Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics

Actual Final Third Party Debate Tonight 204

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the all-was-quiet-election-eve dept.
Separate from the debate moderated by Ralph Nader last night, Free and Equal is hosting a final third party debate tonight at 9:00 p.m. EST (pre-debate coverage began at 8:00 p.m. EST). As a follow up to the October 23rd debate, only Jill Stein (Green) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) will be facing each other for ninety minutes of questions primarily focusing on foreign policy. It appears that this one isn't being picked up by C-SPAN, but it is being broadcast on RT America on a few cable networks as well as on YouTube (which should work if you have an HTML5 browser, or via the XBMC YouTube plugin). Discuss.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Actual Final Third Party Debate Tonight

Comments Filter:
  • The debate between fictional write in candidates is tomorrow morning.
    • by narcc (412956)

      I'm looking forward to it. Right now, the race between Jill Stein and Mickey Mouse is too close to call.

      (Just kidding. I know that Stein won't even come close to M.M. in the general.)

  • by brainproxy (654715) on Monday November 05, 2012 @09:38PM (#41889113)
    This is why we need them.
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Monday November 05, 2012 @10:33PM (#41889621) Homepage Journal

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

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

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

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

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

      • by artor3 (1344997) on Monday November 05, 2012 @11:11PM (#41889849)

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

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

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

        • Mr Artor3, that is one of the most insightful posts I've ever seen you write. Well said.
        • In practice, they all have a first-past-the-post popular vote

          Wrong, unless Maine and Nebraska have joined Canada while I wasn't paying attention.

  • “The choice is between two ways of life: between individual liberty and State domination; between concentration of ownership in the hands of the State and the extension of ownership over the widest number of individuals; between the dead hand of monopoly and the stimulus of competition; between a policy of increasing restraint and a policy of liberating energy and ingenuity; between a policy of levelling down and a policy of opportunity for all to rise upwards from a basic standard. — Sir Winston Churchill [goodreads.com], WOLVERHAMPTON, 23 JULY 1949” (Kudos [powerlineblog.com] )

    Will the debate be this good [youtube.com]?

  • 5% (Score:5, Informative)

    by chill (34294) on Monday November 05, 2012 @09:57PM (#41889281) Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

    http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/ [garyjohnson2012.com]

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

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

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

      Excellent idea.

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

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

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

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

        This is one of the two men [youtube.com] you worry was treated unfairly

        • Re:5% (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @12:44AM (#41890355)

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

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

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

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

          • Re:5% (Score:5, Interesting)

            by cold fjord (826450) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @06:53AM (#41891789)

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

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

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

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

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

            • by Intrinsic (74189)

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

              • So you are calling Al Qaida members attacking the United States, American patriots?

                I'm gonna call bull on that one.

            • You seem to be generally misinformed on this matter, so here are a few things. The Congress passed the resolution noted in the following document: Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks [fas.org]. The Supreme Court of the United States has held this type of Congressional authorization to be equivalent to a declaration of war.

              No, it is you who is misinformed. The Supreme Court did not say it was equivalent to the declaration of war, but that it satisfied the War Powers Act that the President required Congressional approval to use military force. Nothing about that means it is a formal declaration of war (against who? A group of people? We generally don't declare war on some folks... usually it's a nation, and yes, we destroyed the Barbary Pirates, but that could be argued was a "nation" of itself, operating in a certain area...

          • Would I be misrepresenting your stance if I summarized it thusly: "Whether or not you can blast brown people into a red pulp depends completely and entirely on where they were born"?

            • Yes. Because quite frankly the entire business is horse shit. I'm not singling out the two US citizens because I think other people aren't entitled to these rights. I am singling them out because it is a concrete example of the gross violations of the US government's power and a symptom of a much larger problem in the US. Respect for the Constitution.

            • Would I be misrepresenting your stance if I summarized it thusly: "Whether or not you can blast brown people into a red pulp depends completely and entirely on where they were born"?

              You would not only be misrepresenting my stance, but engaging in race-baiting as well. Will it comfort you to know that when it comes to killing foreigners, the United States has mostly killed white and yellow people, AKA Europeans and Asians? Maybe you've heard of World War 2, World War 1, the Spanish-American War, the War of 1812? Vietnam? Korea? Vast numbers of Europeans and Asians dead, not much in the way of "brown people" at all. Feel better?

              I'm afraid you've missed the salient point - it is the

        • Oh and that "not surrender" shit? How can you surrender to a drone? We didn't try to arrest him with the help of Yemen. We targeted him and his son and blew them away. Sorry... that argument holds NO water either.

      • by narcc (412956)

        I don't get the idea that my vote is wasted. It sends a message.

        A message, eh? I'm curious as to what that message contains, and who you think is listening...

        Remember: a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama; just like a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush back in 2000.

        • by Intrinsic (74189)

          So what. If things get worse because someone gets voted in that shouldnt be because of votes being taken away from the lesser of two evils then the next election and the one after that will keep getting more charged with people that are not going to tolerate the two party system sham that we have been apart of for who knows how long. Eventually something will give.
          Vote your conscience, thats what's important.

        • by Velex (120469)

          a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama; just like a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush back in 2000.

          I don't have a problem with that. I would like to see the war on brown people^H^H^H^Hmarijuana come to an end, so I'm voting for Johnson. If that keeps Obama, the man who ended don't ask don't tell, in office, that's fine with me.

          I also contributed to Johnson's campaign. Romney is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons. I don't understand why anybody thinks he'll be different from Obama, except that he might just reinstate don't ask don't tell. He sure as hell is not going to repeal federal Romneycare

      • by Fjandr (66656)

        Those who argue it's a wasted vote are either scared shitless that your message will actually be heard, or can't comprehend that anyone wouldn't welcome their particular party's dominance with open arms.

        Actually, I guess those two are probably the same thing. The only difference is whether the person lies to themselves or not.

    • by MobyDisk (75490)

      Major parties get more than 5% of the vote at the last general election...major parties are eligible for federal matching campaign funds and have easier ballot access

      That 5% is soooo easy to obtain if the disenfranchised voters just show up and vote randomly. That would be more than enough to make the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties "major" parties.

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday November 05, 2012 @10:00PM (#41889303)
    This should be interesting not because of their relevance to the elections tomorrow because as much as I'd rather have Johnson, Stein, Goode or Anderson as our next president rather than 4 more years of Obamney, I think there is a general discord among people of both the Republican and Democratic parties about their candidates the last couple of years. McCain and Romney haven't really pushed for smaller government or for auditing the Fed, Obama hasn't closed Gitmo nor has he been a very peaceful, anti-war president after murdering a couple of American citizens as judge, jury and executioner via drones, involved the US in yet another war (Libya) and won't even release real statistics of how many innocent Pakistanis our Peace Prize winning president has killed (instead, if they are military-aged males they must be "enemy combatants").

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

    by Nimey (114278) on Monday November 05, 2012 @10:05PM (#41889363) Homepage Journal

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

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

    • If you read the contract [bradblog.com], there are a number of things that jump out at you.

      The contract was signed September 17, 2012. Given the time needed to generate quotes, negotiate the contract, and work it through legal, it is obvious that this was in the works for some time prior to that.

      If you read pages 17 & 18, the purpose is to export comma separated value (csv) files in the format specified in the contract.

      The program is written in COBOL. (As has been discussed many times on Slashdot, all great hacks ar

    • by Anonymous Coward

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

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

      The Ohio vote in the Republican primaries was noticeable because the

      • Read the contract, it is clear what this is for - exporting data in CSV format.

        The idea that you would base general election vote rigging on primary voting patterns is ridiculous as they are completely different.

  • by Anonymous Coward

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

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

    It turns out that you can't just exploit labor forever and expect them to have any money left to spend. For too long people have been alienated from their right to an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. She will work hard to fix that, and get us back to hones

    • Yep, even though I don't agree with Stein's positions on a lot of things, I'd much rather her run the country than Obama or Romney. Why? Because she'd do exactly what she said she would. Romney has said just about everything under the sun to please people, he's been pro-government healthcare (heck, Obamacare is basically Romneycare at the federal level!) he's been anti-government healthcare, etc. Obama has done mostly the same, he's promised to end wars and ends up starting new ones, he promised a transpare
    • by narcc (412956)

      Indeed, if you're planning to vote for Obama, vote for Jill Stein instead.

      The Romney Campaign truly appreciates your vote!

  • I wish I could have more faith in the motivation of each of these fringe party candidates.

    It's interesting how they always seem to help the candidate that they would least agree with. Especially in a close election where so much was at stake, I think it's perfectly appropriate to hold these candidates and their voters accountable for whatever happens, just as I believe Ralph Nader helped George W. Bush.

    Do I believe Ralph Nader meant to help GWB get elected? No, but he had to know that there was a distinc

    • Do any of you believe that any of these "third-party" candidates are particularly impressive all-around?

      I'd love to see more 3rd party candidates in local elections, but these parties (Libertarian, Green, Constitution) are putting the platforms out there the best they can, using the Presidential election as the stage. Once the platforms are clarified, people hopefully will start to listen and see if these alternatives are actually good, or just a bunch of hot air. We get that going, perhaps we'll see more local and state races fielding third party candidates.

      I guess I'm saying "you have to start somewhere" an

    • Look at the issues on where the third parties differ. Look at the legislation and deeds Obama has done, look at what Romney has promised. In the ways that third parties are different, the "big two" are the same. Which candidate is anti-war? It isn't Romney and it sure isn't Obama. Which candidate wants to end the war on drugs? Neither Obama nor Romney. Which candidate wants to investigate the Federal Reserve System? Neither Obama nor Romney. Etc.

      Sure, Obama and Romney might disagree on a few issues, Oba
  • by Unknown Lamer (78415) Works for Slashdot <clinton@unknownla[ ].org ['mer' in gap]> on Monday November 05, 2012 @10:43PM (#41889703) Homepage Journal

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

    • by Nadaka (224565) on Monday November 05, 2012 @10:49PM (#41889737)

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

      • Considering that the first AP1000 hasn't even been started up yet it's going to be a long time before the generation after that gets going.
    • I think it is important to put a few things in context. First, Stein herself, the Green party, and a goodly amount of progressive leftists aren't against nuclear in its entirety, just technical, sociopolitical, and economic issues as it is currently implemented. If there were Thorium and similar (nearly no nuclear waste, safe without runaway reaction etc..) reactors, available for production en masse, unencumbered by patents and proprietary hangups, operated with the public good in mind instead of profit

  • You can compare the 3rd party candidates Johnson, Goode and Stein against Romney and Obama at voterscorecard.com Since there is a Ron Paul write-in campaign and he is a certified write in some states like CA, he also can be selected.
  • Of what we are up against.
    If you start looking into all of the people that have come into power you will recognize that its a very small number of people from powerful families that have a history in MKUltra Mind Control. Accept for Obama and some others I havent looked up.
    Now im not saying this is all true, but if you start looking at the history and connecting the dots you start to wonder if we are living in free country.
    This video is talk from a previous mk ultra survivor, the best one I a have seen yet

"Love may fail, but courtesy will previal." -- A Kurt Vonnegut fan

Working...