Slashdot Mirror


Actual Final Third Party Debate Tonight

Separate from the debate moderated by Ralph Nader last night, Free and Equal is hosting a final third party debate tonight at 9:00 p.m. EST (pre-debate coverage began at 8:00 p.m. EST). As a follow up to the October 23rd debate, only Jill Stein (Green) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) will be facing each other for ninety minutes of questions primarily focusing on foreign policy. It appears that this one isn't being picked up by C-SPAN, but it is being broadcast on RT America on a few cable networks as well as on YouTube (which should work if you have an HTML5 browser, or via the XBMC YouTube plugin). Discuss.

30 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Runoff elections... by brainproxy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why we need them.

    1. Re:Runoff elections... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Runoff elections...This is why we need them.

      No, we need "instant runoffs". You pick your choices in order and the winner is selected on points.

      Hell, at least there is a semblance of a decision by the electorate in that setup. Right now we've got empty fields in Montana having as much of a say in who becomes president as a small city in the Southeast.

      But any change would require an Amendment to the Constitution, or (my choice) a Constitutional Convention, which would be so heavily lobbied that we'd end up with a system where the president was chosen by the CEOs of the Fortune 500.

      Maybe we have to face the fact that elections just aren't going to get us where we need to go. It's only going to happen by us becoming better citizen/consumers. The answer may not be in our political system at all.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Runoff elections... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary. All the Constitution says is that states choose Electors, and the Electors vote on the President. It's up to the states how they pick Electors. In practice, they all have a first-past-the-post popular vote, but an individual state could choose to employ IRV or any other system.

      Ideally, one would want a lot of states to get together and agree to all implement IRV together. Already, several states have signed pacts to all assign their electors to the winner of the national popular vote (see here). There's no reason we couldn't use the same approach to pass IRV. It's much easier to pass voting reform this way than it is through a Constitutional amendment.

      Of course, the two major parties don't want it, so even with the lower bar it's unlikely to happen.

  2. Re:RT? by chill · · Score: 2

    It lends them credibility. They see the success Al-Jazeera has worldwide and they're jealous.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  3. Re:Pointless by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Third parties have literally zero relevance on a national stage.

    Unfortunately this will get modded down, but it's true. Having a debate amongst candidates who will never get elected is just an exercise in mental masturbation. Focus needs to be on how to get these candidates electable - how to show most Americans that it does not *have* to be a two-party system.

  4. 5% by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

    The U.S. party system is divided into two groups: major and minor parties.

    Major parties get more than 5% of the vote at the last general election. Minor parties get less than that.

    The difference is major parties are eligible for federal matching campaign funds and have easier ballot access. In order to get on the ballot in a State you have to get a certain number of registered voters to sign a petition.

    Major parties have a threshold that is frequently fairly low. Minor parties often have much higher requirements, often 3 - 4 times the number of signatures that a major party candidate will need.

    That is why Gary Johnson has "Give me 5%" on his homepage. He knows he isn't going to win, but is aiming to get equal ballot access and financing for the Libertarian Party for future elections. The idea is to maybe break the lock the Republicans and Democrats have on the electoral process.

    If you want to see the grip of the Big R and Big D loosened, consider voting for Gary Johnson and contribute towards the 5%. If you're in one of the "undisputed" States that are firmly in the grip of Romney or Obama, consider casting your ballot for Johnson (or Jill Stein of the Green Party) even if you'd normally vote Obama or Romney. This way your vote isn't wasted.

    http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:5% by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The idea is to maybe break the lock the Republicans and Democrats have on the electoral process.

      There is bipartisan support (among politicians) for keeping third parties out.

      If you're in one of the "undisputed" States that are firmly in the grip of Romney or Obama, consider casting your ballot for Johnson (or Jill Stein of the Green Party) even if you'd normally vote Obama or Romney

      Excellent idea.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:5% by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2

      I'm in a "Romney-lock" state, and I gave Gary Johnson my vote. I shudder at 4 more years of Obama (why is no one fuming over Obama's killing of two American citizens with drones?), but I am not under any delusion that Romney would be different.

      I don't get the idea that my vote is wasted. It sends a message. If enough of us sent the message.... well, we'd let them know we're still in charge.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    3. Re:5% by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      why is no one fuming over Obama's killing of two American citizens with drones?

      People like you are. Most Americans aren't. Those two citizens took up arms against the United States to make war against it as members of an enemy engaged in war against the United States. Is this a puzzle? They could have surrendered, but didn't. There is precedent for this sort of action. In fact, the Federal government has shot down many Americans in the same status before. There is actually a video representation of one of these incidents.

      This is one of the two men you worry was treated unfairly in some manner.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:5% by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most Americans aren't.
      And that is a shame. First, let's just break this down. How do we know he took arms up against the US? Did he start shooting troops and bombing buildings in the US? If he did, how do we know he did? Because the President said he did? Or because he is an asshole who spouted shit? Whether or not the person is a militant asswipe or a blustering fool is not for the President to decide, precisely since there IS NO WAR declared here. So how can this person take up arms against the US? Did I miss the Congressional approval and declaration of war? I don't think I did. Remember that army doctor who opened fire at Fort Hood? Why was he not taken to the woods and shot... or hanged for "taking up arms against the US?" Because he is a CITIZEN and entitled to a fair trial, no matter how stupidly guilty we think he is. I can't believe you're ACTUALLY arguing these people deserved it and their rights can be taken away by the President... It boggles the mind what idiots troll Slashdot.

      I don't give a shit how stupid this guy was, or how fucking sick in the head he was for believing the shit he spouted. He did not deserve to have his Constitutional rights as a citizen trampled like they were. Pure and simple, the Obama administration wanted to try fucking non-citizens in US courts... yet he bombs the shit out of a citizen?

      Whatever he did, purported to do, thought about doing, tried to do, doesn't matter. Neither we nor the President has the power to rob him of his due process under the Constitution. How is this not bothering you? Sure, he was a jerk and the world is better off now that he's dead, but when does it stop?

      Oh let me repeat this... there has been NO declaration of war. None. Congress has not declared war. Period. So you can try and weasel that in all you want, but it's not legal. Remember Jane Fonda? Why was she not arrested during Vietnam? Oh that's right. NO WAR was declared. So the powers available to the government during wartime were not in effect. What the President did was wrong and he should stand trial for it. Period. Is this too hard for you? Maybe I should draw it in crayon so you can see which rights the President violated..... Would that help? I'm sorry, but you amaze the shit out of me... I didn't think there were otherwise intelligent people siding with Obama on this murder. Sorry, it's murder. And with the NDAA, you could be next... or at least left to rot in prison forever... or I could be next, because I'm critical of his highness. People blasted Bush for the expansion of executive power, but I haven't heard a fucking PEEP about it when Obama doesn't just do the same stuff. He EXPANDS it. Bush never ordered the drone assassination of a citizen. Guess "change" means for the worse... not for the better.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    5. Re:5% by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He could have surrendered at the American embassy, or to Yemeni authorities. Not that difficult.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:5% by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You seem to be generally misinformed on this matter, so here are a few things. The Congress passed the resolution noted in the following document: Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks. The Supreme Court of the United States has held this type of Congressional authorization to be equivalent to a declaration of war. If you join the enemy making war on the United States, you can be captured or killed under the law of war - no trial is necessary beforehand. All of your hand waving on these matters is just that. Your lack of familiarity with the personal involvement of an enemy combatant with attacks or attempted attacks doesn't change or weaken the findings against them.

      As an American citizen you don't have a Constitutional right to join a terrorist group and attack the United States or its allies. If you join with them, you will be treated like them, i.e. captured or killed as possible or necessary. Renegade Americans may be the most dangerous of all since they know the ins and outs of American society, and can identify weak points for attack, and coach would-be attackers to be more effective. If you go renegade, you accept the consequences of war. If you want a nice trial, then surrender so that charges can be prepared and a trial set.

      There is no great mystery about why Al Awlaki was killed. The man actively recruited for Al Qaida, was directly tied to numerous people making attacks, and was apparently involved in planning attacks. The man was an enemy of the American people, whom he plotted to kill in large numbers, an enemy of the state that he hoped to help destroy, and an enemy of humanity as a stateless terrorist, the very kin to pirates, hostis humani generis. Is slavery far behind?

      I do not support many of President Obama's policies, but he is correct in this one, and against that man.

      The United States is not rounding up or making war against people who insult the First Lady, or the President, but rather against actual and would be mass murderers, terrorists, war criminals. It is quite amazing to me that so many people get this elementary question wrong, this isn't even close to being hard to understand. Somehow I expect you will amaze me again.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  5. Should be interesting... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This should be interesting not because of their relevance to the elections tomorrow because as much as I'd rather have Johnson, Stein, Goode or Anderson as our next president rather than 4 more years of Obamney, I think there is a general discord among people of both the Republican and Democratic parties about their candidates the last couple of years. McCain and Romney haven't really pushed for smaller government or for auditing the Fed, Obama hasn't closed Gitmo nor has he been a very peaceful, anti-war president after murdering a couple of American citizens as judge, jury and executioner via drones, involved the US in yet another war (Libya) and won't even release real statistics of how many innocent Pakistanis our Peace Prize winning president has killed (instead, if they are military-aged males they must be "enemy combatants").

    Because of this, I think Stein and Johnson will help to shape the Democratic and Republican party platforms if they manage to get enough votes. If Johnson ends up getting 5% of the national vote (unlikely but he's at 5.2% in national polling...) it could radically change the American political landscape.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  6. Apropos of this by Nimey · · Score: 4, Informative

    the Ohio Secretary of State has illegally placed "experimental" software on voting machines in some counties; illegal because he should have gotten approval from a board. This was done just a few days before the election and an emergency suit has been filed to stop it.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  7. Re:Loon vs. fruitcake. by Alien+Being · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Loons and fruitcakes? Your brain has been washed. Wake up, look around, and think about the true meaning of the word "democracy".

    The primary goal of every right-minded American should be to eliminate the Democratic and Republican parties with EXTREME prejudice. They are two massive weights sitting on a balance beam and we, REAL FUCKING PEOPLE, are the fulcrum. FUCK THEM.

    Sorry about all the caps but some people need to be shouted at.

  8. Re:Pointless by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree there should be focus on how to get these candidates elected. But these debates are not entirely useless. There are people who are not satisfied with R & D, and are looking for alternatives. These debates do help these people (how ever small percentage of the population they are), to choose their right candidate.

  9. Jill Stein All The Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jill Stein has my vote. It's hard to be a liberal living in the DC suburbs, constantly being harassed by two-party evangelicals.

    But, she has a good head on her shoulders, and she knows exactly what it will take to break out of this awful economy.

    It turns out that you can't just exploit labor forever and expect them to have any money left to spend. For too long people have been alienated from their right to an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. She will work hard to fix that, and get us back to honest, living wages like we had in the middle of the 20th century.

    It used to be that a family of four could survive on one income, but now it's hard to make ends meet even with two.

    Adding to her fiscal vision, her positions on the environment, education, and drug legalization are all enlightened and future-forward.

    I am a progressive. I am a liberal. She is the only liberal on the ticket, running against a bunch of right-wing warmongering fascists. I gave up on Obama when he illegally invaded Pakistan to kill OBL without any due process whatsoever.

    If you're planning to vote for Obama, PLEASE take one last look at Jill Stein.

    1. Re:Jill Stein All The Way by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      Yep, even though I don't agree with Stein's positions on a lot of things, I'd much rather her run the country than Obama or Romney. Why? Because she'd do exactly what she said she would. Romney has said just about everything under the sun to please people, he's been pro-government healthcare (heck, Obamacare is basically Romneycare at the federal level!) he's been anti-government healthcare, etc. Obama has done mostly the same, he's promised to end wars and ends up starting new ones, he promised a transparent government and instead we've had nothing but 4 years of propaganda and secrets.

      Vote Stein, Johnson, Goode or Anderson tomorrow.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  10. Re:Pointless by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Focus needs to be on how to get these candidates electable - how to show most Americans that it does not *have* to be a two-party system.

    As long as the election system is the way it is, it will be a two party system. Even if through some extraordinary circumstances a third party were to get support - like say uncovering that one of the existing parties is a satanic baby raping cult, because that's roughly the level of extraordinary you'd need - they'll either replace one of the existing two parties or return to obscurity, any three-way race is an extremely unstable constellation. And the only ones who can change that is Congress by a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate or 2/3rds of the states calling a congressional convention. Would you care to wager on the odds of a bipartisan constitutional amendment to end their power duopoly? I think the chances are better for me winning the lottery each week for the rest of my life. Until then, the game is rigged for third parties to lose.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  11. Re:Loon vs. fruitcake. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whoever wins, we ... ... couldn't care less.

    We have a 16 trillion dollar debt, and we are adding to it at an unsustainable rate of more than a trillion a year. We are heading for a cliff. The fruitcakes want to turn right, the loons want to run left, but the "moderates" think we should go straight ahead.

    The problems facing our country were not caused by the fruitcakes or loonies. They were caused by mainstream politicians and the voters that support them.

  12. Jill Stein On Nuclear by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yech, in response to the "Iran crisis" and Syria, Dr. Stein went off on a terrible anti-nuclear rant. Goal: eliminate all nuclear all the world round because it can never be safe, and all reactors produce bomb material... someone's never heard of Generation IV reactors. Hopefully the Green party can be convinced over the next few years that working against nuclear is working against "green" energy...

    --

    HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    1. Re:Jill Stein On Nuclear by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is actually one of my biggest gripes against the greens. Next gen nuclear, alongside solar represents the best of green energy.

  13. Re:Loon vs. fruitcake. by LordKronos · · Score: 2

    I see where you are trying to take it, but the proportional representation systems don't do as badly as you insist.

    But then the point is, the 2 party system isn't the real problem. It's our system of voting that is wrong. So by focusing on breaking out of the 2 party system, we're focusing on the wrong problem (treating the symptoms rather than the disease).

  14. Re:Loon vs. fruitcake. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

    Actually, it's not that uncommon to have a runoff between the two top candidates, or even runoffs just to GET 2 top candidates. That way at least gives the majority a voice, even if their ideal candidate doesn't make the cut.

    Whether 2 parties or 2000, no candidate is ever going to do things exactly the way I want them. Heck, that's one of the problems we have now. "My Way or No Way". At least with multiple parties you aren't as likely to fall into the trap of political thinking in pure binary terms. Nor, for that matter, are the politicians.

  15. Re:Loon vs. fruitcake. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

    Actually, having two parties STOPS extremism

    It all depends on how you define "extremism." Personally, I think we need a bit more of it; I'd rather not have the TSA or the Patriot Act, for instance.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  16. Re:Pointless by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    It will not ever happen at the federal level simply because you need to change the constitution in order for it to happen

    Actually, it wouldn't.

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof

    There's even less in the Constitution about how the president is elected, only that the electoral college makes the decision. The states get to decide how the electoral college is chosen, and Maine and Nebraska have already chosen to use something other than a winner-take-all system.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  17. Comparison tool that includes 3rd party candidates by Inofree · · Score: 2

    You can compare the 3rd party candidates Johnson, Goode and Stein against Romney and Obama at voterscorecard.com Since there is a Ron Paul write-in campaign and he is a certified write in some states like CA, he also can be selected.

  18. To rig an election convincingly you need the stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just to recap, the OHIO REPORTING SYSTEMS DOESN'T NEED THIS SOFTWARE! It already tabulates the results as they are. What Ohio have ordered is an interface to something else. What happened in August is they were caught rigging the election, they need to improve their rigging and that needs early voting data:

    http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdf

    The Ohio vote in the Republican primaries was noticeable because the voter fraud had a linear slant. The more votes in a district the bigger the slant to Romney. So districts of size X, voted 35% for Romney, districts of size Y voted 30% for Romney and so on, regardless of anything else.

    This INSANE result, showed an algorithm was at work, and comparing the districts with ES&S central tabulators against paper voting districts, showed how rigged the election was, and that this rigging was right across all the states.

    http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/stolen-election-2004-plus-the-voter-fraud-scam-series/wisconsin-no-tabulator-versus-tabulator-counties/

    To rig an election convincingly, you need the stats early, so that you can make just enough vote flipping near the beginning. If you set too much vote-flipping at the beginning you risk your candidate getting 80% win. If you flip it too late, your guy can lose.

    They know they can't simply set constants for vote rigging because they were spotted in the statistical analysis of the Ohio Primaries vote.

  19. Re:Pointless by Fjandr · · Score: 2

    It's actually not the only way. Each of the States control their own voting laws. All that is necessary is to amend the laws to allow Senators and Representatives to be elected via IRV, Condorcet, or whatever alternate system allows better representation in races with multiple winners.

  20. Re:Loon vs. fruitcake. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Aren't you so cleaver..

    You're so sharp you sleep in the knife drawer, right?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."