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

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?

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: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: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.

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

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.

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.

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:Amazing!

[Bastian]

You know what's even crazier?

President Kennedy has been shot!

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.