Slashdot Mirror
Democracy Now Asks Third Party Candidates Questions From Last Night's Debate
As they did with the first debate, Democracy Now has published the debate questions answered by third party candidates. Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice) were present. There's a (long) video with the answers spliced in, and (thankfully) a transcript of all their answers. Gary Johnson was not present, but you can catch him debating Jill Stein Thursday October 18th at 7 p.m. EDT.
FWIW, Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (the other parties are noted in the opening paragraph)
Will no gentleman stand forward to represent the people on the slavery issue?!?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The unfortunate part of these 3rd party debates is that people who are wanting to consider a third party candidate have probably already made up their mind, and probably already know the answers to the the questions that are going to be asked of their candidate. Gary Johnson not apearing is irrelevant when pretty much any of his followers know how he would answer them anyway.
I'm not saying these debates are bad, and I'm already planning on voting 3rd party (so it's not a wasted vote argument,) I just think we need more messages targeted at people who DON'T already know the 3rd parties and candidates.
This is good and all but its not quite the same. There is no "surprise" or real time response. I'm sure Obama and Romney could provide much better answers in writing the next morning. Still, its better than nothing.
Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.
Not that it really matters. We all know that none of the third party candidates will come close to getting even 5% of the votes.
when you know you haven't got a chance in hell in getting elected. Special interests and corporations don't pay for Truths, they only pay for their Agendas.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Yet only candidates approved by the majority parties are allowed in the real debates. Stay classy.
amirite?
Nader Sues Debate Commission
And all he got was a hollow apology.
When I see the debates, I see two very wealthy narcissist Harvard Law graduates who have absolutely no interest in representing the American people and they don't have to because the people play along with this Democrat vs. Republican pseudo conflict. And those of us who vote third party are condescended to and told "we're throwing our vote away."
I'm tired of the argument and I don't bother anymore. But my attitude is, "Fuck you, It's my vote to throw away."
Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.
Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.
If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.
This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I watched this debate, and none of the questions were even worth answering. Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one mention of science. Not one question addressed the regulatory capture of just about every government agency. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis. Absolutely no worthwhile questions were asked, and no worthwhile answers were given.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
When Poppa Bush lost to Clinton because of Perot being the election, the rules were changed. At that point, the republicans pushed through rules that pretty much prevented 3rd parties. Sadly, the dems went along with it. Now, that our system really is down to 2 parties, you can see the republicans pushing for 1 party rule. A good example is Chuck Norris claiming that it is unpatriotic to vote for ANYTHING except a republican. In fact, even if the guy was Hitler or Stalin, it appears that he would be OK with it so long as he has an R after it. At this point, America is in serious need of major re-working.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I've been planning to vote for Jill Stein since the beginning. She's a sensible alternative to Obama, who would be more like her had he kept his campaign promises on the environment. Instead we got Bush III, so he won't be getting my vote.
Why was Gary Johnson not included in this? He is going to be on the ballot in at least 48 states and the District of Columbia.
The greens are starting at the bottom. There have been 136 green party members elected to local office, 3 elected to state offices (all no longer serving), and 0 elected to federal offices.
Participation in the presidential election builds name recognition and motivation for the party, improving their chances at lower offices even if the presidency is hopeless.
Start small and ask for IRV to be implemented at your city level (or another voting system better suited for democracy than first past the post - which covers a lot of options you know). Then try for county level. Eventually adoption (and education) may reach a point when people can actually pressure the national level into adoption.
Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.
Gary Johnson was already governor of New Mexico for two terms.
Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.
Maybe that would be a good thing. Gary Johnson vetoed more bills in his 2 terms as governor than all other governors combined. We don't need tens of thousands of pages of new laws every year.
If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.
The Libertarian Party has done exactly that: http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials
This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed
No, it doesn't mean that at all. In Michigan, if the top of the ticket gets 5% or more, then they get major party status, which means they don't need to waste money trying to get on the ballot the next time around. It helps to build momentum in that you're not wasting money, time & energy on something you had to do previously.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Yes, and he got there as a Republican, not with the LP.
I watched the first mashup presidential debate on DemocracyNow and it was excellent, they would cut from the official debate to Stein and Anderson also behind podiums and keep it rolling. With the official rules preventing Obama and Romney from interacting with each other there really isn't a need for them to be in the same room.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
It's for marketing purposes. Small parties know they have no chance of winning the presidency, but participating in elections makes the candidate better known. You do know they participate in other elections as well, right?
The prohibition party? doesn't anyone want to know their opinion?
(if you dont know who they are, and want a good laugh/scare)
http://swordof1611.webs.com/jackfellure2012.htm
There are a lot of countries with multi-party systems that actually work. If your reprentatives put their party affiliations ahead of the good of the country perhaps you should consider changing your presentatives.
The way to change things is to join up with either of the two parties that closest matches your ideology and work to influence policy within. What they're doing makes them look really silly; like the little kids table at Thanksgiving.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Also, its not like your congress can get anything done anyway with the way it is.
The Commission rules for this debate did not include this prohibition. The Romney and Obama campaigns agreed to it, but -- and this was pretty heavily covered all over the media before the debate -- it wasn't part of the Commission rules and the moderator openly rejected the restriction before the debate. And, in fact, when the debate actually happened, the moderator actually asked follow-ups.
If a 3rd party gains enough votes to swing an election (not enough to win, just to change the winner), the major parties will immediately begin to adopt more of those values in order to win the swing.
A recent example involved the Tea Party movement. Though a few people did form small political parties, most of its energy was captured by Republicans despite strong resemblance to the Libertarian values.
Yes, and they consistent largely of either countries where the multi-party systems that "actually work" are functionally two-party systems at the constituency level, but which have parliamentary rather than Presidential systems, or countries that have electoral systems for major offices that are not either plurality or majority/runoff. The U.S. two-party system is a function of the U.S. electoral structure.
There is no prize for 3rd place in a presidential election. There isn't even a prize for 2nd place
Excellent point. Require civility and create some sort of loss of time to respond seems like a great idea. The couples' therapy/communication concept is a good one, particularly not putting words in the other one's mouth. However, in the context of a political debate, they should be able to get by with saying "Candidate X said..." as a statement of fact about past statements.
If Republicans (e.g. Romney) believed in economic conservativism, then they'd raise taxes to pay for whatever the hell they're spending all the money on (must be what you call "national defense conservativism"). Instead, they advocate runaway debt. Since you can't have a "free market" when the government has the extreme debt that Republicans advocate, and you don't have "low taxes" when you have that kind of debt (because whatever income tax rate the government sets, you still have to add the government-created inflation rate to it, to reflect their tax-on-money), the policies they advocate are actually left of average. (i.e. even the Democrats are slightly to the right of them.)
Economic conservatives would also drop farm subsidies, the home mortgage deduction, etc -- things Republicans don't do. That puts them either in the center or the left, with the Democrats. These are strategies for using government to manipulate economic activity for the common good (i.e. we want farmers overproducing and we want people to do business with banks whenever they buy houses).
Economic conservatives wouldn't deny that pollution happens or deny that government force should be used to remove it as an externality. In other words, they favor government-granted subsidies and property rights infringements, which nearly all other parties advocate against. That puts them significantly left of center.
If you put their economic policies (in isolation) on a right/left spectrum, they're actually to the left of Democrats (and far far left of Libertarians), since the Republicans believe in a new economic model (called "money for nothin'") that your great-grandparents never heard of, downright radical compared to relatively well-founded and established model (called "Ponzi") used by, say, FDR.
Anyone who refers to Republicans as economically conservative, is in extreme denial. On economics, they are left of Marx.
Economics aside...
You may, or may not, be right about their left/right position on social issues. Since these are cyclical,
right/left perspective varies with when you're around.
If Republicans' stance on social issues (briefly stated: "state tells people how to behave") is conservative (and hey, maybe it is) then so were Lenin and Stalin. Contempory labeling puts Stalin as a leftist, and the US founders as conservatives. (So Republicans would be liberal too.) If we go back to the late 1700s, though, you are correct. From the older (i.e. "classical") perspective, Republicans and Communists hearken back to the old ways, where Kings tell people what religion to practice (Republicans: Christianity ; Communists: None) and what they're allowed to do. And it's the trouble-making colonists (e.g. Thomas Jefferson and his like) who advocate liberty, who are the liberals. So you may be right; it all depends on how far back you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEDXzOfENI
Aforementioned video is very informative and talks about the electoral college system in the event of a tie.
To become the president you need a majority (270) of the 538 electoral college votes. Under the current two-party electoral system, dilution of votes by a significant third party will result in more "ties" whereupon the election of the president becomes even less democratic and more corrupt.
Amending the electoral college system is a pre-requisite to having a significant third party. Good luck!
The libertarian idea of "low taxes and free markets" is entirely different than the conservative idea. What conservatives want is more akin to corporatism, which is as far from libertarianism as socialism.
In most states, if your party has 5% or so of the vote is the presidential election, then your party is recognized as an official party, and any local candidates you run for the next 4 years are guaranteed a spot on the ballot, and sometimes even in the debate. If you don't, then you have to collect signatures from X% of the population for every single local candidate you want to run. And deal with election officials that go out of their way to declare as many those signatures invalid as they possibly can to keep you off the ballot. Even if you get the signatures, you won't be included in local debates. The third parties have to invest all their resources just to get on the local ballot, and have nothing left for actual campaigning.
Furthermore, there is a large portion of the population that ignores elections except the presidential election. This is a great time to let the public know who your party is, what it stands for, and help shape the debate and issues that people are talking about.
Yes there is. In most states all parties that get at least 5% of the vote in most states get the consolation prize of being recognized as major parties, and don't have to jump through ridiculous hoops to get their local candidates on ballot for the next 4 years.
Forget about amending it--it needs to be abolished.
Back in the late 18th - early 19th century, there were very few common folk who even knew the name of the candidates. And with news traveling via Pony Express, getting reliable and timely information to the masses was effectively impossible. Therefore the idea of voting for a representative who'd vote on your behalf for a candidate made a bit of sense. The "Winner takes all" system of state electoral votes was a bad idea IMNSHO then as it is now though. I live in Tennessee for instance which is certain to go for Romney this year regardless of who I vote for or even if I vote. That's what I consider to be disenfranchisement, my vote simply doesn't matter. Likewise, a voter in New York likewise knows (or should know) that no matter who they vote for, Obama will win that state. In fact, unless you live in one of nine "swing states", your vote doesn't count! But those living in those states can't turn on the TV, radio, or go outside without being bombarded by thousands of negative ads paid for by mostly anonymous donors.
Today in the internet age, It's fairly easy to send a message to a very large percentage, if not a majority of the populace--though with the replacement of most hard news media with tabloid and shock journalism it seems the masses are more caught up in the "Bread and Circuses" offered by the ever-shrinking oligopoly of major media outlets than at any time since the fall of the Roman Empire. That is, the average American seems far more interested in Jersey Shore than boring politics. And with more biased editorial programming whether its Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart what political insights most people receive are sermons for the choir which is increasing polarization and dividing families, churches, and communities in the process.
I would like a couple of things to happen which could reverse this trend in very short order: 1) Require a basic civics exam to register to vote made to be as non-partisan as possible IE "You must be [x] years old to serve as a U.S. Senator." or "A president may serve a maximum of [x] [y]-year terms." This would hopefully help weed out those who simply vote for the taller candidate or the one their parents, minister, and/or spouse like. 2) I'd like voters to be required to answer a questionnaire such as the one provided at ISideWith.com to see which candidate's platform best matches their own interests and values. It would possibly open a messy can of worms to automatically cast a vote for the candidate who's positions best match yours . For instance, I may agree those most with Jill Stein's platform, but see Rocky Anderson's positions as more credible... But I'd still vote for either of them long before voting for Obama or Romney, and would vote for either of them long before I'd vote for Virgil Goode--Who's positions are nearly 100% diametrically opposed to my own. But I'm glad to have had the opportunity to hear them from him directly.
Require everyone to take a civics quiz and an all-inclusive candidate matchmaker questionnaire then compare the results of the latter among those scoring 75% or better on former to the overall popular vote generated by a free and open polling process.
Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
Start small and ask for IRV to be implemented at your city level (or another voting system better suited for democracy than first past the post - which covers a lot of options you know). Then try for county level. Eventually adoption (and education) may reach a point when people can actually pressure the national level into adoption.
National level might not matter much. Most IRV systems result in much greater participation. That would change things.
What surprises me is that a form of preferential voting (e.g. Instant-runoff voting is not more widely used in the world.
The biggest advantage goes to minor parties where electors can vote for the candidate of their choice, knowing that their vote will still have value if that candidate is not elected. For example, lets assume that two left candidates (A & B) were running and one right wing candidate (C). You prefer candidate A, but know that candidate B is significantly more popular and detest candidate C. Voting strategically you vote for candidate B because you prefer B to be elected over C.
Preferential voting is a great tool for 'keeping the bastards honest' by adding more checks and balances and providing voices for minority issues.
Gary Johnson isn't planning on getting rid of the EPA:
Johnson believes the best environmental practices are due to a good economy.[7] He says "America needs to be a land with a clean environment," and supports "clean-air and clean-water action and believe[s] in conservationism." He cites the Environmental Protection Agency as an example of good government. Johnson has stated he agrees that human carbon emissions do impact the climate. However, he opposes mandatory cap-and-trade policies, and favors allowing private businesses to build more coal-fired power plants, creating jobs.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Environment
The popular term "third party" (used to refer to all U.S. parties other than Rems and Dems) is unfair - only one can be in third place. Libertarian Gary Johnson is the candidate of the third largest party. Greens and other commies / theocrats are 4th, 5th, etc. They don't get the bronze medal - they didn't earn it!
The Libertarian Party candidate got 2.6x the Constitution Party votes and 3.3x the Green Party votes in the last POTUS election. In 2012, LP has ballot access in 48 states plus DC (and still fighting for the others). GP could only get its act together in ~37 states, CP in ~26.
About 15-20% of USA'ians poll as libertarian (fiscally conservative, socially liberal), even though most vote for a lesser evil (or don't vote at all). Small-l libertarians are gaining leverage in the Republican Party, which greens don't have with the Dems. Just compare Ron Paul's 2008 fundraising numbers to those of Dennis Kucinich! Gary Johnson is presently polling third, and his votes could really grow if the Romney campaign implodes.
--libman
No, it doesn't mean that at all. In Michigan, if the top of the ticket gets 5% or more, then they get major party status, which means they don't need to waste money trying to get on the ballot the next time around. It helps to build momentum in that you're not wasting money, time & energy on something you had to do previously.
Minnesota has a similar law but it is for any state wide election (Governor, US President, US Senators) but I think it is something like 10% instead of 5%. As such we have a fairly viable third party here that actually held the governorship which at the time was considered only a minor party.
Time to offend someone
We are *NOT* a Democracy... We are a Constitutional Republic!!!
At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Gary Johnson was the Governor of New Mexico. How much more does he need to work his way up?
I agree that statements of fact about anothers actions and words should be allowed. But it gets fuzzy when they start paraphrasing and quoting out of context.
I think one of my primary issues here though is that politicians seem to only want to talk about the other guy. Which is bollocks, when I listen to a speech from Romney I want to hear about his specific plans, not all about the failings of another politician. If he wants to bring those things up as part of the explanation of why his plan is better that is fine but it had better not take up most of his time.