Real Presidential Debates 700
slithytove writes "As many of us are aware, the presidential debates are currently controlled by an organization called the Commision on Presidential Debates. As anyone who's seen a presidential debate recently could guess, the CPD does just what our two major parties want: exclude third parties and impose rules that make the event more of a joint press conference than a debate. Non-establishment candidates Michael Badnarik and David Cobb will be having an actual debate this Thursday. After debating each other, they will be rebutting the points Bush and Kerry make in their pseudo-debate. Free Market News will be streaming it and providing a download afterwards."
Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think there's good reason [blogspot.com] to.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:4, Insightful)
We're in a two-party system only as long as people believe we're in a two-party system. It's not a legal or constitutional arifact.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Insightful)
and the u.s. will always be that way because of the nature of the system. in a presidential election, second place (let alone third or fourth) counts for nothing.
in a parliamentary system, by contrast, parties with lower levels of support get to have input. either they form the opposition or join the opposition coalition or, more effectively, become part of a governing coalition and weild some degree of political power.
witness canada: the dominant liberals alienated both the conservative and liberal portions of the population (no mean feat). however, none of the other parties were generally considered experienced enough to rule... so the electorate handed the liberals a minority victory.
to govern, the minority government now has to form coalitions with other parties to acheive enough votes to pass bills. in this case, the party the liberals allied with was the left-of-centre new democratic party. the result is that the ndp now has a fair amount of "pivotal power" - and given that helth care and other social programme issues were a big deal during the election, this is probably a Good Thing.
in a minority government situation, the opposition parties also have increased power. since the the government can fall to a well-organized attack by the opposition, the liberals are less likely to antagonize stornaway.
the result is: less people are alienated in a parliamentary system. if you voted for gore in 2000, your vote was completely wasted. but no matter who you voted for in canada last april (unless you voted green, as i did) there's someone in the government representing you.
USA used to be like that (Score:3, Interesting)
The original scheme was that there was only a presidential race, not a vice-presidential one. Whoever lost the presidential election became vice-president. The two candidates were expected to set aside their personal differences and work together for the good of the (then-newborn) Union, and this scheme provides some balance of influence as well.
It only worked for the first few presidents, then they threw that approach out and replaced it with the "we can't not hold a grudge; I will never speak to my o
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Insightful)
The two main parties have zero interest in diluting their mindshare. Things will never change if you leave it to them.
Currently, the sole purpose behind 3rd party candidates is to be heard. The more good points they make, the more people will question the dominant parties. Eventually it reaches a critical mass and change will happen.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Duh (Score:4, Interesting)
That fact that you didn't even consider this option -- or worse, think it is an absurd idea -- is a sad reflection on our current politicians-for-life trend.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
No one has a chance. Average Joe can't run for president, nor can hyper-intelligent Prof. Joe.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're describing is basically a Catch-22 situation. The 2-party system has to be changed before someone not in one of the two major political parties can win, but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up
Sorta. In the past typically one party becomes very un-popular (federalists, whigs, etc.), and the other party sorta takes over. Then that party fractures into two parties. Lather, rinse, repeat. Though we have had the current parties for some time, and they are still pretty evenly-split, so it's doubtful that any other party will really have a chance.
What I *do* see as a use for the third/forth/fifth/etc. parties, is that they are a sort of test as to what the non-two party affiliated folks are thinking. For instance, the Democratic party can look to the green party members as sort of it's "far left", and gauge whether that's the direction the party may need to move in (or away from). Should the Green party start to gain momentum, I'd bet the Democrats would start picking up some of their platform (and similar for Republicans and Libertarians).
Just a thought...
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Libertarian I don't think I can agree with this. Lately the Republican party does not speak to the issues I care about, mostly being smaller government, and more self determination.
I think, unfortunately, who the republicans are listening to these days is the "Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right", depending on who is describing them.
There is all too much of both parties telling me what is right for My Own Good as opposed to just governing our society.
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider their policies. Consider their budget. Consider the constant "everything is different post 9/11, and things can never be done the same way". The opposition to two hundred year traditions. The utter outrage at international agreements which, like or not, we agreed to.
Put together, it looks to me like someone is misrepresenting themselves. Hmm?
Re:Will this be copyrighted or copylefted? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've posted this before - and I'll post again. Peoples political core beliefs tend to be two dimensional, while our political system is one dimensional. That's the reason we have the terms "Social Conservative" or "Fiscal Conservative" vs. "Socially Liberal" or "Fiscal Liberal".
Many people vote their religeon, others their social values, and still others on how they feel the government should run in regards to both personal and governmental financial responsibility. That's why I think the whole left/rig
Nader opts out (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously Ralph is holding out for an invitation to the Kerry-Bush debate. Or else he's afraid to set foot in Florida after the problems he caused in 2000.
Re:Nader opts out (Score:3, Informative)
According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
"democracy
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law:
"democracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free
Re:Nader opts out (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, we do get to choose between the two people that the machine produces. Fun, eh? So, let's examine the process. First, those with money (nominally the political parties, b
what are your objections (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what are your objections (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what are your objections (Score:3, Insightful)
PS: you are now listed as a foe, because no person of sound mind can also be a republican, and I don't like people who are not of sound mind.
Re:what are your objections (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you'd better list me as a foe since I'm a Republican as well. BTW, I registered as a Republican back in 2000 to support Sen. McCain. I also joined the College Republicans, where its members were planning on voting for Bush by default. I've talked them into giving Sen. McCain a chance and they agreed to join me to hear him speak when he has planning to come to town.
I also had many friends who were in the College Democrats that were Bradley supports. Bradley was my second choice so I organized a bipartisan effort between the College Republicans and Democrats (wasn't too hard since most of us were moderats) for on-campus voter registration drive. Sadly, both McCain and Bradley lost the primaries, and no, I did not vote for either Bush or Gore.
I'm not planning on voting for Bush this year, but I may end up voting for Kerrey as "lesser of two evils" depending on what he says on the debate.
Personally, I think that no person of sound mind can also sterotype so blantly, but just disagreeing with me doesn't necessarily make you wrong (although I reserve the right to disagree), and thus will not have you or anyone else on my foe list. Life's too short to be closed minded, IMHO.
Re:what are your objections (Score:5, Informative)
From OpenDebates.org: Under CPD sponsorship, the major party candidates secretly design all the elements of the formats. Consequently, challenging questions, assertive moderators, follow-up questions, candidate-to-candidate questioning, rebuttals and surrebuttals are often excluded from the presidential debates. The CPD's formats prevent in-depth examination of critical issues, and allow the candidates to the deliver pre-packaged soundbites that are repeated over, and over, and over again on the campaign trail.
Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded and non-partisan League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties seized control of the debates by establishing the bi-partisan, corporate-sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as a nonpartisan institution committed to voter education, the CPD has continually and deceptively run the debates in the interest of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people.
Re:what are your objections (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you joking?
* Exclusion of third-party candidates: This is a problem because, without appearing on debates and being otherwise shut out of the media, third-party candidates have a hard time getting their message across. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans want more views expressed and candidates present in our debates, but the commission denies them this.
* Under-handed questions: Not only are topics that are to be discussed known beforehand, but there are virtually no surprises or tough questions. Answers are therefore heavily scripted, repetative, and boring. Viewership for the debates has declined steadily over the years.
* "Taboo" subjects ignored entirely: I think it is important to hear the Greens/Libertarians/Independants view on the legitimacy of the multibillion dollar war on drugs, and to hear Kerry's/Bush's defense of it. How come this issue is not discussed? Oh, that's right - its off limits for some reason. The War on Drugs is just a drop in the bucket - there are many more issues that deserve thorough and diverse debate, but are ignored entirely.
The truth of the matter is that Kerry and Bush would have a hard time defending themselves against any of the three parties I mentioned. The "Commission" (which is made up of the two major parties) is really just protecting their interests by excluding them, at the expense of an informed American public. How anyone could continue to vote for the two major parties is beyond me...
Re:what are your objections (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the whole concept of using polling as a way of deciding eligibility is pretty morally bankrupt. I've suspected for a while that the reason for that is to make it possible for the major parties to manipulate third parties out of the contest. Perot gave them a good scare in '92, and they've been tightening the screws on our republic ever since.
Eligibility should be decided on a more legalistic basis: if the electoral votes of the states that a candidate is officially ballot-qualified for exceeds 270
American flag? (Score:5, Interesting)
How long has this American flag background been on the Politics section? I only noticed today. Does this exclude discussion of non-American politics?
Re:American flag? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:American flag? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:American flag? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:American flag? (Score:3, Funny)
People in other nations say americans suffer from "exceptionalism" ... we'd hate to prove them wrong.
Re:American flag? (Score:4, Informative)
Did Slashdot block off non-USA IP addresses to the politics section? Nope.
I'd actually like to hear more non-US input to the politics section. The USA is so large that most people growing up here never need to cross an international border, which inevitably leads to a lack of knowledge regarding other countries (even Canada and Mexico).
There are issues in the US campaigns right now that other countries have already addressed or at least debated in one form or another. An obvious one is health care, for example. If anything, providing information about whether Canada's or Great Britain's health care systems are any good or not can only help people in the US better understand the issue. It would also be very interesting to hear about what foreign media report about the US, since American media is understandably biased (American journalists reporting on American events).
How true (sadly) (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, I'll watch, if only in the hopes that Bush will stumble badly over a fact or two.
Re:How true (sadly) (Score:5, Interesting)
What would you call two people that under an investigation that require all of the following to be true in order to participate in that investigation? 1) That the two people must be allowed to testify jointly 2) That they would not be required to take an oath before testifying; 3) That the testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers; and finally 4) That these notes would not be made public.
For those that don't know these were the requirements posed by Bush and Cheney in order to participate in the investigation of the largest attack on our nation within our borders.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions and vote accordingly.
Re:How true (sadly) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How true (sadly) (Score:5, Informative)
Which is probably why one of the first lessons any politician has drilled into him by The Experts is "Never answer a hypothetical question. [msn.com]"
Indeed, they learn a whole battery of rhetorical tricks specifically to avoid having to deal with hypotheticals. Watch the next time you see somebody pose one to a politician -- any politician -- and you'll immediately see that, no matter what their answer, it has nothing to do with the hypothetical. Which is a shame, since hypotheticals can be useful ways to see how someone thinks; but maybe that's the reason why they avoid them so assiduously...
C'mon Now (Score:4, Interesting)
Get real now. Ralph Nader is registering 1 percent in the polls. He is more worthy of being in the debates than these two clowns.
Hardly anybody knows who Badnarik and Cobb are, why they hell should they be in the major leagues? Maybe if they ran a better campaign, got the names on the ballots, and polled better than 0%, they would be on prime time. As it is, I have no problem excluding any yahoo from the debate just because they think they belong.
Re:C'mon Now (Score:5, Insightful)
If Badnarik and Cobb were invited to the debates, then people would know who they are and could hear them speak.
Maybe, if 3rd parties weren't so roundly shut out by the ruling oligarchy, more people would actually be interested enough to vote, and just maybe we could have some real change in policy, instead of six or one or half-dozen of the other.
Do you -know- how many candidates there are? (Score:5, Insightful)
The opinions of people like Mr. Larry J. Schutter [64.233.161.104] of the Turtle Party [aol.com] and Darren Karr [darrenforpresident.com] of Party-X [party-x.org] are every bit as valid as those of Badnarik and Cobb. Likewise, they all share the same chance of winning said office. What makes Badnarik and Cobb more deserving of a debate than any of the other "Dark Horse" candidates?
Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are? (Score:3, Insightful)
Add up the total electoral votes for all states on which the candidate is on the ballot. If this number is enough to gain election, the candidate should be involved in the debates. So if you can get on the ballot in Texas, California, New York, Florida, and a few other states, you should be eligible for the debates.
Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are? (Score:5, Informative)
I know you're joking, but there is an easy answer to this: anybody who is on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority under the Electoral College should be invited.
How many candidates would that include? Get ready for it...: 6. Including Bush and Kerry. That's half as many as some of the debates during primaries. It's entirely feasible.
Re:Do you -know- how many candidates there are? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you never took a debate class. Debate is a skill, a methodology of speaking applied to the facts that is not designed to elucidate facts, but to persuade the audience, sometimes flying in the face of the facts. A skilled debator will win a debate regardless of wheteher he believes in his point or even has ample facts to support his case. Truth and debate are strange bedfellows.
Political platforms are supposed to convey the facts about what a political candidate stands for
"Debates" (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said it many times
Re:"Debates" (Score:5, Insightful)
Words are cheap. You can say it many times, and you can be right. What's the difference between somebody who can't read, and somebody who doesn't read? Nothing. Your wisdom doesn't matter if it's not translated into action.
Why don't YOU start such a party? You say "we" which implies you and at least one other person. Start this party you speak of - get funding, find a candidate if not yourself!
See, the USA is politically "open source". Anybody can make their dent, and the rules are reasonably simple and apply to everybody.
Just as we have Microsoft ruling the computer technology scene as a Monopoly, the Right/Left wings grapple in
a Machiavelian struggle, swinging us "right" and "left" while moving us forward towards....?
Ross Perot almost did it [reformparty.org]. For a while, there, it actually looked as though he was going to win the presidency!
You could, too. We need an impassioned, trusted, charismatic, reasonable-sounding candidate who's willing to go the mile, and it would be a LONG mile.
I've considered joining the fray a few times, myself. Whether or not I'm "impassioned" enough or "charismatic" is an determination best left to listeners.
You have tremendous power in cable-access media. You can produce a broadcast quality show with a budget of under $50/week. (I know, I've done it!) FCC rules require this community-access television to be funded - it's just that few people actually stand up and produce the programming. Once a show is produced, it only requires a local sponsor to air the show in each community.
So, who's going to actually do it? You?
Re:"Debates" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Debates" (Score:3, Insightful)
Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Informative)
"I simply hand them the currency as payment. 95% of the businesses accept it"
Come on now. If that's not a lie, it's sure a distortion.
Then I go to look for liberty merchants in my area (WA state), almost all of them are "associates". Then you look at this page:
Description of the associate system [norfed.org]
It's a pyramid scheme! They even admit it. You give them $250, they give you $100 in their currency back. But you can make the remainder back by getting more pe
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Interesting)
That doesn't make it not a pyramid scheme. It just makes it a very short pyramid (three levels: you, the associate who signs you up, and them). It still uses Multi-Level Marketing to expand. It compares itself to PayPal or Amazon, but it is very different.
PayPal and Amazon collects money for services and goods. They then take a portion of the money that they collect and use it for marketing. One method of marketing is to pay for referrals. Note tha
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, but why do you think that? I followed your link to find out for myself, and I concluded that this idea is completely kooky. Aside from all the weird rubbish about international bankers etc, why do you think it would be a good idea to yoke the value of your currency to a pair of commodities? Yes, inflation and
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Insightful)
Gold owned by the U.S. Treasury: $11 billion
Gold held by the Federal Reserve: $586 million
FRB Currency and Coin Services: [federalreserve.gov]
Currency in Circulation: (2003) $690 billion, 1/2-2/3 held abroad
Consider the contraction in credit implied by a return to the gold standard. What happens when 2/3 of america's gold reserves can be claimed abroad?
Re:Elimination of the Federal Reserve (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an excellent idea...for people who like the idea of a fully-backed currency...as long as there aren't too many such people.
In another Slashdot thread a month or two ago, someone proposed using physical pure-gold currency in all transactions. The problem is, there isn't enough gold.
Very roughly, the total amount of gold ever mined is on the order of thre [usgs.gov]
sweet! (Score:4, Funny)
Non-troll content is low (Score:5, Insightful)
The "official" debates are highly flawed, but to call them pseudo-debates because you don't like them is absurd. They are real debates, with real moderation and real issues. Many complain that there's really one Republicrat party with the same ideals, but I suggest that it only seems that way if your own interests swing wildly to one end of the political spectrum. Wake up, radicals, most people congregate somewhere near the center. It's generally only the unstable nations with strong factions at the extremes. I grow weary of people who demand instant change, and don't care if it's against the public will or good because they're sure they're right. That kind of thinking got us the Alien and Sedition acts and Prohibition.
That being said, I'm happy to see an alternate party debate and hope it is a success.
Re:Non-troll content is low (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you must have missed the primaries.
No process is more dominated by fringe elements within the Republican and Democratic parties than the primaries. For 15 years I attended Republican caucuses in my state and organized around centrist candidates only to see the process hijacked by radicals.
Your rant about the other parties is way off the mark. The centrists have left the major parties looking for parties that the middle CAN vote for.
And I, for one, am not looking for instant change. I am working at the local level (school districts, county commissioners, state reps and senators) for victories that will make the major parties begin to pay attention again.
If you continue to stay with the major parties, you are begging to be controlled by the fringe.
Another, even more meaningful debate (Score:4, Funny)
Sadly, the debate is meaningless, as marriage is a dictatorship.
Re:Another, even more meaningful debate (Score:5, Funny)
Debating one's self (Score:5, Funny)
The only thing I worry about... (Score:3, Interesting)
I just hope he doesnt think of something equally retarded to say that will completely avoid the question, while showing how childish he can be in front of the public.
Pleasantly Patriotic Abstractions (Score:5, Interesting)
"They hate our freedom"?
Define precisely who "they" are and what is meant by "freedom" and then provide a precisely reasoned argument why it is that they would "hate" it.
What if the moderator threw out the rules? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Nobody wants to be the first candidate to say, "Now this isn't what I signed up for.")
Of course, that would probably run afoul of their agreement to moderate the debate: http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040923/tops tories/151247.shtml [theolympian.com].
I want to see hard questions asked. Let the candidates ask each other questions. Have fact-checkers on hand.
I want to see Bush and Kerry squirm a little bit. A president's job is to run a country, yet the forum we set up for them to perform is as safe and predictable as possible.
Sigh... Something unpredictable would be nice. I always feel like I know what the next thing out of their mouths is going to be.
Presidential Candidates (Score:4, Insightful)
All we have been able to do for years is to select the lesser of two evils.
We have become the government of the people, by the lawyers, and for the corporations.
The "powers in charge" will never to do anything to jepoardize their power in this country and the world.
It's also interesting that our choice this time is between two members of skull and bones.
Paul
Approval voting would help (Score:3, Informative)
Having said that I would quite welcome an approval voting system, whereby we can vote for as many candidates that we choose for any given office. This would allow people to safely register their support for a third-party candidate while risking becoming a "spoiler" for the candidate that they frankly would tolerate if they had to. So for example, a Nader supporter could vote for both Nader and Kerry. A Constitution party supporter could vote for Peroutka and Bush.
As a result, we could all get an honest assessment of how much support and influence these third-party candidates would receive. I would still advocate a "trigger" of, say, 5-10% before a party would receive preferential treatment with regards to public funding and/or debate access. Nevertheless, I think that grassroots efforts would be far more likely to take hold in such a system.
Another advantage of approval voting (Score:3, Informative)
All the elections offices have to do is simply stop discarding overvotes.
The CPD doesn't control the debates (Score:3, Informative)
found this document at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debates.html
http://www.opendebates.org/documents/REPORT2.pd
Michael Bradnick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Michael Bradnick (Score:3, Insightful)
"Beardo doesn't know about Marcoeconomics. Vote Greymond - because a bad plan is better than no plan!"
Same with changing your mind. I used to hate girls; now I love `em. If you're running for president, it's flip-flopping. Otherwise, it's puberty.
Media Credentials Denied for Debate (Score:3, Informative)
To all recipients on this list:
The Commission on Presidential Debates appreciates your interest in covering the debates. However, at this time, your application has been denied. Applications are declined due to security concerns, space limitations, or other reasons.
Thank you,
The Commission on Presidential Debates
See also http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/20590/index. php [ucimc.org]
and
http://stlouis.indymedia.org/ [indymedia.org]
Debates don't matter (Score:4, Funny)
Third Party Debate At Cornell (Score:3, Informative)
Question from different country (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flip-Flopping (Score:5, Funny)
Heh. Bush could debate himself too, but he'd lose.
Re:Flip-Flopping (Score:4, Informative)
Jon Stewart: So what is your opinion on Foreign Policy
President Bush: We have a duty to bring democracy to the peoples of the world
Jon: Ok, how about you, Governor
Governor Bush: The US has no bussiness being the policeman of the world
Re:Flip-Flopping (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you are talking about the Department of Homeland Security (was against it, then for it)
Unless you are talking about a comittment smaller government (has ran at least three times on that platform) yet created ANOTHER cabinet seat.
Unless you are talking about fiscal conservativism (and ran up the deficit).
Face it: Bush and Kerry are the same in more ways than they are different.
Republican: a Democrat without guilt.
Re:Flip-Flopping (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flip-Flopping (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Real" debates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Real" debates (Score:5, Interesting)
It is the public that looks for style over substance. If the public was interested in listening to a 3 hour long debate on the merits of a privitized social security system then that's what the debates would be about.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, many members of the public would LOVE some substance, UNFORTUNATELY WE DON"T OWN ANY MAJOR TV NETWORKS.
How much did Microsoft, Enron, etc contribute to the Democrats in the last few years? (lots)
The Republicans? (lots)
The Green party? (nothing)
If you just spent a bunch on money buying the sopport of both the democrats and republicans, would you cover a third party on your TV network? Of course not.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't expect Kerry to actually answer any of the points presented by Bush this week anyway.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:4, Insightful)
My own thoughts on the debate are as follows:
- Bush will answer questions pointing to what he believes he's done well, and will generally skirt around some issues to avoid fibbing or outright lying. Expect that some legalese (i.e. responding to the exact words vs. their intended meaning) may be used to skirt around some questions.
- Kerry will answer every question by promising the moon, even if his promises are contradictory.
As for this whole dual-party setup of the debates, consider this: The panel did allow Ross Perot into the debates, and it was enough to prevent Bush Sr. from winning the election.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody said that they expect to be elected. They expect to INFLUENCE the process, and they do. Look at what Nader did in Florida.
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
He wasn't invited because he wasn't a "kook" - he was invited only because both sides thought he would take votes away from the other guy, Turns out one side badly miscalculated. That side refused to make the same mistake in 1996, and the other side decided they didn't need the help or the distraction. The Clinton campai
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that Bush has avoided press conferences and made attendees at his speech sign loyalty oaths, accusing him of ducking questions has some basis.
Kerry may give inarticulate, confusing, and stupid answers, and generally fail around like a dying fish. But I don't think an accusation of him ducking question
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Real" debates (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Real" debates (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31
you couldnt make this stuff up
Re:"Real" debates (Score:4, Informative)
Duh, he's prohibited from responding to kerry in any way by the rules agreed upon by both candidates. So you won't see kerry responding to bush either. Just scripted responses to scripted questions.
Now ask yourself why both parties would want to set up the debates this way. Perhaps they have something to lose by having free debates?
Re:"Real" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means he would be following the rules of the "debate." In the structure of the dog-and-pony show, the candidates will not be allowed to talk to/at each other, ony to the audience/cameras, and the only questions that can be asked are those prepared by the system, agreed upon by both sides, and asked by the people designated to do the asking (who are not the candidates).
About the only "answer" to "any of
Re:15% (Score:5, Insightful)
Really. This is what happens: smaller, single-point parties get swallowed up by the whole. This is how the Republican party came about, in fact, but at that time they were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives! Don't believe me? See what party Abraham Lincoln represented when he entered office.
Re:15% (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people fail to see that the parties are malleable. I'm guessing it's because a lot of folks here are young, and don't know history...
The democrats today are *not* the party that they were even when Kennedy was president! And the parties will continue to change as their members change. The third/forth/etc. parties serve to show where the 'extremists' are IMHO. The bigger the Green party gets, I'd be the more liberal the Democrats get. And the bigger the Libertarians get, the more Libertarian the Republicans would get. But since we've only got two parties, neither will stray very far from each other. Extremists are rarely popular.
Not that there are exceptions (witness the civil war, Hitler, etc.), but they aren't common (and the civil war was mostly because the 'lines' were drawn on geographic terms [North v. South] as well as political ones).
Re:15% (Score:3, Funny)
Re:15% (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple, if you make the ballot in enough states to possibly win the elections, you should be part of any debate. Since you can get on enough ballots simply by mobilizing regular citizens, that would open up the debates to anyone with actual grassroots support across america.
Re:15% (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have a number to suggest, but having it set that high will eventually bite them in the ass. Winning the presidency requires a majority of the electoral votes, not simply a plurality. Maine and Nebraska currently have per-district election of presidential electors, and hopefully Colorado will be following suit this year; it's only a matter of time before the country in general drops the winner-takes-all mechanism from Electoral College elections like we have already done with House elections (yes, "once upon a time...").
With that being said, in the House of Representatives the Republican Party has a majority with just under 52% of the seats, and in the Senate they have 51% even. From 2001 until 2003, no party had a majority in the Senate (there was a Democrat plurality, but that was it).
With party politics being as neck-and-neck as it is today, how long do you think it will be before no candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes? It may yet even happens this year, and when it does happen whoever comes in third is very important, no matter what kind of gap is between second and third, because three is the number of candidates presented to Congress.
"Winner takes all" is perhaps obsolete (Score:5, Informative)
The idea was that a state of mainly Quakers wouldn't want the same laws as a state mainly of Catholics. And just because there were more Quakers (at the time) than Catholics in the US it would not be fair to the minority if federal laws were made in favor of one group even if that group was almost non-existant in a region (not many Quakers in Maryland, not many Catholics in Pennsylvania).
The constitution doesn't prohibit a powerful federal government, nor does it grant it. People (or perhaps lawyers and bankers 120ish years ago) decided they wanted a strong federal government, and that's what we got. But we still have a lot of baggage from our times as a Nation of States.
There were certainly disadvantages to almost fully autonomous states (like slavery). On the otherhand there are advantages too. It is perhaps more efficient. It gives states the ability to compete for productive citizens (what place has the best taxes, best government, etc). Thus giving individuals a choice on what set of laws they live under.
Given the current system, "Winner takes all" is perhaps not a good system. My vote would to be to dismantle most of the federal government and reinstitute the rights of States, and then just keep the current voting system. I think most people would rather have strong federal government, in that case it would be best to update the voting system to reflect this.
One thing is for sure, the current system is strategically more interesting. It's quite simular to playing a game of Risk. Where as a fair system is a much tougher game to play, because clever strategy won't yield huge gains. Just gains proportional to the amount of work put into it.
Re:15% (Score:3, Funny)
Re:15% (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to necessarily let "anyone" into the debates.
But anyone that's on enough state ballots that they could theoreticly be elected is certainly a legitimate candidate, and should therefore be allowed to participate.
Re:15% (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, there will be no value to the Bush/Kerry debate, other than to act as a launching platform for whatever catch phrases thier speechwriters want joe american to be repeating Frday morning.
And, btw, the reason they have such low chances of being elected is because they are excluded from the process. Not the other way around.
Re:IT really scares me (Score:4, Interesting)
-- Scripted or not, you will see the TWO significant candidates' opposing point of views presented by the candidates themselves.
-- You will see which team has their shit together the most in a really fucking scary public display. If you somehow don't believe the debates scare the crap out of presidential candidates, you haven't been there. In 2000, Gore lost to Bush in a major way on this alone (I supported Gore before the debates).
-- This is an important way for the candidates to address truly important issues (issues important to the majority of Americans) without resorting to the name-calling and mud-slinging of ad campaigns. I do care about who lied about what and when, but eventually we have to get down to the important issues depending on this election.
The bottom line is if you watch Bush or Kerry and pay more attention to Bush's "vacant eyes" or Kerry's "botox-injected face", these debates will never matter to you, and I along with most other Americans hope you don't cast your ignorant vote...