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!

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: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?

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.

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

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.