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.

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

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