announced today that it has applied its Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria for 2004 General Election Debate participation to determine eligibility to participate in the presidential debate to take place at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona on October 13, 2004.

Pursuant to the criteria, which were publicly announced on September 24, 2003, those candidates qualify for debate participation who (1) are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (2) have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and (3) have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results.

The Board of Directors of the CPD convened today to apply the criteria with the assistance of the Editor-In-Chief of the Gallup Polling Organization, Dr. Frank Newport. Of the declared candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry were found to have satisfied all three criteria. Accordingly, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry qualify to participate in the October 13 presidential debate. No other candidates satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the October 13 debate.

The candidates who have qualified to participate today previously have committed to participate in the debates sponsored by the CPD.

As previously announced, President Bush and Senator Kerry will participate on October 8 in a town meeting-style debate sponsored by the CPD. That debate will take place on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Re:Bad Idea

[finkployd]

Ummmmm, I did notice, but nobody was talking about that. This was about the Libertarian Suit.

Finkployd

Re:Bad Idea

[SandiConoverJones]

The Democrats and Republicans have been under threat from 3rd party candidates for the past few decades, with John Anderson in 1980, then Ross Perot etc. To protect their chances, they have to do everything in their power to keep it down to two parties in charge. They'd rather have a two

I'll use an analogy from another area. Just a short while ago, it was said that there wasn't room in the market for a 4th television network, but alas, the FOX network was born. It is thriving quite well, much to the dismay of ABC, CBS and NBC. Since the success of FOX, UPN and WB have been born.

Our political landscape is due for the same sort of shake-up and invigoration. The current Republican platform boils down to "We're less Socialist then the Democrats!" Kerry's platform through this whole campaign has not been to take a stand on the issues, as he changes his stands by the clock ticks. His stand has been, "Well, I'm not Bush!" To these platforms I scream, "That's not good enough!" If I never take a stand, and use my vote to vote against both twits, how are they to know that I am not satisfied with the options at hand? By spending my vote on my candidate of choice, then the viability of my party of choice is increased, and the next election, those afraid of throwing their vote away, may leave the safety of the lesser of evils vote, and vote their conscience. Imagine, a world in which you vote for a candidate who actually embraces, and embodies your views. Can you see how much participation in the system may increase if people actually felt as if they had a choice, a choice that made a difference, and mattered? With real choices, much of the voter apathy would evaporate.

Re:Bad Idea

[Politburo]

Our political landscape is due for the same sort of shake-up and invigoration. The current Republican platform boils down to "We're less Socialist then the Democrats!" Kerry's platform through this whole campaign has not been to take a stand on the issues, as he changes his stands by the clock ticks. His stand has been, "Well, I'm not Bush!" To these platforms I scream, "That's not good enough!"

And no one heard you, because you're talking to nonexistant platforms. Try reading them for a change. I'm serious. Go read both platforms, and then come back here and see if you can repeat your assertions with any amount of intellectual honesty.

Can you see how much participation in the system may increase if people actually felt as if they had a choice, a choice that made a difference, and mattered?

If you don't think the choice between Kerry and Bush will make a difference, you're brain dead. You may not like the alternative to Bush, but it will make a huge difference, mark my words.

Re:Bad Idea

[SandiConoverJones]

If you don't think the choice between Kerry and Bush will make a difference, you're brain dead. You may not like the alternative to Bush, but it will make a huge difference, mark my words.

I do have a lesser of evils candidate between Bush and Kerry, but he is just that, a lesser of evils.

• Both are out to spend money like mad.
• Both have international interventionist policies that will send my 4 sons to war.
• Both have domestic interventionist policies that impinge upon my freedoms.

They may choose to spend the money confiscated from the taxpayers in slightly different ways, but they both are heavy spenders.

I am seeking a fiscal conservative. Bush is far from a fiscal conservative. I do realize that the legislative branch spends money. The president's role in spending is to veto the overspending. The idea of getting Kerry, the #1 most liberal member of Congress, and Edwards, the #4 most liberal member of Congress away from the checkbook may not be an all bad situation.... I can be sure that he'd never veto any spending as president, but taking away check writing privileges might not be an all bad idea!

Making me reconsider the WCS in a more positive light... Religious whacko Bush, vs. Kerry the spender...

Re:Bad Idea

[Politburo]

The idea of getting Kerry, the #1 most liberal member of Congress, and Edwards, the #4 most liberal member of Congress away from the checkbook may not be an all bad situation

While Kerry and Edwards are clearly liberal, the numbers you cite are skewed because they are based only on the 108th Congress, when both Kerry and Edwards were on the campaign. They may also include procedural votes.

I can be sure that he'd never veto any spending as president, but taking away check writing privileges might not be an all bad idea!

You can see the future? Who wins the World Series? You're so busy looking into your crystal ball that you forgot the past: it was Clinton who was President when the budget was last balanced. Move away from your labels and into reality, please. Cheney frequently tries to hit Kerry for voting against defense spending in the 80s and 90s, but now he's a big spender? Which one is it? (FYI, Cheney was against the same spending Kerry was against in those time periods)

Also, Bush has not vetoed one single bill, spending or otherwise.

I'm not sure where you get your information, but you should use more sources.

Re:Bad Idea

[SandiConoverJones]

As I previously stated, I am seeking a fiscal conservative, and neither Bush-Cheney nor Kerry-Edwards are fiscally responsible. This is why I cannot espouse the election of either of those options!

Re:Bad Idea

[Politburo]

It's fine that you do not support either candidate. All I ask is that your support or non-support for any candidate be based on facts, not misrepresentations and assumptions.

Re:Bad Idea

[Inebrius]

What I would like to see is a single debate that includes all the parties that have a potential to win, regardless of likelihood. If that number is 6, so be it.

After that debate, which should be the first televised debate, I wouldn't mind so much if they used the CPD 3rd criteria of 15%. At least it would offer the 3rd party candidates an opportunity to promote their platform and afford the public a greater opportunity to see a real debate beyond choice A or B only.

Your Rights Online?

[FooAtWFU]

Why is this filed under YRO? I thought we had a Politics section for this sort of stuff. I remember blocking it in my prefrences with multiple shiny check-boxes.

Re:Your Rights Online?

[v4mpyr]

It was submitted under politics. :)

Re:Your Rights Online?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter. The POLITICS section will show up even if you block it in your preferences. It's a known bug that was filed MONTHS ago.

Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[mind21_98]

I believe you need a certain percentage of the popular vote to be able to debate. Unless this isn't part of federal law, he won't win. Simple as that.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[anthony_dipierro]

The debate is being run by a taxpayer funded school, and the state constitution explicitly forbids tax money to go to be used to benefit a political party. So federal law has little to do with it, it's a state constitutional issue, and he's likely to win.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[jmauro]

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).

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[eht]

Popular vote? The popular vote has nothing to do with elections in the US.

For the rest of my comment I'll steal liberally from this post

There are six candidates who meet the qualification this year of winning enough ballots to potentially win 270 electoral votes:

# Badnarik
# Bush
# Cobb
# Kerry
# Nader
# Peroutka

So they should all be allowed to be at the debate.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[jmauro]

The debates are not publicly funded so the Libs are bound to lose this case. The debate commission is an private independant nonprofit run by the Democratic and Republic parties. The commission is paying for everything involved with the debate including the rental of the building and for the debate to occur in and other security costs that would be incured. The state of Arizona is spending exactly 0 dollars in this whole operation.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[v4mpyr]

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. :)

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[v4mpyr]

'fund,' not 'find.'

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[jmauro]

Except without state approprations the state of Arizona is spending 0 tax dollars. ASU has already collected $2.5 million in donations and other fees to cover the entire cost of the debate.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[anthony_dipierro]

The state of Arizona is spending exactly 0 dollars in this whole operation.

Somehow I doubt this case would have been brought to court if that were true. But we'll see whether or not the court buys this argument.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[jmauro]

Cases are brought before courts all the time that are not true in the slightest way, shape, or form. It is the goal of the courts to figure out what is true during the proceedings, not before the proceedings.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[anthony_dipierro]

Actually, the court is being asked to figure out what is true before the proceedings in this case. That's what a temporary injunction is, and reading the details I think they've got a good chance of getting one. Arizona certainly funds Arizona State University, and Arizona State University is clearly spending money on the debates.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[Guppy06]

"I believe you need a certain percentage of the popular vote to be able to debate."

And you need a certain percentage of the popular vote to be recognized as a political party by the State of Arizona. I'd imagine this is a different number used by the CPD. This would be moot except that the corporation in question is accepting money from the State of Arizona in an effort that excludes a political party recognized by said state. You're supposed to meet the state's standards before they're allowed to spend money on you.

"Unless this isn't part of federal law,"

Federal, shmederal. You seem to have forgotten what the word "federal" implies: consituent states are free to operate with a degree of indepencence from the rest of the federation. Unless the Arizona law encroaches on the explicitly delineated powers of the national government, there's nothing anybody in Washington can do about it.

After all, don't forget that the states are still the ones who decide who is an eligible voter and who is not, even in elections for the national government.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[michael_cain]

The debates are not publicly funded so the Libs are bound to lose this case.

If I were the Libertarians, I would make it a point to argue in court that the CPD is using the reputation of ASU. They are using it to foster the image that the debates are important intellectual endeavors. This is the reason that all of the debates are being held at universities; they could as easily have been held in other meeting facilities in Florida, Missouri, and Arizona. But having an announcer say "Tonight, from Arizone State University..." carries more weight than saying "Tonight, from the Hilton Hotel in Phoenix..." There is no question that ASU's reputation has been funded by the public.

The counter argument is that ASU (hence the public that funds it) is receiving something equivalent in value by hosting the debate. The counter to that is that they would receive an equal value by hosting a debate that included all of the candidates on the ballot in Arizona. No one has a clue about what the judge might rule. The fact that he ordered a hearing suggests he thinks there might a valid argument.

Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually ASU paid $750,000 to the CPD (a private corporation) for the priviledge of hosting one of the debates.

ASU is a state university funded by the legislature and other income sources. The legislature didn't need to directly appropriate anything. ASU sought the debates without have outside funding for the debates (or pledges of money) but only said they would "try" to seek funding (read the lawsuit).

I'm not in favor of violating my state constitution and then only when they're caught, trying to buy their way out of it.

Yay!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Just because Libertarians can be really annoying at parties doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a voice in political debates. Count this Democrat as very pleased that the Libertarians may be included in the debates. This is tremendous victory for them, AND for our country as a whole. Inclusiveness is a goal that we have been moving towards for 228 years, in all aspects of our society. This can only be a good thing.

Now, all I have to do is figure out a way from keeping them from bringing up Ayn Rand at my next party as they hang out at the punch bowl...

Re:Yay!

[nocomment]

Count this Republican well pleased as well.

Re:Yay!

[renehollan]

Count this Libertarian Very pleased (though, as a non-U.S. citizen, I'm watching this one on the sidelines).

Re:Yay!

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Count this Libertarian Very pleased (though, as a non-U.S. citizen, I'm watching this one on the sidelines).


Or is that "I'll be guiding this one from the sidelines".

Ha! He said big-L Libertarian, not little-l libertarian. That proves that he's a member of the Libertarian Party, but he claims he's not a citizen of the US-- he's from Canada no doubt!! The international big-L Libertarian conspiracy has been exposed.

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the big-L Libertarian party!"

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU! We know who you are and we're watching you.

The International Libertarian Conspiracy.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Libertarian and I'm sick of hearing about Ayn Rand from other Libertarians. The Randites among us need to understand that not all of us have turned objectivism into a religion or turned Rand into an idol for worship.

Besides, everyone knows the best party conversations are about things like induction, artifical intelligence, and quantum mechanics. In that order.

Re:Yay!

[renehollan]

There is a Libertarian Party of Canada. I am a member.

Re:Yay!

[Brandybuck]

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.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some are like Linux geeks eager to "sell" their lifestyle to random party participants.

This from a guy "selling" FreeBSD in his sig. Very cute.

Re:Yay!

[bullitB]

I wonder if you would be so happy if it were Nader who wanted to be number three in the debates.

Most democrats weren't so happy about it last time.

Re:Yay!

[Politburo]

Most democrats weren't so happy about it last time.

Simply because Nader is a liar. There's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? Yeah, just like there's no difference between the Mets and the Yankees, Ralph.

Re:Yay!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

No, I wouldn't be so happy. You ARE insightful, as you have been moderated. And, I am honest.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

This from a guy "selling" FreeBSD in his sig. Very cute

This is Slashdot, not a party. It's "news for nerds", so it's appropriate. And neither is it the equivalent of cornering someone next to the punch bowl and making them take the world's smallest political quiz, or expounding on the philosophy of "A==A"

Re:Yay!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Not all libertarians are annoying at parties.

Hmmmmmm, he missed the joke. This does not help the case that Libertarians are not annoying at parties.

Re:Yay!

[Brandybuck]

No, I didn't miss the joke, but I was sure that others would.

You see, I was at a party once minding my own business, when a friend let slip the news that I was a libertarian. Suddenly people started to edge away from me warily. A bit annoyed at this, asked one what the hell she was doing, because not just five minutes earlier she was ranting about the need for more tolerance in the world. Turns out she did indeed fear that I would start preaching the evils of altruism and advocate personal ownership of nukes. When I managed to convince her that I was not an objectivist, she seemed fascinated. It had never dawned on her that libertarians weren't all lockstep clones of Ayn Rand.

Re:Yay!

[Mr. Slippery]

Simply because Nader is a liar. There's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats?

That was exactly the presentation that Gore and the Democrats gave during the 2000 campaign, when his response to most of Bush's statements in the debates was "I agree". That's not Nader's fault.

Until 2001 our "two party" system was the center of the right, versus the right of the center. No question, though, that in the post-9/11 world the neo-cons have taken over the administration, and they are dangerous freedom-hating fuckers who need to be thrown out of the White House - preferably from a great height and into a tank of water filled with great white sharks, electric eels, piranha, alligators, and a lion.

Re:Yay!

[ebyrob]

Besides, everyone knows the best party conversations are about things like induction, artifical intelligence, and quantum mechanics. In that order.

Come on... what about the parallels between biological systems and computing systems?

Oh, and uh. Amen about the Randites.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on... what about the parallels between biological systems and computing systems?

Oh sure, if you want to bore people.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I managed to convince her that I was not an objectivist, she seemed fascinated. It had never dawned on her that libertarians weren't all lockstep clones of Ayn Rand.

to my friends list you go. - a fellow libertarian whose been attacked for being a randite, just by being identified as a Libertarian.

Um, what?

[KeeperS]

More discussion is bad? What's your objection? Why arbitrarily limit debates to two people?

You're right on one thing, though... a third party doesn't have a chance of winning the presidential election. But that's partially because they have no coverage and no way to get their voice heard. A televised debate could help solve that.

The bottom line is this: Badnarik is on the ballot in enough states to mathematically capture a majority of the electoral votes. Therefore there's no good reason why he shouldn't be allowed to debate with the other candidates. This goes for Cobb, Nader, and Paroutka too.

Good job Timothy

[Anonymous Coward]

Badnarik's arrest was a publicity stunt, but this on the other hand is real news.

Re:Good job Timothy

[SandiConoverJones]

Well, he (Michael Badnarik) is on the ballot in most states, why won't the news media cover him otherwise? How about Cobb? He was arrested with Badnarik? The arrests were bound to happen, as the candidates knew. This explains why, for once, Michael Badnarik was not carrying a firearm! They were well within their rights to act as process servers against the organizers who set-up this bi-partisan infomercial. Oh, 'scuse me, I meant debate.

Re:Good job Timothy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why won't the press cover the LP candidate? Probably because in 2000 Harry Browne got an abysmally low number of votes (compared to Ralph Nader's almost 3,000,000) and because the LP has been around for 30 years now and hasn't had much success in building a movement. Trying to combine issues like privatizing national parks and the roads along with social issues like completely unregulating all drugs (both prescription and recreational) just doesn't have much support from the People. For most people, the perception is that the LP merely represents the INSANE wing of the Republican party. Given that the LP routinely features disaffected Republicans as speakers would seem to support that perception.

The First Amendment gives the LP the right to say what it wants, to peacably assemble, etc etc. It doesn't obligate the press to cover the LP. It doesn't obligate a private "debate" commission to include them. The only hook here is the involvement of a state institution. I also think the FCC, which purports to regulate the public airwaves in the public's interest, ought to exert an effort to get the LP, the Greens, and Nader some "fair" time. However, none of this would require W or Kerry to actually talk to Badnarik or Cobb or Nader, and certainly not in the context of a debate.

My prediction is that even if the court decides the 3rd debate is unconstitutional that they will quickly find a new venue, perhaps even creating a virtual venue similar to how the Sunday morning talk shows often work.

The third parties are being censored!

[isotope23]

I tried to submit this but /. rejected it

At least FOX is censoring its guests. They cannot mention Badnarik on the air.

I emailed one person in question directly here is his reply:

I am the Muslim Outreach Coordinator for the campaign of the Libertarian U.S. presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. On August 20, a staffer for the O'Reilly Factor television show pre-interviewed me for an appearance to give an opposing point of view to O'Reilly's guest Muhammad Ali Hasan, founder of "Muslims for Bush." On the way to the studio to tape the program on August 26, however, I received a call from O'Reilly's staffer informing me that although I would be identified as a Muslim supporter of Badnarik, I must not mention the Libertarian Party or Badnarik's name on the air. I assured the staffer that I would not turn the segment into a Badnarik campaign ad, but objected that preventing me from mentioning Badnarik's name even once would muzzle my main point that one need not support Kerry to oppose Bush. The staffer insisted that I make the point without mentioning either Badnarik's name or that of the Libertarian Party. When I declined to accept these terms, the staffer had the driver they hired take me home.

Another local Muslim with no connection to the Badnarik campaign, Khalid Turaani, was hurried to the studio to take my place. On the air, O'Reilly sought to rebut Turanni's criticism of Bush with criticism of Kerry. Turaani spontaneously replied that, as a conservative, he would never vote for Kerry and intended to vote for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. Watching this turn of events at home, I was reminded of a verse in the Qur'an: "They plotted their plans and God made His plans, and God is the best of planners."

Yours truly, I. Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. Bethesda, MD

below is the link where i first found the story.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/26/ed.co l.nathan.0926.html

Re:The third parties are being censored!

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to submit this but /. rejected it

So how did this post get here then ?

Re:The third parties are being censored!

[Micah]

Wow, thanks for sharing that. I have always loved watching O'Reilly, and I can honestly say he's about the only thing I miss watching now that I don't have a TV. But if what you said is true, my respect for FOX News just went down the toilet.

I support Bush for practical reasons, but there is a lot to like about Badnarik and America needs to hear about him. If FOX, claiming to be "fair and balanced" intentionally pulls that kind of stunt, they should be horribly ashamed of themselves.

A bit about third parties

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

A lot of comments will invariably be about how "broken" the two party system is here in the US.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe we have a two party system for a reason?

A lot of people complain that the two party system gives us a choice between two similar canidates. Well, of course it does. That's the point.

Ww have a two party system because voters are uninformed and can be easily mislead. Combined with the checks and balances system, the federalist system, and the overall difficulty of passing legislation, it is relativly certain that changes are moderate and slow.

The two party system ensures that extremeists like Hitler cannot successfully be elected. Since both parties must field relatively mainstream canidates to have any chance of victory, whoever the public votes for is unlikely to vary substantially from the "norm".

That's why we have a two party system. It is one of many measures designed to prevent radical political change.

Re:A bit about third parties

[Dachannien]

The two-party system wasn't designed at all. It's an emergent part of the electoral system combined with increased national communication of news.

In the Presidential electoral system we have today, a person has to have (in most states) the greatest number of votes of any candidate in order to claim the electoral votes for that state. Naturally falling out of this is the tendency for as few parties as possible to be represented. Since there is at least a variety of views expressed by U.S. voters, there will always be more than one party, so the system will tend to support two parties in most cases.

In the old days, politics were sometimes separated by geographic boundaries, and so a fringe-party candidate representing the interests of the South, for example, might carry a few states in the South. But the population of the U.S. has become homogeneous enough - and improved communication technologies have reduced the boundaries between political ideas enough - that third-party candidates have almost no chance of gaining a foothold anywhere.

This has nothing to do with preventing "extremists like Hitler" from being elected. If anything, the resistance of the government against changing the system is due to an unwillingness to give third parties a chance to gain a foothold.

Re:A bit about third parties

[finkployd]

Oh so it is a checks and balances system. Can you reference where in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc. a two party system is recommended and for what reasons?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no designed reason why we have a two party system. It just evolved that way. I suspect as more and more people get pissed with the two party candidates (which I have never seen so bad as this year, it seems nobody is voting FOR either of these clowns, just against the other clown), then we will see it evolve into a multi party system. We may be seeing the beginning of that now.

Finkployd

Re:A bit about third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

The current system of two predominant parties was never 'designed,' it has emerged as a de-facto standard if anything, but there is no law or regulation supporting or promoting it, officially, as well there should not be. What your argument fails wholly to address is what happens when both parties become equivalently corrupt, or when they both agree to agree on certain issues, or refuse to fight each other, and any questioning of those issues is censored, such as has happened with the so-called War on Drugs and many other ill-fated policies which have been endorsed by both of two parties.

I think you'll find as you look around the world that a number of other countries have been doing well to have more than two parties competing for public office. A two-party system is not the default for most of the world, and I suspect it will not last much longer in the USA, either, unless the parties change their tune dramatically, as voters are getting more and more disenchanted with the Republicrats as years go on.

Perhaps a two-party system wouldn't even be evil for America if the Republicans and Democrats would just go ahead and officially merge into one, as their platforms are already 99% similar anyway, and let a real choice run as the second party. I for one hope that choice would be the Libertarians, as they are the only party running in America in 2004 whose platform even remotely resembles my personal beliefs (and the beliefs of those who founded this country in the first place) in small government and individual freedoms. What use is freedom of religion when we don't even have freedom to choose what we put into our bodies, or whether or not we wear safety belts, and any number of other 'victimless crimes' that the Republicans and Democrats are shoving down our throats from both sides.

Re:A bit about third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

The two party system ensures that extremeists like Hitler cannot successfully be elected.

You also forgot to mention that it ensures extremists like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc... will never be elected.

Since both parties must field relatively mainstream canidates to have any chance of victory, whoever the public votes for is unlikely to vary substantially from the "norm".

Good thing our founding fathers didn't have that system in place. Sometimes the norm needs to be tossed out the window and redefined. If the 2 party system keeps a peaceful revolution from occuring, they will simultaneously ensure that a violent revolution will occur instead.

That's why we have a two party system. It is one of many measures designed to prevent radical political change.

Wrong, the 2 parties evolved, it was not designed this way, at least not by the people. Radical political change should be allowed through the ballot box, or it will inevitably occur through the ammo box.

Re:A bit about third parties

[shanen]

Ridiculous. There were no organized parties at that time, so they did not design with a two-party system in mind.

And Dubya is NOT any sort of moderate, though he was able to pretend to be one on TV in 2000. While Dubya himself is not as bad as Hitler, there is actually significant overlap between some of their supporters. In particular, some of the neocons' ambitions for American imperialism are hauntingly similar to the Nazi's ambitions for the Third Reich. Back in the 30s, no one knew where it would ultimately lead...

Re:A bit about third parties

[SandiConoverJones]

If you look at the last few elections splits between the Democratic and Republican parties, the Republicans won the donor areas, and the Democrats won the recipient areas.

Democrats, with all of their social engineering won the big cities, that get more tax money, than the people who live outside of the big cities. Dig up one of the county by county election maps from 2000.

Re:A bit about third parties

[overunderunderdone]

OK... evolved then. It amounts to much the same thing.

The thing third-party supporters forget about with all the whining about "only two choices" is the PRIMARIES. In this election we had ELEVEN major candidates representing a fairly wide range of views, in 2000 there was an even larger field of major candidates representing an even wider range of views including several fairly libertarian ones.

The primary system is funky, weird, it isn't what you would have if you had a system "designed" by the poli-sci department as a "perfect system" but that is as you said it wasn't "designed" but EVOLVED and continues to do so. I like social systems that evolve rather than those that are "designed" - think about the difference between neighborhoods and the results of "urban renewal" projects designed by the best and the brightest.

The main downside of the primary system is that voters in later states usually "don't have a choice" by the time they get to vote (technically they DO actually, it's just that they already know their guy lost by the time they get to vote). On the other hand that same flaw is also a feature, unknown candidates with no national support have a chance in small, early states to make their case and *build* support to take with them into later states and larger multi-state contests.

The problem I have with third parties is that they are unserious. Nobody agrees with you. That's not your fault, nobody agrees with ANYBODY! The two or three percent that libertarians get isn't THAT far off from their real level of support. Maybe it would triple or even quadruple if everyone who agreed (by and large) voted that way. Whoopdee-do! 12-15%! Not exactly a mandate to rule the remaining 85% of us. Serious groups face the fact that nobody agrees with each other and they work with people they agree with on at least a few issues to build a winning coalition. That is what the two parties are... a whole bunch of loose, smaller parties that can (almost) agree on at least some broad general principles. Every group gets their chance to try and win the primary and have it be THEIR guy that everyone else will "hold their nose" and vote for this time around.

Instead of being serious and trying to move the country towards their ideal, the third-party purists maintain their precious ideological purity, their 2-3% and their whining. I'm sympathetic to many of the Libertarian party's views, I long ago ceased to be sympathetic to their complaints.

Re:A bit about third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be in one of the two parties to go to the primaries at all. Have you seen a primary at work in recent years? Do you really think a lot of decision making goes on there anymore?

Say what you want about this being just a difference of ideology, you're still arguing that America is better off with fewer, more similar choices, in other words that change is bad. If that's your ideology, some kind of ideology of the status quo, forgive some of us for thinking that the status quo is not necessarily better than change. Please, come up with a better reason why a two party system is good for Americans than the bald fact that it restricts our choices to two.

Re:A bit about third parties

[Sylver Dragon]

One minor historical point, while the US has basically had a 2 party system from the get-go, the two parties have changed. Last I checked, the Whigs aren't on the ballot. This is what pushing a third party is really about, is trying to unseat one of the major 2. Failing that, if a third party can capture enough of the vote to get the attention of one of the major parties, it might just effect policy a bit. Sure, for the most part, third parties are the fringe of the political system, but that isn't always true.

Re:A bit about third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

And Dubya is NOT any sort of moderate

Setting aside that I just can't take anybody who calls the President "Dubya" seriously...

Bush passed a largely Democrat-authored education reform bill, added prescription drug coverage to Medicare, and has adopted a Clinton-esque philospohy of "nation-building" into his milirary policy.

His tax cut was miniscule, not even enough to completely roll back the Clinton tax hikes, and offered money back to some people who don't even pay in to the system.

He's conservative, but far less conservative than Reagan was.

Furthermore, it's almost laughable (if it were not so sad) that you would compare the neocons (most of whom are Jewish) to the Nazis. I call Godwin's Law. You lose.

Re:A bit about third parties

[xenoarch]

the two "party" system evolved from two camps that were attracted to Jefferson(Conservative) and Hamilton(Liberal) in how the constituion should be interpreted. From these philsophies came the left and the right. And supporters of each formed parties.

However, in paragraphs 17-25 of Washington's Farewell Address, Washington warns against the concepts of parties. And if the nation must indulge them, having the dominence of two parties foster the idea of vengence between the two that care tear the nation apart. And that parties them self foster a non inclusive feeling within citizens from their own government.

Re:A bit about third parties

[overunderunderdone]

Last I checked, the Whigs aren't on the ballot. This is what pushing a third party is really about, is trying to unseat one of the major 2.

BINGO! this is the ONLY legitimate purpose I see for third parties in our system. They exist at the fringes and can only come to the forefront if the two major parties both refuse to engage an issue of vital importance. The Whigs were wiped out because the Whigs and the Democrats both refused to engage the issue of abolishing slavery. The Republicans did and supplanted the Whigs.

Failing that, if a third party can capture enough of the vote to get the attention of one of the major parties, it might just effect policy a bit.

Sometimes the result of this is more negative than positive, and mildly anti-democratic to boot. The only hope a third party has is to play the spoiler in one election and force the major party that loses on account to shift their way in the next one. Not entirely illegitimate but risky and as likely to backfire in a result that is not only anti-democratic (by letting the candidate from the less popular viewpoint win) but also fails to accomplish any movement towards the third-parties goal.

In general I think third-parties are fine on the fringes, I wish they would engage in serious politics within one (or possibly even both) political parties and only bolt when the situation really warrants it. But, their existence outside does keep the two parties "honest" because if BOTH parties fail to address the issues of a sizeable number of voters a third party can successfully crash the party. I just wish they'd stop whining about how "unfair" it all is in the in-between times when they DON'T have any public support. When the two parties REALLY drop the ball you WILL have that support you crave. When the "dropped ball" argument is only compelling to 2-3% then you are wrong... the major parties DIDN'T drop the ball, at least no so as anyone noticed.

Re:A bit about third parties

[overunderunderdone]

You have to be in one of the two parties to go to the primaries at all.

Not in most states. I'm a registered independent, I can vote in EITHER primary in my state.

Have you seen a primary at work in recent years?

Yes.

Do you really think a lot of decision making goes on there anymore?

Yes, of course there is. see below

Please, come up with a better reason why a two party system is good for Americans than the bald fact that it restricts our choices to two.

Because it DOESN'T. In this past primary a choice was made between a Pro-war, pro-isreali hawk (Lieberman), an extremist black "civil rights' leader (Sharpton), a more moderately toned black liberal (Braun), an ardent trade unionist (Gephardt), a southern populist (Edwards), an anti-war candidate who was otherwise moderate (Dean), an anti-war candidate who was otherwise leftist (Kucinich), an anti-war candidate with strong military background though something of a cipher on other issues (Clarke), and a northeastern liberal with an anti-war history but an ambivalent position on the current war (Kerry), and an idiosyncratic right(ish)-wing nut job (perennial candidate LaRouche.. hey, it's a choice). The northeastern liberal with the ambivalent position on the war won but must now move on to meet another consensus candidate with broad appeal.

The Republican primary went by acclamation to the consensus winner from the last time. This winning by default is NOT guaranteed... there have been many challenges to incumbents when there is a large disaffected constituency. I'm a little surprised that there was no challenge from the isolationist paleo-cons. The fact that there wasn't reveals their electoral weakness. That earlier choice four years ago was made between a black social-conservative extremist (Keyes), a religious-right leader (Bauer), a center-right Mormon (Hatch), a "maverick" Republican running on electoral reform (McCain), a libertarian businessman (Forbes), a center-right governor (Alexander), a moderate (Dole), a social conservative (Quayle), a rather generic conservative (Kasich) and finally a "compassionate" conservative (Bush)

The choices between these dozens of candidates were real decisions made democratically by the voters. They are made in a series of rolling elections that allow for unknowns to win support in small early states and for front-runners to stumble. There is as wide a range of choices as any third-party candidate envisions for the general election but in a way that finally results in two consensus candidates with broad (if not deep) appeal to a wide variety of people and a chance of winning the support of the majority of their countrymen.

Think of the general election as the run-off between these top two contenders from a chaotic clash of dozens of third "parties" which constitute the two larger "major" coalition parties. Inserting minor candidates into this later "run-off" instead of having them participate in the earlier multi-candidate elections doesn't have much utility. Sure the multi-candidate primary within larger parties followed by a two-candidate general election isn't necessarily what a poli-sci professor would work up on paper for a "perfect' system... but it works pretty well, probably because it evolved organically over time rather than being designed by a poli-sci professor. In itself it achieves what you claim to desire, a wide array of choices. The whining of third-parties that refuse to participate in the earlier multi-candidate primary elections is the sour-grapes of losers who don't have the popular support to win, or even have much impact and prefer delusions blaming their lack of support to "unfairness" rather than the simple fact that their views just aren't popular.

Re:A bit about third parties

[Dachannien]

Instead of being serious and trying to move the country towards their ideal, the third-party purists maintain their precious ideological purity, their 2-3% and their whining.

I will admit that I would be far more likely to vote Libertarian except for two major sticking points: one, their views on drug policy; and two, the fact that getting a clear answer from them on environmental policy is difficult.

Oh, I guess there's one other issue, and that's that Ohio is currently being described as a "battleground" state, so I feel like I can't vote on principle when I really need to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Re:A bit about third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, it's almost laughable (if it were not so sad) that you would compare the neocons (most of whom are Jewish) to the Nazis. I call Godwin's Law. You lose.

I call delusioned idiot. What makes Jews incapable of acting like Nazi's? Is there something magical about being a Jew that means you can't act in ways that paralell nazi's? That's fucking ridiculous, unless Jews are some kind of supermen?

This is different than calling them nazis. That poster wasn't saying they were nazi's, only that there were paralells. Besides which, part of Godwins law is "whoever points out that Godwin's Law applies to the thread is considered to have lost the battle". So YOU lose, sucker. Next time educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Re:A bit about third parties

[yourmom16]

I think you meant social welfare, not social engineering, though both make sense in that context

Why does Slashdot...

[flyingsquid]

...seem to favor stories about parties whose chances of winning are statistically indistinguishable from zero?

I'm not complaining about airing a diversity of views- particularly when the mainstream media won't- but the chance is >99% that a Democrat or Republican will control the White House for the next four years- so why haven't there been any discussions concerning the VP debates or the second presidential debate?

Last time, the differences between the two main candidates weren't so obvious, but the choice is pretty stark here. In the second debate, Bush and Kerry came down on different sides of almost every single issue. The only exception was that they both said they were against the draft. Given their differing views on foreign policy, taxation, gay marriage, and abortion, it's clear that they are laying out two very different ideas of what the next four years should look like. I'm not denying that the third-party candidates have something to bring to the table, but it would be worth having some discussion of the debates between the democrats and republicans.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, they also post a lot about Linux, which, once upon a time, had a chance of making it that was about "statistically indistinguishable from zero". Look where it is today...

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how Windows and MSIE dominate the market and linux is barely even noticable, I would say your arguement is very imperfect.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Dachannien]

In the second debate, Bush and Kerry came down on different sides of almost every single issue.

Considering that Kerry's mantra is "Vote for me, I'm not Bush!" that would seem fairly obvious.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[v4mpyr]

One of my favourite 'wasted vote' arguments is as follows:

Pretend you are in jail on death row. You find that you have a 50% chance of lethal injection, 45% chance of the electric chair, or 5% chance of escape... which would you vote for?

Statistics has nothing to do with it. People need to realize that you don't have to vote based on who is most popular or who has the highest chance of winning. The point of voting is to vote for the person you think is right for the job, regardless of what your neighbor says.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[magefile]

A better analogy would be, say, 4 years of jail and having to register as a sex offender (making you a pariah) vs. just the 4 years of jail, versus a 5% chance of fleeing to a country w/o extradition treaties.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Grave]

Er, that analogy sucks. I mean, I get the point, but seriously.. a sex offender?

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Very imperfect? linux barely even noticeable?

Have you checked out Linux's server market share lately? Have you checked it's adoption rate outside of the US lately?

In 5 years, you'll feel like an idiot for posting that. Though really, you should right now based on server market share alone.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[magefile]

Well, it's better than comparing lethal injection to the electric chair. I mean, third-party rhetoric (I never thought I'd hear myself saying that ...) aside, there are differences between Bush and Kerry. There isn't much of a difference between lethal injection and the electric chair.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[wcbarksdale]

How does Badnarik or any other third-party candidate stand anywhere near a 5% chance of winning? To be honest I never understood this quote.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Danse]

The main problem here is that the voting system itself induces people to vote based on the popularity polls. They vote for the candidate they see as the lesser of two evils rather than voting for the candidate that they really want because they fear that they could end up splitting the vote between the two candidate that they prefer and thus the least-preferred candidate will win. If we would adopt a sensible voting system, then this wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[dafydd311]

That really depends on what matters to you, I guess. If the issues that concern you are having a more limited federal government, ending the War on Drugs, getting the federal government OUT of the bedroom, and out of people's personal relationships, eliminating the IRS, getting RID of the evil Patriot Act, or any of the other issues where the Libertarian party differs STRONGLY from the Republicans and Democrats (who mostly agree on most of those issues, then either candidate really is as similar as lethal injection vs. the electric chair. Either party wins, and you end up right where you started, politically dead in the water, and if any of those things are making your life hell right now, you might be wishing you were dead if a Republican or Democrat wins.

Perhaps the Libertarian Party will just have to get the means together to start up a small island country somewhere to prove to ordinary citizens that its government paradigm works and prospers. Either that, or people may have to start paying a little more attention in American History class.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretend you are in jail on death row. You find that you have a 50% chance of lethal injection, 45% chance of the electric chair, or 5% chance of escape... which would you vote for?

A more accurate analogy would be
50% chance of lethal injection
45% chance of life in prison
5% chance of escape

Most will vote for life in prison, hoping to tip the scales. In 2000 I voted for escape in both the presidential election (Nader) and the Missouri Senate seat (yes I voted for a dead man rather than Ascroft). As a result, Ashcroft ended up with a promotion, and W took us to war. This time I'm going with life in prision.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[brandonY]

Helllllooooo? We all run linux, use metric, memorize Monty Python movies, and are away from the mainstream in just about every respect. Of course we like the idea of non-mainstream candidates.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[allanc]

"Dog bites man" argument. There's nothing newsworthy in the two-party debates.

--AC

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[SandiConoverJones]

The Libertarian party is simply proposing that we return to a constitutional government . Get rid of all of the unconstitutional hog wash like welfare, social Security, the IRS etc.

Just think

WWJD (What Would Jefferson Do?)

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Brandybuck]

Last time, the differences between the two main candidates weren't so obvious, but the choice is pretty stark here.

If you think there's any signficant differences between Bush and Kerry, then you really have been brainwashed. There are differences on specific issues, but with hundreds of issues, that's hardly surprising. But when it comes to their underlying philosophy of governance, there ain't a dime's worth of difference between the two.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Paladin128]

The secondary plan you described is called the Free State Project. Read up.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Boing]

I'm presuming that your analogy defines one or the other form of execution as "more humane", and thus preferred if one had to choose a form of execution. I'm also presuming that (mirroring the current political scenario) it's not clear which form of execution will have a higher percentage, but it is clear that they will both have a higher percentage than escape.

Where your analogy fails is that our election system is not decided on probability; that 5% chance, when compared to the 50%, is semantically identical to a 0% chance of escape. If your say in the matter has a maximum effectiveness of 0.0000004%, then you're better off voting for your preferred method of execution because that's the undecided distinction.

I'm not defending this action, but it is a failing of our voting scheme rather than of the people who "game" it by voting for the lesser of two evils. If you really want social change, you need to be pushing for realistic voting reform (read: a voting system that avoids gaming, yet is simple enough to explain to the dumbest of the dumb... sorry, Condorcet Method defenders).

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Fat Cow]

the choice is pretty stark here

foreign policy - bush invaded afghanistan and iraq, kerry supported invading and iraq

taxation - both keep most of the current tax code - kerry to raise taxes slightly on the richest

gay marriage - both against it

abortion - yep, i guess they're different here, although i had difficulty deciphering kerry response in the debate

patriot act - bush proposed it, kerry voted for it

IP law - no difference

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Pendersempai]

But Badnarik doesn't even have a 5% chance of winning. He doesn't even have a 0.01% chance. Maybe he has 5% of the vote, or, more likely, 0.01% of the vote, but those percentages do not equate with chance to win.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[quintessent]

People say it's importance to vote one's consience. Well, sure I have my favorite for president, but my conscience is screaming that 4 more years of Bush would be horrible for this country.

It's not my heart or my conscience that isn't working right. It's the voting system. It needs fixing.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[philbert26]

Most will vote for life in prison, hoping to tip the scales.

You sound like you're suggesting that the death penalty might be a deterrent!

The original analogy was wrong. Parent's is better. You can't rebut the "lesser of two evils" argument by presenting an analogy where there are two equal (or very near equal) evils. You'd be better off trying to convince people that the lesser evil really isn't a lesser evil, if that's the way you want to put it.

Good luck with that, but for most of us the choice is between the lesser of two evils. Even if the three parties were more evenly distributed in the polls, most of us don't agree with some of the more, shall we say, radical Libertarian policies. So even then, the choice would be the lesser of three evils.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[the morgawr]

(read: a voting system that avoids gaming, yet is simple enough to explain to the dumbest of the dumb... sorry, Condorcet Method defenders)

As a Parliamentarian I've had explained the Condorcet Method to several groups before (they needed a way of choosing between several choices effectively). I've found that most people just do a very bad job of explaining it (they start with mathmatic properties and graph theory *yuck*; yes this helps explain WHY but most people want to understand HOW). ( I would type up such an explination but slashcode doesn't like my ASCII art...)

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Politburo]

Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Except it has a lot to do with it. Because of our system, a vote for a third party candidate in a state such as Pennsylvania would be much more helpful to either Bush or Kerry than to the candidate being voted for (I'm talking about winning elections here, not the public funding 5% limit).

So, for example, let's say one dislikes Bush, and prefers Badnarik. Their vote for Badnarik would be a closet endorsement of Bush. The only way to remove Bush from office in 2004 is to vote Kerry. This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion, it's simply how the system works in its current form. You don't have to play the game, but one must realize the full effects of their actions.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Politburo]

foreign policy - bush invaded afghanistan and iraq, kerry supported invading and iraq

Kerry supported giving the President power to persuade Iraq to give in to inspections, which was working until W blew it and went to war. Kerry did not support the war as it was executed by Bush.

gay marriage - both against it

True, but there's more to the story, as usual. Bush supports modifying the Constitution of the United States to specifically exclude a class of people from a right. This is unprecedented in the history of the nation, where amendments have generally been used to expand rights to classes of people previously uncovered. Kerry does not support gay marriage by name, but supports equal benefits for gay couples.

abortion - yep, i guess they're different here, although i had difficulty deciphering kerry response in the debate

It's because you clearly have a problem with issues more complex than (Black|White). Kerry is personally against abortion. However, Kerry understands that it is not the government's place to regulate how a woman will carry out her life. Bush does not understand this and wants to force women to carry to term children that are undesired. This is despite the fact that he claims to want to keep government out of our private lives.

patriot act - bush proposed it, kerry voted for it

Only one candidate wants the PATRIOT Act amended to fix the problems: Kerry. Bush wants the PATRIOT Act as enacted to be made permanent. See the difference?

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[tiocsti]

That's not necessarily true; I dislike bush, and prefer badnarik. However, *i dislike kerry more than bush*, so it's impossible to vote for kerry. Since i think kerry is almost the worst choice (with cobb being the worst, for me), voting for him makes no sense. However, since I don't like bush either, voting for bush makes no sense, so the logical choice as badnarik.

In an ideal world, I could rank my candidates from 1...n

>>
So, for example, let's say one dislikes Bush, and prefers Badnarik. Their vote for Badnarik would be a closet endorsement of Bush. The only way to remove Bush from office in 2004 is to vote Kerry. This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion, it's simply how the system works in its current form. You don't have to play the game, but one must realize the full effects of their actions.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Politburo]

If you're not voting for Kerry, then it is not your primary goal to remove Bush from office. There's no argument. Kerry is the only way to remove Bush from office. Support for anyone else is implicit support of Bush's administration. Again, this is just how the system works, and I agree it needs to be changed.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Golias]

I thought his mantra was "I have a plan." He said it even more often in the second debate than Bush said "hard work" in the first.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Thunderstruck]

At one time, the adoption rate for Linux was indistinguishable from Zero....

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[ArsonSmith]

He has about 5% in most states but that only gives him a chance to win if 21 other candidates come in and take ~4.9% or less each

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[LuisaO]

Yes, but Kerry and Bush usually disagree on topics covered in the debates because the moderators only chooses questions that exagerrate their differences.

What if there were a real town hall debate (not the phony event staged last week where the audience members are mere props and the moderator chooses the questions) and citizens could ask questions about issues like these http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debat es_exclusion_issues.html

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[ArsonSmith]

Which would be a great part of an approval system of voting because it would help keep the government in a more centerest posission. Some say it is a winner of comprimise as a bad thing. I see this as the best possibility of all. Get rid of the extreame left/right swing back and forth, get the government a little more centered, where it should be.

I am a libertarian I belive many, but not all, of the libertatian views and ideals. I also understand that there is no one system that is going to work best, or for everybody. swirling around the center of the political chart we are the better off I think every one ends up.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Verement]

Why would you assume you must vote for Kerry in order to remove Bush from office? Because everyone else is voting for Kerry, right?

What if everyone who wanted to remove Bush from office voted for Badnarik instead of Kerry? Wouldn't that have the same effect? So why don't they? Because Kerry is better?

The problem is not just with the voting system. There is a real problem with education and the media that conditions people against voting outside the Republican and Democratic parties.

-v

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[rleibman]

Wasted vote? What wasted vote. I live (and vote) in California. California will most definitely go to Kerry. No argument you can give me can persuade me that a vote for Badnarik is more wasted than a vote for any of the two major party jokers. At least I take a stand and don't have to take a shower to feel clean after droping my ballot in the box.

I urge others in "safe" states to think about this. But I also urge those in "contested" states to think about it, their votes can REALLY make a difference there and bring attention to the third parties.

Re:Why does Slashdot...

[Fat Cow]

You're correct in all that you say, as was I. The difference is that from my perspective those differences that you talk about don't look very "stark"

Link

[isotope23]

bad link, here is is register

Libertarian Party Violates Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the Libertarian Party coerce Bush or Kerry into debating with Badnarik? What if Bush simply declines to participate? What if Kerry simply declines to participate? Can either of them be compelled, against his will, to participate in a debate?

What if Bush or Kerry simply decides to stand there with his mouth shut during the two minutes alloted to his answer or response -- in protest to being forced against his will to participate in a debate? Now that would be something. Can he be forced to open his mouth and issue an answer?

If the Libertarian party really stood for rights then they'd have to include the rights of Bush and Kerry.

Re:Libertarian Party Violates Rights?

[mikebellman]

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."

Re:Libertarian Party Violates Rights?

[mikebellman]

Sorry I forgot my html tags while foaming at the mouth.

Re:Libertarian Party Violates Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

A-ha! So, there's a good reason for it after all. Thanks for clearing that up. And your lack of html tags is forgiven.

the "debate commission"

[Moofisto]

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.

Two parties are better than many

[sybert]

A Two party system is actually more democratic than a multi-party system. With many parties and proportional representation, you get more choices, but then the parties must assemble undemocratically after the election into a majority coalition to form a government. With winner-take-all, all of the factions and parties that would otherwise exist assemble into two coalitions before the election, and voters choose the majority coalition directly. Voting for the ruling coalition directly is more democratic than voting for parties, even though there are less choices to vote for.

A Two party system also forces both parties and candidates to pander to and move to the middle in order to win an absolute majority. When more parties split the vote, it is possible to form a majority coalition that doesn't include the center. Having two indistinguishable candidates running to the center is equilibrium. Our two-party politics represents convergence, not disfunction.

If you are dissatisfied with both candidates, than you are not in the middle. If you want to get your views represented, then you need to move the middle by lobbying your views. There is no shortage of independent voices, and no shortage of quality libertarian and libertarian leaning voices, they just don't run for president. Many of the 'right-wing radio hosts' have significant libertarian leanings. Elder, Drudge, even Rush, and many more local hosts. People need to get past the Rock-the-Vote mentality and focus an more than just the presidential election and read/listen/watch all the other independent voices.

We are also voting for President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, not American Candidate (the showtime reality series). It would help to actually have some significant elected experience to run on.

Re:Two parties are better than many

[Nacon74]

We are also voting for President of the United States, Leader of the Free World, not American Candidate (the showtime reality series). It would help to actually have some significant elected experience to run on.

The "Leader of the Free World" is not chosen by people living in the US, but by people in "The Free World".

Currently there seems to be a vacancy for the position...

Re:Two parties are better than many

[Anonymous Coward]

With many parties and proportional representation, you get more choices, but then the parties must assemble undemocratically

Uh, say what? Are you doing drugs? How is this any less DEMOCRATIC(BTW, we're a REPUBLIC, with democratically elected officials, not a democracy) than this?:
With winner-take-all, all of the factions and parties that would otherwise exist assemble into two coalitions before the election, and voters choose the majority coalition directly. Voting for the ruling coalition directly is more democratic than voting for parties, even though there are less choices to vote for.

I dare you to explain how this is more democratic and no, you did not explain it, you just stated that this is what you believe.

The rest of this was political hogwash. Saying Rush has libertarian leanins is delusional. He'll say libertarian things when it suits his agenda, but that's it. He's not even a classic conservative. Go back and read his two books, "The way things ought to be" and "See I told you so" and guess what you'll find? Bush and the republican congress is guilty of ALL the things Rush accused the democrats of. Does he rail against the debt and deficit anymore? Nope.

As for neading experience, I don't want a candidate with experience in kissing special interest ass or running Washington with business as usual in mind. I want a citizen politician, not a professional one. These pro's have fucked things up so bad. The whole problem in the middle east, as far as we're involved in it, can be traced back 50 years by both parties. Fuck these guys.

I mean, Sharon, the leader of Israel, has experience fighting terrorists. Look what good it has done him. He's still fighting terrorists, and he and his country will be fighting terrorists for decades to come as long as they keep electing people who have the same ideology. Experience isn't always a good thing.

Correction: Communist Party

[hackwrench]

http://www.cpusa.org/ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22communist+ party+of+america

NY Sun article: "Libertarians Win a Hearing..."

[Moofisto]

The New York Sun is running an informative story on the case.

The Highlander Pres. (was: Why does Slashdot..)

[mikebellman]

>but the chance is 99% that a Democrat or Republican will control the White House for the next four years.

YES! Exactly. You get it. Only ONE of them has a chance of winning. The people who say that Libertarian Michael Badnarik has no chance of winning have forgotten that on November 3rd either Bush or Kerry will NOT be the elected President!

All the Repugnicrats are talking like it is their candidate who is going to win. Probably because if they don't they'll just complain about it for four years anyway. Hooray for the moderate party.

>Given their differing views on foreign policy, taxation, gay marriage, and abortion

Last time I checked, taxation is still legislated by Congress - Bush's tax relief had nothing to do with us paying the bills. It just made more debt for our kids.

Gay marriage is not federally regulated (except the union of Bush and Kerry)

In MY state we've defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman, but our State Constitution fails to define gender. (constitutional crisis, anyone?)

and the POTUSA hasn't had a THING to do with abortion laws since Roe vs. Wade. (Unless you count promoting more abortions by locking up access to various birth control drugs.)

Shouldn't the differences and debates between the candidates actually have something to do with the powers of the President and scope of the office? Many of the Debate Topics rank up there, PRESIDENTIALLY, with boxers vs. briefs and Coke vs. Pepsi.

I'm ready to put the Government on a DIET.

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."

Re:The Highlander Pres. (was: Why does Slashdot..)

[Selecter]

"Gay marriage is not federally regulated (except the union of Bush and Kerry)"

I think JibJab's latest effort, 'Good to be in D.C.', has Kerry & Edwards hugging and kissing and then winding up in bed together. I seriously thought when I saw them "Where's the other two?"

Double-standard

[b-baggins]

I guess the Libertarian party only believes in hands-off government when it works to their advantage.

Re:Double-standard

[Brian James D'Astous]

Geez, how hypocritical of them for wanting some "hands-on government" when a publically-funded university uses taxpayer money to fund what amounts to a press conference for only 2 of the 3 political parties on the ballot. Yes, how silly of them.

Re:Double-standard

[psykocrime]

I guess the Libertarian party only believes in hands-off government when it works to their advantage.

This is the Libertarian Party we're talking about, not the Anarchist Party. Libertarians aren't necessarily about having NO government, just the least government necessary.

Anwyay, as it is we have a system, laws, taxes, etc. in place... and while Libertarians would seek to make some fairly progressive changes in some of those areas, we have to work within the system in order to change it. It's not hypocritical, it's pragmatic.

Re:Double-standard

[justin_speers]

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.

Re:Double-standard

[mshiltonj]

I guess you don't know what you're talking.

Re:Double-standard

[Telastyn]

Unfortunately, most Libertarians who are open and outspoken [including Mr Badnarik from the interviews I've seen of him] tend to come off as Anarchists rather than people who would like to focus the government on protecting individual rights.

Old school, IRC link...

[isotope23]

If you want to learn more,

get mirc (free chat prog)mirc.org

The channels are #libertarian and #badnarik on EFNET

Re:Old school, IRC link...

[Gulthek]

EFNET? EFNET?!? Home of channel flooders, net splits, and a little channel called #startrek? Man oh man, that takes me back to 1995 :-)

I switched to the scifi channel's dominion convention irc server (events.scifi.com? something like that) back in like 19...97? Anyone out remember the original name of scifact's (before he turned into rifraf) channel? I got to ask Walter Koenig two questions (including the final question). Very exciting for the nerdular teenage boy that I was. Just check out the transcript. I'm still using the name nick (Gulthek - don't ask).

I still maintain contact with three people I met on that server.

Thanks for the trip isotope23.

Re:Old school, IRC link...

[CoolHnd30]

Ummmm............... Can't I use Xchat or BitchX. Am I as a close Libertarian to be denied the chance to learn more, because I refuse to run Microsoft Windows, and use mirc ? I'd think on Slashdot, people would be a bit more enlightened than to associate irc with one client. :(

Third parties? Bah.

[Linux_ho]

Libertarian party: A group of naive idealists who believe that our complex world can be made to fit their 'perfect' but relatively simple philosophical framework. Unfortunately their philosophy if applied in the real world would result in corporate anarchy and widespread environmental destruction, which is why their candidates wouldn't make it in Republican circles. When it comes down to it, most people just don't agree with them.

Green party: A group of naive idealists who believe that our complex world can be made to fit their 'perfect' but relatively simple philosophical framework. Unfortunately their philosophy if applied in the real world would result in a much slowed economy and widespread poverty, which is why their candidates wouldn't make it in Democratic circles. When it comes down to it, most people just don't agree with them.

Communist Party: etc. etc. ad nauseum.


The point at which the voters select between Democrat and the Republican is the very last step in the process. If you really care so much about US politics, get involved with either the Democratic party or the Republican party and work to get a candidate you believe in nominated as the party candidate. The platform for both parties is determined by its members. If your ideas for fixing the world are really so great, then it should be an easy job convincing your fellow party members.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[SandiConoverJones]

Founding fathers: A group of naive idealists who believe... Oh, dang, I was going to just call the founding Fathers Libertarians, just because the Libertarian party's premise is to actaully follow the constitution as laid out by its writers.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[slapstik007]

So change is a bad thing. When did we ever give these parties a shot to mess things up? God knows that we have given time for both the Democrats and Republicans to show that they both suck at running the show.

It is clear that you dont think outside of the cultural norm. For some of it isnt that easy to have things in black and white (republican and Democrat) all of the time. Some of use (if given a chance) will enjoy the sea of other colors out there (third parties).

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[Linux_ho]

You were also well on your way to saying that most people disagree with the founding fathers, if you were going to put them in the same category as the 'third parties' I listed. That's not true at all, and it wasn't true in their time. I think most people disagree with the Libertarian Party's interpretation of the Constitution. Saying that the Libertarian Party's interpretation of the Constitution is the same as what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it is a good subject for debate. I'd be on the opposing side. The ideas the Founding Fathers put on paper worked rather well in reality. As I wrote above, I think the Libertarian Party's ideas implemented in reality would result in chaos.

What makes Libertarian ideas so attractive (especially to us tech types), is that they're simple and elegant ideas. Hell, they ought to be, most of them have survived the test of time from the Founding Fathers and before. But they don't always work in every situation, as you will see if you pay attention for a while. Especially in key areas like conserving environmental resources, and infrastructure issues like energy and telecommunications.

I'm sure the Libertarian Party supported California's energy deregulation a couple years back. Not because they carefully examined the issues, markets, and potential problems, but because it fit into their simple philosophy, so therefore it had to work in reality, right? OK, well, that didn't quite work out. But the philosophy still works because now we can SUE ENRON, right? Maybe you can convince your Libertarian buddies to chip in for the legal fees. Let me know how that goes for ya.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[LP Hyperactivist]

If you really care about the freedom behind the politics and the same freedom that makes it possible, yea, even to make such a ridiculous post, then you would abandon the two-headed hydra in favor of the LP.

If you think that any D/R candidate that has anything resembling those positions can get elected, think again. They won't make it past the central committee filters.

As for the lesser of two evils, think of it this way:

Vote for what you really don't want == a vote for evil; Vote for what you don't want as much == a vote for lesser evil; Vote for what you want == a true vote.

Why vote for what you don't want? Is your integrity that low that you would change principles into a wasted vote on a horse race principle when the so-called horses that can win are what you don't want? Why not make your vote work towards the horse you want to win instead?

The only true wasted vote is the vote not cast for what you truly want. Me, I truly want freedom, which is why I vote LP.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[Linux_ho]

So change is a bad thing.

I never said that. Go back and read my post again, especially the last part. What I was saying was that we can either change things by

(A) providing more choices to the uninformed masses
or
(B) getting involved with either the D's or the R's and work toward changing that party's platform to be more in line with your best ideas about how to run the country.

I think the second choice has a much better chance of having an actual impact on the world. But it's not nearly as attractive to most people because it means you have to be informed, have original ideas, and, heaven forbid, get involved.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[Linux_ho]

If you think that any D/R candidate that has anything resembling those positions can get elected, think again. They won't make it past the central committee filters.

So get involved with one of the parties and work to change the committees. They're elected positions, IIRC.

As for the lesser of two evils, think of it this way:
Vote for what you really don't want == a vote for evil; Vote for what you don't want as much == a vote for lesser evil; Vote for what you want == a true vote. Why vote for what you don't want? Is your integrity that low that you would change principles into a wasted vote on a horse race principle when the so-called horses that can win are what you don't want? Why not make your vote work towards the horse you want to win instead?

If you don't care that much about making positive change in the world, vote for a third party, or don't vote at all. I don't care what you do with your vote. All I'm saying is that if you DO care, and you want to have a positive, measurable effect on US politics, then get involved with the Republican Party (since that would be easier from your Libertarian point of view) and explain to them why Libertarian ideas are better than what they're doing now. You don't have to call them Libertarian ideas, just explain the ideas, using small words, and talk slowly. Those Libertarian ideas ARE better, right? So it shouldn't be difficult convincing them. Right?

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[Linux_ho]

(replying to my own post, sorry)
Before anyone misreads ANOTHER of my posts in this thread, I want to make clear that I don't support the Republican party myself. I was just saying that if you are a die-hard Libertarian, you'll find more support in the Republican party than in the Democratic party.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[dh003i]

the only naive idiots here are the Republicans and Democrats, who think that State interventionism and socialization of industries can solve our problems. Clearly ignorant of economics. Whether or not most people agree doesn't matter. You have very little understanding of libertarianism and the solid economic school upon which it is based (the Austrian school, composed of Menger, Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Kirzner, and Rothbard). It is precisely because the world is complex that we need free markets, instead of rigid Statism. Indeed, the only way that Statism, Interventionism, and the socialization of industries can even conceivably work is in a completely static and unchanging world.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[dh003i]

The idea of trying to change the Democratic or Republican party from within to be more libertarian can only be made by someone who is very naive. It is much more likely that the system will change you, then the other way around.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[LP Hyperactivist]

I didn't misread it.

You're just very uninformed on how the DNC and RNC operate.

Here in CA there are real Congressional candidates on each of their tickets looking to unseat incumbents, all on the basis of their stances on illegal immigration. The electorate in those districts are mightily PO'ed at the incumbents. Their parties have disowned them in the process, simply becasue they don't want to mess with the other guy's "safe" seats. They have gerrymandered things so that they each have their own "safe" seats and then rig the rules so they stay that way--98.5% worth. There is one D incumbent and one R incumbent in this situation.

If you think that can be changed within, just look at the (lack of) success of the Rebuplican Liberty Caucus and the Democratic Liberty Caucus, both of which are trying exactly what you suggest, and failing completely.

Think it out. Why did the LP and the GP form in the first place? BECAUSE THE REFORMS YOU SUGGEST DIDN'T WORK THEN, AND THEY DON'T WORK NOW! So why go back to what doesn't work? Isn't that the definition of insanity?

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[Linux_ho]

I didn't say make it more Libertarian. I said convince the people in the party that the Libertarian ideas are better, if you think they are.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[SandiConoverJones]

Did California not still have price fixing in effect, that crippled the entire energy industry in that state? If there were still price fixing policies that demanded that the energy companies sell energy at a price lower than their cost of porduction, there was no real deregulation.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=168 The Cause of the California Power Blackouts

Fact number one: You cannot go on obstructing the building of electric power generating plants for years on end without eventually running out of enough electricity to supply your growing population and your growing industries. It has been more than a decade since the last power plant was built in California.

Fact number two: You cannot force California public utilities to charge consumers less for electricity from out of state than the utilities have to pay to get it, without reaching the point where the utilities' deficits exceed the money they have on hand to pay their bills.

Fact number three: You cannot continue indefinitely pandering to the shrill voices of people who call themselves "environmentalists" or "consumer advocates" without reaching the point where the chickens come home to roost.

Re:Third parties? Bah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican Party: A group of cynical oppurtunists who pay lip service to family values and fighting terrorism while funneling poor people's money to the rich and bombing foreigners. Unfortunatly their philosophy when applied to the real world results in lots of dead people and lots of poverty. When it comes down to it, most people just don't agree with them, but think they have no other choice or else the evil Democrats will come to power.

Democratic Party: A group of cynical oppurtunists who pay lip service to social issues and civil rights while funneling poor people's money to the rich and bombing foreigners. Unfortunatly their philosophy when applied to the real world results in lots of dead people and lots of poverty. When it comes down to it, most people just don't agree with them, but think they have no other choice or else the evil Republicans will come to power.

I'll take my chances with the naive idealists, thank you very much...

Why not?

[TheLink]

Slashdot posts stories about "fringe" CPUs too.

Amongst: Intel, AMD, Transmeta, IBM POWER, SPARC, VIA etc, it's unlikely that Transmeta will "win". But it still gets more than its market share worth of "broadcast" here, whenever there's something remotely interesting going on.

Having competition can help keep the regular winners from being lazy or even colluding.

It's almost like having the American Idol thing but only giving the bulk of air-time to two competitors who the organizers think have the best chances. After all the other competitors chances of winning are "statistically indistinguishable from zero". Well in these sort of cases such actions will be sort of self-fulfilling right?

Y'know even IF it's all a setup, at least you people should make the System go through the proper motions as if it isn't a setup. It makes for a more enjoyable and "believable" Show.

That said, it sure looks like many people don't mind watching a crap show. As is the Show's not just insulting their intelligence, it's taking a baseball bat to it.

Re:Why not?

[ViolentGreen]

That's not really the same. Nobody is voting on those. Those are personal choices as opposed to a group choice.

Re:Why not?

[TheLink]

The CPU share is due to people voting with money.

Anyway the American Idol analogy still applies. I wonder if the US masses would be more displeased if the American Idol organizers limited TV time to only 2 contestants out of 6? Compared to the presidential debate organizers only allowing 2 participants out of 6.

Heh.

Re:Why not?

[ArsonSmith]

I think it has to do with the duality of Americans. things have to be black or white, good or evil. Look at the way campaign goes. Dems rip on the Reps, Reps rip on the Dems. They emphasize the few points that they differ on to make sure they look totally different when they really are about 90% the same. but as long as they each vilify the other you end up with a great black and white campaign.

Or is it an "excuse" to cancel the debate?

[dpilot]

Don your tin-foil propeller hats, everyone...

Woudn't the White House just as soon skip the third debate? But that would look bad. Aha, here are the Libertarians trying a court case - we can just let them spoil the whole thing, and we won't lose face.

I don't think they'll let the Libertarians in on the debate.
I think they'll cite logistical reasons not to move the debate.
I think they'll cite logistical and timing (not enough) reasons, as well.
I think they'll just cancel the debate - or let's say, "fail to be able to negotiate specifics for a rescheduled, relocated third debate."

The debates have been at least in-part a matter of "Bush damage minimization," because public thinking-on-his-feet isn't his strong suite. Actually, there were statements up-front that the Bush campaign was going to try and define Kerry, just like the Clinton campaign defined Dole. At the very least, the debates give Kerry a chance to get up and speak for himself. Whether that damages him in your eyes or not, they are his words, and not the Bush campaign putting words in his mouth.

I don't think anyone expects to see a Bush slam-dunk out of *any* of these debates. I don't think they really put the courts or Libertarians up to this. But I don't think they mind the thought of having the third debate get cancelled, in the slightest.

The vote won't be until after the debates

[bluGill]

I'd accept that argument if this debate were to be held.. say November 20th. On November 20th the elections will be well over, and we will know who really got how much vote. Today we do not know. Sure there are polls, and statistics and all that. Just ask Truman about statistics. (for those who don't recall one major newspaper ran the headline that his opponent won the election, when he won)

Today we do not know how voters will select. We do know that there are 6 (someone else named them, I'm taking his word) candidates who could win, and that is all we know for sure.

Let them all in. I need to make an informed choice. Please! I've already concluded that Bush and Kerry both are far enough from my position that I cannot vote for either, and I'd like to know who is left.

Single standard

[tm2b]

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.

Re:Single standard

[joeyGibson]

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.

"Qualified candidates" should really be translated as something like "any candidates who have a chance in hell of getting more than a handful of votes." When you inject a no-chance candidate into a "debate" all it does it take attention away from the men who have an actual chance of winning. Just like when Alan Keyes started screaming racism a few years ago when WSB in Atlanta barred him from the Republican debate: he didn't have a chance of getting any votes, but he demanded to "be heard." If he had a shot, ok. But he didn't and WSB was right in barring him. If a candidate is just there to "make a statement", that's not a reasonable reason to let him in.

And as for how Hussein "got 99% of the Iraqi vote," he did that by being a bloody dictator who killed anyone who got in his way. The situations are a bit different...

Re:Single standard

[tm2b]

"Qualified candidates" should really be translated as something like "any candidates who have a chance in hell of getting more than a handful of votes."

And who decides which candidates have such a chance? The government ? Surely even the most simple fool can see why that's an obvious conflict of interest. Or any organization that claims to be independent but is actually run by a balance of only the two dominant parties? No, no conflict of interest there. Or perhaps you think that early polls

Locking the country in to the two parties forces our political debate down to the level of the perpetual false dichotomy - we're forced to choose between the special interests funding the Republicans and the special interests funding the Democrats. Even when "third-party" candidates aren't electable, they can profoundly influence the debate in very important ways.

When water is the best choice, we shouldn't be forced to choose between Coke and Pepsi.

For a long time, Ross Perot actually had a shot at being electable, and it wouldn't have happened without his using his money to break through the duopoly of the major parties. He wouldn't have made a good president, I think, but people had a right to see what he stood for and in the end, having his voice in the debate was extremely good for the country. He brought a political focus to the budget deficit and the national debt that we hadn't had in a generation.

There is a process for deciding who actually has the chance in hell of getting more votes. It's called an election. Before the election, the government must enforce objective standards even-handedly to all candidates.

Re:Single standard

[joeyGibson]

There is a process for deciding who actually has the chance in hell of getting more votes. It's called an election.

Indeed. And in the last election the Libertarian candidate got jack shit for votes. I think the Libertarians have already proven themselves to be unelectable.

Re:Single standard

[tm2b]

in the last election the Libertarian candidate got jack shit for votes. I think the Libertarians have already proven themselves to be unelectable.

Uh, yeah. Using that logic, no other party other than the Democrats and the Republicans could ever be considered (and going back in history, the Republican party would never have succeeded when they were the "3rd party").

Hell, you could even use your feeble-minded "reasoning" against the Democrats in 1992: since Michael Dukakis only got 111 out of 538 electoral votes in 1988, Bill Clinton was obviously unelectable in 1992!

For a moment

[mcc]

let's look past the question of whether Badnarik should be allowed into the final debate. Let's ask ourselves what would happen if he were.

The final debate was, by the original agreement, to be on the subject of domestic and economic policy. This is so far a subject which has gone mostly uncovered in the debates. Only the first debate was meant to be explicitly on foreign policy, but both the vice presidential and townhall debates were dominated by discussion of foreign policy, and more specifically discussion of Iraq. Both of these debates began with discussion of Iraq, and all the most firey and attention-grabbing portions were during the Iraq portions. The domestic halves of these two debates were a bit more cursory and did not delve into the details of economic policy.

Meanwhile, economic policy is where the Kerry campaign's true strength is. It is easier to make the Bush campaign look bad over Iraq, but it is not in any way easy to make the Kerry campaign look good over Iraq. Economic policy, however, is an area where the Kerry campaign has a chance to make itself look actually good. Kerry can point to distinct policy differences and make a legitimate argument that these differences would result in real improvement. He just needs to grab the public's attention somehow. Since the last few weeks have been utterly dominated by discussion of Iraq both inside and outside Kerry's campaign, however, there has not been a chance for this to happen.

Kerry has a chance to swing the national debate over to domestic and economic policy at least for a little while in this debate. Since Kerry did not begin to heavily harp on Iraq until shortly before the foreign policy debate, it is likely Kerry will take this opportunity. The debate also offers Kerry a chance to convince the country to briefly sit down and listen to his economic views. Meanwhile, the domestic policy debate offers no positive opportunities to the Bush campaign. The best Bush can hope for is to ramble about marriage and small business owners enough that he can distract viewers from what Kerry is saying; he has no points of his own to score. The question is not whether Bush or Kerry will benefit from wednesday's debate. The question is how much of Kerry's benefit from Wednesday's debate Bush will be able to blunt.

If Badnarik gets his order granted, this becomes moot. The final debate will suddenly have an unplanned random factor plunged into it enough to totally disrupt the debate. Not only would Badnarik's mere presence in the debate be a distraction from the two candidates there, but his input and any obligation on the part of the major-party candidates to respond to it would effectively prevent discussion on the subject of which of the two major-party candidates would offer a better economic policy. Kerry could still attempt to outline his economic policy. Viewers would not pick up on it. It would be lost in the chaos.

My conclusion: Allowing Badnarik into the debate would be a serious impairment to the Kerry campaign, and have little to no effect on the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign would lose its one given opportunity to outline to the nation a major plank of its platform. The Bush campaign would neatly get to opt-out of a potentially embarrassing debate. This would be a disastrous result for Kerry's chances of winning and an extremely positive result for Bush's.

Re:For a moment

[Paladin128]

So in other words, because it could negatively impact the candidate you like, you think it's OK for the state of Arizona to spend $2 million in violation of its constitution?

What about the candidate I like? I like Badnarik more than the other two. Regaurdless of the differences you cite in economic policy, it means big government. Bush is for big government. Kerry is for big government. Badnarik is not. Let him speak.

Re:For a moment

[pocopoco]

>prevent discussion on the subject of which
>of the two major-party candidates

Have you even been watching the debates? The candidates pretty much have pre-worked out spiels and just go through them when a question is even close. Sometimes you'll notice they completely miss answering the question or end up repeating one of them and trying to hide it. There's no discussion going on here.

Adding an "unplanned random factor" as you call it might get some decent telling responses from candidates instead of having us sit through more of the same "say what they want to hear and hide the rest" spiels as we've been getting in speeches.

Re:For a moment

[mcc]

Who or what are you responding to?

Re:For a moment

[LP Hyperactivist]

That whole line of thinking makes absolutley no sense. Here's why:

Kerry is tax-and-spender trying to portray himself as a fiscal moderate in the lines of Clinton, who actually had the debt rise while claiming to balance the budget because he raided SSA funds to cover the gap. He would spend like a drunken sailor.

Bush is a borrow-and-spender trying to portray the spending as jusitifed as necessary for the WOT when most of it was pure pork. He is spending like the drunken aviator he is.

Badnarik, OTOH, favors a balanced budget, reduced spending, and lower taxes. He is fiscally conservative and stands for the limited government that the Rs USED to stand for. There a lot of fiscal conservatives that are royally PO'ed at Bush for his spending habits. There are also a lot of social liberals that are royally PO'ed at Kerry for his stances on gay marriage and civil liberties in light of the PATRIOT Act. Bringing that to the table would score points against BOTH of them and make them both look foolish, and give the disenfranchised from both sides the candidate they are looking for.

That scares Bush and Kerry to death, since they have been taking those bases for granted when they really should not be. If those bases go Badnarik, then Kerry is left with a neo-lib faction split between him and Nader/Cobb, and Bush is left with the neo-con/religious right faction with a minor split with Peroutka. Either way, it throws the election into chaos, which is a good thing.

It would also expose their hollow positions for what they really are.

This is why this whole thing is so important. It can not only kick in the door, but burn down the house, and it's long overdue.

Re:For a moment

[Guppy06]

"The final debate will suddenly have an unplanned random factor plunged into it enough to totally disrupt the debate."

If a person is incapable of coping with the unplanned, why should they be elected President of the United States?

"Not only would Badnarik's mere presence in the debate be a distraction from the two candidates there,"

As I just said...

"but his input and any obligation on the part of the major-party candidates to respond to it would effectively prevent discussion on the subject of which of the two major-party candidates would offer a better economic policy."

You say this as if the questions to be asked aren't pre-arranged.

"Kerry could still attempt to outline his economic policy. Viewers would not pick up on it. It would be lost in the chaos."

If he is unable adequately express himself to the American people without such a scripted environment, why should we believe he can do better with Congress or other heads of state?

Re:For a moment

[JimLynch]

That's absurd. It's to Kerry's advantage to have Bush attacked from the right by the Libertarian. It's WAY past time for third parties to be included by default in these "debates." The green party candidate and Nader should also be there. Let's hear ALL of them and not just the Republicrats.

Re:For a moment

[mcc]

Such a response would be entirely predicated on Badnarik's ability to express himself coherently to the American people in a way that means something to them.

This is hardly a certainty. especially on the subject of economics, where Bush, Kerry and Badnarik could step forward and say three entirely contradictory things and most Americans would lack the capacity to determine which one is accurate.

What people would have the capacity to understand, though, is that Badnarik's budget policy would be basically based on "don't spend money". This would be unlikely to impress terribly many people, since this would be in a context where either major-party candidate would be free to point out that not spending money would result in the ending of insert governmental program tv viewer approves of here. If Badnarik got across anything at all in this part of such a debate, most likely the only effect would be to put into relief that Kerry is pushing "tax and spend", Bush is spending "spend, but don't tax", and Badnarik is pushing "don't tax or spend". Ideological fiscal conservatives would certainly be impressed by such a thing, but this is a really quite small portion of the U.S. populace. Most of the U.S. thinks the government wastes money, but they do think at the government should be providing services; except for conservatives, and conservatives mostly don't really care where the federal government's money goes, they just don't want to pay taxes. Kerry's entire goal in the economic portion of the final debate will likely be to try to convince America that fiscal responsibility is a good thing, and he's facing an uphill battle at that even without having to sell the additional idea that shrinking the scope of government is a good thing.

As for the ideological left, it is already quite clearly aware of Kerry's shortcomings as a candidate in the personal rights area, and it doesn't care. The ideological left split off four years ago because they weren't being represented, and the direct result was Bush's election. I do not think they will be trying this again in this particular election. Either way though Badnarik is not going to tell them anything they aren't already fully aware of, and it's highly unlikely he's going to convince them in any serious numbers to change their votes.

Badnarik would certainly if allowed into the debate raise quite a few very important issues and raise awareness for the libertarian party. He might even manage to leave some people walking away going "hmm, that guy made a lot of sense", maybe. However there is no reason to believe he would have any impact on the question the debate is currently meant to resolve-- which is, who is going to win the election, George W. Bush or John Kerry?

A single television appearance a month before the election is not going to conceivably bring to victory a candidate with no serious previous governmental experience and whom most voters have never heard of. Whatever positive effects would result from Badnarik appearing in a presidential debate would be, directly effecting the outcome of the election would not be one of them.

However, it does seem quite plausible Badnarik could indirectly effect things by disrupting the final debate enough to prevent the debate from having some impact on the american populace it might have had otherwise-- which was the point I was originally trying to make.

Re:For a moment

[mcc]

If a person is incapable of coping with the unplanned, why should they be elected President of the United States?

The point I was trying to make was not whether the candidates would be able to cope with the unplanned, the point was whether the debate schedule would be able to cope with the unplanned. We would effectively wind up with three debates focusing on the comparative foreign policy of Bush and Kerry, and one debate focusing on domestic and economic policy between Bush, Kerry and Badnarik. This would cause the entire nature of the domestic policy debate to be highly different from the nature of the other two debates.

If he is unable adequately express himself to the American people without such a scripted environment, why should we believe he can do better with Congress or other heads of state?

It is not so much a matter of whether or not the environment would be scripted but a matter of his ability to formulate his responses within the debate so as to clearly outline his differences with the Bush administration within the debate's time constraints. Introducing Badnarik into the debate increases the scope of the debate, naturally making that one message somewhat more difficult to focus on. If nothing else, he would not have as much time to spend on it. I would argue that how clearly Kerry is able to outline to the public the differences between his and Bush's economic policy is fairly important to the outcome of the election.

Re:For a moment

[LP Hyperactivist]

Badnarik's ability to express himself coherently? Have you been been paying attention to ANYTHING other than Bush or Kerry, or are you so mired in statism that the means to do so escapes you? There's plenty of evidence as to his coherence, even eloquence. Check C-Span's video archives for starters.

As for the "don't tax, don't spend," THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! When people have the cash in their pocket and it doesn't go to the IRS, then THEY have economic control. What sane person doesn't want that?

The ideoloigical left is not as you think. In 2000 their issues were environmentalism and anti-globalism. In 2004 their issues are anti-war and anti-globalism, both of which put them into the ABB camp, but also makes them mistakenly support Kerry instead when he is no better, and most of them haven't figured that out yet. Badnaik is what they want on both counts, and he wants to make sure the sovereignty of the US is not compromised militarily nor economically. Neither Bush not Kerry can truthfully make that claim. But since they are both liars I expect them to.

Your synopsis on the final winner of the election might be true, but how you arrive at that conclusion is wrong. Look at the poll numbers and you find that Badnarik is bridign the gap in a lot of states and is pulling as much as 3-5% in some. As for the so-called debates, any monkeywrench in the scripted dog-an-pony show will expose the Bush/Kerry alliance for what they are--useless puppets. Remember the Ventura factor, lest you forget, that he got in and he won, becasue he resonated with voters once he was heard.

Experience in running things? What is Bush's pre-2000 resume on that? What is Kerry's? Not very good, to be clear. That all cancels out.

Of course Badnarik would disrupt the scripted show--that's the purpose--but in doing so he also scores a victory for the silent majority of disenchanfranchised voters and undecided voters who are sick and tired of the certified BS that the major party (and apparently you) promotes.

The system needs a shakeup. What are you afraid of if that happens? It matters more now than ever. It is overdue, before the mjaor party clowns take us all over the cliff...

Re:For a moment

[mcc]

As for the "don't tax, don't spend," THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! When people have the cash in their pocket and it doesn't go to the IRS, then THEY have economic control. What sane person doesn't want that?

Supporters of the welfare system, supporters of state-sponsored education, supporters of the freeway system, people who believe the U.S. military does some degree of good in the world, people who believe U.S. foreign aid does some degree of good in the world, and some other people. I could probably go on if you'd like.

There is, in fact, a middle ground between anarchocapitalist libertarianism and "insane" "statist"s, as you put it, and most of America is in this middle ground. The idea that the government performing functions rather than the public sector is inherently bad all the time is something which perhaps is sound as political theory, but it is not something which is a plurality political viewpoint within the united states.

The ideoloigical left is not as you think. In 2000 their issues were environmentalism and anti-globalism. In 2004 their issues are anti-war and anti-globalism, both of which put them into the ABB camp, but also makes them mistakenly support Kerry instead when he is no better, and most of them haven't figured that out yet. Badnaik is what they want on both counts, and he wants to make sure the sovereignty of the US is not compromised militarily nor economically. Neither Bush not Kerry can truthfully make that claim. But since they are both liars I expect them to.

No, having followed the ideological left very closely for the last four years I can tell you that this is definitely not the case. There has been a certain degree of issues shift within the ideological left but on all of the ideological left's issues except personal liberty there is definitely a consensus that Kerry is better than Bush, if only slightly. The only question within this group is whether Kerry is better enough on these issues to justify supporting him. This is a question that has been debated fiercely for about the last six months straight. If you believe that it just hasn't occurred to the far left that Kerry might be a flawed candidate and Badnarik is going to wake them up to this, you are deeply mistaken. No one in the ideological left is viewing Kerry through rose-colored glasses. At best (best for Kerry, I mean, of course) they are realistically facing the idea that either Kerry or Bush is going to win this election and they can help either one or the other.

Again, in 2000 the ideological left was faced with a democratic candidate who from their viewpoint could not be differentiated from the republican candidate, and so they abandoned in great numbers. The entire focus of the 2000 Green Party Nader campaign was on pointing out that the two parties were too close and that Gore was no better than Bush, and the left needed to split off and vote third party in order to remind the democrats not to ignore their base. This was a line the ideological left bought at the time. Since then Bush has proven no, he is in fact worse than Gore would have been, and the Democratic party did not as hoped freak out and start recognizing its base-- in fact if anything it's shifted further to the right, seemingly mistaking losses caused by a disillusioned base for losses caused by a national trend toward conservatism. Pretty much all of the people who supported the Greens in 2000-- which is pretty much all potential far-left voters in 2004-- recognize this has happened, and they are not interested in repeating 2000 again this year. The Greens could very certainly make a serious contention as a third party candidate this year if they desired. They are not trying. There is a reason for this.

Meanwhile, personal liberty, the war in Iraq, and reform of the electoral system are virtually the only areas in which the ideological left agrees with Badnarik. The ideological left has been loudest about the wars against Iraq and personal freedom in the last four years,

Re:For a moment

[mshiltonj]

As for the "don't tax, don't spend," THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! When people have the cash in their pocket and it doesn't go to the IRS, then THEY have economic control. What sane person doesn't want that?

Supporters of the welfare system, supporters of state-sponsored education, supporters of the freeway system, people who believe the U.S. military does some degree of good in the world, people who believe U.S. foreign aid does some degree of good in the world, and some other people. I could probably go on if you'd like.

No need. The list is infinite, I'm sure. It can be summed as: People who like to spend other people's money. You can create the list of thing they want to spend other people's money.

There is, in fact, a middle ground between anarchocapitalist libertarianism and "insane" "statist"s,

Nice. That is, in fact, not the choice we're talking about out. Libertarianism != Anarcho-capitalism.

Re:For a moment

[LP Hyperactivist]

I'll defer to Hilton on this one. I have to go waste 25% of my wages on Uncle Sam and another 40% of my day stuck in traffic on governemnt-engineered parking lots called freeways to go do so. Hence the call of a waste.

Of course, Purdue is a far call from Los Angeles, as was my past native Hoosierness. Maybe you ought to go to Chicago once during rush hour and see the wonderful results of government-engineered parking lots. Try the eastbound Eisenhower at rush hour, for starters. I-65 in West Lafayette doesn't count.

You may have been studying them the neo-left, but I've been CAMPAIGNING against them. Far cry of on the trail vs. in the classroom...but then again, I was that naive in college once too.

Re:For a moment

[robochan]

"I'm John Kerry and I approved this message."


sheesh

Re:For a moment

[Kylow]

My conclusion: Allowing Badnarik into the debate would be a serious impairment to the Kerry campaign, and have little to no effect on the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign would lose its one given opportunity to outline to the nation a major plank of its platform. The Bush campaign would neatly get to opt-out of a potentially embarrassing debate. This would be a disastrous result for Kerry's chances of winning and an extremely positive result for Bush's.

I fervently disagree with that assessment. Bush has put a blindfold on conservatives regarding his fiscal irresponsibility with the war. Imagine Badnarik calling him out on all of his social spending. No Child Left Behind, prescription drug benefit, proposing 3000 dollars for the unemployed...these things will not sit well with people who want their conservatives to control spending. Of course, Kerry will be undamaged by these criticisms. People expect liberals to spend on social programs. Besides, hearing more opinions is never a bad thing.

Re:For a moment

[NDPTAL85]

The fact that the candidates of both the liberal and conservative parties of the US prefer big government programs should show you that a majority of its citizens, not thru their words, but through their deeds desire the same as well.

by the way

[dh003i]

Congressman Ron Paul is a libertarian, though officially a member of the Republican party. Hardly some naive idealist.

Re:by the way

[Linux_ho]

Congressman Ron Paul is a libertarian, though officially a member of the Republican party. Hardly some naive idealist.

*Exactly* my point. Thanks for providing an example. I'm NOT saying the parties don't need to be changed! If you can't work with people who you disagree with, you're never going to get anywhere in politics. If good ideas can't make it into the mainstream, it's not because people are stupid and can't change. It's because we lack courageous inspirational leadership who are able to communicate those ideas in a way that makes sense. That requires effort. It requires getting involved, and helping people understand new ideas. Dismissing the mainstream, saying, \"I can't work with those people, so I'm starting my OWN party!" is a copout. Be a Libertarian, that's great! But the Libertarian Party is a waste of time.

Re:by the way

[dh003i]

Being in another party doesn't mean being unable to work with people who disagree with you. It means creating a banner for your ideas, so they're easily distinguishable from those of your opponent. Republicans and Democrats have done everything they can to prevent third parties from competing.

The only reason Ron Paul (also see his homepage bio) is officially a Republican is because otherwise, he wouldn't be able to get on the ballot. Yet, he beat the officially backed Republican candidate (Republican's opposed him, and supported another Republican) and beat the Democrats. Clearly, it's not that people don't necessarily want libertarian ideas. Its that anyone other than a Republican or Democrat is prevented from even having a chance to be elected.

Also, Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian for President, placing behind GW Bush and Ducakis (or however you spell his name, don't care to look it up).

again,

[dh003i]

you have a poor understanding of economics. For example, there has never been a monopoly that has emerged without the necessary support of State-coercion, nor could there ever be. See Man, Economy, and State: Monopoly and Competition. Rothbard, Murray On the issue of energy, I suggest:

California's Energy Meltdown. Reisman, George.

How to Create an Energy Crisis. Sennholz, Hans.

California's Enemy: The State. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

and this search for articles on energy deregulation from Mises.org

Summarily, your assertion that energy-deregulation hasn't worked is a statement made out of ignorance, for there never really was real deregulation in the first place.

No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would bore people and waste their time making the debates even less relevant. If the Libertarians and other parties really were serious about winning elections, they'd pool their resources behind their best canidates in races they could actually win. They don't do this. They just try to get them on the ballot. People would love to vote for someone who wasn't a Republican or a Democrat, but no one wants to vote for a crank either.

In this case, they don't have the resources to run for president seriously. Their best hope is to be a spoiler and take votes away from canidates who might win and more closely represent at least some of the minority opinions.

When the Greens, Libertarians and the other assorted fruits and nuts get their crap together and start running seriously, they'll find they're taken more seriously. Until then, they *are* an insignificant minority, and their voices are more powerful within the existing parties.

Re:No, but...

[hesiod]

They can't be taken seriously because they aren't generally known. They aren't generally known because the media ignores them and the Reps/Dems keep making laws to make it even harder for the Libertarians to become known. They also make shit up about all of their opponents instead of acting liek civilized people. But of course, why would we want a civilized president when we can have one of those two whackjobs.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time a Libertarian canadate had any kind of ad? With all the Libertarians in America, they should be able to find one Congressional, Gubinatorial or prominant mayoral race they could make a serious run at for a few hundered thousand dollars. And they don't. They don't even have any 527 groups touting any element of their agenda.

The Democrats and Republicans aren't just given media time, they buy a ton of it, and have invested enough in their image to be able to occasion make news.

Why you ask? They're not organized, they don't run seriously. They're just boring attention whores. And almost everyone knows it, so they're almost completely ignored. You think a Libertarian running for a prominant office couldn't go hat in hand to Microsoft, or any big software vendor, and go, "I'm Joe Radical from the Libertarian party, and one of our main party platforms is we need to spend less on government regulation. It's not my job, or that of anyone else in government, to tell you guys what is or isn't part of an operating system. And once more, if the European governments think they can tell American companies how they must do business in thinly vieled attempts at protectionism and money grabs, I've got something to say about that." Likewise they have a good platform for taking on reimportation of pharmacuticals, more free speech and less FCC, and a host of other social issues. All they need to do is find a guy with decent charisma, some accomplishments in his life, who can speak clearly, and doesn't subscribe to any wacked out views, and sell him.

It can't be that such people don't exist. It can't be that such people can't be sold. So it leads one to inevitably conclude that those in the party must not be trying, or are so woefully incompitent that the whole idea is impractical. Really, take your pick. But don't blame it on the Republicans and Democrats, they've created a lot of opportunity for someone else who can just make a half-way decent first impression.

One of three things will happen

[mbourgon]

1. The CPD will pony up however much the debate costs. They'll be reimbursed by the DNC/RNC, who don't want Badnarik shown at all.
   
2. They'll move it somewhere else.
   
3. They'll be ordered to pay $$$ to the Libertarian party. The LP doesn't want that, they want in the debate, but that won't be offered.

Of course, that assumes that the claims aren't just dismissed out of hand, regardless of the law.

Re:One of three things will happen

[rleibman]

3. They'll be ordered to pay $$$ to the Libertarian party. The LP doesn't want that, they want in the debate, but that won't be offered.
No, they won't, they would look really silly and be and admitance of guilt.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Parties whose candidates can win the White House:

Democrat
Republican

Crackpots with no chance at all:

Libertarian
Green
Constitution (under varous names mentioned above)

Good Luck

[randall_burns]

Personally, I would Love to see Nader, Peroutka, Badnerik and Cobb all in the debates. If not as actual participants, as part of a panel that could ask questions. Major issues like immigration are simply not part of the political debate today because the role of money in politics has become so very huge. I honestly think that if we had a house of representatives that really represented the public in minaiture(which is what the founding fathers intended) we have some debate. As it is, one of the few tools open for injecting debate on real issues are these third party presidential campaigns.

Duopoly / corporate media alliance?

[LuisaO]

This is scary. I looked for coverage of the court hearing on the Libertarian lawsuit at Google News searching for badnarik + arizona + debate + lawsuit. I got exactly one hit: the NY Sun.

The fact that it's probably not at all conspiratorial makes it even more frightening. The media will tell us what we need to know.

Also, the CPD provided absolute proof that it is a partisan organization when the Rs and Ds first created it in 1987. Its inaugural press release states that the CPD is "a bipartisan, nonprofit, tax exempt organization formed to implement joint sponsorship [of debates]...between their respective nominees" (from pdf available on ReclaimDemocracy.org).

Difference is talk only, not functional

[MickLinux]

There have been times when the Democrats controlled all three powers (Senate, House, Pres), and there have been times when the Republicans controlled all three powers. On any of those issues you mentioned, neither one actually did anything profound.

I've kept track of the abortion issue, being pro-life, myself, and whenever the Republicans had a chance, enough Republicans were always found to suddenly change their position to keep the laws from passing.

The same has happened for the other issues, with the Democrats. Ultimately, for example, Kerry will continue the war. He says so.

No, I really must disagree. There is no functional difference between the two parties.

Re:Difference is talk only, not functional

[AuMatar]

The republicans will never get rid of abortion. There's a large minority of voters who vote primarily ont that issue. If they outlawed it, they'd keep those voters for an election or two, but then they'd trickle off into a variety of other issues, some of which they'd lose out. A decent guesstimate is that they'd lose 25% of those voters. They don't want to risk that.

more "debate commission" info

[PackMan97]

Previous to the formation of the debate commission, most presidential debates were run by the League of Women Voters...but they didn't put on informercials like the current debates. In addition, they were a bit to eager to allow third party candidates (Anderson in 1980). So the debate commission was born.

In addition don't forget about Perot in '92. Back then, the third party threshhold was 5% in the polls. So Perot was added. In '96 the threshhold was raised to 15% and no Perot.

The simple fact is the two parties will do what they can to exclude real debate and exclude alternative points of view. They don't want to give the voters a choice.

Write-Ins

[PackMan97]

Technically, it is not necessary to be on the ballot in any state in order to win. We've always had the "write-in" option.

I don't know other states election laws, but North Carolina will not count write-in candidates unless they have qualified for write-in ballot access by submitting at least 5,000 signatures of registered NC voters by a certain deadline.

In 2000, Nader did not qualify for write-in and anyone who voted for him truely wasted their votes!

For 2004, three candidates have qualified for write-in status:
Walt Brown and Mary Alice Herbert
David Cobb
Ralph Nader

Is Kerry Enough of a Change?

[subeterranean]

As for the argument of "There's no real difference between the parties" I'm sick and tired of hearing it. I would say the policies or "plans" you'll find at http://badnarik.org/plans.phpMichael Badnarik's website are huge policy differences from those posted on georgebush.com and johnkerry.com. (or many other third party sites) That said, I agree with you. There are large differences between Bush and Kerry's platform, but those radically polarized differences have emerged under George "Dubya" Bush's administration. "There's no real difference between the parties" is leftover campaign rhetoric from the elections in 2000. Campaign rhetoric uttered by a growing number of people disenchanted with the direction that Republicans and Democrats have been taking this country. While they may be voicing it in the wrong way, their sentiment is noteworthy. Historically third parties have been the catalyst for change in American goverment. Often in the form of the two major parties adopting popular third party ideas. It's definitely time for a change, but I'm not so sure that Kerry is enough of a change.

OK. Here you go: few snippets of the relevant sect

[Anonymous Coward]

> > The Constitutions of most states clearly establish a two party system.

> Interesting... I've never heard of such a thing. Would you mind posting a few snippets of the relevant sections of a few such State Constitutions, for our elucidation? And maybe a list of a handful of States that have such clauses in their Constitutions?

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you [...] out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me [or the second guy]. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me [...] and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's." (source)