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!

[Bastian]

You know what's even crazier?

President Kennedy has been shot!

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?"

[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?"

[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?"

[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: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: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?

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.

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?

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

[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: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

"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: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.

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.

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...

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,

[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,

[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: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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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

[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.