Slashdot Mirror
Ralph Nader Moderates One Last 3rd-Party Debate for 2012
Late Tuesday, both the 2012 U.S. election (the popular vote at least) and the 2012 campaign season should be over. Tonight, though, whatever your ability or plans to vote are (see the current poll for a peek at what other readers claim about their intentions), you've got the chance to see one more presidential debate, to be moderated by Ralph Nader, and featuring third-party presidential contenders Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution) and Rock Anderson (Justice). Yes, the same ones featured in another debate a few weeks back. (We promise, this is the last debate of this go-round.) If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
Because it's MY vote. I'm told at work that I'm "wasting" my vote by not selecting candidate XXX, but to me, a wasted vote is a vote for something I don't agree with. I like Obama for ending the war in Iraq, I like Romney for requiring OpenDocument format (ODF) when he was governor of Mass, but at the end of the day, the candidates have more in common than not: use of drones, no plan to scale back TSA, overfunding the military, corrupted by Wall Street, etc.
That's a loaded question to ask anyway, its similar to asking, "Why use something other than Apple/Microsoft?" Well, its about personal choice, and its about ideas. Sure, Linux will probably never win on the desktop, but you better fucking believe that Windows and MacOS are better operating systems now than they would have been had Linux never come along. The threat of losing to competition forced a better TCP/IP stack, it forced real security options in Windows, and it forced Apple to reinvent itself as a UNIX OS. And oh by the way, I happen to prefer using KDE over Apple/Windows.
Same thing with the political parties, we have come to believe (as a nation) that R/D are the only legitimate choices, and it has lead to stagnation of ideas and of real work being done. The Federal government is broken, and cannot even pass a budget. But you better believe if Mitt Romney loses the electoral college due to the L vote, the Rs will start to distance themselves from the "abortion" issue and religious nutjobs, maybe start courting non-whites for a change and it will be for the better. Just witness how the Al Gore and the D's came around on the environment when my boy Nader took the election from him in 2000. The mandate for MPGs is going to double what it was 10 years ago, and we are finally subsidizing clean energy instead of oil.
Won't the election be over on Tuesday?
If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
Easy: Romney wants to control your bedroom (marriage, abortion, etc), and Obama wants to control your bank account. Not to mention in the debates they both have either lied out of their asses or refused to provide real answers/details to any policy question.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Does Romney have any daughters? I know that he has five sons.
I am Greek - in my country (birthplace of Democracy... but you know that!), and in our last elections few months ago, we had about 35 parties to choose from, and from them there are 7 in the parliament (there is a 3% minimum of total votes requirement for geting there), and from those 7 parties 3 of them are forming the goverment... and still, for many citizens there is not a party that fully represents them.
I believe that you have a much better Democracy in the USA than ours, but thats because you are better quality citizens - you should really check this multiple parties thing... it will make your Democracy even more better.
Obama wants the top tax bracket to go up 3%. That's it. It was higher under Reagan.
In fact, he does not. Five sons, no daughters.
... and I was just voting my conscience (last Sunday, during early voting, as it happened). The two 'major' parties both want to send your children to die in countries that did not attack us in 2001, and both parties enjoy ordering record numbers of wiretaps, both with and without warrants, every single year. Both 'major' parties are also huge, huge fans of welfare, as long as the recipients are banks. I know one of them will win (and given their similarities, it doesn't matter which). But I'll sleep better knowing I had no part in endorsing their sociopathy.
If I can get a ballot, I am voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson. He would pull all the troops (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan, etc.) home right away and stop the drone strikes. That's enough for me. How do Democrats or Republicans expect people to believe in their government, when their government continues to murder innocent civilians in other countries?
The debate is supposed to have started at 7:30pm Eastern. The sites are not working.
If you're voting (or would, if you could) for other than the Democratic or Republican parties' candidates this year, what drives that decision?
Maybe it's because I only see minor differences between the two major parties. Under both the D's & R's, the size & scope of government has increased, and our liberties are being decreased. What liberties you ask? How about the right to have medical marijuana in a state where the voters have decided it should be legal, but the Feds are conducting record numbers of raids? How about not having a presumption of guilt when trying to travel via airplane? How about the right to not be spied on without due process? That's just the start. I'm not 100% libertarian, but I'll still be casting my vote for all of the LP's candidates on my ballot. We need competition in the political marketplace just like we do in the financial marketplace.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Well in my country (Australia) we have preferential voting. Every vote for a minority 'counts' in that each electorate ultimately selects which of the 2 candidates is the least bad.
2 years ago an interesting phenomenon occurred. Loosely aligned to the two party system Labor (Democrats), Liberal/National (Republicans) - our two main political groups both 'lost' the election. A deal was done with a handful of independents and a Green to form a minority government. Ever since, the ones forming an opposition have whined constantly about being held hostage to a few despite a majority of voters too rejecting their agenda and having unveiled only 1 policy (on maternity leave) in that time.
Some of us would hope the status quo remains and neither achieves a majority at any subsequent election.
Neither of the candidates represent me. I am a liberal who wants maximum freedom. While I will vote peace and freedom, I have much more in common with both the peace and freedom part and the libertarian party than either the democrats or the republicans.
Both the democrats and the republicans are owned by special interests (read people richer that 99% of the people). It's not even a secret. the solicit campaign contributions (bribes) openly.
So why give either one your vote?
Nader is the pompous idiot who gavels 8 years of George Bush
I'm going to dream of a mallet wielding Nadar smacking George, with a clown horn sound every time he connects. Not because of your post, that's just the way I roll.
I voted (by mail in Oregon) for Johnson (LIB). Though there are some things he's for that I don't agree with, he's consistent with his beliefs and actions. I can't say the same for either Romney or Obama. I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone who lies, goes back on their word, and doesn't feel like it's a big deal. I realize that I'm basically saying I don't want to participate in the American political system since so many of the politicians are without integrity. I'm not quite ready to give up on the whole thing, but it's getting close.
I'm voting Gary Johnson (L) because I'm impressed with his accomplishments and agree with his philosophy.
End the wars, legalize and tax drugs, practice fiscal responsibility.
He's a self-made millionaire businessman who also has an excellent record as a 2-term governor. He was praised by both Republicans and Democrats alike for being able to work with all parties and get the job done.
His bio and record speak for themselves:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/about
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I agree that you should vote for somebody you believe in, even if they have no chance of winning. My problem is that I can't believe in any of these bozos. Just picture any one of them in the White House. Could they govern? They could not.
The U.S. isn't an elected dictatorship — POTUS has to govern in tandem with Congress. If you're not satisfied with the current crowd, you need to replace the whole crowd, not just one guy. You have to work on electing Congresspeople who reflect your views. If you're not willing to do that, all this crap with fring Presidential candidates is a waste of time.
In case anyone missed the 4-way debate moderated by Larry King in Chicago on 2012-10-23:
https://kat.ph/torrents/20121023-full-third-party-presidential-debate-yt-avi-t6769764/
All of the presidential candidates' social/economic ideologies are graphed here. [Note the proximity of the two corporate parties' candidates.]
Please—especially if you live in an uncontested state—vote for the best candidate, not the second-least-worst candidate; our country (and especially our civil liberties) have taken just about all the "lesser evil" that can be withstood.
This quiz can help you determine which candidate best matches your own ideology.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I, too, have no plans to vote for either Obama or Romney. I think a vote should only be cast for someone you're confident is a good choice for running the country. Neither one of these people have shown they deserve the title of President, IMO.
I really dislike that "vote for the lesser of two evils" concept. People have been doing that for a long time now, and that's largely how we got to the mess we're in today!
It seems to me that the current system has a razor sharp focus on ensuring everything quickly comes down to only 2 remaining viable candidates, at all costs. If a 3rd. party shows promise, the media or members of one of the two established parties pull out all the stops to discredit him or her. They want politics to run just like our sports teams ... only 2 teams on the field fighting it out to see who wins. No matter how many teams play each other in a season, it has to come down to only two in the end, to declare someone the winner.
Until this changes, the American people really aren't able to vote for the type of government they want. They're only able to pick from two people pre-selected for them by the elite (meaning those with enough money and influence to boil the choices down to the final two they want to see you pick from). And sure, you CAN vote for a 3rd. party candidate (and I almost always do so). But we all know it's currently nothing more than a small display of contempt for the status quo system. I really doubt any sane person voting for, say, Gary Johnson, believes he really has a decent shot at winning.
Still, that's fine with me. You don't earn a prize for having voted for the guy who winds up winning.
Yes, Obama has been very clear, you're allowed to see your gay spouse, no problem, unless one of you is considered a terrorist. Then it's off to indefinite detention for them with no trial, as approved by the man himself. The reason to support a third party here is very simple. Obama has trashed the ultimate civil liberty, the right to be a free citizen. The only acceptable platform for Romney would start be "I will eliminate Obama's destruction of civil liberties". Since it's not, a vote for either is agreeing that's acceptable behavior. That's why 3rd-party candidates are needed, to provide some alternative to the madness of both existing major parties. Picking one based on trivia like gay rights is ridiculous when this situation exists.
If you're at all interested in getting more ideas out into the national consciousness (and if you're living in a state that Obama or Romney has a lock on), consider voting for a third-party candidate. Because of the electoral system, it's not going to change who wins the election, but it can increase the chances that one of these candidates gets a spot at some future televised debate. Once upon a time, the debates were sponsored by the National Organization of Women... and now they're run by the Commission on Presidential Debates (which is run by the Democratic and Republican parties). Being a bit of a cartel, they've managed to stipulate that the only invitees to debate must get at least 15% representation in various national polls (another classic case of the successful pulling up the ladder they used to climb to the top).
Now, we could argue the game theory of elections and I'd have to concede that it's always going to devolve into two parties (like how tea-partiers, when the chips are really down, vote for the republican because the alternative, a democrat, would be, to them, the apocalypse), but part of how those two parties stay on top is by having a "big tent" and trying to appeal to a broad spectrum of views (okay... and also by not really specifying what their views are). And I think that, if other candidates are able to get up with the "big boys" and put forward their views, then that's more exposure... and maybe some of those views might have to get some recognition from one of the major parties.
Frankly, after visiting ISideWith.com, I was blown away at how congruent my views are with the Green candidate, Jill Stein... to the point where I really wish more people knew that there was a candidate that was, potentially, so suited to their views. Same goes for Gary Johnson. He's not my cup of tea, but I really wish the socially-liberal/economically-conservative republican voters out there were more aware that they didn't necessarily need to throw gays and women under the bus in exchange for getting capital-gains and inheritance taxes abolished. And maybe a stronger-than-expected showing in the election will provide the social proof for some more people to look into what's up with this (Libertarian|Green|Justice| Constitution) thing.
Of course, as I said in the subject, if you live in a swing state, then ignore the preceding rant and get your state swinging.
Voting in the U.S. is symbolic in many ways mostly since we are voting ambiguously for the electoral college not for the president. However, despite a common ground between the parties on many issues I disagree with (security state, neoliberal policies), there are enough differences (regulating sexuality and womens' bodies) that I am voting for one of the big 2. Furthermore, I would argue that since we don't have parliamentary system which allows small parties to form coalitions among themselves, voting for a 3rd party at the national level is throwing away the vote. The smarter strategy is to build organizations that can move the national parties in desired directions. Both parties are coalitions in and of themselves, so the influence at this time is to organize within the power blocs.
It's not censorship when you're too fucking retarded to move the "hide posts below this score" slider, dipshit.
Your post isn't even -1 so you can't whine about the mods keepin' you down, you just can't figure out how to operate the fucking internet. GTFO.
I have grown tired of being ruled by lizards.
What are we going to do about Marijuana legalization and the Alien question. Will we let a free people get baked and disclose that there are indeed Aliens and they give us technological advancements due to a treaty we signed with them many decades ago? That is what I would ask these 3rd party candidates.
is that a vote outside of the mainstream two party system ends up being a wasted vote in the end. It has been this way since 1853. Get used to it.
Keep in mind that Obama took 55% of the popular vote in 2008, but with a 62% turnout, only about 34% of eligible citizens supported him enough to go vote for him. The two major parties simply do not represent majorities in this country.
Exactly - and a large percentage of those that voted for him did not identify themselves as D's - they were "Independents". As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/Democratic-Party-Drops-2010-Tying-Year-Low.aspx). So no party has even close to a majority of voters, and independents are the largest portion.
The interesting thing is that independent voters continue to allow R's and D's to make all national elections referendums almost exclusively about their own candidates. The most successful independent or 3rd party candidates in the past 100 years were Ross Perot (18.9% in 1992), and Teddy Roosevelt (27% as a Progressive in 1912).
Either allocate electoral votes based on congressional districts (state-wide winner gets two extra votes), or just abolish the electoral college and use direct popular vote. Make all 50 states + D.C. in play.
New Economic Perspectives
The system is not going to change until we ALL stop voting D and R.
Most eligible voters do NOT vote either D or R. In 2008, the voter turnout was the highest it had been in nearly 50 years, at about 63% - meaning that 37% of eligible voters did not vote for anyone (http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/2008turnout-report_final11.pdf). When you consider on average 3-5% of voters vote for an independent or 3rd party candidate, then you can see that more eligible voters do NOT vote for either a D or an R than those who vote for either major candidate.
Half of America doesn't even know there's more than two parties.
I don't know if that's true, but what is true is that about 40% of eligible voters typically don't even both to vote. If someone could excite that 40% (probably by coming up with a real plan for making government a lot cheaper, a lot less invasive of personal privacy, and a lot more effective), then you could have a powerful 3rd party.
A very exciting idea would be to get the government out of the business of constantly inspecting your personal finances, by radically restructuring the tax code.
We have a Federal Constitutional Republic, that has strong Democratic traditions. Now that might sound like nit picking but it isn't. Due to the way we choose the president, the system is heavily stacked to only have two parties.
So what happens is people don't actually vote for the president, they vote for electors who then vote for the president. This was put in to place because back in the day, it was pretty much the only way to do things what with the massive distances involved, and also due to the desire to give more power to the states.
This alone might not sound like it would favour two parties, however there's another fact you need to know: In order to win an election you must have 270 electoral votes, a majority of the electoral college. Not the most, but a majority.
So what happens if there isn't a majority? Nobody wins, and then the House of Representatives chooses the President, and the Senate chooses the Vice President. It has happened once before in US history, because there was a 4-way race.
So the system is heavily stacked to just two parties. If you have another serious contender they might not be enough to win, but they could be enough to split the EC, which nobody wants.
Now that only affects the presidency, but since that is the most powerful office, it filters down as well, and generally leads to a situation of two dominant parties.
This could be changed, but would require a constitutional amendment. Those are pretty hard. 66% of both houses of congress must pass the amendment, and then 75% of the 50 state legislatures must vote to ratify it. Hence it doesn't happen very often and isn't something that someone can just decide to do.
Just to give you some insight as to why the US system is as it is.
"Frankly, after visiting ISideWith.com, I was blown away at how congruent my views are with the Green candidate, Jill Stein."
Every single person I've seen comment on that site has had the same results, leading me to question its neutrality. I voted for Stein anyway, not because I'm closely aligned with the Green platform, but because fuck Obomney.
I live in New Mexico and Gary has my vote.
I'm tired of the whining in Washington and our government's sacred cows. Gary can't do shit to reform government directly, but at least he can put the fucking breaks on this non-sense from both sides.
C'mon guys: time to redefine reasonable military costs, environmental spending and all the shit we're regulating.
I have a metaphor: Gary is a new set of break-pads for this GM car speeding down the road of insanity, driven by an ass and an elephant!
http://www.allometry.com
I sided with Johnson. I know people who sided with Romney too. The site seems to be valid to me.
Cthulhu 2012!
Voting for a third party has much more value with Preferential Voting of which Instant-Runoff Voting is a much better system. I still don't understand why this system is not in more common use.
Have a read of Votes are in and our plodding way of having a say wins in a landslide which gives an Australian perspective on the US election system. In any other country in the world the system would be roundly criticised
.
Same in Australia. 2 independents ho;d the balance of power, so 1 major party can't dominate the other. It has its pluses, but also has some minuses.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
I agree. Although I'm apolitical as far as Oz government is concerned, I found myself as a campaign manager of a Liberal Democratic candidate for the last Fed election, an ACT senate election, a by-election and now, for a different Nationalist style candidate for a minor QLD party. Strange that I could do that as even the minor parties are not too different from Liberal or Labour. The Liberals follow Rebublican norms and attitudes religiously, from the naysayings inclusive. I can hardly wait till late next year for our own election.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Both major parties supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So no, there was no difference between the two major parties. The two major parties claim somewhat different domestic policies, but almost never actually differ on foreign policies.
I will not consider voting for anyone who supports the murder of innocent people. That is my absolute minimum standard for support for a political candidate. Since both major parties are fully committed to wars of aggression, I believe that voting for them is unconscionable. That leaves me with a choice of refusing to vote, or voting for a candidate that will not win. Since I like a lot of what Jill Stein has to say, I may as well vote for her. At least it slightly increases the odds of her message getting out.
That's because you mispelled it. Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.
I guess nobody knows who is Hugh Nanton Romney...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I stand corrected.
In the absence of a single freaking example of a libertarian country that is not a hell-hole like Somalia, we are forced to conclude that the redistributionist government is necessary for a healthy society
An on-again, off-again Islamic hellhole run by a loose coalition of warlords, and racked by famine and periodic invasions from neighboring countries, is not a Libertarian state.
What the hell are they teaching you kids in college these days, anyway? And where's that caramel macchiato I ordered 5 minutes ago?
1) I live in NY. My electors' votes will go to Obama so essentially my vote for POTUS doesn't count; feels bad, man.
2) I want to send a message in the strongest possible way that the two-party system is broken, and the strongest way I can think to do so is with my vote.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Anderson
Must have just drafted this up in the last few minutes.
Is that sufficiently less conservative than Reagan for you?
For a number of years now voting for a 3rd party has been labeled "throwing your vote away" however I have learned that this is a lie propagated by the two major parties. If a 3rd party candidate get 5% of the vote, they get easier access to be on the next election's ballot. So I suggest this voting strategy:
If you are in a heavily blue or red state, please vote 3rd party, as there are enough people to carry the win for you if your are voting in line with the state's affiliation (red/blue). If you are in one of those heavily colored states and are voting opposition, vote 3rd party because nothing will come from your candidate losing by a narrower margin. (You actually *are* throwing your vote away.) However even if the 3rd party candidate loses, he still wins something, as long as he gets 5%, so your vote would have counted for something.
If you're in a toss-up state, or a state which votes proportionally in the electoral college (Nebraska and Maine) then go on and decide the fate of the country. Your vote is worth more than anyone else's. But for the rest of the country, lets work to get a 3rd candidate in the debates and force cooperation between parties.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I don't like the D candidate - he's a f'ing socialist. I don't like the R candidate - he's a f'ing elitist (as pointed out by my favorite in his own party). Both of them want to ruin the country financially (neither will balance the budget never mind reducing debt). Why on earth would I vote for either one? And which one should that be? You have 24 hours and one slashdot comment to win me over ;-)
Why do so many people who like other parties ALWAYS TALK ABOUT POT! Dammit. even if you WON, a single president isn't going to legalize pot. All a 3rd party president could do is VETO stuff and talk. Every time you mention pot, you convince the independents that your candidate is the "weed" candidate, which is probably NOT why they don't like the R and D guys. Bring up other issues, bring up philosophy, but please try to suppress the urge to talk about pot - it doesn't matter if you call it "medial marijuana" it's still pot and your candidate is a long haired hippie.
That's because you mispelled it. Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.
Read the damned summary that slashdot posted. It says "Rock Anderson" not "Rocky Anderson". It's not my fault that slashdot cares so little about him as to not bother spelling his name correctly. I searched for the name provided by the summary.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Gary Johnson supports gay marriage rights
Actually, he just wants the government to "get out of marriage". Hence he supports gay marriage rights by not acknowledging any marriage rights.
is pro-choice
His official statement is something like "until the fetus is viable". Naturally that threshold will keep being adjusted down until eventually there is no more abortion.
anti-war
Again, you're not reading the full story, you're just taking your favorite sound bite. He doesn't want the US government going to war, because it costs money. However his platform will strip what little we have left of workers' rights, which will result in Texaco teaming up with United Defense and Coca-Cola to wage whatever war they like, with their employees as conscripted soldiers. Don't want to fight? Then no job for you!
drug legalization
They support that only to bring in tax revenue. Mainstream conservatives will eventually adopt that same idea for the same reason, as it allows them to place more taxes on people who make less money.
I fail to see how that makes him a conservative
I can't force you to actually read.
What crack are you smoking?
Are you going for some sort of irony award with that statement?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters." Nothing about technical or scientific relevance in the strapline. Whether this story fits either of the two qualifiers in the strapline is still up for debate, however.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Somalia is an example of vicious people forming gangs. Those gangs and their warlord leaders are proto-governments.
Look, it takes more than size to make government bad, it takes bad people. But big government does attract people who want to use power over other people, and those people are bad. Smaller government gives them less scope for their evil.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Do you mean that the strongest way you can think of for a generic person, or for you specifically. Cause there are far stronger ways to do so. Leaving aside treason/armed rebellion, all you're left with is: Donating money. Signing petitions to get people on ballots/into debates. Appearing at rallies. Calling people/going door to door. Volunteering with the campaign.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, we're both right and you're wrong.
To the extent that's true, the "candidates" are the candidates for positions as electors, who are proposed by the parties and elected, in most states, as a statewide slate.
Repeating an assertion four times in the same post doesn't make it true. Presidential elections are governed by State law. As a concrete example, here's the online index to the California Election Code. Note the title of Division 6, Part 2 ("ELECTIONS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS"). Now look at Chapter 1 of that Part, an particularly Section 6902: "At the general election in each leap year, or at any other time as may be prescribed by the laws of the United States, there shall be chosen by the voters of the state as many electors of President and Vice President of the United States as the state is then entitled to." (emphasis added)
The voters are choosing slates of electors.