Libertarians Lose Case to Block Presidential Debate

PMoonlite writes "As a followup to the previous Slashdot story, the judge ruled in favor of the Commission on Presidential Debates, refusing a restraining order on the basis of the doctrine of laches (unfairness due to delay of suit) and public interest, but allowing the Libertarians the possibility of seeking damages. So the debate will go forth at Arizona State University with only two of the three candidates on the state ballot."

Comments

Does this shock anyone?

[Shakrai]

While many here will debate the fairness of the 15% clause does anybody seriously think that the American public would have been served by having the debate canceled? And make no mistake that's exactly what would have happened. There's no way Bush or Kerry's people would let them debate w/Badnarik.

Of course it probably would have been worse off for Bush then Kerry. I doubt that the LP gains many converts from the Democrats. I can see them stealing away Republicans who aren't happy with Bush (deficits, big government, erosion of civil liberties). A three person debate also seems to focus all of the attacks on the incumbent -- look at poor H.W. Bush being attacked from both sides by Perot.

In any case even the court agreed that it was in the public interest to allow the debate to proceed: "No restraining order, because of the doctrine of latches, and that there appears to be sufficient public purpose for this debate".

As far as damages go -- what damages? Can the LP put a dollar figure on the damage? Can they show that if allowed into the debates they would have won (or even gotten 5% for Federal funding)? I doubt it -- then again IANAL.

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[not_a_witch]

No, I am not shocked; however, I do believe that a disservice has been done to the American people by NOT blocking the debate. The judge provided flimsy rationale for overlooking the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money to support two of the three candidates on the Arizona balance. (That is against the Arizona constitution.) The debate never would have been cancelled. It might have been postponed and moved to a private place, but a precident has been set. It is now ok to use taxpayer dollasr to get the current politicians reelected.

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[stanmann]

I believe that within both parties is at least a plurality and possibly a majority that wants to select other than the evil of two lessers. Given that Most of Badnariks votes will come from undecideds, burnouts and others not interested in kerry and only slightly less disinterested in bush, personally I like bush, but as a small l libertarian, I would like to see MUCH smaller government and IMO we(the US) are due for one of the two parties to die. which dies depends on whether the green, libertarian or reform party is that new party. If he appeared(since he won't be appearing) credible I think we could see turnouts approaching 50% of eligible registered voters. All he needs is ~20% of voters to like him and turn out.

Sucky

[Profane MuthaFucka]

This is sucky. There's really very little else to say about this subject. Some will try, writing a lot of words about the topic, explaining the reasoning, balancing the opinions. But, it all boils down to one point. "This is sucky."

Libertarian voters don't otherwise vote Republican

[jsrjsr]

I doubt that the LP gains many converts from the Democrats.

I've never voted for a Republican for President. I have voted for a Democrat. I'm about to vote for a Democrat for US Senate (Feingold). In fact, I've rarely voted for any Republican. I will most likely be voting for Badnarik for President.

A friend at work just took the SelectSmart test -- Badnarik was the first candidate on his list, the rest were Democrats until Bush showed up in position 17.

The only polling data I've seen on the subject of who Libertarian voters would otherwise cast their votes for indicates that Democrats and Republicans fair equally well (at 30%).

Re:Libertarian voters don't otherwise vote Republi

[Shakrai]

I've never voted for a Republican for President. I have voted for a Democrat. I'm about to vote for a Democrat for US Senate (Feingold). In fact, I've rarely voted for any Republican. I will most likely be voting for Badnarik for President.

Your voting for a Democrat for the Senate yet you are going to vote for Badnarik? Do you hate Kerry or do you have a really unique set of political views?

Has anybody around here really looked at what the Libertarian party stands for? Some of the more extreme (or committed depending upon your viewpoint) elements of the LP advocate getting rid of all Government institutions and replacing them with private companies or contractors. They purpose private companies to do product labeling (think of the FDA label you have on all food productions w/nutrition information), private companies to regulate our safety issues (replace the FAA), private companies to do airport security (that one worked out real well), etc etc etc.

Usually around here people are appalled by ideas such as those -- and for good reason. When Diebold or Microsoft pay a "third-party" to "verify" their product we rightfully call it biased. Yet the Libertarian platform would have us trusting private companies that are being paid by the very companies whose products they are responsible for verifying as safe.

Not that the entire Libertarian platform is crazy. I for one would welcome their inclusion in the debate about immigration or legalized drugs -- the former issue especially as one both the Democrats (fear of being called racist) and Republicans (fear of pissing off big business) ignore -- while a large majority of the American people desperately want the problem solved.

The Results

[Thunderstruck]

Three points to consider:

1. While cancelling the debate would not serve the "American" public, the court issuing the decision does not serve the "American" Public either. What counts is the rights and interests of the citizens of Arizona.

2. The debate will go on, and one candidate will win by a narrow margin. This is probably what would have happened if Bandarik had been admitted.

3. The Arizona LP can argue some incredible damages for the loss of the presidency. This may help them in 2008.

Re:I think this quote says it all

[isotope23]

DOH missed an L there :

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell - Animal Farm

BTW look at the media blackout,

cnn1 cnn2

nader

alexabadnarik alexanader

I could see maybe 5 or 10 mentions on CNN but ZERO? zilch, nada. Yet 523 seperate items on nader. Then compare the alexa links, put in votenader.org on the compare sites.(Wouldn't let me do it via a link)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:If not NOW, WHEN??

[tunesmith]

It's just the wrong order.

First - clarify that your state constitution allows preference voting. Many actually make specific allowances for it.

Then, pass preference voting (the general category for all ranked-ballot counting systems: IRV, which sucks, IRR/Condorcet, which is better, and several IRV-Condorcet blends, which are good too) for local races to get the public used to it.

Eventually, get preference voting working for all statewide races, including - importantly - national representatives and Senators.

BUT NOT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE.

The reason: even with preference voting, there's that 270-EV requirement. It sucks. For as long as the house is gerrymandered, the 270 requirements means that any tie, or any failure of any candidate to reach 270 - which is much more possible with third party candidates starting to get EVs - will lead to the GOP House electing a GOP President.

Don't suggest replacing the EC with the popular vote because it will never pass with Congress the way it is.

So, preference voting for Senate and House. The, run races for a few elections where third parties don't have to deal with the spoiler problem. Watch the House change to have more party representation than just Democrat and Republican.

Use this change in representation to build support for a different presidential voting system. A different Electoral College implementation, getting rid of it, whatever.

And, very importantly, IN PARALLEL, fight to implement nonpartisan district boundary redrawings for the house. Look up gerrymandering. Prevent it. Some states do fair redrawing already. Texas and several southern states do not.

When the House can costlessly elect candidates from several parties, and when the House will more accurately represent our population due to less gerrymandering, and when we have a presidential election system in place that is better than the EC, then and ONLY then can we have a presidential election with third party candidates that won't have the problems we have been having for the last several elections. The system creates the pattern, so you have to fix the system before you can change the pattern.

Or, you can just make like tinkerbell and clap louder. "Vote your conscience!" "All you have to do is believe!" Pretend the system isn't there, and the system will beat you every time. Remember, it's not enough to know yourself. You have to know yourself, AND know your enemy.