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.

7 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Why bother without IRV by markdavis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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/

  2. Third-party topics for third-party candidates by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Third-party topics for third-party candidates by harks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the NBC/WSJ link you posted, this is the poll question they asked:

      "There are many important issues in this presidential campaign. When it comes to deciding for whom you will vote for president, which one of the following is the single most important issue in deciding for whom you will vote? The economy. Social issues and values. Social Security and Medicare. Health care. The federal deficit. Foreign policy and the Middle East. Terrorism." If "all": "Well, if you had to choose the most important issue, which would you choose?"

      Climate change, the drug war, and civil liberties aren't even options in the poll! You can't use a poll that doesn't allow these options to conclude that people don't care about these options.

  3. Re:What a waste.. it's the political Special Olymp by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  4. Top Two System by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
  5. Re:third parties have no chance in the USA by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  6. Re:Libertarians ARE logical fallacies by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.