Gary Johnson suing to be included in debates (1 Viewer)

[SacramentoBob]

i think the debates need the college game day crew beforehandi want lee corso to put on a giant elephant or donkey head

That would be awesome.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I had no idea the debates were sponsored. They should have revolving signage around the stage, like a soccer match.

This next question is brought to you by Nexium, the healing Purple Pill.

They could dress the candidates up like Nascar drivers.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I had no idea the debates were sponsored. They should have revolving signage around the stage, like a soccer match.

This next question is brought to you by Nexium, the healing Purple Pill.

They could dress the candidates up like Nascar drivers.

Bob Dole with a Viagra patch on his pants?

 

[Sarnoff]

I had no idea the debates were sponsored. They should have revolving signage around the stage, like a soccer match.

This next question is brought to you by Nexium, the healing Purple Pill.

They could dress the candidates up like Nascar drivers.

Yeah, each candidate should wear logo patches of his biggest donors. Oh wait, then they'd both be wearing the same outfit.

 

[roadkill1292]

y'all'z too tough on timmy

Maybe. I'm not sure why he can't understand how people can be really sensitive to being told that only the established parties know what is best for us and change must be managed, filtered and finally fed to us in doses we can handle.

 

[Fennis]

The Kenya Tourist Bureau should blow its entire budget on Obama.

 

[timschochet]

y'all'z too tough on timmy

Maybe. I'm not sure why he can't understand how people can be really sensitive to being told that only the established parties know what is best for us and change must be managed, filtered and finally fed to us in doses we can handle.

Of course I understand it. My comments were not meant for you, or anyone reading this, or anyone who voluntarily chooses to pay attention. It was for those who don't pay attention. But I knew I was going to anger some people. Still, it's what I generally believe.I don't mind, ever, people being tough on my ideas. Some of the personal insults were a little unneccesary.

 

[Clifford]

I don't really know what a good policy on Afghanistan is at this point.

GTFO. Only policy that has ever worked in all of recorded history.

 

[Biabreakable]

at Timmy in this thread

I was just going to catch up on the last 4 pages. Every one of them starts off with a Tim post. WTF?Hey Tim why don't you go muddy the waters elsewhere? It does not always have to be about you.

Sorry if this seems ingracious. But I do not see how someone who would vote for Mitt Romney, even though he does not trust Mitt Romney, and simultaneously thinks they are a fiscal conservative, even though they voted for Bush (right? )and would vote for Romney has any place being the most frequent poster in this thread, which should be about Gary Johnson.

Despite this I will try to soldier through what should be otherwise enjoyable reading.

 

[ren hoek]

at Timmy in this thread

I was just going to catch up on the last 4 pages. Every one of them starts off with a Tim post. WTF?Hey Tim why don't you go muddy the waters elsewhere? It does not always have to be about you.

Sorry if this seems ingracious. But I do not see how someone who would vote for Mitt Romney, even though he does not trust Mitt Romney, and simultaneously thinks they are a fiscal conservative, even though they voted for Bush (right? )and would vote for Romney has any place being the most frequent poster in this thread, which should be about Gary Johnson.

Despite this I will try to soldier through what should be otherwise enjoyable reading.

It's much easier if you just put him on your ignore list.

 

[Biabreakable]

at Timmy in this thread

I was just going to catch up on the last 4 pages. Every one of them starts off with a Tim post. WTF?Hey Tim why don't you go muddy the waters elsewhere? It does not always have to be about you.

Sorry if this seems ingracious. But I do not see how someone who would vote for Mitt Romney, even though he does not trust Mitt Romney, and simultaneously thinks they are a fiscal conservative, even though they voted for Bush (right? )and would vote for Romney has any place being the most frequent poster in this thread, which should be about Gary Johnson.

Despite this I will try to soldier through what should be otherwise enjoyable reading.

It's much easier if you just put him on your ignore list.

I may have to. Last 3 pages are a collection of Tim posts and people complaining about them similarly to I was. Well glad I got caught up there.

 

[Fennis]

One more last ditch effort. Gary Johnson filed a complaint in Federal Court in the District of Columbia today against the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Gov. Gary Johnson Files Complaint In Federal Court Against Commission On Presidential DebatesGov. Gary Johnson Files Complaint In Federal Court Against Commission On Presidential Debates

JOHNSON CAMPAIGN ASKS D.C. FEDERAL COURT TO INTERVENE IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, CITING POLLING FALLACY

October 19, 2012, Washington, DC – Citing survey data showing former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has in fact achieved the narrow criteria required for inclusion in the Monday debate, earning more than 40 percent of the vote in “head-to-head” polls against President Barack Obama, the Libertarian Party nominee’s campaign today filed a complaint in Federal Court in the District of Columbia maintaining that Johnson has, in fact, met the Commission on Presidential Debates’ criteria for inclusion. The complaint asks the Court to compel the CPD to include Johnson.

“The CPD requirements say Johnson ‘must register support of at least 15 percent of the vote in five recent polls,’” Johnson campaign counsel Alicia Dearn said in a statement. “Nowhere does it say those polls must include three candidates. Indeed, the polls used by the CPD to exclude Johnson test only two candidates even though Gov. Johnson is on the ballot in 48 states. We argue that Gov. Johnson has met the specific and narrow criteria laid out by the CPD.

“Included in the two-party ‘deal’ struck by the Republicans and Democrats are the criteria by which candidates are invited to participate. As a two-term governor who is on more than enough states’ ballots to be elected in the Electoral College, the decision to exclude Gov. Johnson can only be based upon the CPD’s self-determined polling criterion — using polls that are ‘head-to-head’ surveys between Romney and Obama. Who decided that? The CPD rules do not specify the number of candidates to be tested in the poll. Using their own methodology, polls that ask voters’ preferences between the President and Gov. Johnson are equally valid, and as we have demonstrated, will show more than enough support for Gov. Johnson to meet the CPD’s arbitrary 15 percent requirement. The same would clearly be the result when Gov. Johnson is surveyed against only Gov. Romney. Nowhere does it say that only the Republican and the Democrat should be pitted against one another,” Dearn said.

“It must be repeated that the official-sounding Commission on Presidential Debates is not official at all. It is a private organization created by the Republican and Democratic Parties for the clear and admitted purpose of controlling the presidential debate process. Everything from the schedule to the participants to the water glasses on stage are determined by way of an MOU between the two parties, to the exclusion of everyone else.

Two debates have already happened, and have excluded Gov. Johnson. We can’t change that — no matter how unfair. However, the CPD has one last opportunity to do the right thing for Monday night’s debate, which we have asked them to do via a letter transmitted Thursday. However, we are not holding our breath for an answer, and have asked the Federal Court to help them do the right thing. Also, we make it clear in our complaint that this issue does not end Monday night, and that it is not just about Gov. Johnson. We are also asking for a permanent injunction to require that the CPD’s criteria be changed for future elections to correct the organization’s fundamental unfairness.

“The American people need to understand that the presidential debates are televised productions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Nothing more. And those productions are designed to exclude alternative voices and ignore the simple fact that one-third of the electorate does not belong to their exclusive clubs.”

A copy of the Johnson campaign’s complaint and letter to the CPD are available here

.

 

[Fennis]

TL;DR: Every poll used to qualify Romney and Obama to the debates was a 2 person poll showing each got more than 15%. So Johnson is claiming that each poll that is a 2 person poll showing Johnson vs Obama or Johnson vs Romney would show Johnson with much more than the required 15%.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

TL;DR: Every poll used to qualify Romney and Obama to the debates was a 2 person poll showing each got more than 15%. So Johnson is claiming that each poll that is a 2 person poll showing Johnson vs Obama or Johnson vs Romney would show Johnson with much more than the required 15%.

Yeah, this is a pretty clever argument.

 

[Biabreakable]

TL;DR: Every poll used to qualify Romney and Obama to the debates was a 2 person poll showing each got more than 15%. So Johnson is claiming that each poll that is a 2 person poll showing Johnson vs Obama or Johnson vs Romney would show Johnson with much more than the required 15%.

Our electoral system is in great need of an overhaul when just 2 people can decide if a candidate has enough support to be included in the debates.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

TL;DR: Every poll used to qualify Romney and Obama to the debates was a 2 person poll showing each got more than 15%. So Johnson is claiming that each poll that is a 2 person poll showing Johnson vs Obama or Johnson vs Romney would show Johnson with much more than the required 15%.

Our electoral system is in great need of an overhaul when just 2 people can decide if a candidate has enough support to be included in the debates.

Seems to me that any two people get to decide whether to let a third person join their conversation. I'd enjoy seeing Johnson on the stage. And this latest argument is at least more clever (thus having maybe a 0.00001% chance of succeeding instead of the 0.000000000000000000001% chance under the Sherman Act claim). It still seems kind of anti-libertarian to me.

 

[Biabreakable]

TL;DR: Every poll used to qualify Romney and Obama to the debates was a 2 person poll showing each got more than 15%. So Johnson is claiming that each poll that is a 2 person poll showing Johnson vs Obama or Johnson vs Romney would show Johnson with much more than the required 15%.

Our electoral system is in great need of an overhaul when just 2 people can decide if a candidate has enough support to be included in the debates.

Seems to me that any two people get to decide whether to let a third person join their conversation. I'd enjoy seeing Johnson on the stage. And this latest argument is at least more clever (thus having maybe a 0.00001% chance of succeeding instead of the 0.000000000000000000001% chance under the Sherman Act claim). It still seems kind of anti-libertarian to me.

What part seems anti-libertarian?I just see it as 2 people are not enough to represent the entire population. So none of them are really qualified but many will vote for them anyway because they think that is their only choice.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

What part seems anti-libertarian?I just see it as 2 people are not enough to represent the entire population. So none of them are really qualified but many will vote for them anyway because they think that is their only choice.

It seems anti-libertarian to use the coercive force of government to force two citizens, even two running for public office, to share their microphone with you. I'm not libertarian. But if I were, I might believe that Romney and Obama had every right to form a country club that excluded women. Or to have a debate that excluded Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. And Johnson would have every right to criticize them over it. And to hold his own shadow debate or buy television ad space. Or do Reddit Ask Me Anythings. Whatever. The CPD is ostensibly a private organization. It's hard to see a libertarian justification for having the government enforce a private organization's rules.

 

[Rayderr]

What part seems anti-libertarian?I just see it as 2 people are not enough to represent the entire population. So none of them are really qualified but many will vote for them anyway because they think that is their only choice.

It seems anti-libertarian to use the coercive force of government to force two citizens, even two running for public office, to share their microphone with you. I'm not libertarian. But if I were, I might believe that Romney and Obama had every right to form a country club that excluded women. Or to have a debate that excluded Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. And Johnson would have every right to criticize them over it. And to hold his own shadow debate or buy television ad space. Or do Reddit Ask Me Anythings. Whatever. The CPD is ostensibly a private organization. It's hard to see a libertarian justification for having the government enforce a private organization's rules.

Well the CPD is essentially an extension of the gov't. Sure it's a "non-profit" but it's run by fromer party big wigs (former RNC chair, former Clinton Press secretary) so they have an interest in limiting to just their parties. There's also a bit of a conflict of interest as both the chair and co-chair of CPD also belong to lobbing groups (gaming and SOPA).

 

[Tom Servo]

What part seems anti-libertarian?I just see it as 2 people are not enough to represent the entire population. So none of them are really qualified but many will vote for them anyway because they think that is their only choice.

It seems anti-libertarian to use the coercive force of government to force two citizens, even two running for public office, to share their microphone with you. I'm not libertarian. But if I were, I might believe that Romney and Obama had every right to form a country club that excluded women. Or to have a debate that excluded Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. And Johnson would have every right to criticize them over it. And to hold his own shadow debate or buy television ad space. Or do Reddit Ask Me Anythings. Whatever. The CPD is ostensibly a private organization. It's hard to see a libertarian justification for having the government enforce a private organization's rules.

This.

 

[Rayderr]

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

So the 2 parties that created the CPD are now using rules to ensure that only their party members participate. You guys don't have a problem with this?

 

[Brady Marino]

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

So the 2 parties that created the CPD are now using rules to ensure that only their party members participate. You guys don't have a problem with this?

This.And what kind of country do we live in when a Presidential candidate is arrested for, god forbid, trying to get into a Presidential debate? Is this democracy?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

So the 2 parties that created the CPD are now using rules to ensure that only their party members participate. You guys don't have a problem with this?

I think a lot of us have a problem with it in the sense that we'd prefer things to work differently.But that's not the same as having a problem with it in the sense of thinking it should be illegal.If Obama and Romney want to debate each other and not invite anybody else, that's kind of lame; but I can't think of a good reason to make it illegal.

 

[Dickies]

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

So the 2 parties that created the CPD are now using rules to ensure that only their party members participate. You guys don't have a problem with this?

 

[humpback]

Anyway we can get him to be the moderator at least?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

What part seems anti-libertarian?I just see it as 2 people are not enough to represent the entire population. So none of them are really qualified but many will vote for them anyway because they think that is their only choice.

It seems anti-libertarian to use the coercive force of government to force two citizens, even two running for public office, to share their microphone with you. I'm not libertarian. But if I were, I might believe that Romney and Obama had every right to form a country club that excluded women. Or to have a debate that excluded Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. And Johnson would have every right to criticize them over it. And to hold his own shadow debate or buy television ad space. Or do Reddit Ask Me Anythings. Whatever. The CPD is ostensibly a private organization. It's hard to see a libertarian justification for having the government enforce a private organization's rules.

Well the CPD is essentially an extension of the gov't. Sure it's a "non-profit" but it's run by fromer party big wigs (former RNC chair, former Clinton Press secretary) so they have an interest in limiting to just their parties. There's also a bit of a conflict of interest as both the chair and co-chair of CPD also belong to lobbing groups (gaming and SOPA).

I don't see how any of that makes the CPD "an extension of the government." Can it create or enforce a legal obligation on Gary Johnson? Of course not. And, of course, the libertarian solution to conflicts of interest isn't to restrict what former government officials and lobbyists can do. It's to restrict what government can do.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

So the 2 parties that created the CPD are now using rules to ensure that only their party members participate. You guys don't have a problem with this?

It's not a question of the problem. It's a question of the solution. We crunchy liberals like to think that the government can solve lots of problems. Libertarians are constantly telling me that's my mistake. They're telling me that the government can't tell people how much money they can give to candidates or to Super-PACS. And I understand their perspective. As it applies to campaign finance, the law largely agrees with their perspective. The flip-side of that perspective is that while the law affords Gary Johnson many, many means to get his message to the American people (I've named some of them above), it does not provide for other candidates or organizations to have to grant Gary Johnson access to their particular means of getting his massage to the American people. So when I see self-described Libertarians or Gary Johnson supporters suggesting otherwise, I can't help but think that they haven't really examined their political philosophy particularly carefully. I doubt their commitment to Sparkle Motion.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

So the 2 parties that created the CPD are now using rules to ensure that only their party members participate. You guys don't have a problem with this?

It's not a question of the problem. It's a question of the solution. We crunchy liberals like to think that the government can solve lots of problems. Libertarians are constantly telling me that's my mistake. They're telling me that the government can't tell people how much money they can give to candidates or to Super-PACS. And I understand their perspective. As it applies to campaign finance, the law largely agrees with their perspective. The flip-side of that perspective is that while the law affords Gary Johnson many, many means to get his message to the American people (I've named some of them above), it does not provide for other candidates or organizations to have to grant Gary Johnson access to their particular means of getting his massage to the American people. So when I see self-described Libertarians or Gary Johnson supporters suggesting otherwise, I can't help but think that they haven't really examined their political philosophy particularly carefully. I doubt their commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Good point. Better point about Donnie Darko.

 

[CBusAlex]

The libertarian solution, of course, would be to do nothing and let a rival debate commision with a superior criteria for inclusion outcompete the CPD in the battle for viewership.

And who knows, if at some point more than a slim fraction of the country cares to see a third party candidate in the debates, maybe that will even actually happen.

 

[joffer]

Just weeks before the 2012 election, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center released a poll showing that only 54% of American voters were satisfied with their choices for President. A full 40% said they were NOT satisfied.

Is it possible that a significant reason for this dissatisfaction was, simply, that a great many Americans didnt realize who their choices were? And is that any surprise, given that the Republican and Democrat parties have gone to extraordinary lengths to convince American voters that their candidates are the only real options, despite the fact that more people consider themselves to be independents than Republicans and Democrats combined?

Letting America know that there are more choices begins with the presidential debates. You can help here: Our America's Debate Challenge

The most powerful weapon the two major parties use to exclude other candidates from serious consideration is their Commission on Presidential Debates. Yes, that Commission, regardless of its official-sounding name, is theirs. It was created in 1987 by the Republican and Democrat national parties, and is a private organization funded by special interests and run by a board of -- you guessed it -- Republicans and Democrats. There is nothing nonpartisan about it, and they have made no secret of their desire to keep anyone other than their own two nominees OFF the debate stage.

As part of our mission to make truly small government and greater individual Liberty part of the nations dialogue, the Our America Initiative is mounting an aggressive campaign to break up the Republican-Democrat control of the nationally-televised presidential debates. Allowing other qualified and credible candidates on the debate stage will dramatically alter the political and policy landscape -- and we are committed to making that happen.

Our America has just released an Internet video as part of this campaign. Check it out here: Change the Presidential Debates, and share with your friends.

Our effort is two-fold. First, we are challenging the Commission on Presidential Debates in court, and second, we plan to inform and mobilize people from all over the country to let debate sponsors, the news media and others know that allowing the two major parties to control the all-important debates is simply not fair -- and not acceptable.

To kick this campaign off, the Our America Initiative must raise $50,000 -- soon. Please go to Our America's Debate Challenge today and help us reach that goal. This is a fight we can win, but only with your help.

 

[joffer]

On the phone, but that was an op-ed from GJ

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The libertarian solution, of course, would be to do nothing and let a rival debate commision with a superior criteria for inclusion outcompete the CPD in the battle for viewership. And who knows, if at some point more than a slim fraction of the country cares to see a third party candidate in the debates, maybe that will even actually happen.

Superior criteria for inclusion don't mean anything when the Republican and Democratic candidates decline to participate in debates with third-party candidates -- which they will keep doing regardless of what fraction of the country would like to see it.

That's their right, of course, but this issue has nothing to do with competition among debate commissions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As part of our mission to make truly small government and greater individual Liberty part of the nations dialogue, the Our America Initiative is mounting an aggressive campaign to break up the Republican-Democrat control of the nationally-televised presidential debates use government force to restrict the major-party candidates' freedom of association by requiring them to include me in their debates.

Fixed.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

As part of our mission to make truly small government and greater individual Liberty part of the nations dialogue, the Our America Initiative is mounting an aggressive campaign to break up the Republican-Democrat control of the nationally-televised presidential debates use government force to restrict the major-party candidates' freedom of association by requiring them to include me in their debates.

Fixed.

In fairness, only prong one of his two prong strategy is completely inconsistent with his stated libertarian ideals.

He's like the Sex Panther of libertarians.

 

[NCCommish]

As part of our mission to make truly small government and greater individual Liberty part of the nations dialogue, the Our America Initiative is mounting an aggressive campaign to break up the Republican-Democrat control of the nationally-televised presidential debates use government force to restrict the major-party candidates' freedom of association by requiring them to include me in their debates.

Fixed.

They aren't running for president of a country club. This isn't at all about Freedom of Association. We are supposed to be selecting the best candidate to serve this country. They are using their power in a monopolistic way to ensure we only hear from two parties. We constantly rule against monopolies in court.

 

[Rove!]

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD. In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

So the 2 parties that created the CPD are now using rules to ensure that only their party members participate. You guys don't have a problem with this?

It's not a question of the problem. It's a question of the solution. We crunchy liberals like to think that the government can solve lots of problems. Libertarians are constantly telling me that's my mistake. They're telling me that the government can't tell people how much money they can give to candidates or to Super-PACS. And I understand their perspective. As it applies to campaign finance, the law largely agrees with their perspective. The flip-side of that perspective is that while the law affords Gary Johnson many, many means to get his message to the American people (I've named some of them above), it does not provide for other candidates or organizations to have to grant Gary Johnson access to their particular means of getting his massage to the American people. So when I see self-described Libertarians or Gary Johnson supporters suggesting otherwise, I can't help but think that they haven't really examined their political philosophy particularly carefully. I doubt their commitment to Sparkle Motion.

This is a great posting. The Libertarian Party debate conundrum is illustrative of the problem with pure libertarianism. Markets are great, but you need a little Teddy Roosevelt philosophy in there too. sometimes you need to address inefficient markets and provide protections from entities that become powerful enough to eliminate healthy competition by shutting them out of the marketplace.

 

[Tom Servo]

As part of our mission to make truly small government and greater individual Liberty part of the nations dialogue, the Our America Initiative is mounting an aggressive campaign to break up the Republican-Democrat control of the nationally-televised presidential debates use government force to restrict the major-party candidates' freedom of association by requiring them to include me in their debates.

Fixed.

They aren't running for president of a country club. This isn't at all about Freedom of Association. We are supposed to be selecting the best candidate to serve this country. They are using their power in a monopolistic way to ensure we only hear from two parties. We constantly rule against monopolies in court.

Good to see that being excluded from the debates really hurt his chances of winning.

 

[NCCommish]

As part of our mission to make truly small government and greater individual Liberty part of the nations dialogue, the Our America Initiative is mounting an aggressive campaign to break up the Republican-Democrat control of the nationally-televised presidential debates use government force to restrict the major-party candidates' freedom of association by requiring them to include me in their debates.

Fixed.

They aren't running for president of a country club. This isn't at all about Freedom of Association. We are supposed to be selecting the best candidate to serve this country. They are using their power in a monopolistic way to ensure we only hear from two parties. We constantly rule against monopolies in court.

Good to see that being excluded from the debates really hurt his chances of winning.

It isn't just about him. It's about anyone that runs. If you are on enough state ballots to win the electoral college you should get to be in the debates. Or we can continue with Kodos and Kang I guess.