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.
It is so incredibly sad that we don't have some type of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting). If we wanted real change, this is the only way to get it because it is the only way to have a real possibility of electing someone other than a Republicrat (or a Demolican).
Imagine a system where your vote actually counted, no matter who you vote for... I guess I can dream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
Why not the Modern Whig Party? You know the group that is actually on a platform of being moderate.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
Actually if you are living with the bulk of the populations in a non-swing state. Voting 3rd party gives you more power. Yes your candidate will not win. But with more people voting third party, It gives that party more strength, as well their views gets more credit.
For example the Green Party often effect the polices of the Democrats, and the Libertarian party effects the republicans.
I live in NY for the president probability has Obama going to win. I personally don't like Romney either. So for me I can either choose from the lesser of two evils. Or look at the third parties, and vote of the guy like the most. I prefer the Modern Whig party myself.
So other then wasting my vote on a candidate who will win and only pays attention to my state for fundraising. I might as well vote third party to get my voice on the issue I find very important.
Ok if you live in a swing state Choosing Democrat or Republican has more power. However if you live in a solid state, don't wast your vote on a winner but use it on the issue you care about and get heard better.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I didn't realize there was a national move toward top two primaries, closing the election process even more... well, at least these four folks can agree to oppose that.
Also, they are behaving a lot better so far than Obama/Romney did. Maybe it's because of Zombie Larry King.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
americans are not libertarians
Most Americans are not CEOs or wealthy investors; which party are we supposed to vote for? The problem with the Democrats and the Republicans is that both parties are basically fascist: the government is right, the policy are soldiers, and if you disagree you go to jail. Unless you run a big corporation; then you get to call the shots and command the fascist system.
When you have police officers with automatic weapons and grenades attacking civilian homes in your country, you know that the people in power probably do not represent you. When anti-aircraft missiles and considered to be part of providing Honduras with law enforcement assistance, you know that the minor differences between Democrats and Republicans are too small to really matter.
Who do you think is on the fringe -- the person who says, "Never mind the fact that the US has the largest prison population of any country, and never mind the fact that unarmed civilians are being attacked by paramilitary teams, you should be focused on whether or not the wealthy are taxed at 15% or 18%!!!!!" or the person who says, "Let's use tax money for constructive programs rather than destructive programs!!!" ?
Palm trees and 8
The verdict is in: everyone but Virgil Goode wants to end the drug war. The libertarian dude admitted to inhaling even, totally disqualified from office. Jill Stein is using science, woah.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
The Tea Party wants exactly two things: Limited government, a lower federal spending.
A byproduct of both those things is that states can do what they want. Federal raids on marajana pharmacies? The Tea Party would be against that as wasteful federal spending, and not letting states decide what they want to do re: drugs.
Before you reduce support for the only group in America that is bringing Libertarian ideas to the public at large, re-think who it is that told you the Tea Party is far right... Yes they have far right members, but also many socially liberal members because the core goal overlaps with people of many different philosophical backgrounds.
I am a Tea Party supporter but in favor of all kinds of things the far right would dislike.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hey, finally Virgil Goode agreed with everyone: NDAA is terrible and needs to be repealed.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
After watching the rest of the presidential debates I didn't know who to vote for because I didn't like either candidate. After watching the Third Party debate tonight, I don't know who to vote for because I liked all the candidates.
I'd like to see an animated one to see Romney's dot migrate over time like they do in those TED talks by Hans Rosling.
Your best chance was to vote for a change candidate within your own party, that was why Ron Paul attracted so many votes
Voting third party is a backup plan in case a change candidate loses the primary.
In theory you're right.
In practice it's very difficult for a third party to come in second in any district because most districts a) are 2/3 Dem b) 2/3 GOP or c) 2/3 Dem + GOP. In districts of the first type you get two Dems running, in districts of the second type you get two Repubs, in districts of the third you get one of each.
If any third party was at all savvy politically they'd put all their resources in Cali into a single State Assembly district with a vulnerable incumbent, and totally ignore the Gubernatorial race. But they aren't, so all they see is "Oh shit, we don't get to have one vanity candidate in every State Senate district anymore, the world has ended."
I do not understand why people think that voting for a third party is throwing away your vote. I don't understand why third party candidates don't point out that even if they do not get enough electoral voters to win, that if they get enough electoral voters to swing the vote they could make a huge difference.
With the way the electoral college is set up if Obama wins 250 electors, Romney wins 249 electors, and Johnson wins 39 electors, guess what? Johnson's not going to win, but he could ask his electors to cast their votes for one of the other two guys. That's quite a bit of power and influence. Not a bad method of actually representing the will of the people either. Of course the problem here is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska the electors in other states are picked in a winner-take-all fashion. Also, about half of the states impose some minor penalty for electors voting for anyone other than who they were chosen to vote for.
Personally, I would hate to see election by popular vote. I would hate to see the country being run by someone that only 51% of us chose. I'd much rather see the country run by the guy that 40% of chose and who had to make concessions to the guy that the other 20% of us voted for. It really is a much better representation of a larger portion of the population. but I guess we haven't really had a representative government for some time now. :P
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 think you have no clue about the state of the private medical system in the US.. Health care in the US used to be affordable until the government got completely involved in it. Did you know that before Obamacare, the government was the single largest provider of medical coverage? They had something like 60% of all the non-elective health care market sowed up with Medicare, Medicaid, and VA services.
And it is exactly how they are involved which is why the costs are so high. The government does not pay for services as you or I would should be go in ourselves. They pay an average cost for the region which could be more or less then the actual bill. Now the government said it's going to save money by only paying a percentage of that costs. So what happens, the medical service providers jack the costs up so the government pays what is normally asked for. This increases the area average and provides incentives for increasing the costs.
This is also why medical service providers offer steep discounts to insurance providers. They wouldn't pay the exorbitant prices but with the provider network discounts they do not have to and because it is a discount on regular services, the service provider still gets to keep the inflated costs as the number that goes into the cost averaging.
You cannot claim the health care in the US is private when the largest market force in it is the government.
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
Actually if you are living with the bulk of the populations in a non-swing state. Voting 3rd party gives you more power. Yes your candidate will not win. But with more people voting third party, It gives that party more strength, as well their views gets more credit.
Yes, a million times this!
If you live in a swing state, the "vote the lesser of the two evils with a chance of winning" thing makes strategic sense. You don't have enough influence to really make the changes you might want, but you have enough influence to help cut your losses at least, so it makes more sense to try for the mediocre possibility than the impossible ideal.
But if you don't live in a swing state, you're lucky! Your powerlessness gives you the freedom that could actually make a nationwide difference in the long game, because since either the lesser or greater of the two mainstream "evils" is a shoe-in in your state, there's no point in wasting your vote supporting or opposing something that's statistically inevitable. Instead, your best strategic vote is to vote for whichever third party you would really prefer, or at least, the one you hate the least. This has numerous benefits:
- Obviously, it increases the support for that third party, and for third parties in general, nudging the country a tiny step closer to a healthy spread of options in our elections.
- Whichever party you statistically would otherwise have voted for will adapt to mimic the party you did vote for, in order to try to bring you back into the fold, e.g. Republicans will adopt Libertarian and Constitution party policies and Democrats will adopt Green and Justice party policies.
But the really promising benefits are bigger, if also riskier:
- If you would have otherwise voted for the shoe-in, then many people following this strategy (e.g. California liberals voting Green instead of the shoe-in Democrat) will make your state into a swing state and give your vote more influence in future elections. The down side to this is now the side you would otherwise support is no longer a shoe-in and you may have to strategically vote for the "lesser evil" again; though this may be counterbalanced by the following effect...
- If you would have otherwise voted against the shoe-in, then a bloc of like-minded people following this strategy (e.g. California conservatives voting Libertarian instead of the doomed Republican) can be very aggressive at "spoiling" the "lesser evil", since they'd have lost anyway, and can go on to try to outright supplant the "lesser evil" with someone they actually consider good, without risking making things any worse (since they were already as bad as they can get, with the "greater evil" a shoe-in).
So, continuing the California example, if people followed this strategy we could go from Democrats being shoe-ins, Republicans being a close second, and minor third parties not having much influence, to anything from a diminished but still slightly dominant Greenish Democrat party having lost a large bloc to the ascending Green party, who are still not spoiling their (otherwise-Democrat) vote because the Libertarian party has eaten a large chunk of the Republican part; to a close race between Greenish Democrats and Libertarians, with a strong Green presence rising and a lingering Libertarianish Republican presence.
If this happened in every state, then you end up with every state a swing state, with currently "third" parties now major parties in some states, and all third parties more prominent nationwide; all without anyone ever risking spoiling anything and letting the greater evil win. With more prominent third parties we might even see debate and campaign reform getting them more air time; and maybe, if just one third party, any third party, can get into power for just one term, then we might even see electoral reform that would make it plausible for third parties to continue to win thereafter. All major third parties support electoral reform, so
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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
Are the tea party for tax cuts for the rich? Yes. So are the GOP.
Are the tea party prepared to cut the military? No, only Ron Paul was demanding that, every one of them has voted for increase military spending and blocked Obama military cuts.
Are they against TARP bailouts? When they were really a movement yes, later on only against mortgage bailouts. So basically bailouts for rich people, screw the poor. Again the classic GOP agenda.
It's a GOP game, and it worked, a largely unelected Republican party from 2008, became electable as fake 'reform' candidates in 2010. The 2010 congress then voted with the GOP block and stopped any fiscal reform, including spending cuts like the military. They are just GOP, no different, just a different marketing spin.