Slashdot Mirror
Libertarian Candidate Excluded From Debate For Refusing Corporate Donations
fishdan writes "I'm a long time Slashdot member with excellent karma. I am also the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in the Massachusetts 6th District. I am on the ballot. I polled 7% in the only poll that included me, which was taken six weeks ago, before I had done any advertising, been in any debates or been on television. In the most recent debate, the general consensus was that I moved a very partisan crowd in my favor. In the two days since that debate, donations and page views are up significantly. Yesterday I received a stunning email from the local ABC affiliate telling me they were going to exclude me from their televised debate because I did not have $50,000 in campaign contributions, even though during my entire campaign I have pointedly and publicly refused corporate donations. They cited several other trumped up reasons, including polling at 10%, but there has not been a poll that included me since the one six weeks ago — and I meet their other requirements."
Not asking a question, not suggesting to act.
So what is it, just a story to tell?
With the author of the article being simultaneously the allegedly wronged party, this just sounds like whinging.
I would say, f*ck the first two! Or, do you have a very strong preference between R and D?
Paul B.
P.S. I'll wait a little bit more until changing my .signature...
These socio-economic forces work hand in hand with the same agenda. Sadly the American public thinks that there are really two controlling parties and business is on the outside of this circle of power except to write checks. The truth is that they're all one and the same.
More like fuck the voting system that fucks the third parties.
I'm not sure if I should be terrified or elated.
One things for sure, he's got my vote just to see how a slashdotter's trolling skills stand up in the big leagues.
Can we get a Slashdot poll for this guy? I'm sure he'll hit at least 10%.
You should have accepted those donations. That doesn't means you have to listen to whoever is giving you money. In fact, if I was you, I'd take their check, and then do the exact opposite of whatever they are asking for.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Too little information here.
What are the criteria for being included in these independent polls? Does one normally request inclusion?
Have you asked ABC about these requirements?
I mean, the ABC affiliate doesn't even NEED a reason to exclude you, right? It's their station. You want to be on TV, buy your own affiliate. Right? Isn't that the "free market" at work? Are you saying they should be FORCED to let you into the debate?
Libertarians are nothing but Republicans that are upset they aren't rich/powerful enough to fuck people in the ass. They want it to be easier to get into the "Fuck you, I've got mine" club.
There are a couple problems with your story
1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that.
2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it.
3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
This is ABC's decision. As a Libertarian surely you wouldn't want to interfere with the choice that a private company made.
With a 0% chance of winning, basically you would be wasting people's time. Similarly, Jill Stein isn't a part of the presidential debate.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
You shouldn't need corporate donations to reach the $50,000 mark. You could do it with $5000 people donating $10 each. That's 0.076% of the Massachusetts population. I think it is a fairly reasonable concept that if you can't do that you are not a serious candidate.
But he wouldn't win against Cowboy Neal.
Make your own video. Post it on Youtube. Make it viral.
Ezekiel 23:20
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. It's a two party system, and the game is rigged to keep it that way.
How many parties were represented in the recent president/vice-president debates?
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
but that does not seem to be the issue. A "serious" candidate with support for US Congress in a populous state should be able to raise a low minimum $50k amount. You are excluded only for that reason, so shame on you for blaming it on something else.
When your solo pity party is over, I wish you luck.
...that you actually thought democracy was about getting the best people with policies that would actually improve the country into the right roles. I'm only 27 and I realised that this whole democracy thing is a massive joke (especially in the UK where both parties are effectively exactly the same and the differences are superficial).
Until the system is changed to promote policies based on long term improvement (which may be unpopular) rather than policies which produce short term boosts to popularity, there's very little point in having you're voice heard. (BTW I do vote, but usually for ideals such as the green party who'd I'd probably not want fully in power but would like to see some of their ideas incorporated into current policy more often)
... when said system is so rigged that an outsider can barely manage to get on a ballot, but then also get equal time and wide enough exposure to actually get elected? Not likely.
Let the revolution begin. Hopefully it's one that would make Ghandi proud, but that may not be possible.
And you're surprised because .... ?
-------
1. Enjoy your job
2. Make lots of money
3. Work within the law
Choose any two.
you arent being kicked out for refusing corporate donations. you are being refused because you havent even raised 50K and are polling at less than 15%.
hate to say it but if I were an ABC affiliate trying to configure the program schedule around the advertising revenue im supposed to be selling, id probably try to keep the forums brief and ensure key folks who pay me for ads get a seat. republicans and democrats will pay me for ad space, but they might not pay me much if i include 40 other no-name candidates willing to bother their candidates with actual debate.
if you're a libertarian bitching about capitalism, you might not be running under the correct ticket.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Campaign finance reform should be at the top of every voter's decision list in voting for a candidate. Campaign finance laws currently allow all of the corruption we see above water in politics. If getting rid of corporate donations it's not on a politicians agenda, don't vote for them.
ABC is a private company that can do what they want, practicing exactly the policy that the Libertarian party promotes. So I guess this candidate is afraid to practice what the party preaches?
The only thing I see to support your claim that you "moved a very partisan crowd in my favor" is a single sentence:
Fishman, perhaps sensing that many in the room were swayed, told voters to consider him, despite his long odds.
That said I wish you luck, it sounds like the other two candidates are both complete jerks: "Don't vote for him because he's a REPUBLICAN"..."Oh yea? Well don't vote for him because he's a DEMOCRAT". Yup, that's how I evaluate a candidate.
Plus this is completely off topic and doesn't belong on slashdot in the first place.
he wasn't excluded from the debate for refusing corporate donations. He was excluded because he didn't have enough donation period. Which he could've easily remedied by taking personal donations from family, friends and other individual donors. And honestly, 50k is peanuts. If you don't have 50k in donations while running for US congress in this day and age, you are not a serious candidate.
Yawn, why are strawmen arguments being up modded?
Libertarians would be against the government regulating private decisions. They do not have a problem with citizens pressuring private companies who have made decisions they don't like. And even this is a gross simplification, because libertarians are not against all regulation.
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
As a libertarian he would not support government intervention (though laws, FCC mandates, etc) in these debates, but as far I can see that is not what he is asking for.
Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?
He doesnt hate corporations (atleast thats my opinion of what he believes in). He hates corporate money in politics. There is a difference between the two.
The media doesn't want to upset the applecart, especially by putting on one of those dirty 'libertarians'. Heck, even in this Slashdot article you have people erecting strawman arguments and then asking why you're upset.
But really, what it is is that the media loves the advertising money from the candidates. It's in their best interests to promulgate the idea that advertising and money wins elections, because that money is spent on them. So they go out of their way to avoid providing free advertising to any candidate who hasn't paid them for enough paid advertising.
And the two party system is a great source of the kind of fake controversy over irrelevant issues that is the bread and butter of mass media. So they don't really want that to go away either. Too much money tied up in keeping things just as they are.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You say there requirement is:
*Campaign contributions of at least $50,000
In what way does that say or imply you needed to take corporate donations? You seem to have invented that out of whole cloth. Also there other reasons aren't "trumped up". They can choose who they do or do not want in their debate and it seems perfectly reasonably to only give the limited time to candidates that have even a modicum of a chance of winning.
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?
Unless there is something else here, this sounds a bit petulant.
Creating legislation forcing ABC to permit his participation in the debate would be against Libertarian principals. Applying public pressure to revise their policy is not. I don't think you really understand Libertarian principals at all.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Yeah, but it has no bearing on this. This is a roundtable debate that is part of a show that would easily fall under "bona fide news interview" exemption to that rule.
His 7% of the poll can be explained pretty easily. If I didn't know any of the candidates, and I saw "Fishman", I'd vote for him just on principle.
Please go cry some where else. Requirements are there to be met, and you're not winning over any friends by crying corporate greed every time you don't get your way.
Wow way to be a total dick. Someone should kick you squarely in the balls...
Maybe you are actually reading this and can answer a question about Libertarians.
I keep hearing "whoever initiates force is wrong" and the point of the government is to be a framework to resolve contract disputes, as well as step in after someone initiates force against someone else. Skipping the fact there is a large private industry around dispute resolution the Libertarians fail to address, I'm unclear who initiates force in a very large number of situations. I'll give one here, and hopefully you can explain it in a way that I can understand. Usually I get the answer that goes back to "the person owning the land you are standing on has rights, you have none at all" which conflicts with the "initiate force" rules.
A Black man, Bob, is walking down the street. He sees a cafe named "Joe's Cafe" with a big "open" sign in the window and on the door. Feeling like a bite and feeling invited in, he walks in. The sign on the podium when he walks in says "please seat yourself". He walks to a booth and sits down. Joe, the owner, walks up and informs him that his type is not served there, and he must leave. Bob says "I'm not leaving until I get a meal." Joe calls the police and requests he be arrested for trespass.
The Libertarian explanation is that force is initiated by Bob for not leaving when forced to by Joe. Logic indicates that Joe invited the public (including Bob) in, and throwing him out is the initiation of force. And the Libertarian stance always seems to come down to the owner of the land has rights, and nobody else on that land does. Though, when I word it that way, I get yelled at, but never corrected with anything that doesn't directly lead back to the same conclusion. Though one person did send me a link to a youtube video that explains that you can't have personal freedom without property, and it's the personal freedom that is the basis of property, but no explanation of why it works out that personal freedom on someone else's property is determined, in part, but the owner of that property. That circularly comes back to the freedom coming not from personal freedom, but from the property itself.
I personally think of myself as a libertarian, but I've never met a Libertarian who was a libertarian, though most get offended when I say that.
Learn to love Alaska
Here's an idea:
1. Take the money from the companies
2. Deposit it in a bank
3. Take out money to donate (anonymously) to people and groups that are fighting against the companies that are trying to grease your hand
4. Feel good about yourself and keep on sticking it to the companies
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
They should pass a law that mandates that anyone who broadcasts a debate must include Libertarians.
No matter where you go, there you are.
That's great, but there requirement just said $50,000 in donations. It neither said nor implied that he needed to take corporate money. If he can't get $50,000 from people to donate to his campaign or get more than 10% in the polls he has no chance to win.
Out of curiosity, what made you run third party rather than trying to fix things from within? There are obstacles either way of course, was there something that made you convinced whichever party you were closer to ideologically was irreparably damaged? Did you consider, or did you run in a republican or democratic party?
Hey, I enjoy 3rd party candidates as much as the next guy, and enjoy seeing them succeed.
However, the REASONABLE standard of requiring $50k in donations to prove you're a credible candidate makes sense.
This is NOT that "they refused me because I refused corporate donations". This is "I'm too small a candidate to be considered serious by their metric".
(I'd say if you polled 7%, you should be included somehow, but honestly, their standard is MORE fair than poll numbers; as you say, you and presumably other minor candidates weren't even included in some of the polling, so the cash-metric is much more universal.)
-Styopa
He wasn't excluded for refusing corporate donations, he was excluded for not getting $50K in donations.
Now, is that fair? Maybe not. But unless it's a practical impossibility to get $50,000 in non-corporate donations (it's not) then the article title is misleading at best.
A better title would be:
Libertarian Candidate Who Refused Corporate Money Excluded From Debate For Not Raising Enough Donations
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Uh, he's on the ballot. That kind of makes it not the voting system's fault.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I'm sure they'd love to report on this. Also local newspapers and radio.
I find your statement a disingenuous. The issue is not that you refuse corporate donations it that you lack identifiable support. Now, perhaps, the method of identifying support is piss poor.
So what would be a good measure if not cash? We want something simple and hard to fake. We want to exclude the crazies and non-viable candidates. Also, first past the post naturally gravitates to a 2 party system but we don’t want to be locked in.
Almost everything I come up with requires some type of editorial qualitive decision by the network.
He is excluded because he couldn't raise a piddling $50,000. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE $50,000 COME FROM CORPORATE DONORS! The pathetic liar (a trait that is disgustingly common in right-wing candidates this year) couldn't get $50,000 and chose to blame corporations, a bizarre statement to hear from a Libertarian to say the least.
I agree with you on both points, I was just answering to GP's point about why he wants to be on the debate, run by ABC, funded by corporations.
Their requirements are really fair and meant to keep out fringe candidates. Contrary to how you feel, you ARE a fringe candidate. You haven't raised $50k. If you swayed the crowds like you said you have, $50k is a drop in a bucket just from the people you had talked too. Hell, you should have been able to get than from the National Libertarian party.The fact you haven't raised that much means you aren't as popular as you seem to think you are. A daily schedule means more than 2 events a week. You lost all credibility in your post about the email about urging people to blow up the story on Slashdot and Reddit. It is plain and simple attention whoring you are doing. You aren't a serious candidate and are looking to cause a ruckus because you think you should be doing better than you really are.
That's a state issue, not a federal issue.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
He doesnt hate corporations (atleast thats my opinion of what he believes in). He hates corporate money in politics. There is a difference between the two.
Huh? How can you be a libertarian and be against corporate money in politics? I mean the Citizens United decision is almost exactly a page out of libertarian philosophy, a corporation is a collection of people who have the right to assemble their money and use it to buy advertising (aka speech) in the free market. Anything blocking corporate donations would require the force of law aka government interference which is surely something libertarians are against.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Sure, you can do all of that no problem. However if you manage to crash said car while you do that, and it happens to damage someone else's person or property, or the pellets from that 12 gague happen to do damage to someone else's person or property where they strike, then you'd be in huge trouble...
Libertarians don't agree with Anarchists that you can do anything at all that you want. Libertarians believe that you should be allowed to do anything you want as long as it doesn't interfere with other people. Libertarians even see a need for government, and the police and military, to strictly enforce the few relevant laws preventing you from harming others.
A libertarian government would have no law against alcohol, tobacco, drugs, specific medical procedures (abortion, assisted suicide, etc), or who you can or can't marry, or many of the things that government currently spends your hard earned money on. But the remaining laws (against things like murder, assault, theft, tresspass, vandalism) would be strictly enforced.
I can't tell what he's asking for, or what he actually believes. I think your opinion about what he believes in might be true, but who knows?
Libretarian complaining about how corporation treats little guy when they're the little guy...
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
Nonsense. The differences between our two parties are so narrow, that it's a waste of time having a debate between them. The debates don't matter, hell the election itself doesn't even matter. Crony capitalists will win and civil libertarians will lose.
Does a third party candidate have a chance to win? No, but he will raise important issues, and that's what really matters.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Your poll numbers are nonexistent. Your donations don't meet the minimum. Sure, I'd like to hear you. But they have rules because they need to keep their little sideshow confined to a reasonable number of contestants. If they accede to your demand to be included, they'll also have to include Mr. Spock and Pope Moonbat. Which, let's be honest, is the crowd they think you're in if you're not at the trough like the rest of them. ----- And to those who kvetch about the appropriateness of this topic to Slashdot: let me remind you that libertarianism is the preferred political philosophy of Slashdot. No other set of political theories has the magical combination of marijuana legalization, appeals to uncomplicated meritocracy, and pugnacious antiauthoritarian individualism that libertarianism brings neckbeards nation-wide. (Granted, gimme-gimme, info-wants-to-sleep-with-me anarchism runs a close second.)
Ok, let me rephrase that, I did not mean that he wants to ban corporate money in politics (or may be he does, I dont know, but that is not what I meant in my comment). He does not want corporate money to influence him and his decisions and he doesnt want to depend on corporate money for basically everything he does. Irrespective of your political views, I think it is a decent opinion to hold.
Is it a contradiction for a Libertarian to do whatever he wants and to flout the existing "rules" of the game?
I thought freedom of choice was something Libertarians prized, so his choice not to accept campaign contributions is perfectly acceptable.
It could also be because of the strings that come with those contributions. Corporations tend to love stricter laws with heavier enforcement that removes more personal freedoms. Why align yourself with organizations so opposed to the libertarian view. (I doubt corporations would be happy if he worked to abolish all IP laws, stopped all corporate tax breaks, reduced government spending on pork projects, or any attacked any of the millions of laws on the books right now that benefit nobody but the owners of various corporations)
So he's a slashdotter who might end up in Congress. Fine. What I want to know is does he run Linux???
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Interesting read about property rights vs Individual freedom. Compare this to what a Republican or Democrat thinks.
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/VAN-DUN-ON-FREEDOM-AND-PROPERTY.-A-CRITIQUE.pdf
Ask Obama.
I still believe Obama actually wanted to fix a lot of things. I think he quickly found out a few reasons why he can't make any serious change... dark secret reasons. Yeah, I know "conspiracy theory -- ignore the nut bag." I didn't vote for Obama... I voted Libertarian. But the change in Obama was remarkable and I don't think it's because 'he's just crooked like the rest of them.' I think Kennedy was the last rebel from the backstage establishment and we know how that ended up.
There's still lots of hope though. The problem is this internet thing. The establishment pretty much controls the media and all the usual stuff. But this internet thing... no one has figured out how to control it yet and it's too late to try to take it away. (Seriously, if they were forward thinking enough, they would have created an internet competitor that was 'fun, addicting and *SAFE(tm)* for public use' long ago... but now it's kind of too late. Only Steve Jobs could have pulled off a stunt like that and he's gone.
This internet thing... it may free the people yet.
Campaign contributions are a useful proxy for "does anyone care that this guy/gal is running." If nobody cares enough about your candidacy to throw you a couple bucks, the odds are very high that you're a marginal/crank candidate rather than a serious one, and candidates with no support shouldn't waste valuable time in a debate. There are other systems you could devise to filter out cranks from a political debate, but they're just as likely to be complained about by the cranks as this one.
Read my blog.
The voting system has more features than who appears on a ballot. Appearing on a ballot doesn't overcome the spoiler effect: less established parties are recursively seen as not viable and then can't establish viability. It's a predictable effect of "first past the post" voting systems.
For perspective of how low a bar $50,000 is, open secrets has the FEC data for the race. Both of the top 2 candidates have raised over $1.4 million dollars as of 2 months ago, and have likely raised a bunch more since. Even excluding PAC/other money they have raised $866k/$1.22m.
Out of curiosity, what made you run third party rather than trying to fix things from within?
Fix things from within what? There are some people who identify with neither conservative nor liberal speaking points. The moderate viewpoint is entirely ignored in the two-party system, except when an extremist candidate from one of the two parties is trying to court moderate votes.
Associating yourself with either party implicitly indicates to the rest of that party that you agree with at least most of their views. It's easy, then, to label a true moderate (or libertarian) vote as outside the party lines, leading those who believed the implicit ideological alignment based on party affiliation to label the voter a turncoat.
I'd love to see an alternative voting system in place that encourages votes for parties other than the big two. It will never happen, of course, while they're in control of congress...
While we're dreaming, let's get rid of gerrymandering too.
If you find this stunning I'm not certain I want you in government.
Libertarians are 'Right-wing?' Last time i checked, libertarians and republicans (Right wing, right?) are two completely different parties
/endrant
I suspect actually lots of mini-conspiracies.
Obama: I want to close Gitmo, and get the prisoners tried in a civilian court.
CIA Director: Yeah... look, that's not going to happen. We've a few skeletons in the closet there. If you did that, it'd be embarassing when they got out. I'm afraid that even if you ordered it, we'd have to stall for months. It's just reflect badly on you.
Democratic congressmen: A nice idea, but the republicans would tear us up on national security if we supported that. We've got elections in two years. Sorry, but we'd have to vote against any bill to do so.
Obama: Oh.
so how do 'marginal' candidates, who do not want to receive corporate donations, become 'mainstream' or 'credible'?
Hej! Nasi tu byli!
He's not in the debates because of that 15% rule that makes sure the game is only played by team Red and team Blue. You are not in debates = you don't exist. Some say the rule was introduced because of the mess caused by Ross Perrot. Both parties want to make sure no party pooper happens ever again - they agreed on artificial bareers of entry so they can duke it out inside their exclusive club.
I've never seen so many people miss the point... Libertarianism isn't the idea that no one can ever do you wrong or that everything corporations due is right. It's more about people using their actual individual power to do something about it. In this case, he's not appealing to government action... He's informing the public about something that strikes him as unfair or wrong. Informing people is the first step to empowering them.
If you don't see a problem with ABC excluding him, fine. But don't assume that being a libertarian means you have a "Oh well, nothing I can/should do!" attitude. It just means your first reaction isn't "THERE SHOULD BE A LAW!!!!!" when it comes to cases like this.
It's a useful proxy for 'does anyone with money care' - an indirect plutocracy. Then you end up with people on Slashdot complaining that any company with enough money is able to openly buy whatever legislation they want, regardless of the public's view on the matter.
Ah yes, the rule of the bank(note)s. No one will even bother considering your political views, unless you accept the green communion and gently take it up the... wallet.
Seriously, this system has to fall...
This isn't actually about money at all
You're right, it's not. It's about the fact that he isn't a "viable" candidate, and in general will have exactly zero impact on the outcome of the election. With slightly larger numbers, he could be a "spoiler" like Ralph Nader, but seriously, at 7% in a Public Radio poll, he's a non-player.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
At the same time, a corporation is a collection of people who have been granted special exceptions to the sole proprietorship tax code and legal liability code. The default for legal taxation is that everyone pays, so if an assembly wishes to incorporate, it can and should give up its right to participate in the political process. The same people are most welcome to form a second assembly which does not incorporate and thus can do whatever political activities it wishes. But the first one can't fund the second as the first is banned from politics in exchange for favorable tax code.
This is the same as is already done with non-profit organizations. Why hasn't this already been extended to corporations? Oh yeah, greed.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Single party states that want to appear as if they are democratic are not an entirely new phenomenon, the USofA's 1.125 party system is NO exception!
Every four years the meaningless dance takes place and things just keep getting worse for most of us!
Under the Repubs, we got "pre-emptive" war, suspended Habeas and Guantanamo Bay.
Under the Dems, we got "indefinite" detention and nine trillion dollars given away, plus other outrages.
IMHO, it's all a SHAM, a BULLSHIT shell game to quiet the unwashed masses!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
While many libertarians do blather insanely (e.g. any of those gold standard loons), you're more likely to get a sane response from a libertarian than either major party when you ask about issues like:
Warrantless wiretapping
Transportation security
Foreign wars
Drug policy
Intellectual property
Glad I could help you with that.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It is if stunts like this keep good people off the menu.
This incident just proves what I already knew, that corporate america has our political system by teh balls and won't let go.
When you have a winner-take-all system of voting, third parties tend to siphon support from those who are ideologically closest to them. That's not a good way of choosing representatives of the public.
Libertarians, greens, tea partiers and progressives should join hands and support Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting or any number of more rational election schemes. Until they do, it's appropriate to dismiss minor parties as spoilers. Absent such reforms, I support the decision of ABC. Otherwise, I would say that there should be one debate for those polling above 2% and another debate for those polling above 20%.
I'm sure there are not 500 whackjobs on the ballot. This criteria along should get someone in the debate until the number of people on the ballot really does make that impractical. There is no excuse for the media not to include a local candidate for representative that is on the ballot. No reason other than blatant partisanship.
Surely as a Libertarian, he should support the network's freedom to make up or accept any rules they like and have any speakers they want in the debates.
The network doesn't have freedom when it comes to political debates.
Something about the FCC...
Fix things from within what? There are some people who identify with neither conservative nor liberal speaking points.
From his website, first link, he basically says he ran because he thinks both parties are too partisan
The Republicans and Democrats have willfully polarized the country for political gain. The party leaders are actively conspiring against compromise. The worst thing you can be called within your party is "moderate.
Nothing about his views being too far from either to be shoehorned into one, so that doesn't seem to be his concern.
The moderate viewpoint is entirely ignored in the two-party system, except when an extremist candidate from one of the two parties is trying to court moderate votes.
From most third party proponents, I hear the opposite: that both parties are identical and there's no real choice.
I'd love to see an alternative voting system in place that encourages votes for parties other than the big two. It will never happen, of course, while they're in control of congress...
I agree, specifically because in order to get a parlimentary system or some other system that's compatible with multiparty systems, the constitution would need to be changed. And I don't personally see much point: coalitions are formed before the general election here, they're formed after the election in parlimentary systems. You'd still get the religious fundamentalists and the people who don't think rich people should have to pay taxes teaming up for a majority, same as you do now.
Now, what's this story about?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
We may be able to help you out, these would not be from a corporate source.
Gently reply
Not sure I agree, but the criteria in that case should be "everyone on the ballot".
First step: don't be Libertarian.
if he can't come up with that much support he's no more legitimate than the crazy cat lady who lives in the cardboard box by the bus station. We have to have some sort of filter or every debate, etc. will be filled with dozens of idiots looking for nothing but self-aggrandizing attention.
If nobody cares enough about your candidacy to throw you a couple bucks, the odds are very high that you're a marginal/crank candidate rather than a serious one, and candidates with no support shouldn't waste valuable time in a debate
With this, you show what is fundamentally wrong with America today.
Complete and utter idiocy.
Is it really that hard to figure out?
If he could convince 5,000 people to give him $10 each, he'd have $50,000.
More than 600,000 people live in his district. 5,000 people is 7/10ths of 1 percent of that population.
If you can't convince a fraction of 1% of the people you want to represent to throw you ten freaking dollars, it is very unlikely that you will be able to convince 50%-plus-one of them to vote for you.
And ten dollar contributions aren't "anyone with money" or "indirect plutocracy." It's a few bucks so you can buy yard signs for your supporters and coffee for your volunteers. People pay more than that for a ticket to a crappy 3D movie.
Read my blog.
It may be that the other candidates didn't get 50K in non-corporate donations either. If he's refusing those donations on principal then he's being excluded because of what he stands for (assuming he really did reject that amount). Besides, who's to say they wouldn't raise the bar to 250 if he took the 50?
That and also HE DIDN'T WIN THE PRIMARIES. He didn't even come in second to Romney. Santorum and Gingrich BOTH got more votes in the primary than he did.
There is no voting system under which Ron Paul would have had a decent shot: most voters were not interested. I was going to register as a republican specifically to vote for him, but a move in the middle of the primary season precluded that. I like the guy. But let's not act like his message is so good that every dumb voter out there would have seen the light and voted for him were it not for a conspiracy of shadowy figures who silenced him. He lost. There were some shenanigans, yes, but I don't think that changed the outcome.
I though it was called having a temper-tantrum to get attention.
I doubt many of the 7% have given him any donations either.
...the $50,000 come from "corporations". A thousand $50 contributions would suffice. Don't you take donations at all? Where do you get your funds?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Obama's still a politician, the elections are a circus for politicians to strut their stuff, lots of stuff sounds good in words & on paper, putting it into action is another story. And yes, it's publicly known that there's other entities in play apart from the president that vote on those things, like... the senate.
The internet has freed people, Egypt being a decent example, it's keeping it at that level of freedom that's become the hard part.
why? how can you really support the first two at this point?
wait what? voting IS the way to fix things from within, right? why is voting for third, fourth, fifth, or sixth parties not fixing from within? You know, the solutions to the problems we face cannot be flattened into democrat and/or republican ideology.
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
Sure, they can. But that doesn't mean you can't point out that they didn't include someone?
He isn't asking for government intervention. He just wants a fair shot with the big boys.
He is excluded because he couldn't raise a piddling $50,000. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE $50,000 COME FROM CORPORATE DONORS! The pathetic liar (a trait that is disgustingly common in right-wing candidates this year) couldn't get $50,000 and chose to blame corporations, a bizarre statement to hear from a Libertarian to say the least.
The HELL you say! A politician bending the truth to fit his own narrative?! Not in this man's America, no siree Bob!
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
... sane (i.e., non-Libertarian) ....
You are implying Libertarians are insane, yet implying democrats and republicans are sane? What rock have you been living under?
In other words, you don't agree with us, so you say ridiculous things about us and hope that no one will point out how vacuous they are.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
You honestly believe a Libertarian candidate once supported Obama? Can you point me to any part of the libertarian platform that Obama supported?
Uh, what? If he wants to play with the big boys, he ought to be a big boy. That's like saying everyone ought to get a fair shot to be on an Olympic athletic team -- and, in fact, everyone does, but you have to be able to qualify. He cannot even raise $50K in non-corporate donations, and wants to play with the big boys? And is whining on slashdot for help, not to raise contributions, but to whine harder?
It would be more respectable if instead of the misleading headline of "Libertarian Candidate Excluded from Debate for Refusing Corporate Donations", as opposed to "Libertarian Candidate Excluded from Debate because No One Will Donate", and whining, the article instead had been more of a "What is the most efficient/best ways of soliciting/gathering online political contributions for a third party candidate from small/non-corporate donors?" Or perhaps inquiring about the equivalent of a kickstarter site for political candidate, etc.
Amazing. Where I come from (Norway), excluding a politician with 15% support would be unthinkable. We regularly include people from parties with 2-4% support in television debates here. And the amount of dontations is certainly not an issue - it isn't common to donate to political parties at all, and shouldn't be either. Otherwise, it will be easier to represent the rich than the poor, and democracy is supposed to be one person - one vote, not one dollar, one vote.
I definitely think it is a problem that the original poster is being excluded for lack of donations. Not only shouldn't he need any, he also says he has been actively refusing to accept donations, so how does him not having any give any indication of his popularity? While I strongly disagree with libertarianism, I think it is very respectable of him not to play into the corrupt donation- and advertisement-heavy campaign system in the USA.
In a voting system where the second place and third place get a voice, Ron Paul would get a lot more votes. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for nobody. In a parliamentary system, Ron Paul's followers would have a real reason to vote for him. In first past the post, there is no such incentive. Also, Ron Paul is insane.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
no shit he did not. Maybe he wouldn't win with fair treatment but the biggest problem is everybody and their dog tried their best to marginalize him and show him as a non viable candidate despite double digit support. You need a strong start in primary season if you want to get to the finish line but all the pundits did right from the start was downplaying RP's importance and tirelessly pointing to Mittens as the chosen one.
The list of mysterious errors in MSM underestimating his score or outright omissions even in the early stage, where everybody else was covered, is very long. Even Jon Stewart mocked that in one of his shows.
Indeed. In New Hampshire, we haven't had a Libertarian in a state-level or higher office since the 1990s. However, we have about forty outright-pro-liberty Republicans in the 400-member State House right now (a dozen of which are the so-called freestaters). We've had one pro-liberty Democrat get elected, too (Rep. Joel Winters, 2006-2010), and a handful of other liberty activists have run as Democrats, too.
What we've learned from New Hampshire politics: Both the major parties have pro-liberty elements; with Republicans it's taxes, spending, and firearms, with Democrats it's social freedom issues, privacy, and civil rights.* If you actually want to get elected (as opposed to just making a point by running, running as a "protest" candidate, or the like), pick a party depending on which issues you care more about. If you make it through the primary, you're guaranteed about 30% of the people will vote for you in the general just because of the party label, then you only have to worry about getting that additional 20%+1 to win. Running as a third party, you have to work for every single vote to make the full 50%+1, and first you have to waste your time petitioning just to get on the ballot. I've known a couple Libertarians who worked their asses off---visiting every single registered voter household in their district (one of which was 9,000 people)---only to get less than 4% of the vote.
* That's the breakdown on the state level here; YMMV in other states of course.
Liberty in your lifetime
I think your first line there is a little bit off. Allow me to fix that for ya.
Obama: I want to close Gitmo, and transfer all of Gitmo's defining human rights violations to a new facility in Illinois.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu
some detainees might be held for military commission proceedings in Illinois while others might be held at Thomson [Correctional Center in Illinois] indefinitely without charge or trial.
:(){
Isn't the claim of having pointedly and publicly refused corporate donations completely bogus? I thought corporate donations directly to campaigns was still illegal. The Citizens United stuff is all about corporations spending money independently of the campaigns.
Worse than that. IIRC, it's actually illegal for a campaign to accept corporate donations. So this is a completely bogus complaint.
;the only reason why Obama can't actually change things is the same reason why people who enter the presidential office looking young come out looking haggard withdrawn and spent.
The President of the USA is the least powerful, least useful position of the USA. you get all the blame, all the responsibility yet you can't actually change anything without congress's approval.
seriously sure Obama was able to push and prode enough congresscritters to get the republican designed health care passed. look at what else he was able to do beyond that.
Fix the economy. nope everyone wants it to sit just like it as because if it breaks while their touching it it is their fault.
get us out of forgien wars. nope because the right wing wants to stick their noses in everyone else's business. (look at the right wing trying to undo liberties)
Close down gizmo, nope because no one wants to take responsibility for the prisoners .
Of course he is more than willing to pander to the democrats corporations(hollywood, DMCA, etc)
Pick which set of civil liberties you want taken. the R's are going after one group, the D's another.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Please go cry some where else. Requirements are there to be met
In this case, the requirements are there as a barrier to entry, and seem to be used as a tool for exactly that. Given the arbitrary nature of the requirements, its pretty clear that if he had $50K in donations, the requirement would quickly be adjusted to $100K.
"His name was James Damore."
I think a lot of libertarians consider themselves to be the "true scotsmen" of the right wing. Theoretically they're to the right on economic issues and to the left on social issues, and I know a lot of libertarians who are like that. There are also plenty of republicans and some democrats who like to *call* themselves libertarian in order to sound cool, but really aren't.
...That a libertarian is *never* allowed to complain about how they are treated
Let us also deride this person gratuitously for his lack of campaign funds and perpetuate the problem with politics in the US
Let us all not forget this when we get we deserve in government.
I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
,,, his web site commentary just because I don't want to give out my identity to some third party web site?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The President of the USA is the least powerful, least useful position of the USA. you get all the blame, all the responsibility yet you can't actually change anything without congress's approval.
No, sorry, the President is in charge of the executive regulatory agencies. He can make sweeping changes via these and the only thing Congress can do about it is cut whichever agency's budget in the following year.
And then there's the 'D' word. The first thing I would NOT do if I ran for any political office is do a debate. I especially would not do one on TV. And, oh, BTW, I've worked in TV studios and master control before. I'm not afraid of TV studios. I've been on the air in a couple of community shows on regular broadcast TV stations, too (not the ones I worked at). The issue is that debates themselves are a horrible medium to get the message out through. People are focusing on who can out-talk the other guy. It's like the people that tune in to a car race to see the crashes instead of who wins.
The political race should be about whose position is agreed on by most people, not who came up with the best one liner. This is why I'm NOT watching ANY of the debates. I can find out from the news the next day who "won" the debate. But that doesn't really mean anything.
Oh, if you are wanting to know who I will vote for, for President ... it's the Irish guy.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I am running for US Senate in Wisconsin as a Libertarian and have the same problems. They want 500k in contributions and 10% in polls I will never be in. It is quite frustrating.
I'm not a libertarian, and I'm wondering who voted up this bullshit flamebait comment.
Both the major parties are irreparably damaged to a Libertarian. We do not endorse handouts to the public or to businesses, we reject the wars and we want true limited government. Which of the Republicans or Democrats believe in that?
So I'm guessing you think every anti-religion atheist also thinks building churches should be illegal? That's the same line of logic your assuming there. I'm not a libertarian but I'm amazed at how intellectually dishonest people are in politics, and people gang up on libertarians in particular because I think libertarians just make them really, really angry--the permissiveness of libertarians combined with the lack of economic control liberals want seems to inflame everybody.
Where did you read that ridiculous idea? Really. Where?
is there a serious libertarian politician who wants to curtail intellectual property law? everyone i've seen (i.e. all recent LP prez candidates and a few others) has been very pro-patent since it creates private property (which, to them, is freedom by definition) and helps business. or maybe it's because they have an authoritarian mindset and believe that IP puts more power in the hands of Effective Businessmen, who are good and virtuous by definition. whatever. is there one?
sure, i've seen libertarian bloggers complain about patents, but even they often would want to keep it around for "practical" (read: selfish) reasons. and not the ayn rand kind of selfish either; this is the kind of selfish where they (think they) benefit from state-granted monopolies, so they conveniently want to keep it around.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Or a single corporation, which is considerably easier, thus the point of the GP. Money is not an indicative of the number of people interested in you. It is an indicative of the capital interested in you.
Applying public pressure to revise their policy is not. I don't think you really understand Libertarian principals at all.
I understand this much: given a corporation will only react when their profits are threatened, so unless he can show that getting left out materially affects ABC's profits, they aren't going to give a rats ass. They set the threshold at $50K: if he can't cobble together that much money from his support base, he isn't worth dealing with.
Under the current rules, third parties can never win or achieve anything in the US.
What you yanks need is electoral form, including:
1. Compulsory voting. It tends to suppress the loony extremes (of all sides) and makes politicians start pandering to the politically apathetic majority rather than extremist nut-cases. If you ever take the time to look at the american political system from the outside you'll realise what an amazingly good thing this would be. Your politicians are scary...they're completely insane. It's terrifying that these lunatics could be elected to positions of power in the world's one remaining superpower....it's even more terrifying that these people could have that power at a time when the america empire is collapsing - your influence and global political relevance are dwindling.
I know many of you yanks think compulsory voting is immoral or something, that if someone's apathetic then they don't deserve the vote....but a) being politically apathetic means they just want to be left alone, they're not volunteering to be shat on, and b) they're most likely apathetic because (under the current system) it makes no difference whether they vote or not.
2. Some form of preferential voting so that voting for third-party or independent candidates is not a complete waste of a vote....You can vote for your favoured third-party candidate knowing that if he/she doesn't win, you vote will pass to your 2nd choice (and then to your third then fourth, etc choices).
The Condorcet method is good but probably beyond what the average vote can understand, Alternative Ballot is also good and easy enough for the average voter to understand.
3. State-level reform of your electoral college system - specifically eliminate winner-takes-all as an option. if 51% of the voters in a state prefer candidate A as president then that candidate should get 51% of that state's presidential votes, not 100%.
4. Paper ballots.
5. Make it harder (if not impossible) to disenfranchise people from their vote. Dropping people from electoral rolls should only be done *individually* never in bulk, with hand-signed (not automated) notification from the State's top electoral official at least six months before it affects a person's voting rights (if there's an election before then, they're still entitled to vote). Notification must include the cause, and legal causes must be strictly limited. *ANY* objection by the individual should immediately re-instate their voting rights until and unless the state can show cause in court why that individual should be disenfranchised.
6. Even felons should have voting rights, even while serving their sentences - but certainly once they've done their time. This is especially important when you consider that many felonies are victimless crimes like drug use....if a law is wrong then those convicted of it need to be able to vote to get that law changed.
You also need massive campaign finance reform (in short: ban all campaign contributions above, say $50 per person per year. complete ban on contributions from non-natural persons - corporations, lobby groups, religious organisations, etc).
Finally, you've got thousands of nukes. You can afford to drop a few on FOX news' HQ. Try it, you'll be glad you did.
"How can you be a libertarian and be against corporate money in politics?" -> You're joking, right? I take it you watched a Ron Paul rally on TV or talked to someone claiming to be libertarian, or talked to someone who claims they knew someone who knew a libertarian, and just totally believed the simple summary they gave you, right?
I am John Hurt.
Why do you say he is insane? Some would say he's the only sane person in the room. The others are just doing the same things and expecting different results.
Secondly, he recognizes that many people have come to depend on government help, and he doesn't want to throw them on the street. He just wants to enable young people to invest their Social Security money because there isn't going to be any SS around for them.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
So the libertarian way would be that they're allowed to include or exclude whomever they want, surely?
You honestly think you're behaving like a grown-up?
polling at 7% and haven't raised 50K in campaign contributions. I'd dearly love to see the two party system broken but you haven't got a chance in hell. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Gorbachev was a huge Communist Party insider, and it took him to dismantle the Soviet Union.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
I refer you to GGP poster's bolded allcaps which you somehow missed: THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE $50,000 COME FROM CORPORATE DONORS
What would the libertarian approach to a private company making their own, legal, decision be, even if you found it unfair or even perhaps detrimental to society overall? Would it involve attempting to mandate a different decision by force of law? Or to force a private company to act in a certain way based solely on public outcry?
Hey maybe next time you could try riding a different, more effective, polittical ideology into power, THEN trying to force a your own "real", different ideology onto others.
And seriously: if you can't generate $50k, why is it exactly you believe you're qualified to be in a position to steer the direction of multiples of that amount?
Fantastic list, I'm filing it away for future use.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
It might have been luck rather than sheer skill or persistence. How many Politburo insiders tried before him? How many party system insiders have tried and failed here? How long will we have to wait for our own Gorbachev?
The reddit.com/r/ronpaul community has been dealing with this bullshit for a while. It smells the same as what they're dealing with. If it is the same, it's a troll attack, purely for the sake of causing trouble. Source seems to be from a group of folks surrounding an EnoughPaulSpam meme.
I understand that you are angry and looking for revenge.
However, I don't like your suggestion to 'blow it up' through slashdot , because I don't like being used for political means, and I doubt many others are willing either.
If you truly care about the people, you need to understand that we are not tools for you to wield, nor weapons to ensure your victory.
We are human beings, with general and specific concerns.
You are not the first politician to make this mistake, but you seem to be willing, so here goes nothing :
- Present yourself , show your ideas to the public ( through your blog, whatever ) and engage in debate with the public.
- Listen openly to people, without judging them
- Always follow your heart : don't change your views because some people don't like them. There will always be people who dislike them.
It may not help you get elected, but if you do go elected, you will be able to truly help the people, because you will know what they need.
The best action towards ABC would have been to simply not care about them, maybe even to thank them, and then find another medium.
If you become popular through other means, they will begin to wonder why they didn't include you then. And since the relationship wasn't broken, they would probably invite you then.
Slipping shoelaces ?
Holy crap! Just like the Ds and Rs, there is a spread of thought in the LP. They are not all Ayn Rand assholes.
I'm sorry this is just too funny for me. I can't be the only one that sees corruption, lack of trust in elected officials and "campaign finance reform" as being huge on-going issues. It just seems facepalm obvious that requiring politicians to have a "minimum amount of donations" is like requiring a rehab councillor to have "sampled the wares a bit". If someone has 10% of the polled vote in their favor in a race between at least 3 people doesn't this qualify them as a serious enough candidate or are we just admitting that only the top 2 get to go on to the debates?
.... You are not in debates = you don't exist....
Case in point: Two days after attending a Gary Johnson rally and subsequently planting one of his signs in my yard that night, my extended family came over for an event. As I am helping Mom carry stuff in (past the sign) This exchange occurs:
/CSB
"Gary Johnson? Who's that?"
"The Libertarian candidate for President, mom."
"Never heard of him."
The 15% is a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. How can you get 15% if you dont debate? If you dont have 15% you cant debate. o_O
you yanks
Gee, thanks.
1. Compulsory voting.
Disagree. If you can't be bothered to vote, then your voice doesn't count. Seems fair to me. Also, if you aren't going to educate yourself on the choices, I'd rather you didn't vote.
a) being politically apathetic means they just want to be left alone, they're not volunteering to be shat on
That's your own political spin.
b) they're most likely apathetic because (under the current system) it makes no difference whether they vote or not.
Your argument is if all those apathetic people voted, then they would make a difference. So it's their fault for not voting, as they are part of the problem.
Your politicians are scary...they're completely insane.
Uh huh. And I'm sure your politicians are completely rational people who never engage in polemics.
2. Some form of preferential voting so that voting for third-party or independent candidates is not a complete waste of a vote....
Agree.
3. State-level reform of your electoral college system
Agree.
4. Paper ballots.
Maybe require a paper trail, but I don't think electronic voting is unfixable. Back in 2000 in Bush vs. Gore, paper ballots took center stage at the controversy and prompted the move to electronic.
5. Make it harder (if not impossible) to disenfranchise people from their vote.
Agree in principle, although I'm iffy on your implementation.
6. Even felons should have voting rights, even while serving their sentences - but certainly once they've done their time.
Agree.
ban all campaign contributions above, say $50 per person per year. complete ban on contributions from non-natural persons - corporations, lobby groups, religious organisations, etc
Disagree. I have a libertarian bent, and freedom to associate and spend money on a common political cause fits in with that.
Finally, you've got thousands of nukes. You can afford to drop a few on FOX news' HQ.
Wow, fuck off. I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I'm not a fan of MSNBC either, and freedom of speech and the press is paramount.
I'm not a libertarian, but I think it's worth noting one of the ironies of libertarianism: that the very class they think they are fighting on behalf of - job-creating entrepreneurs and the hard-working upper-middle class - has little interest in their ideas. Because they know that the status quo is already doing a good job of looking out for their interests.
And to be fair, I know some libertarians who seem to truly believe that corporations as we know them are an evil sustained by the government, and with the shrinking of government, we'd somehow return to the simple, honest capitalism of a century ago. (I don't share their nostalgia for that time, on a range of levels, from the conditions of non-white Americans to the status of women, but there you go.) I think that belief is naive: the wealthy castes of the US will always be able to reconstruct the kind of government that they want.
Sorry about the heading, some of you will know the quote though. I've argued about the UK and Europe because I'm a Brit.
But most people want policies or sets of policies rather than particular people. Some of that is driven by idealism, some by self-interest and more usually by mixtures of the two.
However the candidates don't usually map to the policies and so, in the centre, quite justifiably, one wants a slice of both candidates. Also, of course, in this scenario, some policies are interlocking. Public healthcare will require taxation to support it, for example, it can't just be conjured. So some set sets of policies are desirable but self-contradictory [although less so than the system would have it, there should be no 'deep' poverty in the UK, for example, it's not third-world].
Finally, politicians often don't deliver their policies because of a) outside constraints, I'm sure the current UK government would prefer to spend more currently, for example b) public servants who pursue their own agendas and block anything that requires effort [think Sir Humphrey but real-life, I worked for the EEC for quite a while] c) influential lobbying, this is something that we probably can start to make more transparent and eliminate, but to get back to OP, it means removing a lot of the money-focus from modern electoral systems.
So [my opinion] there's not just one problem and the amalgam makes a wicked problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
On y va, qui mal y pense!
The best tradeoff for political donations, I believe, is to a) accept donations from natural persons only, and b) to a per-person amount no higher than 4 weeks (or 2 if you're in a country where you only get 2 weeks annual leave per year) worth of full-time, minimum wage work.
It doesn't matter if you are republican or democrat, or a liberal, or a tea party, or Satan himself.
Who wins elections? Corporations.
If you aren't taking any corporation funds for your campaign, they don't want you playing. You are NOT furthering their goals at all.
People think it's about Democrats and repubs, but it's not. It's about corporate control, and if this doesn't prove it to ya, then hang out for the ride, it's going to get bumpy for the next few decades.
Be seeing you...
Well, there's your problem.
I piss off bigots.
Getting $50,000 in contributions may not show that lots of people support you, but not being able to get $50,000 in contributions is a pretty good sign that no-one supports you, for the reasons above.
The submitter says he's polling 7%; he's not, he's polling 7% in a poll of 401 people with a stated error margin almost as big as that 7%. The fact that he can't raise $50,000 suggests that he's probably close to the bottom of that error bound.
1. Compulsory voting.
Disagree. If you can't be bothered to vote, then your voice doesn't count. Seems fair to me. Also, if you aren't going to educate yourself on the choices, I'd rather you didn't vote.
I agree that compulsory voting is problematic. But at least there shouldn't be obstacles to voting. It strikes me as odd that you must register to vote, and in the process you are required to say which party you support (correct me if I'm wrong). This is hardly a secret ballot. In most civilized countries everybody registered citzen above 18 is automagically registered to vote and IMHO this is how it should be.
4. Paper ballots.
Back in 2000 in Bush vs. Gore, paper ballots took center stage at the controversy and prompted the move to electronic.
Not quite. Voting machines were the problem, which were unable to count votes due to hanging chads.
A simple cross on a paper ballot counted by people is much less error-prone. Humans make errors, too, but are better at correcting them.
Disagree. I have a libertarian bent, and freedom to associate and spend money on a common political cause fits in with that.
I have the impression that money is more important than votes in the US electoral system. This doesn't seem right. My spider sense tingles when I read that the quality of a candidate is measured by the amount of donations he receives. This is obvious bribery.
Wow, fuck off. I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I'm not a fan of MSNBC either, and freedom of speech and the press is paramount.
IMHO feedom of speech should come with responsibility. It is hard to ignore that Fox (ab)uses their power to support a certain political direction. A news channel should try to be unbiased.
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
A good deal of what is lacking in the Libertarian manifesto involves a failure to properly appreciate the finer qualities of applied cynicism. Here, you have an object lesson.
People who saw it was insightful.
But it's not a ridiculous thing. It's exactly what's happening here.
You have to work within a system in order to change it. Unless you want to take up arrms against it of course.
Obama did a lot for your economy with those stimulus packages. In the UK we are about half way through our lost decade thanks to the government's inaction. It could have been much worse for America too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It strikes me as odd that you must register to vote
It's probably due to people moving around and weak ID laws, and some discrimination too. I agree there's room for improvement.
and in the process you are required to say which party you support (correct me if I'm wrong)
That's only if you want to vote in the primaries (party elections).
A simple cross on a paper ballot counted by people is much less error-prone.
Maybe, but then it's slower to count, and recounts are dubious.
IMHO feedom of speech should come with responsibility. It is hard to ignore that Fox (ab)uses their power to support a certain political direction. A news channel should try to be unbiased.
Should it? I would prefer it, but then the market wants biased news, which is why you have the opposite of Fox News in MSNBC. The conservative right charges that the mainstream media is biased to the left, and I tend to agree with them. This isn't something I want to see regulated.
Let's assume that's actually an accurate description of the guy who submitted the article. It's still completely ridiculousto take what he does, and extrapolate that out to all members of the entire group. It would be like me saying that all people who aren't libertarian are puerile and illogical just because publiclurker is, when that's obviously not the case.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
A simple cross on a paper ballot counted by people is much less error-prone.
Maybe, but then it's slower to count, and recounts are dubious.
Nah! German elections (1/4 of US population) use only paper ballots where you mark one (or more) circle(s) with a cross. Reliable projections are usually available less than 1 hour after the voting has closed; the official result takes around 6 hours. I wouldn't call that slow. But why do you find that the recount is dubious? Just have different people recount the same paper sheets (which is usually done anyway). But even if it were: If you use voting machines, even the *original* count is dubious.
What I didn't understand in the 2000 US election is that Gore was urged to concede defeat quickly, even though it was such a close call. And I understand even less that he actually did. As if pride is more important than a fair election. And then they stopped counting the votes. Which IMHO was against the law and common sense.
Here, the would-be loser would say "Let's wait until all votes are counted." And everyone would agree. It's an important election, so a few hours wait is acceptable.
IMHO feedom of speech should come with responsibility. It is hard to ignore that Fox (ab)uses their power to support a certain political direction. A news channel should try to be unbiased.
Should it? I would prefer it, but then the market wants biased news, which is why you have the opposite of Fox News in MSNBC. The conservative right charges that the mainstream media is biased to the left, and I tend to agree with them. This isn't something I want to see regulated.
I admit that everyone is biased. But the general practice in Germany is that news channels provide only facts by default. Whenever someone expresses their opinion, it is usually marked as such. That's a self-imposed convention AFAICT. With American TV (especially Fox) I have the impression that the separation is not always that clear. It seems that the selection and presentation of news always serves an agenda. (But that could just be my biased POV.)
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
RTFA.
Article title !== True.
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
German elections (1/4 of US population) use only paper ballots where you mark one (or more) circle(s) with a cross.
If it works, then fine, I'm all for it.
What I didn't understand in the 2000 US election is that Gore was urged to concede defeat quickly, even though it was such a close call.
Americans are impatient, and when it becomes "obvious" when somebody has won the election there's pressure to admit the obvious and move on, and generally not to be a sore loser. That mentality backfired in 2000 due to the news media trying to jump the gun to call the election. Lesson learned.
But the general practice in Germany is that news channels provide only facts by default. Whenever someone expresses their opinion, it is usually marked as such.
That still applies somewhat in the US, but times have changed. CNN, for example, tries to be non-partisan, whereas Fox is totally right, and MSNBC is totally left. A similar thing occurs with newspapers, where the New York Times is left, and the Wall Street Journal is right, and a paper like USA Today generally plays it straight.
Raise more than 50 freaking thousand dollars. In Massachusetts that shouldn't be hard, given ANY sort of grassroots organizing. He's had plenty of time.
IN a larger extent, true. But a $50,000 requirement is set so low that it's irrelevant. If he's a remotely serious candidate, he should be able to raise that amount of money in MA without much strain and without requiring corporate donations.
Go visit his site, watch the videos. He's a smart, well-spoken guy, and he's a coder. Watch the debate video in particular, and the interview on Greater Boston covering the debate:
http://www.fishmanforcongress.com/video
The two party candidates talked over him like he wasn't there. It was incredibly disrespectful, yet he handled it with aplomb, and all his contributions to the debate were valuable and substantive. He doesn't deserve this cynical reception on slashdot. He's a geek reaching out. This is an opportunity for us to make a political difference, and we're being a bunch of putzes.
This is a guy with 7% for zero corporate expenditures, and he's not a professional, two-party politician. This means he has promise as a candidate and could go far. Let's get his back.
A) He doesn't have 15% support. B) Doing it your way, any crank with an agenda should be allowed to run and included in debates. Which would result in a total zoo. There has to be SOME gating mechanism, whether it's a minimal level of donations, or signatures on a petition, or what have you. But something.
as a replacement for being informed.
Next time you endure the dueling idiocy and lies of the superpac ads, ask yourself who all that money is a hand-out FOR. And if they deserve all that cash, what special interests are getting it, and how we should put a stop to it.
I guess this isn't his only experience of Libertarians.
No, he's excluded because they don't want him there, and the $50,000 is just the excuse they came up with. If he had $50.000 in campaign donations there would be some other reason.
Because he thinks getting rid of the Federal Reserve is a good idea. Because he thinks going back onto the gold standard would be anything but catastrophic. Because he does not realize that the Austrian school of economics has been soundly dis-proven. I like Ron Paul; he's honest, he's well spoken, and I know that if he says something, he really believes it is true. He is without a doubt a great guy, and a great American, but his ideas are just not workable.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
You're welcome to dispute any and all of his policy points. What I'm talking about is calling someone "insane" because you disagree with his policies. If you take that standard, one of the two US political parties (and half the population) will appear "insane" to you.
If "insane" is meant merely as hyperbole (usually accompanied by "literally" as in "literally insane!", when it's really neither), OK, then. If it's something else, that's a problem.
Lenora Fulani, Jesse Jackson, Chuck Baldwin, Lyndon LaRouche, Ron Paul, and others have policies that many or most people would not vote for. But that doesn't make them insane. The right word is radical or extremist (as a descriptive not a pejorative).
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
If no one is bribing him he must not be a legitimate candidate.
The free market has spoken.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Lead a campaign against child abuse.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I have read a number of comments on this thread and find them to be interesting. I attended the debate on Oct. 10th between Congressman Tierney, Republican candidate Tisei and Libertarian candidate Fishman. The debate was very rowdy and the crowd did not conduct themselves in "dignified" fashion. Mr Fishman was the only candidate who addressed the crowd and asked that they refrain from booing or cheering during his time and that they allow all candidates to speak to the issues and questions. I wish that Mr Fishman would have equal opportunity during the televised debate, and while I personally do not plan on voting for him, he does have the strength of his convictions and a logically consistent platform for his positions. He is not a crackpot candidate and should be taken seriously by the electorate. I also find it interesting that the debates tend to be attended by party partisans and political junkies, but few "mainstream" voters. I believe that the tenor of the debate on the 10th would have turned off most voters even if they had attended. Please note that this debate was also held on the same date as the debate for the MA senate seat. Regardless Mr Fishman has a chicken and egg problem, how to get his name and views out to an electorate that pays very little attention to politics most of the time and when they are paying attention, is denied the opportunity to participate. While he is not my candidate of choice for this election, I hope that he considers continuing political life and works over the next couple of years to contribute to the community and build recognition. Such that if he choses to run again in 2014 he may have a greater base and these rules will be a non issue.
Mitt Romney is not insane. Barack Obama is not insane. Gary Johnson is not insane. I'm unsure about Jill Stein. I vehemently disagree with Rick Santorum, but he is not insane. I agree with several of Ron Paul's ideas, but he is insane. I'm not just being partisan, a large portion of Ron Paul's ideas are not the product of rational thought.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
Watching Larry King's 3rd party debate. Jill Stein is sane, but some of her ideas are short sighted.
I hate grammar Nazi's.