but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology
What?!? And I thought conservatives were the ones that were supposed to be ignorant of the world. Admit it, you know nothing about either foundation, you simply hear the names of capitalists dead and gone nearly 100 years ago and assume that the charitable foundations set up by them must be conservative decades later. Both are considered politically liberal.
From Philanthropy Magazine:
When the time comes for a historian to write a definitive history of foundations in the 20th century, at least one chapter will have to be set aside for the activities of the Ford Foundation in the 1960s. If you want to see the legacy of Ford from that era, just look around you--public interest law firms, the modern environmental movement, the Public Broadcasting Service, and many black and Hispanic activist groups were all created by Ford program officers and showered with Ford grants...
Those Amazing Bundy Brothers
McGeorge Bundy and the Ford Foundation years - Philanthropy Magazine, 1999
You can find similar articles about the Rockefeller foundation. In a backhanded way the Ford, Canegie, and Rockefeller foundations ARE responsible for the rise of the Neocons though. In the '60's and 70's the massive funding to left-wing causes by these dominant foundations was a source of great irritation to conservatives (especially the Carnagie foundation since Carnegie himself had been quite conservative). In response there was a conservative foundation movement which brought about so much of the conservative political infrastructure we have today and propelled neo-conservatives into prominence. It's interesting to note that a lot of these conservative foundations self-destruct after a set number of years beyond the death of their founders, or upon the retirement of their original board of trustees... They were afraid of their foundations being hijacked by future boards of trustees that didn't share their values as happened with the Carnagie (Rockefeller, and Ford) foundations.
I dunno if the developers what worked on NeXT came with Jobs when apple took him back
The developers didn't just come over... the TOOK over. All the senior management on the technology side are former NeXT guys: Avie Tevanian (CTO for software), Jon Rubenstien (Senior VP iPod), Bertrand Serlet (Senior VP Sofware Engineering), Sina Termadon (Senior VP Applications).
At this point Apple IS NeXT... the address just changed and there are a lot more employees. Jobs got paid by the victim to carry out a hostile takeover... From the position of a part-time, temporary consultant hired to help with bringing NeXT and it's technology into Apple he managed to convince the board of directors to fire the old CEO, hire him, elect him as chairman of the board and finally step down themselves to be replaced by directors of his choosing... That reality distortion field is a powerful thing!
Yes, it IS like Bush doesn't have plenty like him. Despite the conventional wisdom the BIG donors are historically Democratic. Look back through past election cycle donor demographics at opensecrets.org The bigger the contribution the more likely it is to go to democrats. Though these tables don't have it (it's elsewhere on the site) contributions under $200 tilt heavily to Republicans, contributors of over $10,000 tilt heavily to Democrats and contributors of over $1 million (a very small club) go OVERWHELMINGLY to democrats (by over 90% the past two cylces).
This cycle looks to break some of that trend. The super-rich are still coming out for the Dems (through the 527's) but the Dems are doing much better with small donors than they usually do and are almost running neck and necks... There is still a slightly more reliance on small donors on Bush's part than Kerry (32% of his money coming from this source compared to Kerry's 30% while Bush gets 36% of his support from donors that gave over $2000 as opposed to Kerry's 46%)
Can you give me an instance where my research is wrong? I rounded Browne and Naders vote in 2000 but that ended up being in Browne's favor. I said 400K but it was really 384,431 (.36%) and said Nader got 2.8 Million when the actual number was 2,882,955 (2.74%). Between the two was Buchanan who got 448,895 (.42%).
As for Badnarik's resumé his only political experience is (as I said) failed runs for Texas State Rep.
You'd think that someone that got on the state ballots of 48 states would generate at least one story on CNN.
Fair point, but I don't see any particular reason that he would get much more than one... Libertarians have been on most ballots for a couple of decades now. Andre Marrou (the Alaska state rep I was referring to) was on ALL 50 ballots... and still a complete non-entitity. And he should be! A state-rep should be running for state senate, maybe congress, not President. Ron Paul who ran in 1988 is the only candidate with any credibility and he is technically a Republican. He got to the rarified air of the U.S. Congress because the Libertarians did exactly what I think they should do... work WITHIN the two party system and get their guys nominated in Primaries.
Paul PROVES that strong libertarians can get elected at least in some (lowercase "l") libertarian enclaves but that they can't do it if they are going to sit on the sidelines in an irrelevant private club play-acting at elective politics. Badnarik probably COULD have won a republican primary in his district without any change to his positions - from there he could probably move up to state senate, then go for U.S. congress... and Ron Paul would have some company in the Congress and at some point there could be a libertarian caucus in the house with the clout to really influence things and shift our politics and our governance to the libertarian position. Instead Libertarians would rather sit out the competition and setbacks of serious politics and enjoy the empty comfort of sour-grape complaints in the comfort of their own tiny little club.
My grudge against the party is that i AM a libertarian and I'm frustrated that libertarians have sidelined themselves pursuing a third party when they have a good chance of actually wielding influence.
I was going to acknowledge the fact that Libertarians do try to actually get people elected... it's just that when they succeed in electing someone dog catcher (or don't succeed in the case of Badnarick) they think the next logical step is President.
I'm really sorry but Badnarick hardly deserves the little coverage he IS getting. He is a complete non-entity... even by Libertarian party standards. Better luck with candidate recruitment next time.
Is it that my writing was unclear or that your reading comprehension is poor?
Reread my original post and consider it my reply.
Re:Eliminate the spoiler thing?
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
It would be Badnarik vs Nader vs Kerry vs Bush vs anyone else qualified to run.
And what would be the results? Imagine a hypothetical situation that is more than likely to see WHY our system ends up being a two party system.
1) Whoever gets a plurality in each state gets all the electoral votes... It would often be that one side or the other by chance or by design has more parties and candidates than the other. In Vermont say 10 progressive and 3 conservative and 5 moderates run. The progressives between them get 50% of the vote, the moderates split another 30% two conservatives drop out to support one who gets 20% of the vote... so which candidate gets the electoral votes that went to overwhelmingly to liberal/moderates? The conservative!
2) Throughout the states similar things happen Texas sends it's electors to the Green candidate, Massachusetts to the Libertarian, California to the Christian Coalition, Georgia to the Atheist Coalition but for the most part the majorities in each state avoid that and get results that roughly reflect the popular will. 15 candidates win electoral votes none with a majority, there are no ties. The top five vote winners with 30 (Democrat), 25 (Republican), 15 (Green), 10 (Christian Coalition) and 8 (Socialist) percent of the electoral votes are voted on by congressional delegations from each state each having one vote. The congress votes again and again but remains deadlocked, some state delegations deadlocked internally... finally after three months the South with a couple of plains states having the largest single block for the Christian Coalition candidate convinces the Republican states to support them giving the Christian Coalition party the Presidency despite winning only 10% of the electoral vote and 25% of the popular vote while between them the Socialists, Democrats and Greens won 53% of the electoral vote and 60% of the popular vote.
Our system has become and will remain a two party one because it punishes vote splitting & encourages divergent groups to combine to win an outright majority. Interests that might have formed a separate party under another system join an existing one and become a caucus within it. There is still multiple choice among the candidates of those divergent smaller "parties"... it just takes place during the primaries. This has it's disadvantages, but also it's advantages... It encourages compromise and give the final winner a firmer mandate to govern (if not a clearer mandate to do so by a particular ideology). Under the instant run-off system someone that would have voted for Kucinich, then Dean, then Braun and picked Kerry as their fourth place hasn't exactly given Kerry much of a mandate when those second, third, and fourth place votes finally put Kerry over the top. Under a two party system after Kerry has gotten that consensus vote during the primary those who only sort-of liked him before turn around and throw their FULL support to him, maybe even come to like him as the campaign progresses.
Re:30 whole states????
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Why does this guy get all kinds of press... and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.
For three reasons, none of which requires a tinfoil hat to understand.
1) Because your second statement is simply wrong. Nader got over 7 times as many votes as the Libertarians did last election cycle. 2.8 million votes to 400K.
2) Related to the first: Because his vote was large enough to play the role of a spoiler and toss the election to Kerry. The Libertarians probably draw a little more from both parties so they're not obvious spoilers and even if they were they came in behind Buchanan who would be a more obvious spoiler on the Republican side (If Buchanan's vote had gone to Bush he would have won the popular vote)
3) Because Nader is already a well known and (formerly) respected (by liberals) national figure. Everyone knows who Nader is and what he believes in. Who the hell is Badnarik? what does he stand for? No one knows. Libertarians are a tiny, largely irrelevant party... nobody gives you much press nor SHOULD they. I don't consider it a conspiracy when the business pages give more coverage to McDonalds and Burger King but ignore Bob's Burgers at 132 Main Street. If Bob wants start a national franchise he can't just whine about how unfair it is that nobody knows who he is... he has to market himself, find funding, maybe recruit a celebrity spokesman. It's going to be tough, even if he gets funding and can compete on the same playing field with BK and McD he's going to be a distant third for a Loooong time.
I find the incessant Libertarian whining ironic. They seem to be expecting a handout rather than achieving on their own merits. Leave that to the Socialist Workers party that actually believes in that crap. Nobody owes you coverage or respect... you have to EARN it. PROVE your relevance. Show a little of that darwinian rugged individualist backbone and stop blaming others for your failures. Perhaps next time recruit a celebrity candidate (like Nader) or fabulously wealthy self-funding candidate (like Perot) that can help you to break through. Maybe focus on actually winnable local and state races to build credibility slowly. Instead of thinking a State Rep from Alaska is a credible candidate for President maybe have him run for state senate, then try for the U.S. House, then U.S. senate, or state governor... THEN for President. Running a complete unknown who's only relevant experience is losing a race for state rep. doesn't earn you the right to complain about not being taken seriously. In fact I think it gives the rest of us the right to complain that the LIBERTARIANS aren't taking this seriously.
oops, I didn't finish the sentence about the 1960 election... I meant to say something to the effect of...political machines have long lives. There is STILL a mayor Daley ruling over Cook County Illinois.
1998 Florida Mayoral race overturned because of massive voter fraud. This is only the most recent of a half dozen cases in Florida some of which resulted in convictions and/or invalidated elections. Lots of funs stuff... Deceased voters, vote buying, non-resident voters, ballot switching - the whole nine yards. (Gee I wonder if THAT could possibly explain the "intimidating" presence of Republican poll watchers and an attempt to purge the rolls of deceased, illegal and non-resident voters? NO it MUST be "suppression"). As it turns our there WERE still dead people that voted in 2000. The Miami Herald found André Alismé who died in 1997 among 144 other illegal voters after investigating only about a sixth of the precincts in Miami.
And there is plenty of proof that this year may be a high-water mark for fraud...
Fictional people registered to vote
Tons of registrations accumulated over months including many fraudulent ones with fictional names, dozens of the same name, forged signatures, dead people etc. all dumped on the county offices at the last minute to overload the checks to prevent fraud in Pennsylvania, Florida (and here), Colorado, Texas.
Yes, from the DNC press release Drudge had the PDF as well but it's not on his home page anymore.
two white guys in suits standing around watching everyone? sounds like cops or something.
I'm sorry but two guys standing around isn't intimidation, sorry. Even two guys that occasionally make a nuisance of themselves protesting to an election officer because of perceived or real irregularities. That is the purpose of a poll watcher after all, and poll watchers are an important feature of the system, they are a big part of ensuring honest elections conducted openly that both sides can trust.
Even if we take it on Democratic assurances that minority voters are so fragile that the mere presence of a handful of white people is debilitating (as incredible as I find that) the "intimidation" is inadvertent. Also, there is only so far we can go to accommodate such paranoia - we can't move to a system of private partisan polling places, run by, used, and observed by the members of only one party. I live in Republican enclave in an otherwise blue-collar Democratic area, I don't object at all to the union poll watchers... even though the unions have occasionally been rather "hardball" in their political tactics and there HAVE been a few cases (in a recent Democratic primary in the next town) of voting being disrupted by some of their more zealous members doing things they weren't supposed to. Sure, we could complain about "intimidation" by union thugs, but as a general principle unless they DO something illegal their mere presense even if it's intimidating is something I'll just have to suck up and tolerate.
Even if fraud didn't exist (and it does) an unaccountable system carried on behind closed doors would undermine the legitimacy of the outcome. It's EXACTLY the same kind of problem with the stupid electronic voting with no paper trail. From the standpoint of one side or the other being told that you can't see what happens in an extremely partisan polling station is suspicious.
Responding to my own post, but I read some more of the DNC manual and it confirms my thesis.
One of the things they cite as "voter intimidation" is the presence of Republican poll watchers in minority precincts! Of course that is where Republican poll watchers WOULD be, they aren't worried about fraud in their own precincts but in the Democratic ones. I'm really not sure that black voters are intimidated anymore by the presence of one or two white guys in a black neighborhood. If I had to guess I would suspect it's the white guys who feel a little intimidated. There have been instances where Republican poll watchers have been harassed because of the hostility engendered by the "intimidation" charge. When poll watchers are intimidated into leaving the polling place or even expelled their suspicions are that they were driven away because there was something going on that the Democrats didn't want them to see.
While I think the death penalty may be a bit extreme I agree that these guys should face severe punishment.
Of course the guys over at ACORN should face the same punishment for the exact same crime (among others).
The one really good thing I see coming from this is that now that a Republican has been caught doing this the problem which is becoming an epidemic is finally getting some media attention. I don't know if it's bias or if reporters just expect this kind of thing from Unions and big city political machines (sort of dog bites man... not really "news") but after a series of almost identical stories of voter registration fraud that never made it beyond local TV, newspapers and a few conservative magazines and web sites this one instance is finally making the national news.
Oh bullshit. Publically denouncing known tactics that republicans use is a hell of a lot different then claiming they happened.
Let me illustrate:
Regarding Mr. GodHead let me just say that I denounce wife beating. Domestic violence is a serious matter and I think we should all watch Mr. GodHead to make sure he doesn't engage in it. Mr. GodHead is a married man and the vast majority of wife-beatings have been committed by married men much like Mr. GodHead. He proclaims his innocence and while it is true we have seen no signs of wrongdoing YET... we remain VERY worried about the health and safety of Mrs. GodHead.
But aren't you glad I didn't claim you had done anything wrong?
+4 Insightful? How about -1 "low reading comprehension".
It's the DEMOCRATS charging "voter intimidation" and the accusation is that they intend to raise the hue and cry when the HAVEN'T (yet) experienced it.
That isn't an unreasonable interpretation of what the manual is advising as a practical matter. It says ""If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike," and then urges a P.R. offensive which would include getting civil rights leaders to denounce tactics of which there are "NO SIGNS" - that sounds to me like "complain about voter intimidation even though there are "no signs" that it exists.
Republicans and Democrats don't trust each other for good reason. Republicans think that Democrats stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes... dead people, illegal aliens, people voting in multiple times in different jurisdictions etc. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
Democrats for their part think that Republicans try to suppress turnout. For instance by putting out false information about voting requirements and locations and excessive challenges to the validity of voters. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
The two types of bad behavior have a certain synergy... Everything that Republicans do about their legitimate fear of fraud is seen as further instances confirming Democrats legitimate fear of suppression and vice versa. For instance: Republicans convinced there is fraud going on (which is often true) are excessive in their efforts to purge the polls, those challenges are seen by Democrats as intimidation (which it often is), the more Democrats complain and insist on laws that prevent purging the rolls the more Republicans are convinced that the fix is in. Around and around it goes.
...and have it ingrained in their minds that we have a two party system
That's because we DO have a two party system. Sure you can run as a third party, but as long as are system requires you to get a majority of the votes you will never win. Any sizable body of opinion will be incorporated within one of the major parties which are in reality coalitions of many smaller blocks... "third parties" that can just barely get along together and agree on the broadest of general principles to hold together and get that one vote above 50% they need to win.
Third parties are all about ideological purity and refusal to compromise... they make for nice statements but never for democratic governance. The two party system has a place for multiple candidates many of them pure and uncompromising in the ideology. That place is the primaries - there was a LOT of variety and plenty of candidates for everyone this election and the last one. There were 10 candidates running for President this time, last time there were 11... What we are having now is really something like a run-off election in a multi-party system. And the parties themselves are something like two potential coalition governments in a parliamentary system (though the final government may not reflect the entire coalition because the President himself wins and then gets to pick his cabinet, not like a Parliamentary system at all... but that is probably a feature.)
This has been discussed on conservative blogs too... Pose as a Nader voter, get some Democrat to switch his vote to Nader... bingo! One less vote for Kerry.
Of course it doesn't help for two reasons. The "Kerry" voter they are swapping with will vote for Kerry anyway, and even if he doesn't it's just one less Kerry vote in a "safe" state.
No offense, but that guy's site screams chickenhawk.
Hawk, yes... I have no idea from looking at it that he never served in the military so I don't see how you can prefix that with "chicken.."
Your main point remains valid, he IS a biased source. HOWEVER if you click through most of his stories have links to local papers, local network affiliate news casts, a few larger regional papers etc. He has stories from plenty of sources that are as reliable (or not) as the one that prompted this/. story. You may have to click through twice, once through his list -> to his summary/commentary -> to the original news story from a legitimate news source.
I also have to say it's rather unfair, and silly for people to moderate the parent poster as flamebait when he is linking to a page that at least arguably answers the QUESTION that was moderated at +5 Insightful.
- Texas Democrats who Gerrymandered in their redistricting efforts... (The recent successful Republican effort was tit for tat revenge for the 1990 redistricting that The Almanac for American Politics called "The most partisan redistricting in the '90 cycle in the nation." and "the shrewdest gerrymander" of it's time. A gerrymander that resulted in a house delegation that was 17 to 15 Democratic despite 56% of the voters at the polls voting for a Republican congressman.
- CBS (as partisan as Sinclair or Fox) doing it's traditional 60 Minutes week-before-the-election hit piece early this year using obvious forgeries and giving the Kerry campaign advanced notice so they could exploit it with their operation "Fortunate Son"
2: The pro-choice stance would be quashed by the religious right.
Opposition is part of democracy. It's your job to try and win, not give up without trying because your opponents don't just lie down for you. If he can't muster enough support to at least make a good showing in a low turnout election against a field crowded with pro-lifers dividing that vote his support is pitiful and he shouldn't bother with the charade.
3: The current "starve the beast" mentality in the RNC wouldn't fit at all with the hallmark of libertarians, (L) or (l).
Why not? It is a tactic to achieve a libertarian end (smaller government), through a libertarian means (lower taxes). Seems like the ultimate libertarian policy. It's not a deficit hawk's policy but there are plenty of libertarians that aren't deficit hawks, some that are explicitly against deficit hawks because they see deficits as having a useful political side-effect related to "starving the beast"... It's a built in argument to oppose any government program. (Granted most would want the deficit to be a reasonable fraction of gross GDP.)
Like you I believe that MANY people have (l) views and if enough (L) vote for Badnarik and potentially cost Bush the race, maybe the RNC will wake up
One of the fundamental rules of politics is you take what you can get when you can get it because you never know what the future holds. Intentionally going down to defeat to set the stage for some future victory almost always backfires. Who knows what policies the Presidency of an unreconstructed statist liberal like Kerry would bring... once you go down the path of entitlement spending going back is utterly impossible. Also, who knows what chances you will have to defeat him next time?
You have to be in one of the two parties to go to the primaries at all.
Not in most states. I'm a registered independent, I can vote in EITHER primary in my state.
Have you seen a primary at work in recent years?
Yes.
Do you really think a lot of decision making goes on there anymore?
Yes, of course there is. see below
Please, come up with a better reason why a two party system is good for Americans than the bald fact that it restricts our choices to two.
Because it DOESN'T. In this past primary a choice was made between a Pro-war, pro-isreali hawk (Lieberman), an extremist black "civil rights' leader (Sharpton), a more moderately toned black liberal (Braun), an ardent trade unionist (Gephardt), a southern populist (Edwards), an anti-war candidate who was otherwise moderate (Dean), an anti-war candidate who was otherwise leftist (Kucinich), an anti-war candidate with strong military background though something of a cipher on other issues (Clarke), and a northeastern liberal with an anti-war history but an ambivalent position on the current war (Kerry), and an idiosyncratic right(ish)-wing nut job (perennial candidate LaRouche.. hey, it's a choice). The northeastern liberal with the ambivalent position on the war won but must now move on to meet another consensus candidate with broad appeal.
The Republican primary went by acclamation to the consensus winner from the last time. This winning by default is NOT guaranteed... there have been many challenges to incumbents when there is a large disaffected constituency. I'm a little surprised that there was no challenge from the isolationist paleo-cons. The fact that there wasn't reveals their electoral weakness. That earlier choice four years ago was made between a black social-conservative extremist (Keyes), a religious-right leader (Bauer), a center-right Mormon (Hatch), a "maverick" Republican running on electoral reform (McCain), a libertarian businessman (Forbes), a center-right governor (Alexander), a moderate (Dole), a social conservative (Quayle), a rather generic conservative (Kasich) and finally a "compassionate" conservative (Bush)
The choices between these dozens of candidates were real decisions made democratically by the voters. They are made in a series of rolling elections that allow for unknowns to win support in small early states and for front-runners to stumble. There is as wide a range of choices as any third-party candidate envisions for the general election but in a way that finally results in two consensus candidates with broad (if not deep) appeal to a wide variety of people and a chance of winning the support of the majority of their countrymen.
Think of the general election as the run-off between these top two contenders from a chaotic clash of dozens of third "parties" which constitute the two larger "major" coalition parties. Inserting minor candidates into this later "run-off" instead of having them participate in the earlier multi-candidate elections doesn't have much utility. Sure the multi-candidate primary within larger parties followed by a two-candidate general election isn't necessarily what a poli-sci professor would work up on paper for a "perfect' system... but it works pretty well, probably because it evolved organically over time rather than being designed by a poli-sci professor. In itself it achieves what you claim to desire, a wide array of choices. The whining of third-parties that refuse to participate in the earlier multi-candidate primary elections is the sour-grapes of losers who don't have the popular support to win, or even have much impact and prefer delusions blaming their lack of support to "unfairness" rather than the simple fact that their views just aren't popular.
Last I checked, the Whigs aren't on the ballot. This is what pushing a third party is really about, is trying to unseat one of the major 2.
BINGO! this is the ONLY legitimate purpose I see for third parties in our system. They exist at the fringes and can only come to the forefront if the two major parties both refuse to engage an issue of vital importance. The Whigs were wiped out because the Whigs and the Democrats both refused to engage the issue of abolishing slavery. The Republicans did and supplanted the Whigs.
Failing that, if a third party can capture enough of the vote to get the attention of one of the major parties, it might just effect policy a bit.
Sometimes the result of this is more negative than positive, and mildly anti-democratic to boot. The only hope a third party has is to play the spoiler in one election and force the major party that loses on account to shift their way in the next one. Not entirely illegitimate but risky and as likely to backfire in a result that is not only anti-democratic (by letting the candidate from the less popular viewpoint win) but also fails to accomplish any movement towards the third-parties goal.
In general I think third-parties are fine on the fringes, I wish they would engage in serious politics within one (or possibly even both) political parties and only bolt when the situation really warrants it. But, their existence outside does keep the two parties "honest" because if BOTH parties fail to address the issues of a sizeable number of voters a third party can successfully crash the party. I just wish they'd stop whining about how "unfair" it all is in the in-between times when they DON'T have any public support. When the two parties REALLY drop the ball you WILL have that support you crave. When the "dropped ball" argument is only compelling to 2-3% then you are wrong... the major parties DIDN'T drop the ball, at least no so as anyone noticed.
The 15% rule is not a reasonable test. Any candidate that has gotten themselves on enough ballots to be able to win the electorial vote, should be allowed to debate.
I agree that it is nearly insurmountable. Still it's not indefensible. If you can't get at least 15% support you aren't running to win, only to make a point or be a spoiler. In other words you aren't a serious candidate though your political goals or "point" may be quite serious indeed. It's not unreasonable for the debate commission to limit the debate to only those candidates who are trying to win. It's not unreasonable for those candidates that are serious about actually winning to disdain and attempt to marginalize those that aren't or who are at most only trying to play the spoiler.
Being a minority and having "limited appeal" should NEVER be a reason to exclude, the US was founded on better principles than that!!!
This is the problem I have with third-parties. The two party system does NOT exclude you from exerting influence or even winning significant victories for your "party". You are only excluding YOURSELF. The time for "parties" with limited appeal to make their case is during the *primaries*. Badnarik could run in the Republican primary and with his positions win a fair number of votes, perhaps even win. At the very least he could get his delegates to the convention that would move the larger coalition closer to his position. But he doesn't want to sully hia ideologically pure self with odious compromises, "selling out." But, until we all conform to one common opinion compromise is what democratic government is all about... only dictators can govern without compromise. Third party candidates reflect in their disdain for the dirty compromises of democratic coalition building just a hint of the dictatorial, the desire to have their way and to hell with the vast majority that disagrees. They delude themselves with the illusion that "the people" deep down inside "really" agree with whatever fringe ideology the third party represents "if only they could hear our message". That just doesn't cut it, especially for the Libertarians. Libertarian (small "l") ideology is VERY well represented, widely accepted, and ably argued in our culture. It's known and understood by large numbers of voters very many of whom are even aware of the Libertarian (big "L") party... They still don't get the votes or public support as a party because even though voters ARE aware of the arguments, and the party, the voters either don't agree with them (the majority) or don't support them because they know that the Libertarians would never accept the compromises necessary to actually WIN - and those small "l" libertarians want to at least exert SOME influence. The Libertarian party's preference for uncompromising irrelevance is their undoing, not their failure to get press attention.
Slashdot Mirror
What?!? And I thought conservatives were the ones that were supposed to be ignorant of the world. Admit it, you know nothing about either foundation, you simply hear the names of capitalists dead and gone nearly 100 years ago and assume that the charitable foundations set up by them must be conservative decades later. Both are considered politically liberal.
From Philanthropy Magazine: You can find similar articles about the Rockefeller foundation. In a backhanded way the Ford, Canegie, and Rockefeller foundations ARE responsible for the rise of the Neocons though. In the '60's and 70's the massive funding to left-wing causes by these dominant foundations was a source of great irritation to conservatives (especially the Carnagie foundation since Carnegie himself had been quite conservative). In response there was a conservative foundation movement which brought about so much of the conservative political infrastructure we have today and propelled neo-conservatives into prominence. It's interesting to note that a lot of these conservative foundations self-destruct after a set number of years beyond the death of their founders, or upon the retirement of their original board of trustees... They were afraid of their foundations being hijacked by future boards of trustees that didn't share their values as happened with the Carnagie (Rockefeller, and Ford) foundations.
I dunno if the developers what worked on NeXT came with Jobs when apple took him back
The developers didn't just come over... the TOOK over. All the senior management on the technology side are former NeXT guys: Avie Tevanian (CTO for software), Jon Rubenstien (Senior VP iPod), Bertrand Serlet (Senior VP Sofware Engineering), Sina Termadon (Senior VP Applications).
At this point Apple IS NeXT... the address just changed and there are a lot more employees. Jobs got paid by the victim to carry out a hostile takeover... From the position of a part-time, temporary consultant hired to help with bringing NeXT and it's technology into Apple he managed to convince the board of directors to fire the old CEO, hire him, elect him as chairman of the board and finally step down themselves to be replaced by directors of his choosing... That reality distortion field is a powerful thing!
It's not like Bush doesn't have plenty like him.
Yes, it IS like Bush doesn't have plenty like him. Despite the conventional wisdom the BIG donors are historically Democratic. Look back through past election cycle donor demographics at opensecrets.org The bigger the contribution the more likely it is to go to democrats. Though these tables don't have it (it's elsewhere on the site) contributions under $200 tilt heavily to Republicans, contributors of over $10,000 tilt heavily to Democrats and contributors of over $1 million (a very small club) go OVERWHELMINGLY to democrats (by over 90% the past two cylces).
This cycle looks to break some of that trend. The super-rich are still coming out for the Dems (through the 527's) but the Dems are doing much better with small donors than they usually do and are almost running neck and necks... There is still a slightly more reliance on small donors on Bush's part than Kerry (32% of his money coming from this source compared to Kerry's 30% while Bush gets 36% of his support from donors that gave over $2000 as opposed to Kerry's 46%)
Can you give me an instance where my research is wrong? I rounded Browne and Naders vote in 2000 but that ended up being in Browne's favor. I said 400K but it was really 384,431 (.36%) and said Nader got 2.8 Million when the actual number was 2,882,955 (2.74%). Between the two was Buchanan who got 448,895 (.42%).
As for Badnarik's resumé his only political experience is (as I said) failed runs for Texas State Rep.
You'd think that someone that got on the state ballots of 48 states would generate at least one story on CNN.
Fair point, but I don't see any particular reason that he would get much more than one... Libertarians have been on most ballots for a couple of decades now. Andre Marrou (the Alaska state rep I was referring to) was on ALL 50 ballots... and still a complete non-entitity. And he should be! A state-rep should be running for state senate, maybe congress, not President. Ron Paul who ran in 1988 is the only candidate with any credibility and he is technically a Republican. He got to the rarified air of the U.S. Congress because the Libertarians did exactly what I think they should do... work WITHIN the two party system and get their guys nominated in Primaries.
Paul PROVES that strong libertarians can get elected at least in some (lowercase "l") libertarian enclaves but that they can't do it if they are going to sit on the sidelines in an irrelevant private club play-acting at elective politics. Badnarik probably COULD have won a republican primary in his district without any change to his positions - from there he could probably move up to state senate, then go for U.S. congress... and Ron Paul would have some company in the Congress and at some point there could be a libertarian caucus in the house with the clout to really influence things and shift our politics and our governance to the libertarian position. Instead Libertarians would rather sit out the competition and setbacks of serious politics and enjoy the empty comfort of sour-grape complaints in the comfort of their own tiny little club.
My grudge against the party is that i AM a libertarian and I'm frustrated that libertarians have sidelined themselves pursuing a third party when they have a good chance of actually wielding influence.
I was going to acknowledge the fact that Libertarians do try to actually get people elected... it's just that when they succeed in electing someone dog catcher (or don't succeed in the case of Badnarick) they think the next logical step is President.
I'm really sorry but Badnarick hardly deserves the little coverage he IS getting. He is a complete non-entity... even by Libertarian party standards. Better luck with candidate recruitment next time.
Is it that my writing was unclear or that your reading comprehension is poor?
Reread my original post and consider it my reply.
It would be Badnarik vs Nader vs Kerry vs Bush vs anyone else qualified to run.
And what would be the results? Imagine a hypothetical situation that is more than likely to see WHY our system ends up being a two party system.
1) Whoever gets a plurality in each state gets all the electoral votes... It would often be that one side or the other by chance or by design has more parties and candidates than the other. In Vermont say 10 progressive and 3 conservative and 5 moderates run. The progressives between them get 50% of the vote, the moderates split another 30% two conservatives drop out to support one who gets 20% of the vote... so which candidate gets the electoral votes that went to overwhelmingly to liberal/moderates? The conservative!
2) Throughout the states similar things happen Texas sends it's electors to the Green candidate, Massachusetts to the Libertarian, California to the Christian Coalition, Georgia to the Atheist Coalition but for the most part the majorities in each state avoid that and get results that roughly reflect the popular will. 15 candidates win electoral votes none with a majority, there are no ties. The top five vote winners with 30 (Democrat), 25 (Republican), 15 (Green), 10 (Christian Coalition) and 8 (Socialist) percent of the electoral votes are voted on by congressional delegations from each state each having one vote. The congress votes again and again but remains deadlocked, some state delegations deadlocked internally... finally after three months the South with a couple of plains states having the largest single block for the Christian Coalition candidate convinces the Republican states to support them giving the Christian Coalition party the Presidency despite winning only 10% of the electoral vote and 25% of the popular vote while between them the Socialists, Democrats and Greens won 53% of the electoral vote and 60% of the popular vote.
Our system has become and will remain a two party one because it punishes vote splitting & encourages divergent groups to combine to win an outright majority. Interests that might have formed a separate party under another system join an existing one and become a caucus within it. There is still multiple choice among the candidates of those divergent smaller "parties"... it just takes place during the primaries. This has it's disadvantages, but also it's advantages... It encourages compromise and give the final winner a firmer mandate to govern (if not a clearer mandate to do so by a particular ideology). Under the instant run-off system someone that would have voted for Kucinich, then Dean, then Braun and picked Kerry as their fourth place hasn't exactly given Kerry much of a mandate when those second, third, and fourth place votes finally put Kerry over the top. Under a two party system after Kerry has gotten that consensus vote during the primary those who only sort-of liked him before turn around and throw their FULL support to him, maybe even come to like him as the campaign progresses.
Why does this guy get all kinds of press... and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.
For three reasons, none of which requires a tinfoil hat to understand.
1) Because your second statement is simply wrong. Nader got over 7 times as many votes as the Libertarians did last election cycle. 2.8 million votes to 400K.
2) Related to the first: Because his vote was large enough to play the role of a spoiler and toss the election to Kerry. The Libertarians probably draw a little more from both parties so they're not obvious spoilers and even if they were they came in behind Buchanan who would be a more obvious spoiler on the Republican side (If Buchanan's vote had gone to Bush he would have won the popular vote)
3) Because Nader is already a well known and (formerly) respected (by liberals) national figure. Everyone knows who Nader is and what he believes in. Who the hell is Badnarik? what does he stand for? No one knows. Libertarians are a tiny, largely irrelevant party... nobody gives you much press nor SHOULD they. I don't consider it a conspiracy when the business pages give more coverage to McDonalds and Burger King but ignore Bob's Burgers at 132 Main Street. If Bob wants start a national franchise he can't just whine about how unfair it is that nobody knows who he is... he has to market himself, find funding, maybe recruit a celebrity spokesman. It's going to be tough, even if he gets funding and can compete on the same playing field with BK and McD he's going to be a distant third for a Loooong time.
I find the incessant Libertarian whining ironic. They seem to be expecting a handout rather than achieving on their own merits. Leave that to the Socialist Workers party that actually believes in that crap. Nobody owes you coverage or respect... you have to EARN it. PROVE your relevance. Show a little of that darwinian rugged individualist backbone and stop blaming others for your failures. Perhaps next time recruit a celebrity candidate (like Nader) or fabulously wealthy self-funding candidate (like Perot) that can help you to break through. Maybe focus on actually winnable local and state races to build credibility slowly. Instead of thinking a State Rep from Alaska is a credible candidate for President maybe have him run for state senate, then try for the U.S. House, then U.S. senate, or state governor... THEN for President. Running a complete unknown who's only relevant experience is losing a race for state rep. doesn't earn you the right to complain about not being taken seriously. In fact I think it gives the rest of us the right to complain that the LIBERTARIANS aren't taking this seriously.
oops, I didn't finish the sentence about the 1960 election... I meant to say something to the effect of ...political machines have long lives. There is STILL a mayor Daley ruling over Cook County Illinois.
Yes I do.
1998 Florida Mayoral race overturned because of massive voter fraud. This is only the most recent of a half dozen cases in Florida some of which resulted in convictions and/or invalidated elections. Lots of funs stuff... Deceased voters, vote buying, non-resident voters, ballot switching - the whole nine yards. (Gee I wonder if THAT could possibly explain the "intimidating" presence of Republican poll watchers and an attempt to purge the rolls of deceased, illegal and non-resident voters? NO it MUST be "suppression"). As it turns our there WERE still dead people that voted in 2000. The Miami Herald found André Alismé who died in 1997 among 144 other illegal voters after investigating only about a sixth of the precincts in Miami.
Forged absentee ballots in S. Dakota in 2002
Apparently some of the Democratic voting dead vote in primaries too.
Deceased voters still making it to the polls
Of course the 1960 Presidential election... Long past history but memories are long and political
And there is plenty of proof that this year may be a high-water mark for fraud... Fictional people registered to vote
Tons of registrations accumulated over months including many fraudulent ones with fictional names, dozens of the same name, forged signatures, dead people etc. all dumped on the county offices at the last minute to overload the checks to prevent fraud in Pennsylvania, Florida (and here), Colorado, Texas.
Yes, from the DNC press release Drudge had the PDF as well but it's not on his home page anymore.
two white guys in suits standing around watching everyone? sounds like cops or something.
I'm sorry but two guys standing around isn't intimidation, sorry. Even two guys that occasionally make a nuisance of themselves protesting to an election officer because of perceived or real irregularities. That is the purpose of a poll watcher after all, and poll watchers are an important feature of the system, they are a big part of ensuring honest elections conducted openly that both sides can trust.
Even if we take it on Democratic assurances that minority voters are so fragile that the mere presence of a handful of white people is debilitating (as incredible as I find that) the "intimidation" is inadvertent. Also, there is only so far we can go to accommodate such paranoia - we can't move to a system of private partisan polling places, run by, used, and observed by the members of only one party. I live in Republican enclave in an otherwise blue-collar Democratic area, I don't object at all to the union poll watchers... even though the unions have occasionally been rather "hardball" in their political tactics and there HAVE been a few cases (in a recent Democratic primary in the next town) of voting being disrupted by some of their more zealous members doing things they weren't supposed to. Sure, we could complain about "intimidation" by union thugs, but as a general principle unless they DO something illegal their mere presense even if it's intimidating is something I'll just have to suck up and tolerate.
Even if fraud didn't exist (and it does) an unaccountable system carried on behind closed doors would undermine the legitimacy of the outcome. It's EXACTLY the same kind of problem with the stupid electronic voting with no paper trail. From the standpoint of one side or the other being told that you can't see what happens in an extremely partisan polling station is suspicious.
Responding to my own post, but I read some more of the DNC manual and it confirms my thesis.
One of the things they cite as "voter intimidation" is the presence of Republican poll watchers in minority precincts! Of course that is where Republican poll watchers WOULD be, they aren't worried about fraud in their own precincts but in the Democratic ones. I'm really not sure that black voters are intimidated anymore by the presence of one or two white guys in a black neighborhood. If I had to guess I would suspect it's the white guys who feel a little intimidated. There have been instances where Republican poll watchers have been harassed because of the hostility engendered by the "intimidation" charge. When poll watchers are intimidated into leaving the polling place or even expelled their suspicions are that they were driven away because there was something going on that the Democrats didn't want them to see.
While I think the death penalty may be a bit extreme I agree that these guys should face severe punishment.
Of course the guys over at ACORN should face the same punishment for the exact same crime (among others).
The one really good thing I see coming from this is that now that a Republican has been caught doing this the problem which is becoming an epidemic is finally getting some media attention. I don't know if it's bias or if reporters just expect this kind of thing from Unions and big city political machines (sort of dog bites man... not really "news") but after a series of almost identical stories of voter registration fraud that never made it beyond local TV, newspapers and a few conservative magazines and web sites this one instance is finally making the national news.
Oh bullshit. Publically denouncing known tactics that republicans use is a hell of a lot different then claiming they happened.
Let me illustrate:
Regarding Mr. GodHead let me just say that I denounce wife beating. Domestic violence is a serious matter and I think we should all watch Mr. GodHead to make sure he doesn't engage in it. Mr. GodHead is a married man and the vast majority of wife-beatings have been committed by married men much like Mr. GodHead. He proclaims his innocence and while it is true we have seen no signs of wrongdoing YET... we remain VERY worried about the health and safety of Mrs. GodHead.
But aren't you glad I didn't claim you had done anything wrong?
+4 Insightful? How about -1 "low reading comprehension".
It's the DEMOCRATS charging "voter intimidation" and the accusation is that they intend to raise the hue and cry when the HAVEN'T (yet) experienced it.
That isn't an unreasonable interpretation of what the manual is advising as a practical matter. It says ""If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike," and then urges a P.R. offensive which would include getting civil rights leaders to denounce tactics of which there are "NO SIGNS" - that sounds to me like "complain about voter intimidation even though there are "no signs" that it exists.
Republicans and Democrats don't trust each other for good reason. Republicans think that Democrats stuff the ballot box with fraudulent votes... dead people, illegal aliens, people voting in multiple times in different jurisdictions etc. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
Democrats for their part think that Republicans try to suppress turnout. For instance by putting out false information about voting requirements and locations and excessive challenges to the validity of voters. THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO THIS.
The two types of bad behavior have a certain synergy... Everything that Republicans do about their legitimate fear of fraud is seen as further instances confirming Democrats legitimate fear of suppression and vice versa. For instance: Republicans convinced there is fraud going on (which is often true) are excessive in their efforts to purge the polls, those challenges are seen by Democrats as intimidation (which it often is), the more Democrats complain and insist on laws that prevent purging the rolls the more Republicans are convinced that the fix is in. Around and around it goes.
...and have it ingrained in their minds that we have a two party system
That's because we DO have a two party system. Sure you can run as a third party, but as long as are system requires you to get a majority of the votes you will never win. Any sizable body of opinion will be incorporated within one of the major parties which are in reality coalitions of many smaller blocks... "third parties" that can just barely get along together and agree on the broadest of general principles to hold together and get that one vote above 50% they need to win.
Third parties are all about ideological purity and refusal to compromise... they make for nice statements but never for democratic governance. The two party system has a place for multiple candidates many of them pure and uncompromising in the ideology. That place is the primaries - there was a LOT of variety and plenty of candidates for everyone this election and the last one. There were 10 candidates running for President this time, last time there were 11... What we are having now is really something like a run-off election in a multi-party system. And the parties themselves are something like two potential coalition governments in a parliamentary system (though the final government may not reflect the entire coalition because the President himself wins and then gets to pick his cabinet, not like a Parliamentary system at all... but that is probably a feature.)
This has been discussed on conservative blogs too... Pose as a Nader voter, get some Democrat to switch his vote to Nader... bingo! One less vote for Kerry.
Of course it doesn't help for two reasons. The "Kerry" voter they are swapping with will vote for Kerry anyway, and even if he doesn't it's just one less Kerry vote in a "safe" state.
No offense, but that guy's site screams chickenhawk.
/. story. You may have to click through twice, once through his list -> to his summary/commentary -> to the original news story from a legitimate news source.
Hawk, yes... I have no idea from looking at it that he never served in the military so I don't see how you can prefix that with "chicken.."
Your main point remains valid, he IS a biased source. HOWEVER if you click through most of his stories have links to local papers, local network affiliate news casts, a few larger regional papers etc. He has stories from plenty of sources that are as reliable (or not) as the one that prompted this
I also have to say it's rather unfair, and silly for people to moderate the parent poster as flamebait when he is linking to a page that at least arguably answers the QUESTION that was moderated at +5 Insightful.
oops... first line should read "...but not DEMOCRATIC forms..."
That's what I get for just skimming the preview
Can anyone reply to my post with a corresponding list of things Dems have done?
Sure:
-Republican forms get tossed in the trash but not Republican forms...
- Democratic registration for completely fictional people...
- Fraudulent, forged Democratic registrations as well dumping a full years worth of paperwork on the registrars lap in the last minute to ensure they weren't looked at and INTENTIONALLY putting down false information for Republicans or simply not turning them in.
- Texas Democrats who Gerrymandered in their redistricting efforts... (The recent successful Republican effort was tit for tat revenge for the 1990 redistricting that The Almanac for American Politics called "The most partisan redistricting in the '90 cycle in the nation." and "the shrewdest gerrymander" of it's time. A gerrymander that resulted in a house delegation that was 17 to 15 Democratic despite 56% of the voters at the polls voting for a Republican congressman.
- CBS (as partisan as Sinclair or Fox) doing it's traditional 60 Minutes week-before-the-election hit piece early this year using obvious forgeries and giving the Kerry campaign advanced notice so they could exploit it with their operation "Fortunate Son"
-Florida 1998 -- Massive voter fraud uncovered that eventually leads to the election being overturned. The efforts during the next cycle (2000) all efforts to prevent fraud demagogued as "disenfranchising black voters" by the EXACT same people who had perpetuated the fraud.
1: He isn't a career politician.
He is now.
2: The pro-choice stance would be quashed by the religious right.
Opposition is part of democracy. It's your job to try and win, not give up without trying because your opponents don't just lie down for you. If he can't muster enough support to at least make a good showing in a low turnout election against a field crowded with pro-lifers dividing that vote his support is pitiful and he shouldn't bother with the charade.
3: The current "starve the beast" mentality in the RNC wouldn't fit at all with the hallmark of libertarians, (L) or (l).
Why not? It is a tactic to achieve a libertarian end (smaller government), through a libertarian means (lower taxes). Seems like the ultimate libertarian policy. It's not a deficit hawk's policy but there are plenty of libertarians that aren't deficit hawks, some that are explicitly against deficit hawks because they see deficits as having a useful political side-effect related to "starving the beast"... It's a built in argument to oppose any government program. (Granted most would want the deficit to be a reasonable fraction of gross GDP.)
Like you I believe that MANY people have (l) views and if enough (L) vote for Badnarik and potentially cost Bush the race, maybe the RNC will wake up
One of the fundamental rules of politics is you take what you can get when you can get it because you never know what the future holds. Intentionally going down to defeat to set the stage for some future victory almost always backfires. Who knows what policies the Presidency of an unreconstructed statist liberal like Kerry would bring... once you go down the path of entitlement spending going back is utterly impossible. Also, who knows what chances you will have to defeat him next time?
You have to be in one of the two parties to go to the primaries at all.
Not in most states. I'm a registered independent, I can vote in EITHER primary in my state.
Have you seen a primary at work in recent years?
Yes.
Do you really think a lot of decision making goes on there anymore?
Yes, of course there is. see below
Please, come up with a better reason why a two party system is good for Americans than the bald fact that it restricts our choices to two.
Because it DOESN'T. In this past primary a choice was made between a Pro-war, pro-isreali hawk (Lieberman), an extremist black "civil rights' leader (Sharpton), a more moderately toned black liberal (Braun), an ardent trade unionist (Gephardt), a southern populist (Edwards), an anti-war candidate who was otherwise moderate (Dean), an anti-war candidate who was otherwise leftist (Kucinich), an anti-war candidate with strong military background though something of a cipher on other issues (Clarke), and a northeastern liberal with an anti-war history but an ambivalent position on the current war (Kerry), and an idiosyncratic right(ish)-wing nut job (perennial candidate LaRouche.. hey, it's a choice). The northeastern liberal with the ambivalent position on the war won but must now move on to meet another consensus candidate with broad appeal.
The Republican primary went by acclamation to the consensus winner from the last time. This winning by default is NOT guaranteed... there have been many challenges to incumbents when there is a large disaffected constituency. I'm a little surprised that there was no challenge from the isolationist paleo-cons. The fact that there wasn't reveals their electoral weakness. That earlier choice four years ago was made between a black social-conservative extremist (Keyes), a religious-right leader (Bauer), a center-right Mormon (Hatch), a "maverick" Republican running on electoral reform (McCain), a libertarian businessman (Forbes), a center-right governor (Alexander), a moderate (Dole), a social conservative (Quayle), a rather generic conservative (Kasich) and finally a "compassionate" conservative (Bush)
The choices between these dozens of candidates were real decisions made democratically by the voters. They are made in a series of rolling elections that allow for unknowns to win support in small early states and for front-runners to stumble. There is as wide a range of choices as any third-party candidate envisions for the general election but in a way that finally results in two consensus candidates with broad (if not deep) appeal to a wide variety of people and a chance of winning the support of the majority of their countrymen.
Think of the general election as the run-off between these top two contenders from a chaotic clash of dozens of third "parties" which constitute the two larger "major" coalition parties. Inserting minor candidates into this later "run-off" instead of having them participate in the earlier multi-candidate elections doesn't have much utility. Sure the multi-candidate primary within larger parties followed by a two-candidate general election isn't necessarily what a poli-sci professor would work up on paper for a "perfect' system... but it works pretty well, probably because it evolved organically over time rather than being designed by a poli-sci professor. In itself it achieves what you claim to desire, a wide array of choices. The whining of third-parties that refuse to participate in the earlier multi-candidate primary elections is the sour-grapes of losers who don't have the popular support to win, or even have much impact and prefer delusions blaming their lack of support to "unfairness" rather than the simple fact that their views just aren't popular.
Last I checked, the Whigs aren't on the ballot. This is what pushing a third party is really about, is trying to unseat one of the major 2.
BINGO! this is the ONLY legitimate purpose I see for third parties in our system. They exist at the fringes and can only come to the forefront if the two major parties both refuse to engage an issue of vital importance. The Whigs were wiped out because the Whigs and the Democrats both refused to engage the issue of abolishing slavery. The Republicans did and supplanted the Whigs.
Failing that, if a third party can capture enough of the vote to get the attention of one of the major parties, it might just effect policy a bit.
Sometimes the result of this is more negative than positive, and mildly anti-democratic to boot. The only hope a third party has is to play the spoiler in one election and force the major party that loses on account to shift their way in the next one. Not entirely illegitimate but risky and as likely to backfire in a result that is not only anti-democratic (by letting the candidate from the less popular viewpoint win) but also fails to accomplish any movement towards the third-parties goal.
In general I think third-parties are fine on the fringes, I wish they would engage in serious politics within one (or possibly even both) political parties and only bolt when the situation really warrants it. But, their existence outside does keep the two parties "honest" because if BOTH parties fail to address the issues of a sizeable number of voters a third party can successfully crash the party. I just wish they'd stop whining about how "unfair" it all is in the in-between times when they DON'T have any public support. When the two parties REALLY drop the ball you WILL have that support you crave. When the "dropped ball" argument is only compelling to 2-3% then you are wrong... the major parties DIDN'T drop the ball, at least no so as anyone noticed.
The 15% rule is not a reasonable test. Any candidate that has gotten themselves on enough ballots to be able to win the electorial vote, should be allowed to debate.
I agree that it is nearly insurmountable. Still it's not indefensible. If you can't get at least 15% support you aren't running to win, only to make a point or be a spoiler. In other words you aren't a serious candidate though your political goals or "point" may be quite serious indeed. It's not unreasonable for the debate commission to limit the debate to only those candidates who are trying to win. It's not unreasonable for those candidates that are serious about actually winning to disdain and attempt to marginalize those that aren't or who are at most only trying to play the spoiler.
Being a minority and having "limited appeal" should NEVER be a reason to exclude, the US was founded on better principles than that!!!
This is the problem I have with third-parties. The two party system does NOT exclude you from exerting influence or even winning significant victories for your "party". You are only excluding YOURSELF. The time for "parties" with limited appeal to make their case is during the *primaries*. Badnarik could run in the Republican primary and with his positions win a fair number of votes, perhaps even win. At the very least he could get his delegates to the convention that would move the larger coalition closer to his position. But he doesn't want to sully hia ideologically pure self with odious compromises, "selling out." But, until we all conform to one common opinion compromise is what democratic government is all about... only dictators can govern without compromise. Third party candidates reflect in their disdain for the dirty compromises of democratic coalition building just a hint of the dictatorial, the desire to have their way and to hell with the vast majority that disagrees. They delude themselves with the illusion that "the people" deep down inside "really" agree with whatever fringe ideology the third party represents "if only they could hear our message". That just doesn't cut it, especially for the Libertarians. Libertarian (small "l") ideology is VERY well represented, widely accepted, and ably argued in our culture. It's known and understood by large numbers of voters very many of whom are even aware of the Libertarian (big "L") party... They still don't get the votes or public support as a party because even though voters ARE aware of the arguments, and the party, the voters either don't agree with them (the majority) or don't support them because they know that the Libertarians would never accept the compromises necessary to actually WIN - and those small "l" libertarians want to at least exert SOME influence. The Libertarian party's preference for uncompromising irrelevance is their undoing, not their failure to get press attention.