Decius wrote:
] ] On October 8th at 9PM, two third party candidates were
] ] arrested for attempting to enter the Washington
] ] University complex holding the second presidential
] ] debate. The candidates, Michael Badnarik of the
] ] Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party,
] ] chose civil disobedience to fight the bipartisan
] ] Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Over half of
] ] Americans believe third party candidates should be
] ] included, yet politicians continue to funnel public funds
] ] into the bi-partisan Commission.
]
] Should public money be used to fund bipartisan debates?

According to the lawsuit in Arizona court on the matter, (see: http://thelfactor.org/arizona_state_lawsuit.html) it appears rather likely the entire debate is going to be ruled illegal.

ASU could and probably should be injuncted and fined for this. What I find incredibly shameful about the matter is that it's failed to get any media coverage from "serious" news outlets. ASU has arranged an apparently illegal proceeding, ASU representatives have interfered in the serving of the lawsuit to address the issue, and furthermore have acted in a matter which may be construed as contemptuous of the court--all in an apparent attempt to try to bully the matter out of sight.

Decius wrote:
] ] On October 8th at 9PM, two third party candidates were
] ] arrested for attempting to enter the Washington
] ] University complex holding the second presidential
] ] debate. The candidates, Michael Badnarik of the
] ] Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party,
] ] chose civil disobedience to fight the bipartisan
] ] Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Over half of
] ] Americans believe third party candidates should be
] ] included, yet politicians continue to funnel public funds
] ] into the bi-partisan Commission.
]
] Should public money be used to fund bipartisan debates?

Sure. Why not. It doesn't seem like the Republicans and their loyal opposition, the Democrats, have any trouble raising money on their own. Let's only give public funds to serious third party candidates like Gary Coleman, Gallagher and Marey Carey.

flynn23 wrote:
] When Decius asks "how democratic is your country?" you can
] look at this article and answer "not very".
]
] This just highlights the divisiveness of our current society
] even more. Without a blurring of two extremes, we will never
] truly unite and accomplish much. The current presidential
] election is not about ideology as much as it's about
] execution. If we truly want choice, and we truly want to
] fashion policies that are considerate of reality, then we've
] GOT to bring more than two extremes to the table.

What do you mean by "two extremes"? If you look at the Political Compass map, you'll see that Bush and Kerry are in the same quadrant -- Authoritarian Right. They're practically the same.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

You correctly point out that the current election is about execution. That's because they don't really have substantive ideological differences.

We have no "uniting" left to do. If you think we are gridlocked now, when Republicans and Democrats in Congress have to agree on a budget, just imagine trying to get Bush and Cobb to reach a compromise on a spending bill.

noteworthy wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] When Decius asks "how democratic is your country?" you can
] ] look at this article and answer "not very".
] ]
] ] This just highlights the divisiveness of our current society
]
] ] even more. Without a blurring of two extremes, we will never
]
] ] truly unite and accomplish much. The current presidential
] ] election is not about ideology as much as it's about
] ] execution. If we truly want choice, and we truly want to
] ] fashion policies that are considerate of reality, then we've
]
] ] GOT to bring more than two extremes to the table.
]
] What do you mean by "two extremes"? If you look at the
] Political Compass map, you'll see that Bush and Kerry are in
] the same quadrant -- Authoritarian Right. They're practically
] the same.
]
] http://www.politicalcompass.org/
]
] You correctly point out that the current election is about
] execution. That's because they don't really have substantive
] ideological differences.
]
] We have no "uniting" left to do. If you think we are
] gridlocked now, when Republicans and Democrats in Congress
] have to agree on a budget, just imagine trying to get Bush and
] Cobb to reach a compromise on a spending bill.

When I say "uniting", I'm talking about the people, not the political parties which claim to represent them. Citizens in this country are polarized against each other because we have an "us versus them" attitude about this election. The choices available don't represent the reality of the situation, that there are many ways to approach the issues, perhaps with valid points within all of them. Solutions are not mearly black and white, which is what the parties play the populace with.

If we had more representation in the process, we'd probably have less bipartisanship and political gaming, which would actually grease the wheels of execution, rather than stifle it. Considering that every other 'democratic' country in the world has more than just two active parties, I fail to see how this situation helps the US accomplish its sizable goals for the near term and long term futures.

Let these alternative viewpoints be heard by the masses! If they are full of crap, then the market will decide by draining support for them. What happens today is basically a form of censorship and undermines progress.

flynn23 wrote:
] Let these alternative viewpoints be heard by the masses! If
] they are full of crap, then the market will decide by draining
] support for them. What happens today is basically a form of
] censorship and undermines progress.

These guys are on C-SPAN regularly. Anyone with basic cable has frequent opportunities to hear Badnarik, Cobb, Nader, and others.

They can set up a web site, already. Wait, they have! badnarik.org allows "the masses" to hear him, ad infinitum.

Honestly, these folks are not exactly new entrants to the scene.

Howard Dean demonstrated that you can raise money, mobilize the people, and demand attention. Dean had a message which resonated.

We are all free to speak, but the public is under no obligation to listen.

noteworthy wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] Let these alternative viewpoints be heard by the masses! If
] ] they are full of crap, then the market will decide by
] draining
] ] support for them. What happens today is basically a form of
] ] censorship and undermines progress.
]
] These guys are on C-SPAN regularly. Anyone with basic cable
] has frequent opportunities to hear Badnarik, Cobb, Nader, and
] others.
]
] They can set up a web site, already. Wait, they have!
] badnarik.org allows "the masses" to hear him, ad infinitum.
]
] Honestly, these folks are not exactly new entrants to the
] scene.
]
] Howard Dean demonstrated that you can raise money, mobilize
] the people, and demand attention. Dean had a message which
] resonated.
]
] We are all free to speak, but the public is under no
] obligation to listen.

So in your world, having a website is equal to being on a nationally televised debate appearing on all major television networks?

flynn23 wrote:
] So in your world, having a website is equal to being on a
] nationally televised debate appearing on all major television
] networks?

Who said anything about equality? I didn't.

I don't know about yours, but on November 2, my presidential ballot is going to list a lot more than four candidates.

So, you'd admit Badnarik and Cobb to the Bush-Kerry debate. What about all the rest of the candidates? You're still excluding them. I guess some are more equal than others?

Attempting to achieve "equality" in this context is a fruitless exercise. It simply doesn't scale.

"Fair" is to give each candidate airtime according to the national polling data. For each hour of debate, Bush gets 29 minutes, Kerry gets 29 minutes, Nader gets 50 seconds, Badnarik gets 5 seconds, Cobb gets 5 seconds, and so on, down the line.

noteworthy wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] So in your world, having a website is equal to being on a
] ] nationally televised debate appearing on all major
] television
] ] networks?
]
] Who said anything about equality? I didn't.

you implied that since they have the ability to appear on news channels and have their own websites extolling their views, that somehow this is the same as appearing in the televised debate. To most people that would be considered equality in the context you used.

] I don't know about yours, but on November 2, my presidential
] ballot is going to list a lot more than four candidates.

that's not the point. what good is a name on the ballot if you haven't had the same amount of exposure to that name's ideals?

] So, you'd admit Badnarik and Cobb to the Bush-Kerry debate.
] What about all the rest of the candidates? You're still
] excluding them. I guess some are more equal than others?

I'm not excluding anyone. I think that candidates should engage in more freeform debates like they used to in the early part of the 20th century.

If anything, I can support each party's nominee appearing. I'd even support a minimum polling number for support, say 5%, to qualify. But the current system is rigged to support a duopoly, which does nothing but a disservice to the public which it's supposed to reflect and represent.

Tell me honestly, if you were looking for a CEO candidate for your workplace, would you only want to have two choices to pick from? Two choices that are simply there because they've been able to raise the most money and bombard the employee base with rhetoric more?

flynn23 wrote:
] noteworthy wrote:
] ] Who said anything about equality? I didn't.
] you implied that since they have the ability to appear on news
] channels and have their own websites extolling their views,
] that somehow this is the same as appearing in the televised
] debate.

You said "Let these alternative viewpoints be heard!"

My point was that no one is supressing anything. An interested voter has multiple low/no-cost ways to learn more about all of the candidates.

] that's not the point. what good is a name on the ballot if you
] haven't had the same amount of exposure to that name's ideals?

This is not the purpose of a ballot. You seem to have this misconception of forced equality regarding elections.

] I think that candidates should engage in more freeform
] debates like they used to in the early part of the 20th century.

This sounds like a good idea. It might be fun for the viewer.

The problem is that it's not an effective use of time for the leading candidates. They simply aren't interested in that sort of thing. Their time is better spent on the trail, one on one with the people.

You can't expect Bush and Kerry to stand around silent and idle for 80% of the time, while Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader rant on.

] If anything, I can support each party's nominee appearing. I'd
] even support a minimum polling number for support, say 5%, to
] qualify.

I don't know what you mean by "each party". There are tons of parties. No one wants to listen to an N-way debate. Just imagine how long it would take for everyone to rebut the rebuttal of the rebuttal to another's rebuttal to an answer to the first question. Even if you could somehow convince all these people to stand around in the same room for 90 minutes, you'd only be able to ask each one a single question.

If you did set a 5% minimum, the debates would have been just Bush and Kerry.

If and when a "third party" candidate has serious support, they are included in the debates and given media coverage. Surely you remember Stockdale's famous line, "Who am I? Why am I here?"

If you opened it up to anyone, you'd simply drive out the top candidates, and then no one would tune in, and the networks would probably refuse to carry it.

] Tell me honestly, if you were looking for a CEO candidate for
] your workplace,

This analogy is ill-fitting for a couple of reasons. The task of CEO selection is generally in the hands of the existing CEO or a few key board members. Also, I've never heard of someone selecting their CEO by having an N-way debate among a bunch of candidates. The standard practice is to interview each one of them individually, talk to their references, review their record, and so on. Finally, CEO selection is often part negotiation. When it comes to being POTUS, there's no haggling over the salary or the benefits package.