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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 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: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

[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.

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!

[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!

[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: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: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: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. :)

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!

[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.

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: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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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: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).

Link

[isotope23]

bad link, here is is register

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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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."

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: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: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: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...

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.

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.

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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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]

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: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?

[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]

*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.

by the way

[dh003i]

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

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: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: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: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.

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.