Ralph Nader Moderates One Last 3rd-Party Debate for 2012

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ralph Nader Moderates One Last 3rd-Party Debate for 2012

Posted by timothy on Sunday November 4, 2012 @12:05PM from the love-'em-or-hate-'em dept.

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?

29 of 409 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

A Wasted Vote... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-04 12:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:A Wasted Vote... by blackfireuponus · 2012-11-04 12:33 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I am also a Nader fan and a 3 time Nader voter, and I'm voting for Jill Stein. A vote for a mainstream candidate in a non contested state is the real wasted vote.
2. Re:A Wasted Vote... by artor3 · 2012-11-04 12:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It is nothing like asking "Apple or Microsoft?" You, as an individual, can choose Linux, but it's not like you're gonna get to have Johnson or Stein as your own personal president.
  Our election system sucks. It's just about the worst way to choose elected officials. It forces all elections to come down to a binary choice. But wishing and dreaming won't fix it. The rules are the rules, and you have to pick the best strategy within them. Insisting on only moving your pawns one square at a time will lead to disaster, no matter how much you may disagree with the double-move rule.
  Now, that said, if you're among the 85% of Americans who don't live in a swing state, then your presidential vote doesn't matter so much anyway, so you might as well try to get some extra funding for your third party of choice for the next cycle.
3. Re:A Wasted Vote... by flyneye · 2012-11-04 12:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Technically, since the Republican and Democratic parties have taken turns, term by term, doing eventually, exactly the same thing the other would do, perhaps sooner, perhaps later, for around a century, we've no reason to consider them separate parties. Minor differences between them have supplied the illusion of a separate entity, all smoke and mirrors, this is a one party system: The Repubmocrats.
  To continually do the same thing over and over, then to expect different results each time is crazy and stupid. Therefore to cast a vote in favor of the presiding one party system is logically a waste of a vote for an improving break of this mad cycle.
  You can argue that radical changes would be made by the other parties, I give you that radical changes must be corrected due to our incompetence over the last century. Yeah , it could hurt. Wanna pawn it off on your kids? Grandkids? Want more of the same ol' downward spiral for you and them? Just keep voting Repubmocrat if you do. Frankly, I would vote for a one eyed, hump backed, anarchist Hobbit, if I thought it would mean an end to Repubmocrat tyranny.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
4. Re:A Wasted Vote... by gman003 · 2012-11-04 12:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Maybe not this election, but if candidates see that X% of voters want $IdeologyOfThirdParty, they'll start pushing that way more, because that few percent could be what wins them the election. So it still has influence, just more long-term.
  (There's also that federal funding given to any presidential campaign whose party earned over 5% of the vote in the last election. So once a party reaches that threshold, it could jump up rather quickly.)
5. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-11-04 13:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A third-party vote, even if it is not destined to designate the winner, can also be a strategic decision, not just a "wasted vote".
  
  A significant vote for a third party sends a very strong message to the powers-that-be: you are messing up.
  
  They listen. They have to, if they want to be elected again.
  
  Further, a vote for a third-party candidate can help set up a better atmosphere for another third-party candidate 4 years from now.
  
  According to polls, approximately 20% of the voting American public identify themselves as "independent" (in this case meaning they do not support the "Big 2"). That is the largest number in history.
  
  According to other studies, it only takes 10% to make major changes, if they are persistent and sincere. We have twice that now.
  
  Look out, Big 2.
  
  And you can bet that I won't be voting for either of them. They're both so bad as to be laughable. Or they would be, if it weren't so tragic.
  
  --
  "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
6. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-11-04 13:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A vote for a mainstream candidate in a non contested state is the real wasted vote.
  I think that a vote for a D or R in a contested state is even more wasted than in a non-contested state. Because the D&Rs dominate the only way to make them adopt change is to scare them into thinking they won't win the state - they have no fear in the states that are not contested.
  So if you vote 3rd party based on your conscience this time around and the D or R that you disagree with more wins the state you have exercised the only leverage you have - that a party that doesn't represent you could have had your vote but they effed it up. If they want your vote next election, they need to adopt some of the positions of the 3rd party that you did vote for. Winners keep doing what they were doing because it worked last time. Losers change their tactics in order to try to win next time.
  BTW, this is why I think the Tea Party is a sham - they aren't a real party, just a wing of the republican party. You can't vote for a tea party presidential candidate the way you can for a real 3rd party candidate.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
7. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-04 13:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  For the nth fucking time, Gary Johnson was a Republican when he was governor. He became the Libertarian Party candidate because he lost the Republican presidential primary.
8. Re:A Wasted Vote... by artor3 · 2012-11-04 13:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Long-term thinking like that doesn't work. If you give up a few presidential cycles working for your twenty year goal, then you'll find that the Overton window has shifted against you, the Supreme Court is stacked with idealogues who'll rule your every move unconstitutional, and the districts are gerrymandered to make taking over Congress impossible.
  Like I said before, if you're not in a swing state, then 3rd parties are the way to go, if only to get them federal funding. But if you are in a position where your vote could set the course of the nation for years to come, you'd be a fool to throw that away for some long-term plan that may never come to pass.
9. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-04 14:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly. I stopped supporting the Libertarian platform because I grew up and joined the real world, and realized that most of them were just GOP washouts.
  While we would all love to believe that everything would be better if the government stepped out of the way, that isn't true. Human history is inconsistent with this fantasy, and Atlas Shrugged is just about as realistic as Harry Potter. With rare exception, countries with weak central governments are hellholes that no modern American would enjoy living in. Anyone who thinks we can get away with deregulation after 2008 is either a complete moron or at best deluding themselves. Taxes are the price of civilization, and regulatory forces are necessary in order to keep things in check. We need moderates on both sides of the aisle who are willing to balance out how we spend our funds and ensure our policies don't go off the deep end in either direction (Fascism and Communism are equally dangerous).
10. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Culture20 · 2012-11-04 14:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I found reams of the same information via Google too.
11. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-04 14:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  With rare exception, countries with weak central governments are hellholes that no modern American would enjoy living in.
  Our central government has put more of its own citizens in jail than any other on the planet. Just because you live in a privileged suburb doesn't make it real for anyone else.
12. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Vaphell · 2012-11-04 14:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I like Obama for ending the war in Iraq
  you mean for sticking to Dubya's plan because he was forced to, mostly because Iraq simply refused when they were offered to extend the deal? They even dared to demand they could prosecute troops committing crimes, which are immune to the local law enforcement.
  And there is that huge so called embassy for 5500 people, full of mercenaries. That pulling out is in name only.
13. Re:A Wasted Vote... by anagama · 2012-11-04 15:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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,
  Kudos for voting third party. Me too.
  However, I feel obliged to correct a misconception about Obama. He did not "end the war in Iraq" --- he merely failed to extend it. In the months leading up to the expiration of SOFA, scheduled for Dec 2011, the Obama administration lobbied Iraq for an extension in order to keeps thousands, maybe up to 20,000 troops in Iraq. SOFA was a prerequisite for that because it forbids Iraq from prosecuting soldiers in Iraq, for crimes committed while they are in Iraq. Had Obama been successful at extending SOFA, Obama would not now be claiming to have "ended the war in Iraq" because it would still be going on. I mean, it still is, just with mercenaries and such, but it is perhaps a worthy semantic distinction. I just hate to see people give credit to Obama though, when all he did was "fail to extend," which is totally different from "intending to end."
  Citations: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/10/23/obamas-revisionist-history-on-ending-the-iraq-war-a-lesson-from-the-3rd-presidential-debate/
  and this from within the above:
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704889404576277240145258616.html
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
14. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Vaphell · 2012-11-04 15:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  With rare exception, countries with weak central governments are hellholes that no modern American would enjoy living in.
  China, Cuba and North Korea are a paradise then.
  
  Taxes are the price of civilization, and regulatory forces are necessary in order to keep things in check.
  
  that price is not infinite and have you ever heard of 'revolving door' or 'regulatory capture'? Do you have your lobbyist on the capitol hill? No? So why do you foolishly believe the legislation originated there is supposed to make average peon's life better?
  Besides only ex CEOs and insiders work in those regularory agencies, or fucking morons who were not smart enough to make careers on WallStreet. They aren't going to catch anybody, they are either buddies with criminals, or to incompetent to see the forest for the trees.
  Also regulations are mostly toothless, they are carefully crafted to look pretty from PR point of view but at the same not to bother the regulated too much. On top of that they attack past problems and are completely unprepared to deal with next crisis because nobody knows what exactly it will look like.
15. Re:A Wasted Vote... by feedayeen · 2012-11-04 15:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But he wanted to advertise his third party search engine.
16. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Veggiesama · 2012-11-04 15:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I like Obama for ending the war in Iraq, I like Romney for requiring OpenDocument format (ODF) when he was governor of Mass...
  Only on Slashdot are these comparable accomplishments...
17. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Vaphell · 2012-11-04 16:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  who says about lack of any government? Cutting back and getting rid of entirely are 2 different things and most libertarians suggest the former. It doesn't matter though because every time a libertarian says something reasonable like 'paying taxes on working and subsidizing not working is counterproductive and the govt is not supposed to micromanage every detail of your life, what you eat, who you sleep with' he is 'encouraged' to go to Somalia.
  also correlation is not causation - that the rich countries recycle huge part of their GDP through government channels doesn't mean the govt is the source of prosperity. It may as well be the other way around: prosperous countries can afford to blow money on fluff and would be more prosperous if they didn't.
18. Re:A Wasted Vote... by Vaphell · 2012-11-04 18:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are misrepresenting my point about subsidizing not working and you know it. Subsidies in general result in more of the thing that is subsidized, are you telling me that generous welfare system causes disabilities and vetarans?
  
  1) "Not working" includes children. Should we return to Dicken's Englang?
  No. But if you think that passing the law by the govt is enough to make child labor dissapear, you are very wrong. That is putting the cart before the horse. In reality it's the other way around. Society needs to be wealthy enough to pass on the child labor, the law is merely icing on the cake that was baked already.
  Starving families in 3rd world countries don't give a fuck and sure as hell won't allow their children to play and learn and have happy careless childhood when their very existence is on the line. If you passed such a law there, you'd create even more pathology, as these children would still be expected to bring money home, but now they would be forced to beg (optional mutilation for greater efficiency) or into illegal activities: crime, prostitution.
  Besides if you are a parent, it's your fucking responsibility to provide for your offspring first and foremost, not everybody else's.
  
  2) "Not working" includes veterans. Probably we just should let them die on the streets.
  i got an idea. Stop waging wars on brown people, there won't be any veterans, problem solved.
  
  3) "Not working" includes disabled people. Natural selection FTW!
  being disabled sucks, no doubt, but do you think that whining about it will make their lifes better, with the sense of fulfillment? No, treating them as a special, worse kind of people who are not able to wipe their own ass without help causes 2 things:
  - lower self esteem
  - increased helplessness and dependency on the system
  It's simple, lower expectations and you can bet the people will lower their performance to match them.
  
  4) "Not working" includes retired people. Invisible hand of market wiped out your investments (remember, no FDIC!)? Tough luck.
  Investments and FDIC? i thought FDIC secured boring deposits up to $X. I know the libertarians believe that such programs make people not do their due diligence because it's easier and more convenient to delegate the responsibility to bureaucrats than to cover your own ass (which means more malinvestments and outright scams slip through) but seriously, that's your main criticism? no FDIC?
  Besides if there is a situation where much of the fake wealth evaporates, the only thing the govt can do is to paper the problem over and restore nominal number, but not the original purchasing power behind it. If such a disaster happens you can be sure there was a bubble and the correction was unavoidable either way. Besides the govt is not exactly a friend of retirees, they are that huge ugly position in the budget and the govt is glad the inflation lowers the burden of promises.
  
  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. The only question is the degree of redistribution of wealth.
  Does not follow. Redistribution of wealth is a direct result of democracy, because politicians play their electorate by divide and conquer strategies, and offering concessions to different interest groups in order to win votes. Underwater mortgage? we will help you! $20 worth of birth control too expensive? you got it! Farmers in redneck states are unhappy? Corn subsidies for everybody! Students know shit? Throw even more money at the problem and give govt backed loans to everybody!
19. Re:A Wasted Vote... by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2012-11-04 19:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > the O's are in for FOUR MORE YEARS bitch.
  The next time someone here asks how we arrived at a point where the only ones with a shot at winning are two corrupt and manipulative parties that are carbon copies on all but a few wedge issues, please point them at this post and remind them that this is an "average voter".
Easy answer by Nidi62 · 2012-11-04 12:21 · Score: 5, Informative

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
for some things, less is not more! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-04 12:34 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-04 12:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Obama wants the top tax bracket to go up 3%. That's it. It was higher under Reagan.
1. Re:Bollocks by lexman098 · 2012-11-04 13:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I can't afford health insurance right now, and would rather do without as I don't feel it is right for everyone else to subsidize it and pay for it for me. What makes it worse is that I am penalized for not even being able to afford the insurance.
  This pretty much sums up the misinformation surrounding obamacare. Let me guess, you're too poor to afford insurance without your employer helping out, but still not poor enough to qualify for medicaid. The affordable care act was built with you in mind, my friend. It's actually less efficient for everyone else to let people like you go without insurance, so the affordable care act is going to (hopefully) make it cheaper for you to buy insurance from the exchange or at least require your employer to help out. You won't be "fined for being poor" unless you're ignorant ideology prevents you from taking advantage.
2. Re:Bollocks by nedwidek · 2012-11-04 14:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No company, huh? Provably wrong. Lowe's Home Improvement does for one.
  http://careers.lowes.com/benefits_part.aspx
  
  --
  Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
South Florida independent voter here... by belgo · 2012-11-04 12:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

... 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.
Why vote third party? by XxtraLarGe · 2012-11-04 13:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Here's the Problem by fm6 · 2012-11-04 13:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 it... by cffrost · 2012-11-04 13:44 · Score: 4, Informative

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