Slashdot Mirror
Third Party Debates Moderated by Larry King: Discuss
Since the two big guys got their three debates covered, and the last third party debate kind of fizzled due to technical difficulties, we invite you to discuss the third party debate happening at 9 p.m. EDT tonight. Candidates from the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Justice parties will be debating in the same room with Larry King moderating. It would appear that C-SPAN is rebroadcasting it, so you catch it using rtmpdump if you happen to not use Flash. Since third party politicians are still politicians, remember to print out some Logical Fallacy Bingo. Topics for the debate include climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties.
Update: 10/24 02:32 GMT by U L : It turns out there will be a final third party debate next Tuesday on foreign policy between two of the candidates. To determine who will be in the debate Free and Equal is holding an IRV vote until 10:30 p.m. EDT October 24.
>"The properties of IRV seem to be less preferable to a Condorcet voting system or even a system like range voting or approval voting. What makes IRV better than these methods in your opinion?"
Generally, most people (myself included) throw all "alternative" voting systems into the IRV category. Just about ANY type of voting system is better than the simple majority system in use by 99+% of the governments of the USA (and most countries).
That said, I have spent many hours reading about many of the various preferential voting systems out there. I don't know which one is "best" overall. I am not a statistician (having only about 6 credits of university stats) nor a subject matter expert, so I am not going to pretend I am qualified to compare them. But any intelligent person will quickly realize just how incredibly poor our current system is; I would jump at the chance to use even the *WORST* "IRV" solution over what we currently use.
http://www.electology.org/approval-voting
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Here is Rasmussen's list of things that the voters care about:
Economy
Health Care
Gov't Ethics and Corruption
Taxes
Energy Policy
Education
Social Security
Immigration
National Security/War on Terror
Afghanistan
Or a similar list from NBC/WSJ:
"Climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties" are not on either list. The mainstream candidates don't care about them because the voters don't care about them.
It's of no use getting wrapped up in our Slashdot bubble and insist that the things that are important to us must be the top priorities of the nation. A President has to be picked by half the country (or a bit less). We can rant and rave all we want that their priorities are wrong, but all that gets us is the joy of ranting and raving.
Democracy sucks, but less than the other options. We're stuck here in a country that cares more about Afghanistan than about getting their junk groped at the airport. Unless they're service members, or their family, the odds are that the latter affects them more. But it's no use telling me that. Tell them.
I suppose this debate is going to try to do that, and maybe it'll change something. But it's not going to suddenly propel a minority issue into a game-changer.
IRV is not that different to the current system in the US. You need a proportional system, which allows other parties to get to at least have some representation and everyone’s vote count (except for those lost in rounding).
PR has its problems but most of those already are present in the US system anyway. What kind of backwards system allows only voters in the small number of "swing states" to have a vote that actually ends up mattering in deciding you president.
Does proportional mean I am effectively voting for a party rather than an individual? That seems like a pretty significant downside.
Yes they have far right members, but also many socially liberal members because the core goal overlaps with people of many different philosophical backgrounds.
Yes, and I see lots of the former and none of the latter actually in office.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
No, it's not really possible to make things worse than they are now (without going to something ridiculous like throwing darts at a wall). The simple plurality voting commonly used really is the worst system for greater than two candidates. For exactly two options it's the perfect method, but for more it's the worst of all the voting systems.
I don't recall anything at the federal level specifying how exactly the electors from the states are selected for the electoral college.
You (and the mods) misunderstand.
He's not saying "we must take away personal liberty until everyone is equal", he's saying "it's impossible to have true liberty with so much inequality."
There's a move to make school focus on teaching job schools. College is becoming ever more expensive to bury you in debt. Unions are being destroyed so your employer can play you against your neighbor to pay you both less. Employers want to keep unemployment up so that you're desperate enough to work ever-longer hours for those low wages. And you'll do it, because the alternative is dying in the streets. Data mining allows them to charge you the max amount you're willing to pay. Their contracts require you to waive your right to sue. If you want to retire, you're forced to invest money, where it will be systematically skimmed off by Wall Street firms.
What freedom do you think you have? The freedom to work for someone else's benefit until you die?
The only freedom you'll ever know will come from ganging up with your neighbors, and fighting back. Call it a union, or a government -- either way, it's the people against the powerful. That's how it's been every since the biggest strongest men in the tribes realized they could take the fruits and berries gathered by the other members.
I mean I agree it's stupid, but it has zero effect on me or anyone I know.
That is utterly false.
The attempt to curtail drug trafficking is a HUGE source of the pain we all experience at airports, or crossing the border anywhere.
It has driven a huge number of illegal immigrants to the U.S.
It also provides a baseline reason for lots of stops and searches from police officers.
It also is the source of vast sums of money being spent by federal and local governments, which could have meant lower taxes or greater services for everyone including you.
There are countless ways that the drug wars affect people who do not care a whit for drugs. I have never used a controlled substance but I am for curtailing all drug laws. Yes, ALL drug laws.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"There are plus and minus with America's first past the post system. What I like about it is that I get a clear chocie between 2 moderate people. I don't have to worry what type of deals they will cut to get into a political coalition - I have less to worry about political hacks cutting inside deals. I am voting for an individual."
This is the same FUD argument that was used in the UK, but the problem is it's exactly that - FUD.
By voting for an individual, particularly under first past the post, you're basically saying the largest minority gets an effective 100% of that power pool. So if you have 3 candidates, one gets 35%, another gets 33%, and another 32% then the one getting 35% wins effective 100% of that power meaning he can push his agenda without any kind of care or concern for what the 65% of people who didn't vote for him want. This is exactly the problem we have in the UK with our First Past the Post system and the problem scales from both the individual MP to the whole government. Meaning the whole government can get in with sometimes as little as 30% of popular support and yet gain 100% of power in the face of the 70% of the population who didn't want them.
Proportional representation means that the individual representative has to work to try and ensure they follow a set of policies that is good enough for at least half of their electorate forcing them to be much more representative of the electorate. At a government level this may well mean coalitions, but that ultimately means those backroom deals you talk about are moderating principles that ensure laws are past that at least somewhat please half the population, rather than serve minorities and often self-interests.
In the UK for example we got our first coalition in a long time and whilst it's not been particularly rosy it's been far more moderate than a purely Conservative government would've been - for example whilst the Lib Dems allowed tuition fee increases to go through, they were only £9,000 whilst the Conservatives wanted £12,000 fees. Similarly the NHS changes whilst not pleasant are still much more moderate than a purely Tory government wanted. In other words, the coalition has had a moderating influence and it's the same elsewhere where there is proportional representation.
You only have to look at Canada to see the problem - when they had a minority Conservative government things weren't great, but now Harper has a majority the country has gone massively downhill in no time at all in terms of the quality of it's law making, with the wingnuts crawling out the woodworking and recommending/passing some really awful bills.
The problem with "approval" voting is that it asks me which candidate I approve of.
Looking down the list of all candidates, no matter the party, I don't see one that I approve of.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All