Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Democracy Now Asks Third Party Candidates Questions From Last Night's Debate

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the third-party-circus dept.

Politics 257

As they did with the first debate, Democracy Now has published the debate questions answered by third party candidates. Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Constitution), and Rocky Anderson (Justice) were present. There's a (long) video with the answers spliced in, and (thankfully) a transcript of all their answers. Gary Johnson was not present, but you can catch him debating Jill Stein Thursday October 18th at 7 p.m. EDT.

cancel ×

257 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (4, Informative)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 years ago | (#41684657)

FWIW, Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (the other parties are noted in the opening paragraph)

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1, Troll)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41684671)

I thought the Libertarian candidate was Mitt Romney.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684815)

Mittens respects neither freedom nor responsibility.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#41684853)

I thought the Libertarian candidate was Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is a conservative. Conservatism has three pillars:
1. Economic conservatism (low taxes and free markets)
2. Social conservatism (public religion, opposition to abortion)
3. National defense conservatism (high defense spending)
Libertarians only agree with Mitt on #1.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685227)

Mitt Romney is NOT a Conservative. True Conservatives believe in a small federal government and not in croney capitalism.

George W Bush, John McCain, Alan Simpson, Richard Lugar, etc are NOT Conservatives. They are Rockefeller Republicans.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (3, Informative)

wstrucke (876891) | about 2 years ago | (#41685363)

Mitt might claim to be an economic conservative, but I do not see it.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41685627)

Conservative: Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684875)

You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41684887)

Mitt Romney is the crony capitalist candidate. So is Barack Obama. Two parties, one agenda.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41684981)

yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.

don't know about you, but for me, that's a total and complete show-stopper. keep your religion to yourself. do what you want with your family and church, but it HAS to stay out of public laws.

given a choice, I cannot accept even any hint of an american taliban.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685061)

insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.
 
Care to cite? Sounds like you're fearmongering to me.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41685087)

yes, but one is extra-Christy (long-i vowel) and insists that you also have to subscribe to his party's belief system.

Perhaps, if you take what Romney says at face value. But that would be silly. Romney says whatever it takes to get elected, and he's banking on the evangelical vote. Judge him by his record, and he's pretty much the same as Obama.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685271)

If you think Romney is courting the evangelical vote you don't understand either Romney's platform or evangelists' feelings about his religion.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41685345)

I'm not sure Romney understands Romney's platform.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685607)

Yeah, but they'll vote for him anyway.

Evangelicals are an extra-brainwashed xtianity sect with a near zero grip on reality. Complete abdication of free will. Their cult leaders will tell them how to vote once the checks have cleared, and they will all vote for Romney.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#41685531)

But Romney would be beholden to that wing of the party for future votes and for money for his re-election. So you can be sure he'd give them what they want if he could at all swing it. Better be safe and not have the religious extremists control the presidency.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41684963)

I thought the Libertarian candidate was Mitt Romney.

I thought that the Libertarian candidate was so anti-government, that he wasn't even running for government.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685007)

No, that would be the Green Party candidate. Libertarians have no problem with a functioning government.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685315)

>Libertarians have no problem with a functioning government.

Not true for those libertarians who are anarchocapitalist. They want to replace all governments with private service providers (e.g. private arbitrators and security guards).

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41685555)

Yes, some Libertarians take things too far. So do other people in the other ideological swamps. Nothing new.

For me with the Libertarians it's their wide open border stance. They honestly think that would work. It's mind boggling.

It's all just bullshit anyway. The power structure uses these ideologies like the Pied Piper used his music. Obama, Romney, all of them. They don't really care. They don't have to.

FFS, (just to pick one example) Obama has let slip more than any politician I can recall in years that even the NSA supercomputers cannot calculate the number of fucks he doesn't give, yet half the country still slavishly supports him, and thinks he's going to deliver them to some Nirvana of some sort- free from all suffering and, I dunno, rainbows and ponies or something.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#41685579)

With a few exceptions, most of the Libertarians I've known have been anarchists, with a nod to maybe having a court system- but that could be privatized too. So yes, they most definitely have a problem with a government.

I'd also point out that any government as small and powerless as the libertarians want would be useless, hamstrung, and by no means functioning. But I'll avoid the argument as libertarianism is more of a religion than a political party, they just won't listen if it doesn't fit their worldview.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41685065)

And THAT is why you are crazy JJ.

Neither Mitt nor Obama have any concept of a Libertarian.
Heck, the average republican or dem have no concept of it.

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41685599)

Oh, the politicians know exactly what Libertarianism is. If playing that tune got them votes, they'd play it, loud and proud.

Stop thinking these guys are ignorant. That makes them happy. :-P

Re:Gary Johnson = Libertarian candidate (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41685409)

Please say you're joking. Seeing Romney as Libertarian puts you to the Left of, well, the whole planet. ;-)

And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (1, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41684663)

Will no gentleman stand forward to represent the people on the slavery issue?!?

Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | about 2 years ago | (#41684819)

Funny you should ask... [wikipedia.org]

Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41684867)

No. This discussion has been tabled under the Pinckney Resolutions. Please return to your seat.

Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (5, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41684971)

Will no gentleman stand forward to represent the people on the slavery issue?!?

Gentlemen? Jill Stein is no gentleman, she was arrested last night for trespassing at the debate.

She's getting my vote, and I didn't even RTFA. Obama will win in a landslide here in Illinois, so a vote for either him or Romney is wasted here. Rather than wasting my vote, I intend to vote for a candidate who doesn't want to put my friends and family in prison for pot. I choose her over the Libertarian, because the Libertarians stupidly think you can have a clean environment without environmental regulations, and I'm old enough to know what it was like before the EPA (So does Ron Paul, which makes me think he's either an idiot or in bed with the polluters).

As to the slavery issue... which one?

Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (0)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41685021)

If you want a more interesting (or at least a more weird) presidential debate, look at this one:

For voters having trouble getting enthusiastic about Obama and/or Romney, the Schiff Show is featuring a panel of overlooked presidential candidates. Participants include: Vermin Supreme, presidential candidate on the Free Pony Party ticket; Jimmy McMillan, presidential candidate on the Rent Is Too Damn High Party ticket; Santa Claus, independent write-in candidate, and Edgar Lawson, write-in Republican presidential candidate.

Here is the debate, it starts at minute 40 [noxsolutions.com] (there are a few technical difficulties alone the way, but they solve them).

Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41685039)

It's the THIRD PARTY debates. Better question would be "Why were there three candidates there and a fourth one mentioned, and which one was the one true third party that was supposed to be there?"

Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 2 years ago | (#41685463)

Will no gentleman stand forward to represent the people on the slavery issue?!?

Certainly nobody from the Whig party will. It was an inability to take stand on slavery that caused the Whig party's dissolution and replacement by the Republican party.

Re:And why weren't the Whigs represented?!? (1)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#41685549)

If by "the people" you mean people in favor of slavery, then some Republicans have you covered:

State Rep. Loy Mauch (R-Bismarck)
In two letters, Mauch wrote about the Bible and slavery. The Arkansas Times quotes from a letter Mauch wrote in 2009:

"If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?"

State Rep. Jon Hubbard (R-Jonesboro)

“But I think the end result -- that they [African-Americans] did get to live in America, although the means for getting here were terrible -- I think the end result was better than it would have been if they had to live in Africa themselves.”

Tip of the hat to Keef of the K-Chronicles ( http://www.kchronicles.com/ [kchronicles.com] ) for these and to the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ [huffingtonpost.com] for the quotations and background.

A good step, but not that effective... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684681)

The unfortunate part of these 3rd party debates is that people who are wanting to consider a third party candidate have probably already made up their mind, and probably already know the answers to the the questions that are going to be asked of their candidate. Gary Johnson not apearing is irrelevant when pretty much any of his followers know how he would answer them anyway.

I'm not saying these debates are bad, and I'm already planning on voting 3rd party (so it's not a wasted vote argument,) I just think we need more messages targeted at people who DON'T already know the 3rd parties and candidates.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (1)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#41684771)

Exactly, only people who already support them will watch or read. They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (1)

nigelo (30096) | about 2 years ago | (#41684817)

So, how does that work?

Why were they not included in (the) other debates?

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41684865)

Because the Commision on Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrats and Republicans.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (4, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41684933)

Democracty NOW! covered that topic [democracynow.org] as well.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41684943)

They've made up a few excuses, such as you need X% in a major poll where X is always > whatever they've been polled at.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (3, Informative)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41685625)

Many third party candidates are not included or are rarely included on the polls. You can't poll at X% if you are not included on the polls (unless X = 0). I believe right now X = 15.

Well, Ralph Nader tried. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684969)

Nader Sues Debate Commission [washingtonpost.com]

And all he got was a hollow apology. [gp.org]

When I see the debates, I see two very wealthy narcissist Harvard Law graduates who have absolutely no interest in representing the American people and they don't have to because the people play along with this Democrat vs. Republican pseudo conflict. And those of us who vote third party are condescended to and told "we're throwing our vote away."

I'm tired of the argument and I don't bother anymore. But my attitude is, "Fuck you, It's my vote to throw away."

Re:Well, Ralph Nader tried. (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 2 years ago | (#41685213)

Start small and ask for IRV to be implemented at your city level (or another voting system better suited for democracy than first past the post - which covers a lot of options you know). Then try for county level. Eventually adoption (and education) may reach a point when people can actually pressure the national level into adoption.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#41685027)

They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.

When third party candidates are given a chance to participate, their support usually goes down. The reason is that they are a bunch of ideologues, and don't have good answers to real world issues. There was a debate a while back here in California, and the Libertarian candidate spent most of his time talking about the "ferret ban". He felt that the state impinging on his right to import invasive species was more important than jobs, the state's debt, or any other issue that actually matters to the voters. This was really depressing to me, because I probably lean more Libertarian than anything else, and I was eager to hear his proposals.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (2)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 2 years ago | (#41685097)

Exactly, only people who already support them will watch or read. They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.

Tragic or not, it's more or less mathematically dictated in a first past the post voting system. Read Wikipedia (and its references) for a technical explanation, but I've found these videos [cgpgrey.com] by C. G. P. Grey to be excellent for educating people from all sorts of backgrounds.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41684843)

The point of these things is to draw attention to the fact that the CPD excludes many candidates from the "official" debates. It may be futile, but shouting "HEY WE'RE HERE!" is about all we can really do.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 2 years ago | (#41685147)

It was telling in this morning's headlines (not the top of the page headlines of course) that Jill Stein had to be described as a presidential candidate in relation to her arrest last night.

Re:A good step, but not that effective... (1, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41685203)

There's also the winner-take-all voting system which makes anything more than two parties pointless, if you're going to start listing reasons why this was a waste of time.

If you're libertarian or green, I'll listen to your arguments about policy changes we should make with an open mind even though I don't identify with those positions usually. If you're trying to pitch why you should get elected, but seem unable to grasp the realities of the election process as they are in this country, however, I really question anything that comes out of your mouth.

Fine but not quite the same ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41684687)

This is good and all but its not quite the same. There is no "surprise" or real time response. I'm sure Obama and Romney could provide much better answers in writing the next morning. Still, its better than nothing.

Re:Fine but not quite the same ... (2)

wstrucke (876891) | about 2 years ago | (#41684749)

Sounds like you missed the whole point.

Re:Fine but not quite the same ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#41684995)

Sounds like you missed the whole point.

Or maybe I wanted to only comment on a different point, the problem one has if they compare Obama and Romney's responses to the 3rd party candidate responses.

The exclusion of third party candidates and various other points do not need to be brought up in every post do they?

Re:Fine but not quite the same ... (1)

ItsJustAPseudonym (1259172) | about 2 years ago | (#41685471)

The exclusion of third party candidates and various other points do not need to be brought up in every post do they?

True. It is also worth explaining that the Democracy Now extended-town-meeting had to be scheduled for the next day -- instead of being "nearly live" -- because the Green Party's Jill Stein got herself arrested while trying to enter the actual debate.

The first extended-presidential-debate was very interesting, and was "nearly live". However, it also had the disparity that Obama and Romney could not hear and rebut the other participants. It was nevertheless quite informative, and made the debate worth watching.

Re:Fine but not quite the same ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684921)

He thinks the questions they ask Obama and Romney aren't known to them and prepared for well in advance. How precious.

Re:Fine but not quite the same ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685057)

He thinks the questions they ask Obama and Romney aren't known to them and prepared for well in advance. How precious.

The candidates can make educated guesses as to what topics will probably arise but they are not given the questions in advance.

Your tin foil hat seems a little tight, you may want to loosen it to increase blood flow to the brain.

Third party candidates have the benefit ... (1)

linuxguy (98493) | about 2 years ago | (#41684701)

Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.

Not that it really matters. We all know that none of the third party candidates will come close to getting even 5% of the votes.

Re:Third party candidates have the benefit ... (2, Insightful)

wstrucke (876891) | about 2 years ago | (#41684773)

They won't because the system is rigged against them. It's a catch-22 - - they can not get enough votes to make the average person think they should be included and since they aren't included or given any coverage throughout the political season they can't get any votes.

Re:Third party candidates have the benefit ... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41685331)

Ron Paul obviously suffered the same fate even though he wasn't running third party, as did Dennis Kucinich. Thus, I'd argue it's not a problem specifically for third party candidates, it's a problem for candidates who don't pander to voters and tell them what they want to hear.

Re:Third party candidates have the benefit ... (4, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41685033)

Third party candidates have the benefit of knowing what the questions are and are able to give prepared answers.

You don't seem to understand just how badly this debate process has been subverted. From Democracy NOW! [democracynow.org] :

"The town hall debate we’re going to see tonight is the most constrained and regulated town hall debate in presidential debate history. The first town hall debate was introduced in 1992, and no one knew what anyone was going to ask, none of the audience members were going to ask. The moderator could ask any follow-up questions. It was exciting, and it was real.

Well, President George H.W. Bush stumbled in response to an oddly worded question about the federal deficit, and the candidates—the campaigns have panicked and have attempted to avoid that kind of situation from happening again. In 1996, they abolished follow-up questions from the audience.

In 2004, they began requiring that every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance on an index card to the moderator, who can then throw out the ones he or she does not like. And that’s why the audience has essentially been reduced, in some ways, to props, because the moderator is still ultimately asking the questions.

And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She’s essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone." -- George Farrah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.

It's a goddamn circus, and an obvious one at that. anyone who can't see the forest for the trees in this situation, is probably one of the clowns.

Re:Third party candidates have the benefit ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685223)

None of the third party candidates will win, but there is a good chance that Gary Johnson will get more than 5% of the national vote.

Re:Third party candidates have the benefit ... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41685413)

Well, the Republicrats could have solved that by simply inviting the parties on enough ballots to win to their debate.

The real truth comes out (1)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41684787)

when you know you haven't got a chance in hell in getting elected. Special interests and corporations don't pay for Truths, they only pay for their Agendas.

United States calls it self a democracy. (2, Insightful)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41684801)

Yet only candidates approved by the majority parties are allowed in the real debates. Stay classy.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684833)

Anybody can vote in the party primary, why didn't you? It's de facto a two-stage runoff system.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41684885)

I think you responded to wrong message.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684993)

"Real debates" were started by the two parties that allowed in and they have provisions that others would be under other circumstances. Thought that was quite sporting of them.

The other parties are more than welcome to start their own debates and choose to include or exclude the two larger parties.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (2)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41685157)

"Real debates" were started by the two parties that allowed in and they have provisions that others would be under other circumstances. Thought that was quite sporting of them.

Third party candidates need to have level playing field with the big leaguers to appear viable to be able to get some real traction in the first place. Something like 1,5% support should be enough to have you included but because the big debates are controlled by the majority parties its rigged at 15% meaning the majority parties effectively shut down the competition by controlling the rules.

The other parties are more than welcome to start their own debates and choose to include or exclude the two larger parties.

1. They are trying but because, you know, they are lacking the big players they cant get enough attention in the first place. 2. the big parties DO NOT WANT TO participate in third party debates because it would legitimize them as real competition, ie. give third party national spotlight moments, rendering the rigged debates pointless.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41685207)

.... Why am I getting modded down? I am trying to start serious on-topic discussion here with what in my opinion are valid points, If you disagree please do it throught an argument with your name on it and stop hiding behind modding options.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41685279)

Yep. And that's the way it should be. I like it when the farthest right the wingnuts will go is to photograph themselves at a fried chicken restaurant, and the farthest left the loonies will go is to maybe-kinda-suggest that investment income should be counted as normal income.

Change comes, but slowly and in a stable way. And that is a good thing. Multiparty systems can go screw themselves.

There, I've poked the sacred cow. Flame away, Slashdot.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41685461)

Yes, places like switzerland are really the epitome of unstability and places like Syria, Saddams Iraq, Gaddafis Libya, USSR, Nazi-Germany and the like are really the places after which you should model your political system by. (now, I regonize those are some pretty extreme examples and that US is actually a bi-party and not single-party state but when those 2 parties actively act to keep the competition stomped down the net effect is the same; the ones in power get to decide what gets done because if you screw you over theres noone else to vote for.)

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41685477)

*If they screw you over

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41685415)

Perot was allowed in, got 19% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. So one could say that history proves that's of little consequence, especially when the "approval" process, the primary, is itself an open, democratic process.

Speaking of the electoral college, that DOES make the democracy thing a joke.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41685565)

... I'm not american so I'm not all that familiar with your system, but are you saying that if Perot had got over 50% of the popular vote he still wouldnt have won?

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685425)

I don't know what you are getting at. Anyone can have any sort of debate they want. you can't force the front runners to attend it though. Freedom's messy and it doesn't always provide the optimal solution. Unless your solution would be some sort of quasi government body with the power to compel citizen candidates to travel to a certain location and under cameras and spotlights answer a series of questions under duress for an hour and a half (sounds more like an interrogation to me)... this is what we'll get.

Re:United States calls it self a democracy. (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41685521)

I don't know what you are getting at. Anyone can have any sort of debate they want. you can't force the front runners to attend it though..

Appearantly you didn't read the message. I wasnt advocating forcing the big players attend small game debates but actually let other real candidates in the big debates in order to show their viability against the front runners to get some real traction(by winning the debate) to give the front runners a run for their money.

FRIST PSOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684839)

amirite?

Care-o-meter [\......] (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41684935)

Joke candidates from fringe parties supported only by people who are 7-layer fruitcakes. Who cares?

MOD THIS SHITS UP!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685107)


 

the problem with 3rd party presidental candidates (4, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | about 2 years ago | (#41685029)

Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.

Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.

If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.

This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed

Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41685181)

The greens are starting at the bottom. There have been 136 green party members elected to local office, 3 elected to state offices (all no longer serving), and 0 elected to federal offices.

Participation in the presidential election builds name recognition and motivation for the party, improving their chances at lower offices even if the presidency is hopeless.

Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (3, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 2 years ago | (#41685299)

Why do the parties always go for the big prize? It's like a high school student wanting to become the CEO of IBM immediately after graduating.

Gary Johnson was already governor of New Mexico for two terms.

Even if they do win, then what? they will have zero support from either of the parties that dominate the congress.

Maybe that would be a good thing. Gary Johnson vetoed more bills in his 2 terms as governor than all other governors combined. We don't need tens of thousands of pages of new laws every year.

If a 3rd party wants to be taken seriously start at the bottom. city councilor, mayor, state senator, work your way up, then people will see what you really believe in and have a track record... and while you are at it get more of "your party" elected to those roles as well.

The Libertarian Party has done exactly that: http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials [lp.org]

This is one case of "go big or go home" doesn't work, it just means you are going home empty handed

No, it doesn't mean that at all. In Michigan, if the top of the ticket gets 5% or more, then they get major party status, which means they don't need to waste money trying to get on the ballot the next time around. It helps to build momentum in that you're not wasting money, time & energy on something you had to do previously.

Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685361)

Gary Johnson was already governor of New Mexico for two terms.

Yes, and he got there as a Republican, not with the LP.

Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685513)

It's for marketing purposes. Small parties know they have no chance of winning the presidency, but participating in elections makes the candidate better known. You do know they participate in other elections as well, right?

Re:the problem with 3rd party presidental candidat (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41685611)

There are a lot of countries with multi-party systems that actually work. If your reprentatives put their party affiliations ahead of the good of the country perhaps you should consider changing your presentatives.

Stupid questions (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41685031)

I watched this debate, and none of the questions were even worth answering. Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one mention of science. Not one question addressed the regulatory capture of just about every government agency. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis. Absolutely no worthwhile questions were asked, and no worthwhile answers were given.

Re:Stupid questions (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#41685219)

And stupid answers, even by the so-called fringe candidates.

"End illegal immigration!"
"Fuck Wall Street"

Lots of good discourse there.

Re:Stupid questions (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41685367)

Thats because the debates and the rules are literally set up by the majorty parties meaning they can choose to skirt around any inconvenient topic if they want to. linky [wikipedia.org] (The first sentence of the article tells you everything you need to know.) They can regurgitate their party talking points as much as they want because theres noone present to call them both out on it.

Re:Stupid questions (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41685597)

Maybe we should take a hint from Pizza Hut. Crowd source a bounty for any individual in a town hall debate that asks why third party candidates aren't allowed in debates. Pizza Hut was offering $15K for anyone who asked "pepperoni or sausage" during the Town Hall debate. I bet the internet could beat that for a question of real importance.

Re:Stupid questions (0)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 years ago | (#41685437)

I have to say, my own personal wedge issue is ethics.

People say lots of things about the other person, so I confine myself to things that a person has actually done. Compare with people who say "Romney will do this, and Obama will do that..." - none of these statements are real, no one can speak for another person, the candidates aren't held to their promises, and you can't predict special circumstances.

Not one question was asked about civil liberties. Not one question about the TSA, or drug policy, or drone strikes. Not one question about Obama's failure to prosecute any banking execs for fraud after the 2008 financial crisis.

For these and myriad other reasons - killing an American without trial, voting for telecom immunity, extending the Patriot Act &c - I have to vote against Obama.

Ethics and morality speak to the substance of the candidate. If a board is rotten, you replace it with a different board.

We know Romney did things that were uncharitable, but at least his actions were not evil - they were, after all, legal and financial actions.

When faced with a known bad solution, try something else. Perhaps the new board won't be as rotten.

Re:Stupid questions (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41685623)

We know Romney did things that were uncharitable, but at least his actions were not evil - they were, after all, legal and financial actions.

Legal and financial actions account for most of the evil that is done in this world.

Re:Stupid questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685575)

Where can I find 3rd party candidates answers to the type of questions you raise?

This sux (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41685049)

When Poppa Bush lost to Clinton because of Perot being the election, the rules were changed. At that point, the republicans pushed through rules that pretty much prevented 3rd parties. Sadly, the dems went along with it. Now, that our system really is down to 2 parties, you can see the republicans pushing for 1 party rule. A good example is Chuck Norris claiming that it is unpatriotic to vote for ANYTHING except a republican. [townhall.com] In fact, even if the guy was Hitler or Stalin, it appears that he would be OK with it so long as he has an R after it. At this point, America is in serious need of major re-working.

Re:This sux (2)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#41685631)

When Poppa Bush lost to Clinton because of Perot being the election, the rules were changed. At that point, the republicans pushed through rules that pretty much prevented 3rd parties.

What are you babbling about? I just got my mail in ballot and there's 16 choices in the presidential election section. And the top one is some guy from a party I've never even heard of. It's getting like the cereal section of the supermarket. All I want is basic no-nonsense wheat flakes and there's all this sugary crap in over-produced packaging.

I'm glad they're getting SOME coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41685055)

I've been planning to vote for Jill Stein since the beginning. She's a sensible alternative to Obama, who would be more like her had he kept his campaign promises on the environment. Instead we got Bush III, so he won't be getting my vote.

Gary Johnson (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41685063)

Why was Gary Johnson not included in this? He is going to be on the ballot in at least 48 states and the District of Columbia.

Re:Gary Johnson (2)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41685111)

I don't think they say why. Maybe he was busy.

Re:Gary Johnson (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41685143)

Rules and debates got changed after Poppa Bush lost because of Perot taking votes from him. As such, the neo-cons pushed for rule changes, and dems went along with it. Prior to that, we had the league of women voters hosting the debates and yes, included a number of 3rd party candidates. IIRC, they had to have to be on more than 45 states ballots and then they were included.

Now, these debates are a joke.

Re:Gary Johnson (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41685427)

Has any organization made any effort in taking back the presidential debates or even just having an alternate nationally televised live debate? I realize that at first it wouldn't be as popular as the current debates since the republican and democrat candidates would probably simply refuse to participate but if it was promoted enough it eventually might become popular enough that they would be forced to participate or be severely hurt in their campaign.

Also, the debate questions need to be tougher. I have said this earlier but the debates should happen at least three times a week for a month. I could even see the candidates choosing their cabinets early and having them as part of the debates. Any good leader should surround themselves with smart, capable people.

Re:Gary Johnson (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41685527)

Has any organization made any effort in taking back the presidential debates or even just having an alternate nationally televised live debate? I realize that at first it wouldn't be as popular as the current debates since the republican and democrat candidates would probably simply refuse to participate but if it was promoted enough it eventually might become popular enough that they would be forced to participate or be severely hurt in their campaign.

IIRC, First election after that, the league actually did host a debate, but neither dems nor pubs showed up (that would be Clinton vs. Dole). More importantly, NONE of the networks televised it. With that being the time when us nerds were the only ones on the net, it was a none-starter. Now, with the net developed enough, it MIGHT be the way to go.

Personally, I am hoping that when rootstrikers amends the constitution, they will also push to bring back such debates.

Also, the debate questions need to be tougher. I have said this earlier but the debates should happen at least three times a week for a month. I could even see the candidates choosing their cabinets early and having them as part of the debates. Any good leader should surround themselves with smart, capable people.

Oh yeah. Those questions sound like they are tailored to the candidates. Not to make them think or force them to answer, but to allow them to slam the other guy. In many ways, this is just more bread and circus, rather than the serious debates that I recall as a kid.

Good use of technology (1)

tobiah (308208) | about 2 years ago | (#41685423)

I watched the first mashup presidential debate on DemocracyNow and it was excellent, they would cut from the official debate to Stein and Anderson also behind podiums and keep it rolling. With the official rules preventing Obama and Romney from interacting with each other [gawker.com] there really isn't a need for them to be in the same room.

but what about... (0)

uncanny (954868) | about 2 years ago | (#41685601)

The prohibition party? doesn't anyone want to know their opinion?
(if you dont know who they are, and want a good laugh/scare)
http://swordof1611.webs.com/jackfellure2012.htm
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>