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.

Comments

Runoff elections...

[brainproxy]

This is why we need them.

Re:Runoff elections...

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Runoff elections...

[artor3]

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.

Re:Pointless

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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.

5%

[chill]

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/

Re:5%

[Doctor_Jest]

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.

Re:5%

[cold fjord]

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

Re:5%

[cold fjord]

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.

Should be interesting...

[Darkness404]

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.

Apropos of this

[Nimey]

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/

Re:Loon vs. fruitcake.

[Alien Being]

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.

Re:Pointless

[ThatsMyNick]

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.

Re:Pointless

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Loon vs. fruitcake.

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Jill Stein On Nuclear

[Unknown Lamer]

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...

Re:Jill Stein On Nuclear

[Nadaka]

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