Networks Ignore 3rd Party Candidates

freedomfighter writes "The major media networks have been willfully ignoring alternative voices in this presidential election, focusing only on the two major parties, Democrat and Republican."

Comments

Amazing!

[Hammerikaner]

Wow, now that's what I call late-breaking news!

Re:Amazing!

[Brandybuck]

Frankly I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

Re:Amazing!

[Bastian]

You know what's even crazier?

President Kennedy has been shot!

Re:Amazing!

[Thing 1]

Elvis: "No offense, Jack, but President Kennedy was a white man. "

Kennedy: "They dyed me this color! That's how clever they are!"

(Bubba Ho-Tep)

Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[parvenu74]

I know that the Greens, the Libertarians, the Natural Law Party, the Constitution Party and others would like to have their voices individually heard and to be covered more in the news, what's the chance that they could collectively make "breaking up the Republican-Democrat duopoly" the #1 goal in their platforms? If they were *all* in agreement on this point I think there would be more notice given to all "third party" candidates.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[Antony-Kyre]

One problem is people are too scared to vote for a third party, fearing it is throwing their vote away. Do I need to remind us of that The Simpsons 1996 Halloween episode?

Whether or not we decide to keep, alter, or scrap the electoral college, we should try getting Instant Runoff Voting in place. Even if it's to determine the state's (or Congressional District's) popular vote, people wouldn't mind voting for a third party.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[genrader]

As Michael Badnarik said, there is nothing better to replace the electoral college unless you want to go to a mob rule, which usually results in collapsing the government in a while.

Voting your concious is not going to be throwing your vote away. So many people just don't realize it.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[AuMatar]

It is, especially in the presidential election. Lets say we managed to get Nader, Coob, and Badarnik each get 1/5 of the electoral college votes, along with Bush and Kerry. The race would be tied and go to the House of Representatives. Basicly, the entire presidential election wouldn't matter. So long as we have the EC, 3rd party presidential candidates have no chance.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[Jahf]

But there -are- better ways to use the Electoral College. We have the technology now to transmit vote results faster than by horse, which is a large part of the idea behind sending the delegates to DC to do the true vote.

In Colorado there is an initiative to make the EC votes from the state be a proportional representation of the votes cast. That way if Bush gets 40% of the vote.

There are people who claim that this will marginalize Colorado's influence as a swing state. However it also makes it more honest. I would much rather see the Dem or Lib ticket get -some- of the votes -all- of the time than see the Reps get ALL of the votes -most- of the time. The more states that do this the more honest representation we get of the true voice of the people. Besides, seeing fewer political ads won't upset me at all :)

I think it is either Maine or Massachusetts that already gives a proportional amount of EC votes, though in a different manner (the overall winner gets 2 votes, then the state is split into north and south and the overall winner in each region gets one ... sometimes it means that all 4 votes go to 1 person, sometimes it means that 1 person gets 3 votes and another gets 1 ... I think that's how they work it anyway). However that is still a very biased representation.

The EC still has some legitimate uses as a filter above an inherrently complicated system. But it is archaic in it's current form and can be revised without be replaced. If all states had a fully proportional vote (except perhaps a state that only had 1 EC vote if such a state exists), then the candidates would need to pay attention to the entire country instead of pandering to 10% of the states to influence swing voters.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[Anonymous Coward]

IRV is not a good solution. Approval voting would be better.

But here we're not talking about electoral reform, we're talking about the media. And of course they're going to ignore Badnarik and Cobb. The Libertarian Party got about .36% of the vote in 2000 (aka 5th place). The Greens got 2.74% with Nader in 2000, but the thinking is that it had as more to do with Nader being Nader than with his party affiliation. His being on the Green ticket was something of a gift to the Green party.

The Badnarik campaign's release about media blackout is factually accurate but otherwise uninteresting. The media are covering Ralph Nader fairly well because he's likely to get votes in places where it "matters" (i.e. swing states) and possibly affect the election--the LP are no more likely to have a serious effect on this election than they have in any major election since 1970.

Finally, it's perverse that the LP would be complaining about this stuff. You can expect more of this type of thing to result from the deregulation and property rights the LP stands for. In their ideal world, the owners of property and capital get to make all kinds of decisions that affect all of us, including which political viewpoints to write about.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[Stochio]

I'm voting for Kodos. He's for chiiiiiildren.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[roystgnr]

Finally, it's perverse that the LP would be complaining about this stuff. You can expect more of this type of thing to result from the deregulation and property rights the LP stands for. In their ideal world, the owners of property and capital get to make all kinds of decisions that affect all of us, including which political viewpoints to write about.

Is the Libertarian Party asking the government to step in and tell the media how to allocate their political coverage? Libertarianism doesn't mean that consumers of a bad product (including bad news) have no recourse, it just means that they have to get producers to change via market pressure instead of government laws. Trying to encourage that market pressure by publicizing and complaining about flaws is a perfectly libertarian thing to do.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[N3WBI3]

There are people who claim that this will marginalize Colorado's influence as a swing state. However it also makes it more honest. I would much rather see the Dem or Lib ticket get -some- of the votes -all- of the time than see the Reps get ALL of the votes -most- of the time. The more states that do this the more honest representation we get of the true voice of the people. Besides, seeing fewer political ads won't upset me at all :)

Yes it will make Colerado less important than any other state in the union when it comes to presidentail politics. Two huge problems with the CO method.

1) Two get anything more than a 1EV swing you you need to beat your opponent by 22.2%. That large a margin is rare (A handfull in 2000). Therfore Colorade will effectively have fewer EV's than DC.

2) In the event that three thrid parties together pull more than 11% of the vote but none of them get 11 themselves what is done with that EV? I dont know and Im pretty sure neither does the average person in Co.

If you want to break up the EV's and give 3rd parties a better shot the Main and Nebraska systems are the best give out EV's by district and give the over all winner the 2 'senate' votes.

The EC still has some legitimate uses as a filter above an inherrently complicated system. But it is archaic in it's current form and can be revised without be replaced

At the state level yes it can but at the federal level it cannot be touched without changing the constitution.

If all states had a fully proportional vote (except perhaps a state that only had 1 EC vote if such a state exists),

No state is only 1 EV even DC is 3. The numbers are based on the number of house members and the number of senators from that state (min 3). If you dont know how the system works how can you have an informed opinion about how archaic it is?

then the candidates would need to pay attention to the entire country instead of pandering to 10% of the states to influence swing voters.

Huh how would that fix anything? Lets assume that every system put into place the proposed CO system Whats to stop candidates from ignoreing a small state in which they would have to pick of more than 10% than the current polling to pick up the state?

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who advised that we have a new revolution every 20 years or so- just to keep the government on it's toes?

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[BlueFashoo]

No state is only 1 EV even DC is 3. The numbers are based on the number of house members and the number of senators from that state (min 3). If you dont know how the system works how can you have an informed opinion about how archaic it is?

Actually, while DC has 3 EVs, it does not actually have any true senators or representaives. It has what they call shadow representatives, essentially elected lobbyists, who do not have voting rights within congress.

While I am not a resident of DC, (California actually) I fully support the right of DC citizens to be represented in the congress.

The citizens of DC are subject to same taxation as the rest of us, yet have no representation. There was a congresswoman from DC with limited voting rights, but those were stripped after two years. For more information see:

http://senatordc.wdcnet.net/why.html

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[N3WBI3]

While I am not a resident of DC, (California actually) I fully support the right of DC citizens to be represented in the congress.

I support a house member for DC but not two senators . DC is a special case because of its place in the constitution.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[siriuskase]

I know that the Greens, the Libertarians, the Natural Law Party, the Constitution Party and others would like to have their voices individually heard and to be covered more in the news, what's the chance that they could collectively make "breaking up the Republican-Democrat duopoly" the #1 goal in their platforms? If they were *all* in agreement on this point I think there would be more notice given to all "third party" candidates.

That would be great if they could all adopt the same #1 plank. But, what about the rest of the platform? If anything the "Third Parties" are much more diverse than the other two which seem to hog the middle ground.

How would it work to put together some kind of coalition party that would make election reform its only goal? Then, conduct another official election or if that's impractical, conduct some other sort of national referendum. I'd like to see a ballot that would allow me to indicate not only which candidate I prefer, but what issues I'd like him to consider top priority.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[siriuskase]

For those who don't remember, The Simpsons 1996 Halloween episode went sort of like this:

Treehouse of Horror VII (1996) The Halloween episode features my favorite Kang and Kodos story, in which our slobbering one-eyed aliens morph into Bob Dole and Bill Clinton. Golden moment: "I suppose you want to probe me," says Homer, on board the flying saucer. "Well, you might as well get it over with." Kang, raising a tentacle: "Stop! We have reached the limit of what rectal probing can teach us!"

http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/sofdreams.html

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[siriuskase]

I support at least one representative for DC. How many representatives would it have if it were a state?

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[EnronHaliburton2004]

As Michael Badnarik said, there is nothing better to replace the electoral college unless you want to go to a mob rule, which usually results in collapsing the government in a while.

Really? There are a number of countries in the world who vote Democratically for their President (1 person 1 vote, biggest vote wins). How many of those democracies have collapsed?

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

Libertarians would indeed insist on using market forces to sway the networks - however, I think it is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. The networks have no real market reason to highlight 3rd party candidates and, until they do, 3rd parties will continue to struggle to increase in numbers.

I'm a Green Party kind of guy, so obviously you know where I am coming from - but I feel that this is a classic example of the problem with the Libertarian platform. Sometimes, what's good for the market and for the players of the market is simply not good for the rest of us. It would be a Good Thing(tm) to have more voices/choices on the networks for the voters to hear, but there is literally no reason for the networks to provide this just based on merit. A publically funded news organization like the BBC would have more of an incentive, and I would love to see the creation of an American equivalent, but until then I really don't see 3rd parties getting any limelight, or the networks being swayed by market forces. To sway the networks with market forces, you need numbers... and to get numbers, you need to get exposure. Chicken and the egg.

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with it is that the playing field is already slanted in favor of corporate owned media. The LP anti-regulation approach actually gives the corporate media more power over the market, just as freeing the slaves after the Civil War didn't suddenly make them part owners of the plantations they helped create, instead they became sharecroppers and many may have been worse off than they were as slaves. The flaw in the Party line is that when two parties in a market have disparate circumstances the market is fundamentally not-free. It's a qustion of capital owners being able to capture a vertical market, thereby controlling not only the means of production, but the means of distribution.

Just how do libertarians counter these concerns? Does the LP have a plan to equalize the market before they deregulate it, thereby undoing decades (sometimes centuries) of government interference that has benefitted corporations? Will the LP promote class action lawsuits against government and the corporations that have benefitted from government handouts? Or do they plan to rely on wishful thinking in order to rectify the situation?

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is the Libertarian Party asking the government to step in and tell the media how to allocate their political coverage?

Yes, they are, Badnarik sued to block the debates on these grounds.

in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the sky is blue. at least during the day. then at night it is black. or full of white dots. or even orange in the city.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[WCityMike]

-1 Naive ...

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

how about parties try to win NON-PRESIDENTIAL elections first... worked for Hitler.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

From the LP.org website:

In the off-year election of 2003, 46 Libertarians were elected to local office -- and nearly half of those victories came in higher-level races such as city and county council. The LP now has over 600 officeholders, which is more than all other third parties combined.

Currently the party is gearing up for the November 2004 elections, in which we expect to field more than 1,000 candidates for federal, state and local office.

new news?

[Hes Nikke]

this is new news how? sadly, us nerds and geeks are probably the only people who already realized this, so /. is just preaching to the quire here... :\

the following is an excerpt of what i posted in a recent rant:

Sadly, in the case of the presidential election this year, (or the farce that was the California gubernatorial recall last year) only the Democans (the republicans and democrats are the same thing) get their names known to the United States public. The system is so royally fucked up, that I can't even vote for the non-Republicrats as I have no idea what those unknowns represent! I guess I'll have to vote for myself all the way down the ticket. :\

Re:new news?

[Stochio]

"I guess I'll have to vote for myself all the way down the ticket."
...not if you're in Oklahoma, you won't!

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with this.

This election's too important to putz around throwing protest votes at candidates who don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

The fact is that each of the two parties is fairly flexible; the primary system allows for a wide range of ideas to be heard, and then they're narrowed down in the final vote. Anybody who's remotely close enough to the American mainstream to win the general election is going to fit reasonably well into one or the other of the two major parties.

People need to stop insisting that there's no variety within the major parties and that the only way to get "alternative voices" is through someone who's officially designated as part of a third party. That's just not true at all. People should stop complaining about the system and understand that most viewpoints can be expressed well from within it.

Re:So?

[XxtraLarGe]

The fact of the matter is that many of these candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning because they DON'T get media exposure. Most people have never heard of most third parties, and have it ingrained in their minds that we have a two party system. Just imagine if Nader and Badnarik and others had been included in the debates, and received equal coverage in the press. I'm sure the polls would look quite a bit different, even though I'm certain that Republican or Democrat would still be leading.

Re:So?

[Hulkster]

Hulk says no network coverage of his campaign for President either!
Hulk can SMASH snowballs better than Puny Humans Bush and Kerry.
And most Puny Humans have heard of HULK.
Debate would have been a lot more exciting if Hulk had been invited.
Vote for Hulk HERE!

Puny Human /.'ers will probably mod this into oblivion, but "don't get me angry ... you wouldn't like me when I'm angry"

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

zomg, another presidential candidate lying! the hulk is as human as anyone else - he just got a little more radiation than most folks.

Re:So?

[Darmox]

People need to stop insisting that there's no variety within the major parties and that the only way to get "alternative voices" is through someone who's officially designated as part of a third party. That's just not true at all. People should stop complaining about the system and understand that most viewpoints can be expressed well from within it.

Okay, which of the two parties is for decreasing the size and scope of the federal government?

I mean, the Republicans used to be, or said they were... but, really, neither of them even say they want smaller government now.

I guess that puts me too far out of the mainstream... guess I'll have to vote... wait for it... third party

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the Democrats decreased the size and scope of the federal government in Clinton. It's certainly not outside of the spectrum of positions that a major party candidate could hold.

People need to understand that they're probably never going to find a candidate that's perfectly in-tune with every single one of their positions. If you want that, run for office yourself. Don't pretend that "if only there were a third candidate, he'd be exactly what I'm looking for!" No. Odds are he'd be at least as far from what you want as the other two. As would a fourth. And a fifth.

And if we actually had so many real candidates that everyone can find one that fits their positions perfectly, the debates would be between fifty different people and each one would get about 30 seconds to talk during the whole thing. It'd be a zoo. And the winner would be someone who surged ahead to 3% of the popular vote--hardly a mandate from the masses.

The fact is that the process of elimination we have through the primary system gives a wide range of political voices a chance to be heard--everyone from Sharpton to Dean to Kucinich to Kerry. What we have is a sort of run-off election between several candidates, such that the final vote comes down to the final two. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Re:So?

[Darmox]

I think you missed my point.

(I'd dispute that the Democrats decreased the size of the Federal Government, Clinton wanted to increase it with HillaryCare, and I'd say it was the Republican congress that actually kept the Federal government down a bit during that time.)

My point is that I have found a candidate that is pretty close to my views. I've found the one candidate that happens to be interested in decreasing the size and scope of the government. He's a third-party candidate.

A vote for Bush or Kerry is a vote for bigger government, which means more of the government telling you it knows what's best for you better than you do.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with there being two big ones. I'm saying there is something wrong with the great-grandparent of this comment saying that everyone should be satisfied with the choice between the two big candidates. Especially because they are both in favor of bigger government.

I'm not even saying every guy with a petition to be on the ballot should be in the debates -- but you'd think two presidential candidates getting arrested would make news.

Re:So?

[Minna Kirai]

1. The Hulkster is a blond actor who grappled with The Undertaker and Macho Randy Savage. The Incredible Hulk is really Dr. Bruce Banner, transformed by a secret military accident.

2. Grog or Gronk or whoever did these posts much better, years ago.

3. Hint: Try MORE CAPS. The boldface isn't enough to get the YELLING across.

Re:So?

[overunderunderdone]

...and have it ingrained in their minds that we have a two party system

That's because we DO have a two party system. Sure you can run as a third party, but as long as are system requires you to get a majority of the votes you will never win. Any sizable body of opinion will be incorporated within one of the major parties which are in reality coalitions of many smaller blocks... "third parties" that can just barely get along together and agree on the broadest of general principles to hold together and get that one vote above 50% they need to win.

Third parties are all about ideological purity and refusal to compromise... they make for nice statements but never for democratic governance. The two party system has a place for multiple candidates many of them pure and uncompromising in the ideology. That place is the primaries - there was a LOT of variety and plenty of candidates for everyone this election and the last one. There were 10 candidates running for President this time, last time there were 11... What we are having now is really something like a run-off election in a multi-party system. And the parties themselves are something like two potential coalition governments in a parliamentary system (though the final government may not reflect the entire coalition because the President himself wins and then gets to pick his cabinet, not like a Parliamentary system at all... but that is probably a feature.)

Recurring /. Problem

[jazman_777]

Garet Garret wrote, in 1938, of the changes in the Republic due mainly to Franklinstein Roosevelt:

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

This is from an essay "The Revolution Was."

Re:Recurring /. Problem

[Darmox]

Seriously, this is a great essay, The Revolution Was.

Anyone that hasn't yet really ought to read it. It's long, and some of it is a bit hard, but you'll be amazed. You think 1984 is scary?

Read it.

Re:Recurring /. Problem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What I can't figure out (living three quarters of a century down the road) is what was so scary about replacing private industry with governmnet? And then I realize- the end result was to replace government with private industry- making slaves of us all.

Re:Recurring /. Problem

[Darmox]

Do you really believe that government can do anything better than private industry? Do you really believe that not working for the government makes us slaves? What does that say about the first 4 or 5 months of the year that we work to pay taxes?

I don't mean to have this seem like a flame. I'll admit I'm pretty set in my ways against government all around, but really, it just doesn't compute for me. Government run programs mean waste, fraud(hell, look at out most recently nationalized industry -- TSA), etc.

Re:Recurring /. Problem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Do you really believe that government can do anything better than private industry?

Given the examples of corruption, mismanagment, and downright short-sightedness on the part of private industry over the last 40 years, culminating in the current job market collapse, I think it would be VERY hard for government to do WORSE than private industry, which has shown itself to be an abject failure at absolutely anything long term.

Do you really believe that not working for the government makes us slaves?

I didn't say that- I said not working for ourselves, in very small corporations, will make us slaves- either to the government or to corporations- and it doesn't really matter which one because either way there won't be enough jobs available until we put taking care of people at a higher value than profit.

What does that say about the first 4 or 5 months of the year that we work to pay taxes?

A tax system driven by corporate interests is not from the government, it's from private industry. We don't have a real government in the United States anymore- just a puppet duopoly with it's strings being pulled by the MNCs. Most of that tax money is going right into the pockets of private industry- with a small kickback to the politicians.

don't mean to have this seem like a flame. I'll admit I'm pretty set in my ways against government all around, but really, it just doesn't compute for me. Government run programs mean waste, fraud(hell, look at out most recently nationalized industry -- TSA), etc.

The problem is- private industry isn't any better, at all.

Re:Recurring /. Problem

[maximilln]

Given the examples of corruption, mismanagment, and downright short-sightedness on the part of private industry over the last 40 years, culminating in the current job market collapse, I think it would be VERY hard for government to do WORSE than private industry, which has shown itself to be an abject failure at absolutely anything long term

Maybe you don't realize that government has had a direct hand in guiding and regulating the industries that have collapsed over the past 40 years? One might say that the collapse was inevitable with the upper echelons of both groups milking the entire system dry.

A tax system driven by corporate interests is not from the government, it's from private industry

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the term collusion?

The only answer is to minimize the government and let the people deal with the corporations. If our government would quit backing the corps with our own tax money, we'd have more resources available to stage an effective strike.

The problem is- private industry isn't any better, at all

Private industry can't take money from your paycheck by fiat.

Re:Recurring /. Problem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Maybe you don't realize that government has had a direct hand in guiding and regulating the industries that have collapsed over the past 40 years?

Other way around, dude- thanks to campaign contributions and lobbyists, during the last 40 years or so it's been the corporations and industries shaping government. The people haven't had a say in how government is run for 40 years now.

One might say that the collapse was inevitable with the upper echelons of both groups milking the entire system dry.

I'd agree with that, however- but make no mistake- corporations are the source of the money that has stolen our governmnet from being of, by, and for the people, to being of, by, and for the corporations.

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the term collusion?

I'm familiar with it- but maybe you don't understand how it came about- it was the power grab by the Roosevelt administration, followed by WWII, that gave the corporations the extra money they needed to effectively reverse the power structure of the United States.

The only answer is to minimize the government and let the people deal with the corporations. If our government would quit backing the corps with our own tax money, we'd have more resources available to stage an effective strike.

If it wasn't for the corporations- we'd have that smaller government.

Private industry can't take money from your paycheck by fiat.

Yes they can- that's what the cheap labor movement is all about, taking money out of American paychecks by forcing us to compete with third world workers and economies.

I'm for the separation of corporation and state- but it's not going to be accomplished by cutting the taxes of the corporations and shifting costs on to our children.

Re:Recurring /. Problem

[maximilln]

The people haven't had a say in how government is run for 40 years now

Excellent point. It is logical that, as government becomes larger and larger, the people still will have no say in government. The only solution is to minimize the government. We can't keep both big business and big government under close watch, but if we minimize one, we can watch the other.

to being of, by, and for the corporations

By minimizing government, we will take away their supporter and level the field for the rest of us.

that gave the corporations the extra money they needed to effectively reverse the power structure of the United States

The only way to return the power structure to the people is to minimize it. We cannot legislate corporations into good behavior. If we try we will only increase the size of government and the big corporations will once again find a way to buy it out.

If it wasn't for the corporations- we'd have that smaller government

If our government hadn't backed the banking industry in the Civil War (under the guise of freeing slaves) the people would have kept their authority over the government. Without government (and banking) backing to legitimize their pillaging, the corporations would have been kept in check through natural means by the workers and consumers. This is a 150 year old problem to which the only solution is: The 9th and 10th Amendments. Minimize government, keep it in its place. Let the people wrangle with the corporations on a fair field.

I'm for the separation of corporation and state- but it's not going to be accomplished by cutting the taxes of the corporations

I agree completely. It's also not going to be accomplished by giving the government more authority over the corporations. You've pointed out quite well that corporations and perfectly capable of buying control of the government. The only real solution is to put the government back in its proper minimal role and let the people wage their natural struggle against market driven greed on a fair field.

Re:Recurring /. Problem

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Excellent point. It is logical that, as government becomes larger and larger, the people still will have no say in government. The only solution is to minimize the government. We can't keep both big business and big government under close watch, but if we minimize one, we can watch the other.

That's certainly one strategy. Here's an alternate strategy (that basically accomplishes the same thing): eliminate the HUMAN element in governance. Make being a career politician illegal, and replace all the beurucrats with expert system Artificial Intelligences. Eliminate ALL of the pay structure for governmnet- and draft the few people left that you need for duty. Make the citizen the ultimate authority. Eliminate business altogether- if you can't make it yourself or get it from the AIs, you don't need it.

By minimizing government, we will take away their supporter and level the field for the rest of us.

And they're going to let you do that exactly why?

The only way to return the power structure to the people is to minimize it. We cannot legislate corporations into good behavior. If we try we will only increase the size of government and the big corporations will once again find a way to buy it out.

Depends on how you do it- but I'm not suggesting legislation, I'm suggesting violent revolution.

If our government hadn't backed the banking industry in the Civil War (under the guise of freeing slaves) the people would have kept their authority over the government. Without government (and banking) backing to legitimize their pillaging, the corporations would have been kept in check through natural means by the workers and consumers. This is a 150 year old problem to which the only solution is: The 9th and 10th Amendments. Minimize government, keep it in its place. Let the people wrangle with the corporations on a fair field.

And yet even with the 9th and 10th ammendments- it happened anyway. No- the basic structure is broken- it needs replacing. I'm with the Arizona Free Republicans on that one.

I agree completely. It's also not going to be accomplished by giving the government more authority over the corporations. You've pointed out quite well that corporations and perfectly capable of buying control of the government. The only real solution is to put the government back in its proper minimal role and let the people wage their natural struggle against market driven greed on a fair field.

The key word there is FAIR....

It's the Issues, stupid!

[parvenu74]

No, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but if they change the debate then they've won. More importantly, if we were to hear any coverage about the third parties we would hear a message that MANY of us care a great deal about which neither of the "major" parties will dare discuss: immigration. Have you heard one word from Kerry or Bush about stopping the flood of ILLEGAL aliens across the southern border? Have you anything about rounding up all the ILLEGAL aliens currently here and throwing them out of the country? Laws don't mean a hell of a lot when neither the elected executives nor the do-nothing legislators completely ignore such a massively important problem like ILLEGAL immigration, one with huge negative economic and national security implications!

Perot might not have won in 1992, but he DID make Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dee talk about NAFTA... the same could happen now if the third parties were allowed to raise the issue of ILLEGAL immigrants, and that would be a win for democracy!

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Poppler]

Have you heard one word from Kerry or Bush about stopping the flood of ILLEGAL aliens across the southern border?
Actually Kerry said something about this in the debate last night. Of coarse it was a vague statement along the lines of "Bush has not made our borders secure, and I will", but at least he brought it up.

Though I think having Badnarik around for this question would have made the "discussion" a lot more interesting!

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Kick the Donkey]

And I suppose your going to happily pay the massivly inflated prices for goods and services without the cheap labor?

I'm not saying it ain't broke. Just saying that "...rounding up all the ILLEGAL aliens... and throwing them out of the country..." would have more of a negitive impact on our economy than they cause by being here.

I thought about this on my way to work this morning. I've never seen a hispanic bum. I see many natural born (I assume) Americans (whites & blacks) pan-handleing. But I've never seen a hispanic. Wonder why that is? Maybe cause they want to work?

I wish more American's had the work ethic of an illegal alien.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Round up the illegals offer this deal to the first 10,000 or so able-bodied ones who will accept it: join a work-camp to build an Israel-style fence across the southern border in exchange for amnesty and a three year probation, period after which they can receive a green card. Oh -- and offer to waive one month from that probationary period for every illegal alien they turn in...

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're wrong. Cut every able-bodied person off of welfare and let them take the jobs vacated by the deported illegals. This keeps the economic status quo and reduces the drag on our social system, lowering taxes, allowing more $$$ for more economic growth, and so on and so forth. Are all of you liberals too dense to understand simple macroeconomics?

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying it ain't broke. Just saying that "...rounding up all the ILLEGAL aliens... and throwing them out of the country..." would have more of a negitive impact on our economy than they cause by being here.

You're full of shit. Let's see some numbers to back up that bullshit claim.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[bubblewrapgrl]

The question is more a matter of what people are willing to do certain kinds of jobs. Right now, we have illegal aliens who are doing jobs that citizens of the US (even those on welfare) don't want to do. I'm not saying that applies to every person on welfare or every illegal alien, but certainly to enough. I'm all for people on welfare working instead of receiving government assistance. Unfortunately, no one has figured out a way to make people work. You can refuse to give them money and get them a job, but you can't ensure that they'll show up every day. So, we have a lot of jobs that need doing, but have no one to do them. Why not let the people who have proven they are willing to work become citizens instead of deporting them?

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Massively inflated prices...HA

What about the massively inflated taxes paid to support all manner of assistance they receive (education, healthcare, etc.)?

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[ArsonSmith]

Not really Hispanic culture promotes large (sometimes huge) families. While USian culture promotes independence. Where USians usually try to move out at 18. Hispanic cultures are discouraged and the rest of the family many times is very offended if you even consider independence. Several Hispanic homes, including my next door neighbor, have 4 generation in them.

Ohh yes, I see lots of Hispanic bums, they just don't usually pan handle on the streets but in their own homes.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Stochio]

That's an extremely naive viewpoint. This country *depends* on many of the illegal immigrants that you are quick to bash. I'm not saying it's alright to be an illegal immigrant - I'm just saying it's not as simple as you claim.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[DavidTC]

Um, the problem isn't people coming here to work. I, honestly, have absolutely no problem with that, even if they enter illegally. If I knew where some honest, hardworking Mexicans were hiding, and INS specifically came knocking and asked for directions to their hideout, I send them halfway across the county.

Anyone who makes an issue out of that and takes that stand would lose my vote. I don't give a flying fuck if someone's in the country illegally. I think they should pay taxes, just like normal people, but considering they often get less then minimum wage, it's not like there's a vast amount of taxes they are failing to pay.

However, a failing of the system is farmers and builder who employ people at less than minimum wage, with no taxes. That's something I take issue with, because it's nearly identical to the other big problem. Outsourcing.

The actual economic problem is when a company employs people who do not live in America (or, with illegal immigrants, barely live in this country, and whose family don't) and sells the products to people who live in America. That produces a net imbalance in employment vs. people buying things, which probably would have some technical term if I was an economics major.

But what basically happens is, on average, it gives people in other countries, say, 3 dollars more money a month, and it gives people in American, say, 10 dollars less money a month. (Because in the other country, there are more people working at a slightly higher paying job, and in the US, there are more people laid off.)

Where does the rest of the money go? Into the companies wallets. And as a bonus, they don't have to worry about their worker's income tax. And people in ther countries have no unions, lax labor laws, and lower expectations. (I'm not dissing those people, BTW, I have no quarrel with them.) Everyone wins!

Give me a candidate who'll do something about that and I'll vote for him.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Stochio]

I suggest you read "Petition of the Candlestick Makers". The flaw in your argument is that you don't "get more product" by paying more for it. You get more product by getting more product at less cost. Period. This is what free markets are wonderful at figuring out all by themselves. I also suggest you read The Law . Seriously, just give it a read.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Minna Kirai]

Have you heard one word from Kerry or Bush about stopping the flood of ILLEGAL aliens across the southern border?

Yes. If you haven't heard, you must not've listened to the debate last Wednesday.

In brief, Kerry says he will cut down on illegal aliens by heavily punishing US employers who hire them. (Although at the same time, he will raise minimum wage, increasing the incentive for hiring illegals)

Bush, in contrast, will eliminate illegal migrant workers by simply legalizing them. (If you can't beat em, legalize em) (How that idea co-exists with Homeland Security, he didn't say)

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Minna Kirai]

honest, hardworking Mexicans were hiding

The words "honest" and "hiding" don't really belong together...

Especially when you go on to suggest blatant dishonesty in their defense.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Shihar]

"Bush, in contrast, will eliminate illegal migrant workers by simply legalizing them. (If you can't beat em, legalize em) (How that idea co-exists with Homeland Security, he didn't say)"

If you don't understand, let me explain it to you. People who work are not a drag on the US economy. Further, if they are filling out paper work and providing identification information you can actually run a background check to see who they are. A documented worker is far less of a potential threat to 'homeland security' then an undocumented alien.

Personally, I am always amazed that Democrats agree with, or at least steal Bush's position. It is a damn good one if you believe in the concept of compassion, helping your neighbors, and increasing security. Mexico gets a massive boost to their economy from these workers, as these workers can send home part of their pay check to add to the Mexican economy. The last time I checked Mexicans were still humans, and I was generally under the impression that compassion should be extended to all humans, not just Americans. Further still, if you are documenting these people, then it lets you focus on illegal aliens that are a real threat. If your fear is terrorism, then letting these people freely cross the border in a documented manner is the best thing you can do to stamp out terrorism. Currently there is an entire system illegal industry set up along the US-Mexico border to sneak people across the border. If you eliminate the need for these people to sneak across the border, then that entire illegal industry dies. The country would be significantly safer if that industry was stamped out by offering people a way to cross legally.

There are a lot of good reasons to dislike Bush. I for one be voting for him in the upcoming elections. His stance on guest workers is not one of the reasons though why I won't be voting for him.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[DavidTC]

I understand what you're saying, but I can't figure out where I suggested otherwise. I didn't say anything about getting more, or less, product. I was just talking about the flow of money. Before, it was producer, consumer, producer, in an endless loop, with both taking something way from it.

Under outsourcing, the consumer still pays the producer, but the producer keeps half the money he would have spent before (Or, yes, the company reduces prices, which is slightly less screwage.), and the rest of the money goes to someone in another country, breaking the cycle, because they don't buy things from American companies or use American labor when they order a pizza.

Yes, in the long run, we're just getting other countries to create wealth for us, and thus we're not actually getting poorer. In fact, we can create even more wealth, become money goes farther.

However, the ultimate problem with oursourcing is that it's adding to the wealth of large companies, without giving any money to local workers to purchase said wealth. Which, yes, will eventually solve itself when either we raise up all third world countries in the world to our economic level, or lower ourselves to theirs...but the first will take forever, and the second is not something people would logically want to happen.

And it raises lots of interesting questions about 'trickle down economies'. My entire life, I've heard that if you pay companies more and workers less, they'll just pay workers less. Well, that becomes amazingly irrelevant if their workers aren't paying taxes in the first place. I.e, if we're going to let companies do this, they need to pay more taxes, because their workers are playing less.

In fact, a lot of the laws in the country are based on the concept that consumers are workers, and thus helping consumers at the expense of companies is stupid. Well, if they aren't workers anymore...it's time to fuck companies over. Who's it going to hurt? The rich owners? Companies are rapidly throwing away the one thing that made anyone give a damn about their wants and needs. Companies are here to serve us, if they have no purpose, let's beat them about the head until they have a purpose again or die.

As for your suggestion I'm somehow protectionalist...I have no problem with other countries actually making things cheaper than us. The problem is when they do so in ways that would be illegal under US law for quite legitmate reasons, and it just pisses me off when it's American companies doing it. I mean, we can't police every trinket factory in China, but we're supposed to be able to police American companies.

Hiring people in other countries under minumum wage, in unsafe working conditions, ought to be as legal as it is to do here. And the companies should have to pay income tax on all non-American workers. That would be a nice start.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[DavidTC]

Honest and hiding don't go together?

What universe do you live in? I can think of dozens of instances where honest people had to hide form a corrupt government.

Unless you're trying to suggest that being an honest person means you can't lie, instead of it meaning you don't want to.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[DavidTC]

I'd just like to amend my second to the last sentence: And the companies should have to pay income tax on all non-American workers.

That is really only relevant when talking about income that otherwise disappears into the great unknown. There are some places, like towns that are located in America and Mexico, when the money quite obviously will circulate back to the US. I'm not trying to make all 'foreign' worker basically pay income tax twice because they live in one country and commute to work in another country.

In fact, that's probably the best test right there: Location. Let's make companies pay income taxes for their foreign workers based on their distance from the US, based on the concept that money is less likely to be taxed again by the US government anytime soon, so we need to extract the taxes from it now.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Minna Kirai]

honest people had to hide form a corrupt government

Regardless of the corruptness of the other party, to lie or mislead is still dishonest.

an honest person means you can't lie, instead of it meaning you don't want to.

Both are wrong. Honesty means you don't lie, even when you want to.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Minna Kirai]

Further, if they are filling out paper work and providing identification information you can actually run a background check to see who they are.

Yes, because the FBI has great records on the legal and religious background of 50 million Mexican teenagers.

Re:It's the Issues, stupid!

[Shihar]

Yes, because the FBI has great records on the legal and religious background of 50 million Mexican teenagers.

None of the 50 million Mexican teenagers are going to be plant bombs and be terrorist. The bigger worry are the 5 Jihadist that are able to get through the border because of the industry that has sprung up to allow the relativly harmless 50 million Mexican teenagers to work as janitors in the US. Mexicans are not the security problem. The illegal industry dedicated to getting the Mexicans here is the problem. Destroy that industry by making it so that people can cross the border freely after filling out a little paper work and just plugged the biggest security hole in the US.

US election system lends itself to 2 parties

[Zanguinar]

It's bad, but the US election system really is designed for people to chose between only 2 candidates. A third party has never won, so I think it's a good idea to keep third parties out of the debates. It would have a negative impact on the election, because a vote for a 3rd party is truly a wasted vote in the US, so voting for a 3rd party when you otherwise would have voted for a major party fundamentally alters the results. It's horrible that it's true, but it is.

What we really need is to completely overhaul the voting system and the electoral college. Until we move from regular majority voting, there is no realistic alternative to the two parties.

For more about why majority voting (and many voting systems) are fundamentally flawed, research Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Approval voting is probably the simplest method to avoid Arrow's Paradox.

Re:US election system lends itself to 2 parties

[Brandybuck]

Actually, third parties have won in the past. Does the name "Abraham Lincoln" mean anything to you?

Re:US election system lends itself to 2 parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the name "Abraham Lincoln" mean anything to you?

Hell yes! I *loved* Lincoln Logs as a kid. Thanks Abe!

Re:US election system lends itself to 2 parties

[WCityMike]

A third party has never won.

This may be technically correct, but George Washington and John Adams were part of the Federalist party; William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore were Whigs; and John Quincy Adams belonged to no party at all. And let's not forget the Bull Moose Party.

Re:US election system lends itself to 2 parties

[kjones692]

Since Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican to be elected president, and the two main parties at the time were the Democrats and the Whigs (who had recently broken up due to conflict over slavery), he could technically be considered a third-party candidate. Remember that he won only because the Democrats divided themselves among 2 candidates, and Lincoln only received 40% of the vote.

Re:US election system lends itself to 2 parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, John Quincy Adams was a Democratic-Republican. George Washington had no party affiliation (and in fact he felt that political parties were a threat to democracy).

Re:US election system lends itself to 2 parties

[notmtwain]

If no third party has ever won, what happened to the Whigs and the Federalists? How did the Republicans ever win?

And what about the system is designed for two parties? The fact thatat just normally happens because the mainstream press ignores them. And we don't have majority voting. If you recall, Gore won the most votes, but he lost.

We have a representative democracy. We entrust the will of the people to our representatives. Back in the days when our country was founded, it took quite a while to collect, count and process all the votes. That probably explains why inaugurations were held in March.

Re:US election system lends itself to 2 parties

[westlake]

Actually, third parties have won in the past. Does the name "Abraham Lincoln" mean anything to you?

The Democratic Party disintegrated into three sectional factions after the 1860 convention. The Republicans had by the mid-1850s become the voice of the commercial and industrial north.

At least get the NAMES of the major parties right!

[cheezus]

There is no such thing as the democrat party. There's a *Democratic* party.

But I guess if you're going to vote Reformer party or yellow party or librarian party or constutional party you wouldn't care.

Change the Electoral College

[kawika]

In the past two elections, we've seen the effect of having states use a "winner take all" approach. The candidates wear out the highways in the swing states like Ohio but completely ignore states where they either have a lock or know they have absolutely no chance.

If states went to making their electors proportional to the popular vote in the state, all states would be "in play" and candidates couldn't take any state for granted. This is something each state can do without federal approval or interference. Colorado has a referendum to do this in November. Maine and Nebraska already do.

Here's where third party candidates come in. Lets say that you get a situation where it's nearly split between two candidates, with a small number of electoral votes to candidates like Nader and Badnarik. Those electors are not committed by law to their candidates (barring state law that says otherwise), and could swing to one of the likely victors in return for various concessions such as policy changes.

This would have the potential to eliminate the headlock the two major parties have on the process. Now every person's vote could have a lot more weight, even a Republican in New York or a Democrat in Wyoming. Voting for a third party candidate wouldn't be "throwing away your vote" because they could bargain with the major candidates to get concessions.

BTW, good info on the Electoral College and reforms.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[hibiki_r]

The problem is that to change the current situations, the swing states have to change the way they cast their electoral votes. That's completely up to the states. If you were the governor of, let's say, Florida. Would you really want to push for a change that puts your state away from the spotlight? It might be for the greater good of the US, but the people that would lose the most out of the change are the ones that can make the decision. In the same way, republicans and democrats are the ones stopping instant runoff and condorcet voting: There's no way this change would help them.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[DavidTC]

That's where people are confused. Sure, there's no advantage to a swing state changing how they vote...and that's because they're a swing state.

Which is why the logical states to change how they vote are non-swing states. Suddenly, they're back in the game, they're important again.

For example, my state, Georgia, votes Republican. 13 votes. If we were to switch to proportional, though, we'd probably vote about 9-4, but we could vote anywhere from 8-5 to 11-2.

Suddenly, we'd be worth three votes, and maybe presidental candidates would find it worthwide to address our concerns, or at least come by and say 'hi'.

Now that I'm mentioned this, I'm actually considering making this concept more serious,and writing someone in the Georgia senate. While the state votes Republicion nationally, it's been Democratic locally for quite some time, at least until the last election, and almost no one's happy with those results, so it will likely go Democratic again.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[Minna Kirai]

Which is why the logical states to change how they vote are non-swing states. Suddenly, they're back in the game, they're important again.

Yes, and they've also given 20-30% of their electoral votes to the opposing Presidential candidate. Imagine yourself as a Texan Republican or a Massachusett Democrat: would you seriously approve of a change to split your state's votes proportionately? It's exactly like voting for the other candidate (and this is becoming a very close election!). And since your party controls the state legislature, why would you willingly help the opposing party nationally?

And then, once that change happens- how much is the state really back in the game? The game is "importance to presidential candidates", and swing-states are valued because a few thousand votes can turn a whole 30 million state behind you. But if California goes proportional, then the most Bush can hope to gain is 2-3 electoral votes, because they're proportional to the popularity gain he makes there. Even if it was 5-6 votes, that's still not a big attraction.

While the state votes Republicion nationally, it's been Democratic locally for quite some time,

That's a rare oddity that won't last long. Georgia: Where even the Democrats can be Republicans.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[Minna Kirai]

That's completely up to the states.

It doesn't have to be. A Constitutional Amendment could change it. True, that's unlikely to happen, but it's more plausible than states doing the change on their own.

As the prohibition amendment shows, you can sometimes convince the nation to pass an amendment that the individual people don't actually want to obey themselves, if they think it's for the betterment of everyone else.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[DAldredge]

The senators from the smaller states would never agree to pass the adm and with out them it would be dead in the water.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[demachina]

Colorado has a ballot initiative to do just this. If it passes Colorado would move from being a crucial, much courted, swing state to largely irrelevant. It would almost inevitably ending going 5 votes for one candidate and 4 for another. It would take a huge shift in votes to get to 6-3. No candidate is going to waste a second of their time or a dollar of advertising money to swing 1 electoral.

The people pushing it were trying to neutralize a Bush/Republican stronghold. Ironically since then Colorado has swung to being a toss up. If the Democrats were to actually win the Presidential vote they actually don't want this measure to pass so they get all 9 votes, if Bush wins they do want it to pass so they get 4 votes.

If you want to get rid of the electoral college you just need to switch to a popular vote nation wide. I doubt it will ever happen because the sparsely populated states in the West, Midwest and New England, wont give up the disproportional clout the electoral college gives them. I doubt the Republicans would tolerate it since they do well in many small, sparely populated states.

Its not like getting rid of the electoral college is going to result in any 3rd party gains that matter anyway. The only real way to do that would be to give seats in Congress based on the percentage of the vote each party garners so that they get a few seats and can be kingmakers in a coalition government, and of course you need to switch to a Prime Minister chosen by the ruling coalition. Ain't gonna happen in the U.S. of A.

If you want to see the last time there was a really successful 3rd party look up the Progressive movement in the early 1900's. Its a movement that is desperately needed today. It arose to fight out of control corporations, and massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a lucky few, the same things poisoning America today.

Unfortunately the two major parties are much more entrenched than they were then. On the plus side the Internet should make it easier to form a 3rd party. As Joe Trippi has proposed, in 2008 we need to rally the Deaniacs and push the Internet party even further than they did this year, broaden its appeal, and raise even more money in millions of hundred dollar internet contributions. Unfortunately you need a candidate and Dean has pretty much shredded his credibility and his future. The media finished him off obsessing over the scream speech. In reality he destroyed himself when he stopped being a rebel, and establishment outsider, and went courting Gore and Carter to get the establishment's endorsement. Not sure Gore and Carter didn't endorse him knowing it would destroy him.

The other problem is a candidate who is going to have broad enough appeal to get elected ends up thouroughly compromising himself and you end up with candidates just as pathetic as the current major party candidates. It would take a really exceptional candidate to fly in the face of convention wisdom, and current sickening predictable rhetoric, and capture the hearts of enough people to get elected.

Oh, And God Bless America...I want to throttle ever politician that ends every speech with that and wears an American flag lapel pin, like Bush and Kerry both do. They are both so predictable that they have become empty and meaningless in their obligatoriness.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[DavidTC]

Yeah, this state is rather rare, but if we go back Democrat again, I think it only makes sense. I mean, poof, a few Democratic votes gained out of nowhere, the Democrats win.

And with the Republicans, we might actually have a presidental candidate show up here on his way to Florida, instead of just completely ignoring the state. They won't like the loss of votes, but maybe they can see it's to the state's benefit.

And I'm not even going to comment on Miller. Miller managed to get the whole state pissed at him, Democrats and Republicans both.

Luckily for him, we're all too busy being pissed at Sonny right now to worry about him right now, who made a hell of a lot of promises to get into office, from un-'fixing' education, to removing cronyism in the state government, to giving us all free pie on Sunday.(I can't actually remember everything he promised, but I'm sure that was in there somewhere.), and has managed to do exactly none of them.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[ChristTrekker]

And since your party controls the state legislature, why would you willingly help the opposing party nationally?

Yes. Heaven forbid that legislators actually do the right thing for the people they represent and server. Must protect party interests at all costs.

I hate politicians. Where are the statesmen and citizen legislators?

Re:Change the Electoral College

[Minna Kirai]

Heaven forbid that legislators actually do the right thing for the people they represent

If you're a California legislator, then the (majority of) the people you represent DO want Kerry to win, and they want you to support that interest and give him as many electoral votes as possible.

Voting for proportionate EV allocation means doing the right thing for the whole of the country, at the expense of your own state.

Re:Change the Electoral College

[ChristTrekker]

A state is not a monolith. Supporting a proportional or districted EC allocation means doing the right thing for those that voted against you in your own district. Being a republic means the minority is protected even while the majority is served.

What major media networks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those alpha wave sources? People still pay attention to them in numbers?

BBC 1 US Media 0

[isotope23]

The BBC is the only major news outlet to cover the fact that:

A) two presidential candidates were arrested in St Louis.

B) there was a lawsuit which could have stopped the final "debate".

Isn't it strange that CNN has ZERO information on a presidential candidate on the ballot in 48 states and D.C.? If this happened in another country wouldn't we have heard about it? When added to reports that FOX is censoring guests, it leads one to ask: Is this a democracy or a puppet show?

Re:BBC 1 US Media 0

[slughead]

When added to reports that FOX is censoring guests, it leads one to ask: Is this a democracy or a puppet show?

I see people from the Cato Institute one to two times a day on Fox news.

Also, look at these interesting articles hosted by fox news (the top 3).

IMO FNC is probably the 2nd best cable channel for any 3rd party (with C-Span dominating the 1st place spot).

Re:BBC 1 US Media 0

[Anonymous Coward]

A) they might technically be presidential candidates but they are not among the list of possible winners

B) there was never ANY chance of stopping the debate

So nothing newsworthy there.

Re:BBC 1 US Media 0

[slashrogue]

They mentioned the arrests on NBC... here at the local channel in St. Louis anyway. Along with a whopping 5 or so seconds of footage showing police in riot gear and what not. The story was given less than a minute of air time after the debates. Then they switched to the post-debate rallies.

Re:BBC 1 US Media 0

[arhar]

There's 0 documents about Badnarik, but 96 mentions of Cobb.

Hmm...

not quite true,

[isotope23]

The electors can vote for someone else, so the third parties would have leverage to get appointments, policy changes etc by bartering their votes

Re:not quite true,

[Antony-Kyre]

If I'm not mistaken, electors tend not to get re-elected if they don't vote for what the majority wants. Or I remember being told something like that while in high school.

Re:not quite true,

[joeljkp]

We'll see what happens to this guy.

IRV is BROKEN

[ChristTrekker]

Oh please for the love of Pete, NO! I've said this many times on \. already too, but this is LJ post is the only recent one I can find. IRV is a provably flawed system, please stop advocating it! Pushing for voting reform is great, but we need Condorcet voting, not IRV.

And BTW, we need to keep the EC.

Re:IRV is BROKEN

[Mario B]

IRV is still better than the current system which favors a duopoly. And once IRV is in place it would be trivial to switch to Condorcet as people would be used to "ranking" the candidates.

So, IRV might not be the end-all solution, but it would still a step in the right direction... And right now it's the most popular alternative proposed; so, pushing it forward might help Condorcet proponent get closer to their goals.

Re:IRV is BROKEN

[TCQuad]

I'm not familiar with the specifics of Condorcet voting, so here's my question:

Do you need to rank *all* candidates? Can you rank the ones you like, then stop, or do you have to keep voting until you're through the list?

I can understand the urge to change voting, but can you imagine the delays at the voting booths as some little old ladies try to determine whether they prefer the Communist party or the Socialist party as their 15th vote?

Re:IRV is BROKEN

[rhakka]

Screw both of them; approval voting is the way to go.

Approval voting being, you mark ALL the candidates you would be satisfied with as your leader. Whoever gets the most wins, but you don't have to select one and only one potential leader. Just earmark anyone you'd like to see win.

Re:IRV is BROKEN

[PurpleBob]

Anyone you don't rank is tied for last place on your ballot.

You can also mark ties for positions other than last place, which you can't do in IRV.

Re:IRV is BROKEN

[siriuskase]

Approval voting doesn't give a way of indicating preference. If I have a choice between A, my favorite, C, who I dispise or B who I don't particularly like, what do I do, especially if the three way race is so close that any might win? Clearly, I'd vote for A and not for C, but B is a toughy. Remember, I prefer A, if I vote for both A and B, B has a better chance of beating A. But, if I vote only for A, C might win by a narrow margin over B.

This is too similar to the process I must go through now of voting for the lessor of 2 evils or for the third party alternative in the hopes of making a statement or at least keeping his party on the ballot in future elections.

If the outcome is to truly reflect the preferences of the public, some sort of ranked system is necessary. But is IRV worse than what we have now? Does it matter whether IRV is better or worse than a french name I can't spell? At this time, we have a sorry system that needs to be replaced.

Re:IRV is BROKEN

[GimmeFuel]

If IRV was adopted and people starting advocating Condorcet to replace IRV, the responses would be "The people who convinced us to support IRV told us that IRV would fix all of these problems."

Two options:
1. Convince people to support IRV because plurality is broken, then convince them to support Condorcet because IRV is broken.
2. Convince people to support Condorcet because plurality is broken.

Is it really that hard to pick the better choice?

Fuck IRV. It's more than just a little bad; it is the only major voting system that fails monotonicity. Even plurality satisfies monotonicity fer chrissakes!

If you're going to push for electoral reform, push for something that works instead of something that seems a little better than what we have now on the surface, but completely falls apart under cursory examination.

Re:IRV is BROKEN

[ChristTrekker]

No, you don't have to. Anybody you don't rank gets a default rank of "last". Ties are allowed for any ranking. Thus if you like both the Constitution and Libertarian candidates equally well and in preference to whatever the next choice is, you can give them both a 1.

Re:IRV is BROKEN

[ChristTrekker]

It's hard enough to get people to switch once. You put forth all that effort to get them to switch once, do you think they'll switch again? (Even though it would be trivial to change the back end counting, you still need to get support to have the law itself changed.) Doubtful...we'll be stuck with an inferior method.

Of Course

[ViolentGreen]

The networks are ignoring the 3rd party candidates because the voters are too.

Re:Of Course

[stinerman]

The networks are ignoring the 3rd party candidates because the voters are too.

Because the networks are ignoring the 3rd party candidates.

Re:Of Course

[ravenspear]

Exactly. Unfortunately the unwashed masses rarely research the candidates' positions for themselves. They want their political information spoonfed to them by TV news.

What you can do....

[isotope23]

Even if you disagree with the 3rd party platforms, shouldn't the public be offered the information so they can choose for themselves?

If you think this is unfair I urge you to call James Walton, CNN President: ph 404-827-1500
And let them know you would like to see someone other than Corporate backed candidates.

While you're at it, call these CNN advertisers. Tell them you will boycott their products unless CNN provides fair coverage. Also Mention that the BBC has covered us while CNN has not. Here is the phone list :

The Citigroup Bank (1-212) 559-9124
Exxon 713 656 4376
Jaguar 1-800-4-JAGUAR
Staples 1-800-3STAPLE
AT&T 1 (908) 234-8754
Walmart 1-800-WAL-MART
suzuki 800-934-0934
OxiClean 1-800-781-7529
GlaxoSmithKline 1 888 825 5249
Cadillac 1-800-333-4CAD /
ameritrade 800-454-9272
ups 1-800-PICK-UPS
quick-step +32(0)56 67.52.11
Principal Financial 1.800.986.3343
Jeep/chrysler 1-800-992-1997
administaff 800-465-3800
Visa 1(800) 847-2911

Re:What you can do....

[demachina]

You're on drugs if you think the media is going to cover any candidate who is in single digits in the polls. Well they do cover them but only as "spoilers" to one or the other major party candidate. Its important they paint them as crackpots and in fact "spoiling" Democracy by having the audacity to run against the two all powerful parties.

The media's job isn't to present American people with new ideas and fresh ways to look at things. They are there to run a horse race between the two major candidates, con the American people in to thinking there is a choice, and wherever possible randomly influence the outcome of the race, for example by observing a 2 point shift in the polls, declare a momentum swing, and generate a momentum swing in the process, or they take some silly little slip by a candidate and turn it in to a landslide that buries a candidate.

The two major candidates no matter who they are generate the same empty rhetoric every election, people think they have a choice when in reality the have the same choice in every election and its really no choice. The stock differences:

Democrats pro abortion, pro gays, tax the rich, pro affirmative action, create huge government run programs(especially health care), flag waving, bible thumping.

Republican anti abortion, antigay, don't tax the rich, create huge programs that give money to big corporations(especially health care), flag waving, bible thumping.

But...

They now both want an ever expanding government slowly devouring our civil rights, Republican's having abandoned their most basic principal of limited government as they rush to fuse with the Democrats.

They both want Big Brother and they are in race to see who gets their first.

They are both completely enslaved to Israel and the Friends of Israel lobby. You will never hear a major party candidate do anything but fall all over themselves giving Israel a blank check.

They both are going to spend us in bankruptcy. The national debt is now sitting around $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country, and the debt ceiling is about to be raised again.

They are both going to insure there is a never ending flood of illegals in to the country because it creates a giant pool of cheap, exploitable labor and drives down wages.

They are both going to continue the push to free trade and globalization, which will make America's multinationals and the wealthy even wealthier, while it pushes everyone else in to poverty competing against workers in China or wherever who make 30 cents an hour. You need to be a multinational because a half a trillion dollar annual trade deficit(and growing) and a half a trillion dollar annual budget deficit(and growing) is going to eventually bankrupt this country. The two combined are nearly a trillion dollars which is close to 10% of the U.S. GDP pouring in to debt.

You think the Democrats are the ones who want to cut the defense budget, and occasionally they have. But now, especially thanks to 9/11 both parties are going to try to out do each other in exploding the defense and intelligence budgets. Get used to the idea of a trillion dollar defense/intelligence budget because its coming soon. The Defense Industrial establishment had a real scare after the collapse of the cold war because they were in real danger of losing their stranglehold on America, their budget and their power. You can be sure they will never let that happen again.

Both parties are falling over each other to creat a new unified national intelligence agency that will have all the money and power of the FBI, CIA, NSA, NRO and Defense Intelligence fused in to one giant all seeing, all powerful spying agency, an agency which will make it easier, not harder to fabricate a case for war as was done in Iraq, because one partisan bureaucrat will run it all and can command it to generate the intelligence the President and his cronies want to see, with no dissenting opinion.

Re:What you can do....

[fafalone]

And let them know you would like to see someone other than Corporate backed candidates.

Like who? Someone like Badnarik, who's backed by, among others, steel, pipeline, and an airline company?
Also, apparently he received a $2,000 campaign contribution directly from God himself.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.as p?id=N00026071&cycle=2004

"A third party has never won"

[RealProgrammer]

Let's see, that means it's the Federalists against the Whigs again? I thought TFA said it was Republicans and Democrats now.

A third party vote is not a wasted vote.

All we need to do is vote our mind and trust the system. Quit worrying about who everyone else is voting for - vote with the herd and you may as well stay home.

The Electoral College is set up to pick a winner, or if there is no majority, the House votes from the top three; if the House can't pick by majority, then the Senate votes on the top two. The system was set up for multiple parties.

Re:"A third party has never won"

[Guppy06]

"Let's see, that means it's the Federalists against the Whigs again?"

No, the Federalists gave way to the Whigs, who in turn gave way to the Republicans. All three parties ran against this little party known as the Democrats, which some claim is the oldest living political party in the world.

Condorcet

[ChristTrekker]

Condorcet voting can avoid Arrow's paradox too, and is superior to Approval in many ways.

The EC does not need a complete overhaul, unless you can come up with a better system to represent the notion that the US are a federal union of sovereign states (as the two house Congress does) for a singular office. It would probably be good if states awarded EC votes proportionally or by district, but the EC institution itself is pretty sound. My solution would be to award EC votes by district and use the two at-large votes to adjust those results toward the proportional result. This allows people to organize geographically (which is obviously an efficient way to do so) to win their neighbors without completely disenfranchising the losers state-wide.

Re:Condorcet

[Anonymous Coward]

Condorcet might work well for small elections, but in an election with 100,000,000 votes all needing to be paired against each other--I don't see how Condorcet works at all well for a national election. If you think we've got problems with Diebold machines under the current system. Just wait until someone wants a manual recount under a national Condorcet system. Even if you combine Condorcet with the EC you're going to have fun scoring states like California. No, Approval Voting is not only an appropriate solution, it's the one we should be pushing if we want to have a hope in hell of getting a new system in place.

Re:Condorcet

[rhakka]

Exactly what could be better than indicating all of the candidates you would be satisfied to have as your leader?

Sure, you can rank in condorcet, but I would think at the very, very least approval voting would be a good half step towards a more complex system like that.

Fox censorship

[isotope23]

FOX story

I emailed the guy in question, here is his verbatim response :

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

RTFHB

[kajoob]

You gotta read the flippin' history book...

You said our Electoral system is built for two parties, but that is only half correct. While it's true only major parties end up running against each other, Democrats and Republicans are not the only parties to ever win the election.

We have had an Independent President (George Washington). We have had Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson). We have had a Federalist Party President (John Adams). We've had 6 Whig Party Presidents (the eternal trivia question himself William Henry Harrison was a Whig). We've had many Republican Presidents along with many Democratic Presidents (you already know many of these). And just over a decade ago, Ross Perot from the Reform Party got a hell of a lot of the popular vote for a 3rd party.

The Democratic and Republican parties both absorbed a few of the ideas of the Reform party and the voter base followed. 3rd parties usually are a check against the major parties when the electorate gets upset when both parties have gone too far outside the mainstream. Like the Reform party, the 3rd party's platform is absorbed by the major parties until it gets back into 'check'. So I'd say as a matter of course, voting for a 3rd party is not "throwing your vote away" is not necessarily true - especially if you are politically disaffected. It can sway the major parties to get back in line with your beliefs if enough people feel the same way.

So while a predominantly 2 party system may seem flawed, in reality they take up many of the ideas of the 3rd parties and as such, none really get a foothold. Is this imperfect? Sure, but while having a candidate only "slightly" representing a viewpoint held by a small minorty of voters, what would be even more flawed would be to have the general population represented by a 3rd party candidate whose main platform was an issue held to be important by an extreme minority of voters.

This type of representive democracy is flawed - there will never be a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than anything else out there.

Cheers.

Can't have more than 2

[Edax Rarem]

Any more than that will confound the entire state of Florida.

ON-Air interview with Gary Nolan 3/25/04

[slughead]

This was an on-air interview with Libertarian Presidential Nominee Gary Nolan before the primary.

I concede that Fox has not done a good enough job of giving attention to the libertarian party (or any 3rd party for that matter), I'm just saying they're better than CNN or any other network sans C-SPAN.

O'Reilly censors all his guests, just because 1 show did something stupid doesn't mean the 3rd party advantage defaults to another network. A search of CNN, for instance reveals 0 results for Badnarik.

How about blogging some issues?

[Zeinfeld]

So far 75% of the slashdot coverage has been about third party issues and 20% about actual voting mechanics. Perhaps they could make an effort to give a bit more attention to third party candidates whose names are largely unknown by ignoring the major parties entirely.

The networks are not interested in covering the major party platforms, why on earth would they have the slightest interest in parties with less than 1% of the vote? As far as the networks are concerned its all about whether Kerry has the better haircut or Bush is being controlled by aliens via the control box bump on his back.

Perhaps if slashdot wanted to actually pay a positive contribution here they could start a debate about education say and give the third party supporters a chance to say why their position is better.

At least we could have a discussion about issues. Listening to third party candidates whine and moan about not being treated with respect frankly does not interest me in the slightest. There is plenty of time to do that after the election. If you want to be taken seriously during the election as anything other than a protest vote you had better be ready to talk issues.

Re:How about blogging some issues?

[Wraithlyn]

"The networks are not interested in covering the major party platforms, why on earth would they have the slightest interest in parties with less than 1% of the vote?"

I don't know, but I do know that a search on CNN.com for 'nader' returns 530 results.

Yet a search for 'badnarik', who is on more ballots and got himself arrested outside a Presidential Debate, returns zero results. Doesn't that strike you as downright impossible if it were covering the election fairly?

Personally, I think that's a pretty critical issue right there. You have to wonder how bad things would be if there was no internet...

Re:How about blogging some issues?

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

I don't know, but I do know that a search on CNN.com for 'nader' returns 530 results.

Nader does get mentioned, but it is always in a marginalizing way. For instance, after the debates (which he along with all other 3rd parties were shut out of) you will see a graph with polling numbers - Kerry 49%, Bush 49%, Nader %1%. Or, on just about any article about Kerry, you will find the inevitable blurb about Kerry-campaign concerns with Nader possibly "spoiling" the election. There are no substantive articles about Nader and his platforms, is what I am getting at. He gets some attention because he is a national icon and the Democrats used him as a scapegoat, but just because he had 530 mentions doesn't mean he is getting equal treatment, or anything remotely close to it.

Yet a search for 'badnarik', who is on more ballots and got himself arrested outside a Presidential Debate, returns zero results. Doesn't that strike you as downright impossible if it were covering the election fairly?

I agree completely. They simply are not covering it fairly in the slightest. Any reasonable person would draw the same conclusion.

Re:How about blogging some issues?

[Wraithlyn]

Oh, absolutely. I never claimed the coverage of Nader was good or bad, merely that it existed. The OP seemed to be taking the stance that zero results on CNN for third party candidates is to be expected... I was merely contrasting it directly with Nader to show otherwise.

what so new about this?

[drfrog]

america has always had this sort of policy

unless big business is going to support a third party it aint gonna happen

oh wait

ross perot

Two replies

[Antony-Kyre]

Re:Coordinated push for "Third Parties?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg e talks about Maine and Nebraska. The state popular vote winner takes two electoral votes. Then the popular vote of each Congressional District takes that electoral vote.

Re:IRV is BROKEN

Instant Runoff Voting works like this. If no one gets a majority (50% + 1) of the vote, the candidate in last place is eliminated and their votes are transferred.

Condorcet is the one that is flawed. You don't get to vote for the candidate you truly want. What happens when Democrats only choose their candidate, leaving all other pairings blank?

I forgot, but I think I found it on Wikipedia. It was like five different tests to do to a voting system. None of our systems pass all five. I think the term is "monotonicity" for part of the five or something, but I just gave up searching.

Another method that isn't heard too often is the Avy method, which is a branch off of IRV.

Re:Two replies

[Dyolf Knip]

IRV is broken in that is trivial to contrive an example where a losing candidate would win by receiving fewer votes. I really fail to see how that can be considered a Good Thing.

Re:Two replies

[PurpleBob]

Condorcet is the one that is flawed. You don't get to vote for the candidate you truly want. What happens when Democrats only choose their candidate, leaving all other pairings blank?

If you're going to spread FUD about a voting system, back it up. What prevents you from voting for the candidate you want in Condorcet?

Now to fill in some information.

General Wikipedia link about voting systems of all kinds: Voting systems

Useful but contradictory conditions for a single-winner voting system are described at Arrow's impossibility theorem.

"Monotonicity" is the property that, all things being equal, ranking a candidate higher should never decrease their chances of winning the election. IRV fails monotonicity in cases where there are three viable parties.

Re:Two replies

[PurpleBob]

And I forgot to respond to this question:

What happens when Democrats only choose their candidate, leaving all other pairings blank?

Then the Democrats don't get a say in the rankings of other candidates, and they still need to get 50%+1 against every other candidate to win. What did you expect would happen?

Also, calling the votes "pairings" is commonly used in anti-Condorcet FUD to imply that the ballot is some confusing grid of pairs of candidates. No. It's a ranked ballot, just like in IRV.

Re:Two replies

[Antony-Kyre]

What does 50%+1 have to do with Condorcet? And Condorcet isn't ranked. It's more of a point system, with the candidate with the most approval type points winning, in a sense. And it is pairings. It's one candidate versus another. With 6 candidates, that would be 5+4+3+2+1, a total of 15 pairings, for the lack of a better term.

Re:Two replies

[Arkhan]

Condorcet does use pairings for determining the winner(s). However, grandparent is correct that pairings do not appear on the BALLOT. Hence, to the voter, Condorcet is no more complex or confusing than IRV.

As generally implemented, Condorcet is indistinguishable from IRV at the point of casting a ballot. (You rank the candidates in order and higher-ranked candidates beat lower-ranked candidates in their pairings.)

Condorcet isn't an "approval" system in the usual sense of assigning points to various candidates and summing up all the points.

Re:Two replies

[bonniot]

It was like five different tests to do to a voting system. None of our systems pass all five. I think the term is "monotonicity" for part of the five or something, but I just gave up searching.

Here is a Technical Evaluation of Election Methods. IRV is the worst of the methods compared, Condorcet and Approval being two uncomparable maxima.

Re:Two replies

[siriuskase]

Condorcet ballots may look like IRV ballots, but to the voter who wants to understand how the votes are counted, Condorcet is most certainly more complex and confusing than IRV. I do prefer it since I think it better reflects the preference of the populace, but it will be a harder sell due to the complexity and the funny french name.

Re:Two replies

[PurpleBob]

It sounds like you've had Condorcet described to you very badly. Here's how the method works, overall:

1. Voters each give a ranking of the candidates.
2. When counting the election, the candidates are considered in pairs. Candidate A is considered to beat Candidate B if A is ranked higher than B on more ballots than B is ranked higher than A.
3. The vast majority of the time, one candidate beats everyone else pairwise. This candidate is the winner.
4. In approximately 5% of races with three or more viable parties (the 5% statistic comes from some simulations I've done), instead of a single winner, you get a cycle of people who all beat each other; for example, a majority votes A over B, a majority votes B over C, and a majority votes C over A. This is called a "circular tie". At that point, you need to use another voting method to resolve the cycle.

Some methods (Winning Votes, Schwartz, Copeland, etc.) are specifically designed to deal with the situation of a circular tie. These are called "Condorcet completion methods". You can also complete Condorcet in the case of a circular tie by using an unrelated method like Plurality, Borda, or IRV.

Same thing happens in Canada

[LordZardoz]

Canada has many political parties. But the only parties that were covered by the mainstream media were the Liberals, the Conservative party, The Bloc Quebecois, and the NDP. There were certaintly other parties on our Ballots though. Two communist parties, the Green party, and a handfull of others.

The reason that the mass media does not cover the US 3rd parties or Canadian communist parties, is ratings. Not enough people vote for those parties to make an impact in an election. And as a corollary, citizens with those political views do not represent enough of a share of the ratings to make them worth catering to.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Same thing happens in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

It's similar in Australia. We just had an election here, and while minor parties almost never get a seat in the house of representatives (though three independents did this year, and 12 seats went to the national party - but they are basically part of the Liberal party), the upper house (the senate) is based on proportional representation. So the minor parties, such as the Greens, can get a few seats and actually make a difference.

It can be scary though. This year it looks like a right wing christian conservative party called "Family First" will have the balance of power (with one seat). That means the government has to do deals with them to get legislation through the upper house.

The Greens have 5 seats, but our conservative government is unlikely to deal with them. The Democrats have 4, and they have been known to deal with the Liberal party (contributing to their demise in the last election).

Note that the Liberal party is our conservative party -- there is nothing "liberal" about them.

Re:Same thing happens in Canada

[rainman_bc]

Let's be frank. Four candidates in the debate was a gong show. Throw in the Marijuana Party, the Rhino Party, the Communist Party, and the Greens, and really, how much coverage are you going to get? Two hours and you get to hear very little.

I suggest we break it into two debates: the debate everyone cares about and the debate for the crap no one's interested in. That's fair :)

Build it, and they will come...

[HexaByte]

Be interesting, and they'll not ignore....

My point is,

[isotope23]

I know Badnarik won't win. I'll vote for him anyway. Why? Because I am sick and tired of seeing corporate shill #1 versus corporate shill #2

Neither guy has the balls to balance the budget. Neither guy delivers on his promises. The government grows ever larger, civil liberties are being removed, ignored and trodden upon.

Our government IMO is like a crack addict on a binge. They'll keep taxing and spending or borrowing and spending just to keep their 'high'. No one seems to care we are in debt up to our eyeballs.... Yet we keep voting for these guys. Wake up people, someone is going to pay for the bread and circuses. It will either be you or your kids!

The only way this is going to change is if people start saying "Screw This!" and vote for ANYONE else, Nader, Badnarik,Peroultka, Cobb etc.

Re:My point is,

[Bob_Robertson]

The Corporations are just making sound investments. If either of their candidates win, the corporate welfare continues to flow.

If a Libertarian were to win, the corporate welfare, along with the military and special-interest welfare, would be in serious jeopardy.

This they're just acting in their own self interest, just like all bureaucrats.

Libertarians love to argue which came first, the corporate donations or the power over peoples lives that can so be purchased. It's irrelevant, really, since so long as there is power to be purchased, there will be buyers. Just like Enron.

BTW, I agree completely, and will be voting for Badnarik and every other Libertarian on the ballot.

Re:My point is,

[ratsnapple tea]

You say neither major-party candidate has the balls to balance the budget. Funny that you'd think a third-party candidate would have the political clout in Washington to stand a better chance.

Re:My point is,

[10101001 10101001]

He couldn't do any worse, is I think the statement. Chances are, they could do better since they're not tied to spending whatever the other two parties want them to spend. They can veto 90% of spending to grind the whole process to a halt until Congress approves a spending bill that moves to balance the budget. It's in a 3rd party's best interest to actually make progress because they don't have the clout to be assured election next year. That's exactly *why* more than two parties is good. And it's why more people should become actually interested in politics instead of just letting the Democrats or Republicans win by default.

Re:My point is,

[Minna Kirai]

I know Badnarik won't win. I'll vote for him anyway. Why? Because I am sick and tired of seeing corporate shill #1 versus corporate shill #2

Uh, you know that Badnarik is more pro-corporate than Kerry or even Bush, right?

That's what the Libertarian Party is all about: reducing the functions of government will mean shifting power to those corporations that provide the service.

No one seems to care we are in debt up to our eyeballs....

Kerry is at least willing to admit that fact.

Re:My point is,

[Dyolf Knip]

Combined with massively increasing shareholder and employee accountability for said corporation's actions. It's true that a faceless, unaccountable corporation is just as bad as a faceless, unaccountable government, but since when do those have to be our only choices?

Re:My point is,

[Minna Kirai]

Combined with massively increasing shareholder and employee accountability for said corporation's actions.

I haven't examined Badnarik's positions especially, but the Libertarian Party in general favors reducing accountability across the board (for individuals as well as groups).

As long as it's not force and it's not fraud, they're all for it. Defective products? Misleading contracts? 16 hour workdays? Loan-sharking? Toxic-pollution?

It's all good. *

a faceless, unaccountable government

This isn't Russia. The USA government is actually accountable to the people. Frequently the level of accountability seems insufficient, but the government always knows that if 51% of the people really turned against it, they'd be out of work.

Corporations haven't even got that worry.

* Note that there are standard Libertarian Party rebuttals to my accuastion, which do not ultimately work. They usually begin by equating each of my listed abuses to "force" or "fraud", and then explaining that the legal system will still exist to arrest or sue the offenders. But down that path lies a judicial branch with all the complexity and powers of the FDA, EPA, WTO, FBI, and more...

Re:My point is,

[isotope23]

No the Libertarian party is NOT pro corporate. Pro small business yes.

You know we've tried it your way for the last 100 years. Both your parties AUTOMATIC response is now: "Problem? Add more government!" What I find most revolting about both parties is they treat you like children. They believe they own you, and frankly, they have ()wn3d this republic.

Well, I'm not built that way. I prefer to make my own decisions, help who I WANT to help, donate where I WANT to donate, etc. and refuse to do so
when I do not agree! As for the Libertarian idea not working, perhaps it won't. I do know we STARTED out that way, so I say why not try it again?

Call me back when Kerry has stopped treading on the constitution, or Bush gets replaced by an orangutan.

Re:My point is,

[Anonymous Coward]

I once thought as you do. Then I realized that government serves the corporations, it doesn't restrict them. Reduce government power, and you reduce corporate power.

Sometime, get the book Who Rules America. The same set of people cycle between appointed government positions, lobbying jobs, and corporate boards. Heck, look at Bush and Cheney's connections to Halliburtan etc.

And bear in mind that corporations are a creation of government in the first place. It would not be a violation of libertarian principles to get rid of them entirely.

Re:My point is,

[Dyolf Knip]

I haven't examined Badnarik's positions especially, but the Libertarian Party in general favors reducing accountability across the board

Well I have and I can definitely say you're smoking crack. One of their big pet peeves is the very notion of the limited liability corporation. As for the rest, you're totally out of your gourd. How is assault with toxic chemicals not still assault? How is a misleading contract and a defective product not fraud?

Corporations haven't even got that worry.

Of course they do. About the only times they can get away with xeing complete schmucks and alienating their own customers are when they have government-granted protection from the consequences (like the DMCA or the UCITA) or a government-granted monopoly (copyright or monopolies granted to power companies).

Re:My point is,

[Minna Kirai]

No the Libertarian party is NOT pro corporate.

Do some experiments. Find any specific existing law which is considered anti-corporate, and then "research" the Libertarian Party position on that law.

Unless it's straight-out corp welfware, the LP is against it. Far more laws and regulations are anti-corporate than are anti-individual. Since the LP wants to remove most all laws, they are then more pro-corp than pro-individual.

I do know we STARTED out that way, so I say why not try it again?

"It didn't work the first time, so let's try it again!"

Bush gets replaced by an orangutan.

That happened in early 1996, actually... can't you tell?

Re:My point is,

[Minna Kirai]

As for the rest, you're totally out of your gourd. How is assault with toxic chemicals not still assault? How is a misleading contract and a defective product not fraud?

If you can't figure out the answers yourself, you're hazardously naive.

Read some USA history. Assault and fraud have been illegal for hundreds of years, yet in the 20th century pollution and defective products were legal until specific new laws were created to combat it.

Something that's not forceful and not fraudulent can still be not fair.

About the only times they can get away with xeing complete schmucks and alienating their own customers are when they have government-granted protection from the consequences

Again, you show an astounding historical ignorance, well below even the maligned standards of USA public schooling.

Monopolies WILL happen, even without government aid. But the Libertarian Party, by principle, can never act against a monopolist. That means governance will be ceded to the next company which emerges as a natural monopoly.

(There's nothing wrong with supporting the LP if it's with the understanding that their views will never achieve near dominance, and you only want to encourage a push in that direction)

government-granted monopoly

That's more ignorance, although of a more excusable variety, because fewer people are really aware of what "government" is. "Government" is that which "governs". If that entity which you today label "government" abdicates many of its functions, they will be taken up by other, commercial operations- meaning corporations become the new government.

Re:My point is,

[maximilln]

Find any specific existing law which is considered anti-corporate, and then "research" the Libertarian Party position on that law

That is completely out of line. There is an order of progression. An ideal Libertarian would scrap all the laws at once and go back to working from the Constitution. In this environment, the corporations have no more rights or protection than any individual.

This is not a question of being pro-corporate or anti-corporate. Those people who have no conception of a better system love to polarize the issue that way. Being a Libertarian is about recognizing that, currently, large corporations have an advantage over any competition due to legal government protection.

Yes. Those with the most money will always have the most power. Deal with it. We don't have to give them even more through our tax dollars.

Re:My point is,

[Minna Kirai]

An ideal Libertarian would scrap all the laws at once and go back to working from the Constitution.

You must be working from a different definition of "Libertarian" than the Libertarian Party is. In fact, what you've just described is really the Constitution Party (obviously).

The Libertarian Party does NOT support all of the Constitution. They don't even agree with most of it.

In fact, the LP is quite unique in USA politics, because the Republicans, Democrats, Reforms, Greens, and Constituionalists are all democratic, while the LP is undemocratic.

They don't like to bring up the fact that they're undemocratic, and that's fair, because they'll never advance their agenda to the point where it matters. But just consider this quote:

1. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

Recall that in a democracy, the word "government" can be replaced by "people". Read the quote making that substitution, and it becomes more sinister. Sometimes the needs of the many DO outweigh the property of the few, but the LP denies that.

Yes. Those with the most money will always have the most power.

No. In a democratic capitalist society, there are two sources of power: money and votes. Money is more directly useful in daily life, and money can influence and twist voter's opinions, but if the rich become truely abusive, then we can fall back to votes to take care of them.

In a Libertarian country, money is the only power. When the rich become too dominant, and there is no way to vote against them, then the only remaining option is violent revolution.

Re:My point is,

[Minna Kirai]

Being a Libertarian is about recognizing that, currently, large corporations have an advantage over any competition due to legal government protection.

Oh, and that's the central and defining concept of the Green Party.

In the USA, the Libertarian Party is the most pro-corporate, and the Greens are the least. The Republicans are in the middle, and the Democrats are very slightly less corporate than them (differing mainly in which corporations they prefer).

Re:My point is,

[maximilln]

You must be working from a different definition of "Libertarian" than the Libertarian Party is

Don't expect me to agree wholeheartedly with the LP nationals. We've had more than our fair share of debates.

The Libertarian Party does NOT support all of the Constitution. They don't even agree with most of it

You don't know the first thing about Libertarians. Libertarians agree with most of the Constitution. It's the Amendments after the Bill of Rights that we start taking issue with.

In fact, the LP is quite unique in USA politics, because the Republicans, Democrats, Reforms, Greens, and Constituionalists are all democratic, while the LP is undemocratic

You are so full of horse-crap. You are aware that the Republican party, as it was first conceived, was identical to the current Libertarian party? They were the staunch supporters of government non-interventionism. I don't know where you think you come off with Libertarians being nondemocratic. We vote, just like anyone else.

Recall that in a democracy, the word "government" can be replaced by "people".

You are a political moron. In a properly functioning republic, the word government can be replaced by the people. In a properly functioning communist state, the word government can be replaced by the people. In a properly functioning, democratically elected dictatorship, the dictator will most certainly tell you that the interests of the government are the interests of the people.

Get your head our of your butt. A democracy is nothing more than a system of making a decision by casting votes. It is possible to democratically elect a socialist republic--and they do it all the time in Europe.

but if the rich become truely abusive, then we can fall back to votes to take care of them

Assuming the people you vote for aren't in collusion with the rich to keep you paying the rent for them. You certainly hit a large percentage of branches when you fell out of the clueless tree, didn't you?

In a Libertarian country, money is the only power

Take your blinders off. In _ANY_ country, money (resources) is the only real power. Maybe you're convinced by a few candy coated pretty speeches on the television, or maybe you're still stewing in the good government crap that you learned in eighth grade... others of us have grown up. Welcome to the real world: Government is not on your side any more than any other stranger is. Government is not your default friend. The only solution is to minimize the government.

Re:My point is,

[Minna Kirai]

Don't expect me to agree wholeheartedly with the LP nationals.

I don't really care about what your opinions are. This thread is about Mike Badnarik, who belongs to the LP.

You don't know the first thing about Libertarians.

No. It's you who doesn't understand. You're having this big argument and using words without even knowing what they mean. The core of your problem seems to be the belief that "Libertarian" and "libertarian" are synonyms.

They are not! A "Libertarian" (capital L) is an adherent of the Libertarian Party, which believes in triming down the functions of government to a minimal sliver. A lower-cased "libertarian" is someone who supports the ideals of personal liberty.

For comparison, ask yourself if "democrat" means the same thing as "Democrat". Obviously, they're different- the first one is a person who supports rule by the people, and the second is the member of one of the USA's two large political parties.

You need to learn about capital letters and proper nouns. Capitalizing an existing word makes it into a name that refers to a specific person or group, which can have entirely different principles than the original word it's based on. (For extra credit, figure out the difference between "windows" and "Windows")

Now that that's cleared up, the rest of your posts are meaningless, because you're arguing against a position that only existed in your imagination.

In a properly functioning republic, the word government can be replaced by the people.

False. The only way that could be true is if you use "properly functioning" as a synonym for "democratic".

In a properly functioning communist state, the word government can be replaced by the people.

True, because communism is an economic system, not a political one.

You are a political moron.

You are a linguistic ignoramus.

Re:My point is,

[Minna Kirai]

You are so full of horse-crap. You are aware that the Republican party, as it was first conceived, was identical to the current Libertarian party? They were the staunch supporters of government non-interventionism.

Hmmm... let's think... What was the first action taken by the Republican party once it reached national office?

Oh yes! The Civil War- the single largest government intervention in the history of the USA.

A Function of Polarization

[Omega1045]

I think this is a biproduct of the polarization in this nation. Look at our candidates. A conservative Republican calling himself a moderate, and one the most liberal Democrats in the Senate trying to sell himself as a moderate as well. You would think with the far left and far right battling for the Prez, it would leave some speaking room for the middle (3rd parties). But I think people are so polarized because the "other" candidate of the two major parties is so far from their own beliefs that everything is focussed much more on Bush and Kerry.

It didn't help that jerks like MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Vets came out with hardcore negative ads early, getting the jump even on the candidates' negative ads. The whole campaign season has been about extremes, and I don't think what is left of a fair press in the US has any time for anything else.

Re:A Function of Polarization

[CrimsonAvenger]

The whole campaign season has been about extremes

No, threatening to secede from the Union if one candidate wins is extreme. And then doing so.

Breaking your opponent's spine by throwing your chair at him during a debate is extreme. Burning out your neighbors because they voted for the other candidate is extreme. Brawling on the Senate floor is perhaps a bit extreme.

Negative ads are trivial by comparison. Read enough history, and you learn that every generation thinks their politics are the worst/dirtiest/most locked-in/whatever-bad-thing-you-can-think-of. Almost all of them are wrong. This generation is thinking the same as last generation did. They're both wrong - the most extreme American politics happened in the period 1850-1865.

Re:A Function of Polarization

[Stochio]

What makes you say that 3rd party candidates are in the middle? The whole idea of ONE dimension (ie left....right) is a bit silly. I don't even know what the progression is supposed to be from left to right. Maybe someone would be so kind as to enlighten me.

Re:A Function of Polarization

[Omega1045]

I understand your view point, but I speak in relation to recent elections. I am quite a student of history myself (didn't hurt having a father that was a history teacher). I don't think we need to go as extreme as what happened during the years you mention. And I agree that the nation has grown up in comparison to your examples. But I feel like we have taken a step backward in this election.

Imagine if the Democratat's primary elections had produced a candidate that was much closer to the middle. I think you would find a lot of otherwise Republican voters defecting. Similarly, if some people were not so overtly negative, I think you would see more of a political discussion in this nation.

Re:A Function of Polarization

[Omega1045]

I guess I don't understand the "Troll" modifier on the parent. Is this not a valid opinion? Is not this portion of the site about opinion? Just because my opinion differs from someone else's opinion does not mean that I am trolling.

Re:A Function of Polarization

[CrimsonAvenger]

Does the word McGovern mean anything to you? Or FDR? Both were more liberal (in the modern sense, not the traditional sense - once upon a time, liberals were opposed to big government) than Kerry is. One of them won, one lost, in both cases because they were liberal....

Re:A Function of Polarization

[stinerman]

Actually the left-right spectrum is defunct. Take a look at Political Compass to get a good look at a better way of doing it.

(If you take the quiz, it seems to be biased toward the left economic perspective)

Re:A Function of Polarization

[Stochio]

I was actually playing dumb. I'm aware of the Political Compass and I wish more people were aware of it. I don't think it's perfect but I like the fact that its out there and getting people to think.
Major networks never tackle interesting stories like "Why does right or left really mean?" The fundamental problem is people, in general, are:
1) Idiots
2) Don't want to think
3) Want to impose their beliefs on other people
4) Want to give less than they get
5) Feel a sense of entitlement
Anyone disagree with that assessment?

Re:A Function of Polarization

[Minna Kirai]

Imagine if the Democratat's primary elections had produced a candidate that was much closer to the middle.

Hm? Kerry is more middling than Edwards, Kuccinhi, or especially Dean.

I think you would find a lot of otherwise Republican voters defecting.

The really interesting thing to imagine is if the Republicans had actually held a primary, and then selected someone closer to the middle- like, oh, John McCain.

Then he'd be thrashing Kerry, holding the AnyoneButBush crowd, and even pulling in a few defecting Democrats.

Re:A Function of Polarization

[siriuskase]

It's probably the other way around. It has been proven that in a "first past the post" system such as we have (see my sig), only the top two options will matter. When only two options matter, negative campaigning becomes possbile since there is only one target to sling mud at. Plus, for psychological reasons, negative compaining is more effective than positive compaiging. This is because voters get more excited about bad news than good news. (Our news industry suffers for the same reason). When only two

Re:A Function of Polarization

[siriuskase]

I agree that the Troll Mod seems strange. When I see a comment that spawns this many quality replies, I tend to mod up. Unfortunately, I've already posted quite a few comments myself, so I can't. Hopefully, someone else will get the hint.

Re:A Function of Polarization

[CrimsonAvenger]

The really interesting thing to imagine is if the Republicans had actually held a primary

Oh, please! The Republicrats held a primary, just like always. And, like always (for both Parties), the incumbent got renominated.

Face it, the incumbent only fails of nomination if he chooses not to run again. It's a fact of life, get over it.

In other words, all the Primaries in the world wouldn't have prevented Bush from running as the Republicrat candidate - only Bush could have done so. And he would only have done so if it was clear that he could NOT win re-election, and that someone else in the Party could. And maybe not then.

Re:A Function of Polarization

[Omega1045]

Hm? Kerry is more middling than Edwards, Kuccinhi, or especially Dean.

That might be true (not so sure with Edwards) but Kerry is still one of the most liberal of Democrats in the nation. The fact that the other serious candidate were as, or more liberal that John Kerry just backs up the idea of extremes I am talking about.

The really interesting thing to imagine is if the Republicans had actually held a primary

When is the last time the Democrats did this? When is the last time their incumbant was seriously challenged? This is not a function of the Republican party, but a function of the two party system as it stands. And I like John McCain and think he would make a great Prez....

House of Representatives

[Antony-Kyre]

One change we need to do is to keep proportional representation in the House of Representatives. With small states, this may be hard to get a third party in cause the lower pecentage may be quite high.

If I'm not mistaken, here in Washington State, with nine Congressional Districts, that's 11.1% of the vote needed to get a third party in.

Anyone ready to call back the Fairness Doctrine?

[profmathers]

While we currently operate under a two-party biased system, the marginalization of third party candidates IMHO has more to do with their ability to communicate with the populace than any governmental forces. Conversely, a docile populace fails in its obligation to demand information.

A vote is only as good as the information on which it is based; as long as the majority of media outlets are either owned by a few companies or parrot those few companies in a desperate race to keep up, the public at large will hear only what advertisers on large networks (or in large newspaper conglomerates) want them to.

In the past, a policy called the Fairness Doctrine placed restrictions on media ownership. While they may have slowed the dissemination of information and/or popular culture around the country...

...they may have served us in that they kept public outlets (broadcast airwaves, newspaper markets, etc.) public. They're OURS.

With the advent of so many fully private channels of information distribution (e.g. satellite, cable) is it time to take the public airwaves back a la Ma Bell?

I realize that this may be self-evident to the vast majority of ./ readers. I invite your comment out of my own curiosity.

American Mainstream Doesn't Support this

[scoobrs]

The American mainstream clearly isn't what you think it is. Before you invoke the mainstream, be sure you side with them.

• The mainstream supports debates that include third parties, the duopoly doesn't.
• The mainstream wants corporations to pay their share of taxes, so middle class taxes can be lowered. The duopoly wants to give them more special interest subsidies and tax breaks.
• The mainstream is tired of this war. Neither party wants to take a definitive stance against the war, even the same John Kerry who said in fighting against the war in Vietnam, "This is not the fight of one day or one war, but the fight of our entire lives."
• The mainstream isn't voting in many states. A lot of people are frustrated with politics for many good reasons.

Deserve to be ignored

[Anonymous Coward]

If all a third party is going to do is piss away their money and support on a DOOMED Presidential bid, they deserve to be ignored.

If you want your third party to be taken seriously, win local races, then some state ones. After you have done that, then start looking to national positions. Doing anything else is a waste of everyone's time.

Re:Deserve to be ignored

[smack_attack]

from the LP.org website:

In the off-year election of 2003, 46 Libertarians were elected to local office -- and nearly half of those victories came in higher-level races such as city and county council. The LP now has over 600 officeholders, which is more than all other third parties combined.

Currently the party is gearing up for the November 2004 elections, in which we expect to field more than 1,000 candidates for federal, state and local office.

Re:Deserve to be ignored

[rleibman]

If you want your third party to be taken seriously, win local races, then some state ones. After you have done that, then start looking to national positions. Doing anything else is a waste of everyone's time.
Perhaps, but the presidential ticket is a great boon to the party. In the case of the Libertarian Party, the presidential candidate gives a measure of media attention to smaller candidates wherever he goes, he rallies the libertarian troops, and in races where no other libertarian candidate is running people at least get to see ONE libertarian on the ballot, thus keeping the name of the party slightly alive.
Though I might agree that small parties have to *focus* on winning winable races, we can't afford to forgo the big prizes, and who knows, there may come a point when two well placed scandals, or a chance at the debates might actually give our candidate a chance. Like I've heard it said: voting for the Libertarian Party is like buying a lottery ticket, your chances of winnning are very small, but should you hit the jackpot your life would be changed forever.

Obligatory quote

[slughead]

"A saying goes that insanity can be defined by committing the same destructive acts, expecting different results. The continued voting out of fear should the opposing parties candidate take office, places major party voters inside this vicious cycle."

-Michael Badnarik

No shit, they want Kerry to win...

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the hell do you think he is going to win if 3rd party candidates can get their voice heard? Suddenly the DNC wouldn't have the monopoly on anti-Bush ideas.

The media is so bent on a Kerry win they refuse to even examine his Senate record. 20 years and what do we know of it? We know more about what he did in 3 months over 30 years ago than what he did in the last 20.

Simply put, the media does not have enough resources to promote Kerry, investigate Bush, and then actually investigate 3rd party alternatives. Until the media becomes as independant as many like to claim it is we will never have a 3rd party that is viable unless its backed by enough money to buy the medias attention

Re:No shit, they want Kerry to win...

[Stochio]

Simply put, the media does not have enough resources to promote Kerry, investigate Bush, and then actually investigate 3rd party alternatives.
Not enough resources? You must be joking. Yesterday before the debates, CBS had a 5 minute "feel good" story about a student body president election for 5th graders. You mean to tell me they "don't have the resources" though, eh? You're sure you're going to stick with that story?

Bush, Gore, and Nader are running for President

[roystgnr]

Say you prefer Nader to Gore to Bush. Do you vote approval for Nader (thus "throwing your vote away" if Gore and Bush are the leading candidates) or do you vote approval for Nader and Gore (thus "throwing your vote away" if Nader and Gore are the leading candidates)?

Yeah, it's better than plurality, but wouldn't it be nice to vote using a system where you can actually express all your preferences in the voting booth rather than having to pick and choose?

Re:Bush, Gore, and Nader are running for President

[rhakka]

it's not throwing your vote away if you can express support for a party without sacrificing anything.

If nader got support of 25% of people but didn't win, that would still be extremely powerful as an indicator of what it is that the people want. If more people are happy with gore than are with nader or bush, then gore should win. I don't see any "throwing votes away" here.

Re:Bush, Gore, and Nader are running for President

[DavidTC]

Approval voting is a stupid-ass way for third parties to have 'support' without actually winning anything.

If you're going to change the system, at least change it to something useful.

Re:Bush, Gore, and Nader are running for President

[rhakka]

If you don't think 3rd parties can win under approval voting, you just plain don't think they have enough support to win, period.

And they shouldn't until they have enough support. However, how many cycles do you think third parties will need of showing up with double digit numbers before they are taken seriously? I think the turnaround would be immediate. It would no longer be hey, the biggest third party candidate got 3% of the vote WOO HOO it would be hey, look, badnarik got approval from 20% of americans! watch the coverage rise.

Re:Bush, Gore, and Nader are running for President

[DavidTC]

No, I'm thinking under approval voting that...okay, here's the example:

Let's pretend there are only the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Libertarians, to make the math simple.

And there are six groups of people: Three who only approve of one party, and three who approve of two of them. (The people who approval of all of them are just being silly, and the people who approve of none don't get counted.)

So let's make a table:

R: 30%
D: 28%
L: 5%
R-D: 2%
R-L: 20%
D-L: 10%

Tell me, smart guy, who won that election? The Republican. He got 52% of the vote, the Democrat got 40% of the vote, and the Libertarian got 35% of the vote. If you'd look, you'll realize this isn't an entire improbably voting spread, assuming the LP starts getting some support. (Swapping R for D and L for Reform, it could pass for the 1992 election, if we'd done approval voting.)

Of course, if this was our universe, you'd realize that all the people who vote R-L and probably the D-L people wanted the L first, and the D or R second. When you combine that with the people who just voted L, that's 35% of the vote, which would have beaten both the R and the D alone. In other words, the people who voted for L prefered them, and voted for D or R to 'keep the other guy out', which is a pretty reasonable assumption.

Of course, that assumption might be wrong...but you'd never be able to tell with simple approval voting. You could with Concodent. You probably even could with IRV.

You can rank the ones you like

[roystgnr]

And you don't even have to rank all of them precisely: you could vote for Badnarik as your first place choice, Kerry tied with Cobb as your second, Nader as your third, and everybody else tied for last.

Arrow's impossibility theorem

[Antony-Kyre]

http://www.vsg.edu.au/frames/x/lesson1.html
1. Plurality Method
2. Borda Count Method
3. Plurality with Elimination Method
4. Pairwise Comparisons Method (Copeland's Method)

I'm waiting for someone to e-mail me back concerning the Avy method of IRV versus Condorcet, (but not sure if he's going to explain it or not for me.)

Here's some of my comments...
A) How do you vote write-in in the Condorcet method?
B) If my two favourite candidates were Gore and Nader in 2000, then I would bubble in all the Gore and Nader ones in the pairwise, leaving one of those bubbles blank when it comes to Gore vs. Nader.
But Nader may be spoiling Gore's chances of winning if I bubble in Nader in the Nader vs. Gore cause what if that one point could have helped Gore?
C) Yes, IRV has some flaws. But the Avy method of IRV supposedly helps eliminate some of the flaws.
D) It's in my honest opinion that all/most democracy is flawed, and the only thing we have to gain from it is the wisdom/knowledge we gain from our mistakes.

Re:Arrow's impossibility theorem

[PurpleBob]

You don't mark each individual pairwise comparison; that would accomplish little and take forever. You rank the candidates, just like in IRV, except you can rank any candidates you want as tied. Your pairwise preferences are determined from who is higher on your ballot.

In your case, you could rank the candidates like this:

(1) Gore and Nader, tied
(2) everyone else, tied

Or you could just rank:

(1) Gore and Nader, tied

and the fact that everyone else is tied for last would be implied by you not ranking them.

Re:Arrow's impossibility theorem

[PurpleBob]

I'll get to your other questions now.

On write-ins: hopefully, along with the list of candidates, your ballot contains a few write-in blanks that you can fill in with a name and rank like the other candidates. This probably makes more sense now that you know that you vote with a ranking.

Your "spoiler" situation with Nader and Gore seems to indicate more confusion about how Condorcet works. I don't know what you mean by a "point"; except in some sub-methods to break circular ties, Condorcet has no points, just a list of pairwise preferences that are held by a majority of voters.

Re:Arrow's impossibility theorem

[Antony-Kyre]

The candidate with the most pairwise selection wins. Like one voter can choose perhaps 4 for Gore out of a possible 5 pairwise situations for Gore. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Arrow's impossibility theorem

[Minna Kirai]

A) How do you vote write-in in the Condorcet method?

You can't effectively write-in candidates today. You can pretend, but it's not doing anything, it's not really counted.

4 years ago, the US election gave up counting in FL after just a few days. Counting countrywide write-in votes would take 300x the effort as completing the existing election.

The chance of Badnarik winning next month are effectively zero, yet they're thousands of times greater than the probability of a write-in winner.

Anyhow, the balloting for Condoret is the same as IRV- only the counting is different. In both cases, the voter gives a sorted list of names. The problem of how to add write-ins is the same.

Re:Arrow's impossibility theorem

[PurpleBob]

Okay, you're wrong. Hopefully my other posts explain why.

And now I've noticed something. The method you've described that you thought was Condorcet (where candidates get a "point" for each candidate they're ranked higher than) happens to be equivalent to the Borda Count, a method that's even more flawed than plurality.

Your complaints about flaws that you saw in Condorcet were in fact quite accurate complaints about Borda.

Condorcet could be better

[roystgnr]

If your preferences are really as simple as "I approve of these candidates, and disapprove of the rest" then you can express that in a Condorcet vote by giving the approved set a tie for first place. If your preferences aren't that simple, then with Condorcet you don't have to worry about how to simplify them.

Approval voting is certainly a step up from what we've got now, but to many voters ranked voting would be quite natural (who's your favorite, second favorite, third favorite, etc. are easy questions to answer) whereas approval voting would require the additional consideration of "Where in that rank do I draw the line between approval and disapproval?" and would still encourage tactical voting: I disapprove of both Kerry and Bush, but in a close race between them I'd probably approve of Kerry to avoid "throwing my vote away", which would be just as bad as the current system.

Re:Condorcet could be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to harp on why we don't want Condorcet:

1) We can get almost all of the practical advantages of Condorcet with approval voting, or do you have solid counter-examples that show a clearly unacceptable result under AV that would have been avoided with Condorcet? We have such clear counter-examples available for IRV vs. AV and for IRV vs. Condorcet--even for IRV vs. plurality.

2) There are several practical advantages to AV over Condorcet: the rules for AV are easy to write and explain, existing vote tech already can do AV in most areas, AV voting and scoring are both simpler mechanical processes than needed for Condorcet.

I think AV is a much easier sell than IRV, and both are an easier sell than Condorcet. Therefore AV should be our goal. It eliminates most, if not all, of the objections being raised against the current system without introducing new problems of any sort (ethical, systemic, technical).

To your AV Kerry/Bush dilemma: if you truly believe that Kerry is better than Bush, yes, you should vote for Kerry. Under Condorcet you'd still have to rank him higher than Bush. Either way the outcome of the election is dependent entirely on how the other voters vote as well.

You know, I think the main reason we don't hear much about alternate voting systems in the media is that it would interfere with soundbite oriented polling techniques.

Re:Condorcet could be better

[roystgnr]

We can get almost all of the practical advantages of Condorcet with approval voting, or do you have solid counter-examples that show a clearly unacceptable result under AV that would have been avoided with Condorcet?

Here's a clear counterexample: If voter preferences are:

97% A,B,C
2% C,B,A
1% A,C,B

And if every voter votes as you suggested to me (approval for their first and second favorite candidates), then candidate B wins with 99% approval (vs. 98% approval for candidate A) despite the fact that 98% of the public would have preferred A to B. That's a counter-example (and a pretty strong one IMHO) for AV vs. IRV, AV vs. Condorcet, and AV vs. plurality.

Re:Condorcet could be better

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making the assumption that everyone involved would vote for their top two--which is an unrealistic assumption when there's such a clear front-runner. It's very unlikely that B would win with Approval Voting because a significant portion of the ABCs would not cast an AB vote knowing such a vote would dilute the chances for A to win. In fact, only two of them would need to withhold a vote from B in order for A to win. If 97% of the voters really don't have a clear preference between A and B such that none are willing to "bullet vote" for A, then B may actually be the better choice because the portion of the population that ranked the winner (under approval voting) dead last is actually smallest.

Fairness Doctrine was anything but fair...

[Shivetya]

The fairness doctrine was used to stifle free speech by putting forth unfair requirements on stations. The primary use, which the left wants to bring back, was to require that any show which presented ideas be offset by another with equal time.

Needless to say that is a great way to muzzle anyone. If you cannot make money off the opposing view why would you ever broadcast the original?

When it comes down to media ownership I don't mind some laws restricting it. After all I see the result of a monopoly everyday here in Atlanta, its called the paper. See, the papers were not caught up in this law yet they do nearly the same thing!

The airwaves are more public oriented ever that before. The key issue is that some people's ideas are not sustainable without intervention or lots of backing money. Why should they have the right to force themselves onto others when its clear the others don't want to hear them?

Let me chirp in on this.

[Shivetya]

Fluff stories don't require any real work. Most are usually pulled from local affiliates to fill time.

The results of which usually are picked to coincide with the that particular channels ideaolgy (now I don't know what CBS broadcast, I don't care, I didn't need the debates to tell who I was going to vote for).

What I think the AC was after is that the networks (ABC.. CBS.. NBC..) see very focused on being anti-Bush to the extent they ignore any alternatives to Bush and Kerry unless it sufficiently aids their cause of ditching Bush. CBS is the most blatant for obvious reasons.

Which is all too bad. They don't care about choice, they made theirs and they are going to make sure that is all we focus on.

Fortunately BLOGs came to center stage for a while. Notice how the old media elites (anchors of the big 3) all dismissed BLOGS and the net, some more vicously than others? They know they are losing their monopoly on information but they aren't going to play nice about it. They will discredit anyone who conflicts with their purpose.

Just like when the papers finally started losing out to TV, TV is losing out to the printed word, however this time the printed word is on a webpage. The internet is the best chance to free ourselves from 2 party tyranny that we will ever have. We just got to hope we can do so before both of these parties destroy the country we live in.

Re:Let me chirp in on this.

[Stochio]

Giving Badnarik a soapbox for 5 minutes doesn't require any prep work either. The reporter is in the position of being able to play dumb and as such can ask clueless questions. Things like:

-Why issues are being ignored by the major candidates?
-What is a Libertarian?
-blah blah blah Iraq?
-blah blah Homeland security?
-blah blah Education?
-blah blah gays
It takes ZERO effort to put together such an interview. So are you really going to stick with that answer - that Badnarik is not being covered due to lack of resources? You must be joking.

Let's turn the tide!

[Eric Pierce]

Hey! This is a perfect chance for us Slashdotters to upset the balance!

Now which 3rd party candidate should we all vote for?

Re:Let's turn the tide!

[Stochio]

That's like asking which expansion team to root for-it's a useless qualifier. In this case you are asserting that the adjective "3rd party" is significant. It isn't. Go back under your bridge, troll. Greens aren't and shouldn't vote Libertarian. Libertarians aren't and shouldn't vote Green.

Libertarians are the party of principle for a reason.

Re:Let's turn the tide!

[Eric Pierce]

Funny... I had some fake tags that didn't show on my original post.

I had:

<irony><semi-serious>

</semi-serious></irony>

around the whole post. I guess I didn't notice they were missing in the preview.
I'm just a troll as you suggested.
(Now where's that confounded bridge!?)

Ps. Let's vote Green for no reason whatsoever!

Re:Let's turn the tide!

[Stochio]

My browser doesn't render the tag. I checked the W3C conventions and I don't see it there either. Is there some browser patch I can download that will render this tag for me? Thanks!

What to expect from each other.

[isotope23]

Voter's Contract With America

Our country is founded upon the principles of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
These goals are achievable only if we the people desire them to be so.

I hereby swear that I will vote for those people who promise to approve a balanced budget only.
I hereby swear that I will place the interests of the citizen, above that of the government.
I hereby demand unbiased and equal coverage of all candidates for political office who:
A) Support a balanced budget
B) Support Civil Liberties
C) Are on my state Ballot

I will not support, nor vote for, any candidate regardless of party affiliation, if they do not
agree to abide by the terms set forth above.

I will not support, nor vote for, any candidate regardless of party affiliation, if they do not
agree to debate all eligible candidates which meet the requirements above.

I recognize it is my duty as a citizen to find and vote for a candidate who will adhere to
preceding principles.

I also agree that any officeholder who violates these terms should be recalled from office.

I will promote this idea to my fellow citizens in order to form a more perfect union.

Any suggestions for improvement?

Re:What to expect from each other.

[CrimsonAvenger]

I hereby demand unbiased and equal coverage of all candidates for political office who

I find this section disturbing, as it implies that you are willing to allow biased and unequal coverage in the case where you disapprove of the candidate. Which, to a large extent, we have now - biased and unequal coverage. Sounds like you just want to rearrange the inequities of the current system so they favour your guy.

I hereby swear that I will place the interests of the citizen, above that of the government.

Which citizen did you have in mind here? Bill Gates? Yourself? Ted Bundy? Seriously, there may be times and places when the interests of the Government should override the interests of any given citizen. It's early, and I don't want to wste too much time thinking about it, but I would imagine that any anti-trust trial is an example.

A) Support a balanced budget
B) Support Civil Liberties
C) Are on my state Ballot

This set of criteria also produces some interesting results. Let's say there are four candidates, A,B,C,D. All four support Civil Liberties, A & B are in favour of a Balanced Budget, C & D are not. A,C,D are on your state Ballot, therefore you can only support A. B,C,D are on MY state's ballot, therefore I can only support B. I can't support A by donating money to his cause (condition C), even if my support (say I have just won the Powerball, and have a lot of money to throw around) would make the difference between victory and defeat for A. Likewise, same applies to you for B. Both conditions increase the possibility that C or D will win (my state MUST come out for B, your state MUST come out for A, other states may come out any way they like under their own customs.

For that matter, following the rules above means that someone who chooses not to do so has an incentive to get A & B on every ballot, since that would dilute their EC votes somewhat, thus increasing the chances that C or D would win.

Given, of course, that not everyone supports the rules you've outlined. If it can't stand some percentage of cheaters, it won't work very well in the real world.

Re:What to expect from each other.

[isotope23]

suggestions for improvement? My point with this: "I hereby demand unbiased and equal coverage of all candidates for political office who " is any candidate on your state ballot should be covered by your local media. This: "interests of the citizen, above that of the government" , could be changed to "citizenry" i.e. the people before the government. I think you understand the idea i am trying to get across. I think most of us would agree that a balanced budget is one of the highest priorities right now . I am trying to find a rough minimum that we as voters (or a large portion of voters) can agree on. Feel free to edit change etc.

Re:What to expect from each other.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Remove the qualifier for "all candidates for political office". Qualifiers are what is producing the current situation which you dislike so much.

Realistically, there MUST be some qualifiers. Hell, with not too much work, *I* could get on the ballot in some states. And just because I am on a ballot doesn't mean I deserve to be taken seriously as a candidate.

Of course, if you change your qualifiers from the current one to "on the ballot", then you will cause your state government to change the rules for getting on the ballot, so as to weed out the people who just want to abuse the "equal coverage".

Personally, I would rather have national rules for getting on the ballot for national office - there is only one national office in the USA (President - VP doesn't count, since he is elected on a ticket with the President, so this should not be terribly difficult to accomplish.

This would, of course, put Congress in the position of specifying qualifying characteristics for President, over and above those mentioned in the Constitution, which is probably unconstitutional in itself.

I don't really have an objection to you, or anyone else, having ideals about the way elections are run in this or any other country. Nor do I object to you trying to proselyte about those ideals.

I'm just trying to warn you that those ideals may not produce the results you wish them to. A suggestion - look at every way you can think of that someone can game the system, given that a majority of the populace follows your ideals, and a minority does not. If you can't see any way to game it, I suggest you get someone else to look it over, then publish, since a political system that can't be gamed by the unscrupulous should be worth a Nobel Prize, at least.

Here are the sacrifices:

[roystgnr]

If you vote approval for Nader, disapproval for Gore and Bush, then your vote has no effect on the election between Gore and Bush, despite the fact that you have a preference for Gore. If you vote approval for Nader and Gore, disapproval for Bush, then your vote has no effect on the election between Nader and Gore, despite the fact that you have a preference for Gore. Either way, you're throwing away part of your vote. You're not forced to throw away as much as with a plurality system, but you're still unable to express all your preferences, and that inability can change the election outcome for the worse.

They are afraid of "issue" memes, too

[Cryofan]

Most slashdotters and Libertarians seem to think that the main reason for the shut out is that the Dems and GOP don't want competition. But the reasons go deeper than. One big reason is that the main players/donors do not want certain ideas being put out there in the public airwaves.

The USA is really run like a livestock ranch, or a slave plantation, in ways. Or, like a business, if you will. One entire set of ideas that are NEVER exposed to the light of day are the whole set of ideas that form the backbone of European and Canadian and Australian governments--that income taxes and business taxes may be used for social safety net things like paying ANY citizen money for rent, food, medical care, etc. That idea is TABOO on the American airwaves. And if the Leftist candidates (Nader or Green Party (Cobb) get on the air, that idea will be directly and bluntly introduced. TABOO on the ranch/plantation!

Also, the Libertarian party has some ideas that are dangerous ideas, like legalization of marijuana, which is a non-addictive drug that makes people introspective and thoughtful. It often makes young people think that there may be more to life than competing in the rat race. VERY dangerous idea to those who reap huge profits from the machine that is America

Re:They are afraid of "issue" memes, too

[merky1]

Also, the Libertarian party has some ideas that are dangerous ideas, like legalization of marijuana, which is a non-addictive drug that makes people introspective and thoughtful. It often makes young people think that there may be more to life than competing in the rat race.

Yes, this is why corporate america seeks potheads to staff highly sensitive positions... Because waking and baking makes you so much more thoughtful.

Of all the really bad arguements you could have chosen, you picked this one... I would have much rather gone with a just as evil / good as alcohol arguement. At least with that one you don't have to sell MJ so hard, just point out all of the evils of alcohol (cirrhosis,DUI,sleeping with undesirable people).

Maybe if you weren't so busy being insightful you might have thought of that one on your own.

Re:They are afraid of "issue" memes, too

[shibashaba]

It has been proven to make people more creative. Maybe this is why the Dutch still have a consumer electronics company and we can barely make cell phones.

Avy method of IRV

[Antony-Kyre]

But I think the Avy method of IRV passes one more of the four/five than simply using IRV alone.

Re:Avy method of IRV

[bonniot]

OK, that would be a good point for it, but that would still make it objectively inferior to both condorcet and approval.

Avy method of IRV

[Antony-Kyre]

What about the Avy method of Instant Runoff Voting? When comparing Avy method of IRV or just IRV alone against plurality voting, in my honest opinion, either one is better. Cause with plurality voting, you can get elected with a very small percentage of votes.

It's a scandal!

[fm6]

I'm the candidate of the California Seccessionist Party (Our motto: the Rockies are there for a reason!) and I'm sadened to report that my party has been totally ignored this year! It's the end of democracy!

Kind of like.

[DAldredge]

It's kind of like the way that politics.slashdot.org ignores any thing that isn't anti bush?

Write-in

[Antony-Kyre]

Write-in is not a problem with IRV as you can see with San Francisco's ballot.

So here's my predictions...

[teamhasnoi]

1. Terrorist attack on US soil - Oklahoma City style/size, pre-elections.
2. Vote Fraud that makes Florida look like a day in kindergarden.
3. Riots immediately following the election results because...
4. Bush wins (due to 1 and 2).

Assuming I'm right, vote for your favorite 3rd party candidate.
Assuming I'm wrong, vote for your favorite 3rd party candidate.

I think it's pretty sad that freedom, justice, honesty, and hope have taken a more-or-less permanent vacation from this country. I didn't even want to post this, because of stupid fear of reprisal. But, what the hell. I hear the weather is nice in Gitmo.

I hope I'm wrong on all counts, but even a tree knows which way the wind blows.

Condorcet and IRV

[Antony-Kyre]

Here's how I understand Condorcet to work. I could hypothetically fill in all the C bubbles, which may reflect Nader, giving him a total of "5 points".

A ballot would look like this.
A bubble bubble B
A bubble bubble C
A bubble bubble D
A bubble bubble E
B bubble bubble C
B bubble bubble D
B bubble bubble E
C bubble bubble D
C bubble bubble E
D bubble bubble E

As for IRV, I say the Avy method of IRV fixes one of the flaws. Plus IRV in general doesn't violate "one vote, one person", as Condorcet would. Condorcet violates "one vote, one person" in the way I can give points to each candidate. And IRV is like having multiple primaries all at once, with the last place being eliminated.

But honestly, either method, Condorcet or simply IRV, would be better than our current flawed system of plurality.

Re:Condorcet and IRV

[damiam]

A Condorcet ballet would look like: A: 1 2 3 4 5 B: 1 2 3 4 5 C: 1 2 3 4 5 D: 1 2 3 4 5 E: 1 2 3 4 5 The voter can choose any ranking for any candidate, and two candidates can be ranked the same. Pairings can be automatically determined from the rankings, and need not be exposed to the voter.

Re:Condorcet and IRV

[damiam]

Oops. That should be:

A: 1 2 3 4 5
B: 1 2 3 4 5
C: 1 2 3 4 5
D: 1 2 3 4 5
E: 1 2 3 4 5

Re:Condorcet and IRV

[PurpleBob]

Please read my other post. You don't give points to the candidates; the method you are describing is Borda. And you don't rank individual pairings; that's just confusing and a waste of time.

Nope!

[jsrjsr]

I helped out on a Libertarian congressional candidate's campaign back when the Fairness Doctrine was in place. Broadcast media outlets were so worried about the Fairness Doctrine that we actually received less coverage from them than from the local newspaper (the newspaper didn't like us but at least they would mention the candidate). Our coverage by radio & television (as compared to the two older parties) improved greatly when the Fairness Doctrine went away.

The way it is.

[BCW2]

The 10% on the far left and the 10% on the far right get all the press. Which leaves the 80% of us in middle (who should be running things) with no voice. To steal a term from the 70's, "We are the silent majority".

The radical left and the radical right are both, very wrong, and, very dangerous.

Re:Anyone ready to call back the Fairness Doctrine

[profmathers]

Touché. Anyone ready to call back the limits placed on ownership of media outlets by the Fairness Doctrine? I guess I could have sharpened my point...

Nader v Badnaric on CNN

[cbr2702]

While agree that Badnarik is being marginalized, a likely reason for the greater coverage of Nader is that he's been around longer. He was a well known comsumer advocate in the 70s and 80s and was reviled as a spoiler in the 200 election. Badnarik may be more popular and more deserving of notariety now, but he's not got the history. I know very few people who knew of him before he started campainging for this election.