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

[timschochet]

I'm not sure why you keep saying that 270 is some arbitrary number. That number wasn't just plucked out of thin air like the 15% in the national polls was. It has a very defined meaning - the number of electorates needed to become president.

Sure the number has meaning in other contexts, but what's the principle behind using it to decide who is in a debate? I think that inclusion in a debate should be limited, at least somewhat, to candidates that have some possibility of becoming President. Is that what you think is being accomplished by the 270 thing? If so, it seems to do an incredibly poor job of it.

I don't think that the only reason someone should be allowed to debate is if they have a good chance at becoming president.

I don't agree but fair enough. What then, should the criteria be?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

But I still haven't heard a good explanation why the 270 rule makes more sense than one that is somehow pegged to the likelihood that a candidate might win the Presidency. It seems to me that should be the touchstone of any qualification requirement and the 270 thing doesn't seem to do a good job approximating it.

I like the idea of using ballot-appearances rather than poll numbers because ballot-appearances are legitimately ***OFFICIAL*** while numbers from a CNN poll or whatever are merely "official" and can be affected by subjective choices about which candidates to list, etc.

Ballot appearances are "official" but they don't really tell us very much about anything. And setting the threshold at 270 seems arbitrary to me. What is the purpose of the requirement? To prove you're actually running for President? Roseanne is running for President. Why should she be excluded from the debate and Johnson included just because his party managed to get more signatures than hers?

Two-seventy might not be the right number, but I wouldn't call it arbitrary. It's what wins the election. And getting signatures for ballot eligibility is a meaningful step in a serious run.According to the Internet, Roseanne will be on the ballot in Florida. If I were organizing a debate, would I include her along with the 20 or so other candidates who made it onto the ballot in at least one state? I wouldn't. Twenty is too many, so I'd probably choose a higher threshold than one electoral college vote. I don't know whether I'd choose 270. On the plus side, it's non-arbitrary and would limit the field to a good number of candidates for a debate — four or five, I'm guessing, but I don't feel like Googling anything else right now after I've already Googled Roseanne Barr. But maybe a different number is better. I'd get more than two candidates into the debate, though, if I thought it would improve its quality. (I'm not sure what I'd do if Romney and Obama jointly boycotted the addition of anyone else.)

270 in the current race would mean four candidates (Obama, Romney, Johnson, Stein). Goode would just miss. I don't think anybody else is close.But I think if there were an official announcement that debates would include anybody with 270, we would see a lot more fringe candidates reach that threshold next election. What would you do if 20 candidates got on that many ballots? Raise it to 350?

 

[Sarnoff]

TIM IS EVEN WORSE THAN CHRISTO

Tim is worse that almost every human being that's ever lived. 1. Idi Amin2. Tim3. HitlerHe just pushed Stalin out of the top 3.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm not sure why you keep saying that 270 is some arbitrary number. That number wasn't just plucked out of thin air like the 15% in the national polls was. It has a very defined meaning - the number of electorates needed to become president.

Sure the number has meaning in other contexts, but what's the principle behind using it to decide who is in a debate? I think that inclusion in a debate should be limited, at least somewhat, to candidates that have some possibility of becoming President. Is that what you think is being accomplished by the 270 thing? If so, it seems to do an incredibly poor job of it.

That's like keeping Boise State out of the BCS title game because of their schedule but the SEC schools won't go to Boise for a game.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

That's like keeping Boise State out of the BCS title game because of their schedule but the SEC schools won't go to Boise for a game.

I agree it's like that. When there are limited spots in a football game or in a debate it's impossible to please everyone.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.

So I answer the question, you don't like that I did, so you change the rules. Got it.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.

So I answer the question, you don't like that I did, so you change the rules. Got it.

Actually I do like that you answered it. Your deep knowledge of American history always impresses me and I always learn something from you.It was my error not to clarify my point originally and restrict it to modern times. I don't think it weakens my argument.

 

[NCCommish]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

So basically let's sum up. You said "multiple parties lead to dictatorships" you then pull out two examples of dictatorships that came about for many reasons, the least of which was multiple parties. I point that out and it's a strawman. You then say "It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent" I point out you aren't preventing her lack of money is, which pretty much anyone could see. She was leading the GOP polls remember and she has still is in Congress helping make law. Again that's a strawman. So it appears anytime I point out a flaw in your half baked defense of our rigged system it is a strawman argument.

Well, that's your summary, not mine. The essential difference between us regarding Bachmann is that you believe that if she had enough money she would have been the nominee. I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.I should add that with every argument there are always usually one or two examples that contradict it. The only modern example I can think of is Huey P. Long of Louisiana. Had he not been assassinated, it was his intention to run for President in 1936, as a third party candidate. He represents, so far as I know, the only time in modern American political history that an actual extremist had a reasonable chance of being elected.

Long was a bit of a criminal but extremist? He opposed the KKK and it cost him an election. Once he was governor he mandated free textbooks in schools and used the power of the state to get it done, he supported night school which went on to teach 100k how to read. In fact they tried to impeach him because he wanted to tax oil companies to support his social agenda. Once in the Senate he became known for being a leader of the Progressive Bloc which was from where FDR drew support. Perhaps you could point out which of his policies he enacted made him an extremist for me.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But I still haven't heard a good explanation why the 270 rule makes more sense than one that is somehow pegged to the likelihood that a candidate might win the Presidency. It seems to me that should be the touchstone of any qualification requirement and the 270 thing doesn't seem to do a good job approximating it.

I like the idea of using ballot-appearances rather than poll numbers because ballot-appearances are legitimately ***OFFICIAL*** while numbers from a CNN poll or whatever are merely "official" and can be affected by subjective choices about which candidates to list, etc.

Ballot appearances are "official" but they don't really tell us very much about anything. And setting the threshold at 270 seems arbitrary to me. What is the purpose of the requirement? To prove you're actually running for President? Roseanne is running for President. Why should she be excluded from the debate and Johnson included just because his party managed to get more signatures than hers?

Two-seventy might not be the right number, but I wouldn't call it arbitrary. It's what wins the election. And getting signatures for ballot eligibility is a meaningful step in a serious run.According to the Internet, Roseanne will be on the ballot in Florida. If I were organizing a debate, would I include her along with the 20 or so other candidates who made it onto the ballot in at least one state? I wouldn't. Twenty is too many, so I'd probably choose a higher threshold than one electoral college vote. I don't know whether I'd choose 270. On the plus side, it's non-arbitrary and would limit the field to a good number of candidates for a debate — four or five, I'm guessing, but I don't feel like Googling anything else right now after I've already Googled Roseanne Barr. But maybe a different number is better. I'd get more than two candidates into the debate, though, if I thought it would improve its quality. (I'm not sure what I'd do if Romney and Obama jointly boycotted the addition of anyone else.)

270 in the current race would mean four candidates (Obama, Romney, Johnson, Stein). Goode would just miss. I don't think anybody else is close.But I think if there were an official announcement that debates would include anybody with 270, we would see a lot more fringe candidates reach that threshold next election. What would you do if 20 candidates got on that many ballots? Raise it to 350?

On second thought, I think using polls makes more sense than using ballot appearances.I think the first debate should have between three and seven candidates, and then subsequent debates should be progressively more limited. Ballot appearances are pretty static in October, so they can't react to the performances in the first debate like poll numbers can.If nobody is close after Goode, it seems like the natural cut-off for the first debate this year would be five candidates. There may be different natural cut-offs in other years, with no clear tiering in still others (which would make it harder to choose the appropriate number of candidates).I'd just like to see better debates. I think initially including more than just the R and D candidates would help. I also think a format that didn't let evasive non-answers off the hook would help. Both wishes seem pretty unrealistic, however, as long as the R and D candidates can effectively veto formats they don't like. I don't really see a good solution.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

So basically let's sum up. You said "multiple parties lead to dictatorships" you then pull out two examples of dictatorships that came about for many reasons, the least of which was multiple parties. I point that out and it's a strawman. You then say "It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent" I point out you aren't preventing her lack of money is, which pretty much anyone could see. She was leading the GOP polls remember and she has still is in Congress helping make law. Again that's a strawman. So it appears anytime I point out a flaw in your half baked defense of our rigged system it is a strawman argument.

Well, that's your summary, not mine. The essential difference between us regarding Bachmann is that you believe that if she had enough money she would have been the nominee. I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.I should add that with every argument there are always usually one or two examples that contradict it. The only modern example I can think of is Huey P. Long of Louisiana. Had he not been assassinated, it was his intention to run for President in 1936, as a third party candidate. He represents, so far as I know, the only time in modern American political history that an actual extremist had a reasonable chance of being elected.

Long was a bit of a criminal but extremist? He opposed the KKK and it cost him an election. Once he was governor he mandated free textbooks in schools and used the power of the state to get it done, he supported night school which went on to teach 100k how to read. In fact they tried to impeach him because he wanted to tax oil companies to support his social agenda. Once in the Senate he became known for being a leader of the Progressive Bloc which was from where FDR drew support. Perhaps you could point out which of his policies he enacted made him an extremist for me.

Long accomplished the items you speak of by controlling every member of the legislature, judiciary, police force, and civil governing apparatus in his home state. He ruled Lousiana much as Mussolini ruled Italy- as a fascist dictator. You're correct that Long was not an extremist in terms of ideology- (at least, most contemporaries didn't think so, though John Dos Passos certainly did) but there are different definitions of extremism. Huey was the Kingfish.

 

[roadkill1292]

That's like keeping Boise State out of the BCS title game because of their schedule but the SEC schools won't go to Boise for a game.

I agree it's like that. When there are limited spots in a football game or in a debate it's impossible to please everyone.

You are uncharacteristically missing a couple of points here. It's disingenuous -- plus unsavory and abusive of power -- to say that someone isn't popular enough to be included in the debates and then never giving them a venue for improving their popularity.Second, while we have yet to figure out how to include a third team on the gridiron and have it remain the same game, that is not true of a simple debate where there is no downside to having a demonstrably viable candidate participate and lots of upside. The man is not a Frank Perdue lookalike like the last third party candidate, he has a proven record as a political leader.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

On second thought, I think using polls makes more sense than using ballot appearances.I think the first debate should have between three and seven candidates, and then subsequent debates should be progressively more limited. Ballot appearances are pretty static in October, so they can't react to the performances in the first debate like poll numbers can.If nobody is close after Goode, it seems like the natural cut-off for the first debate this year would be five candidates. There may be different natural cut-offs in other years, with no clear tiering in still others (which would make it harder to choose the appropriate number of candidates).I'd just like to see better debates. I think initially including more than just the R and D candidates would help. I also think a format that didn't let evasive non-answers off the hook would help. Both wishes seem pretty unrealistic, however, as long as the R and D candidates can effectively veto formats they don't like. I don't really see a good solution.

I agree with everything you've said here.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Good for him. Hope he wins and gets included.

I'm not gonna watch a debate between Romney and Obama. I'll watch one if Johnson is in though.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.

So I answer the question, you don't like that I did, so you change the rules. Got it.

Actually I do like that you answered it. Your deep knowledge of American history always impresses me and I always learn something from you.It was my error not to clarify my point originally and restrict it to modern times. I don't think it weakens my argument.

Fair enough. What do you consider modern times? (Because I'm pretty sure I can think of another one.)And you didn't guess who I was talking about.....

 

[NCCommish]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

So basically let's sum up. You said "multiple parties lead to dictatorships" you then pull out two examples of dictatorships that came about for many reasons, the least of which was multiple parties. I point that out and it's a strawman. You then say "It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent" I point out you aren't preventing her lack of money is, which pretty much anyone could see. She was leading the GOP polls remember and she has still is in Congress helping make law. Again that's a strawman. So it appears anytime I point out a flaw in your half baked defense of our rigged system it is a strawman argument.

Well, that's your summary, not mine. The essential difference between us regarding Bachmann is that you believe that if she had enough money she would have been the nominee. I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.I should add that with every argument there are always usually one or two examples that contradict it. The only modern example I can think of is Huey P. Long of Louisiana. Had he not been assassinated, it was his intention to run for President in 1936, as a third party candidate. He represents, so far as I know, the only time in modern American political history that an actual extremist had a reasonable chance of being elected.

Long was a bit of a criminal but extremist? He opposed the KKK and it cost him an election. Once he was governor he mandated free textbooks in schools and used the power of the state to get it done, he supported night school which went on to teach 100k how to read. In fact they tried to impeach him because he wanted to tax oil companies to support his social agenda. Once in the Senate he became known for being a leader of the Progressive Bloc which was from where FDR drew support. Perhaps you could point out which of his policies he enacted made him an extremist for me.

Long accomplished the items you speak of by controlling every member of the legislature, judiciary, police force, and civil governing apparatus in his home state. He ruled Lousiana much as Mussolini ruled Italy- as a fascist dictator. You're correct that Long was not an extremist in terms of ideology- (at least, most contemporaries didn't think so, though John Dos Passos certainly did) but there are different definitions of extremism. Huey was the Kingfish.

He was not a Fascist. That's what the rich called him when he started making laws that cost them money:

Fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

He didn't exalt race and he wasn't much of a nationalist. I don't recall him advocating severe regimentation. And he believed in the power of the vote if nothing else.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

That's like keeping Boise State out of the BCS title game because of their schedule but the SEC schools won't go to Boise for a game.

I agree it's like that. When there are limited spots in a football game or in a debate it's impossible to please everyone.

You are uncharacteristically missing a couple of points here. It's disingenuous -- plus unsavory and abusive of power -- to say that someone isn't popular enough to be included in the debates and then never giving them a venue for improving their popularity.Second, while we have yet to figure out how to include a third team on the gridiron and have it remain the same game, that is not true of a simple debate where there is no downside to having a demonstrably viable candidate participate and lots of upside. The man is not a Frank Perdue lookalike like the last third party candidate, he has a proven record as a political leader.

I don't think I'm missing anything. Debates are not the sole means by which candidates can gain popularity. Unfortunately, most of the other ways involve having lots of money. I'm in full support of meaningful campaign reforms that would, for example, provide candidates with free media and/or better public financing. Debates are a bit different, though. Even though it's relatively easy to have a debate with 3 candidates, it isn't easy to have a debate with 20 candidates. So I don't agree with you about "no downside." Now, I agree that Johnson "has a proven record as a political leader" and therefore should be a more credible candidate than a lot of third party candidates (well, Virgil Goode was a member of the House of Representatives so he has a record too. And I think Jill Stein had some state office in Massachusetts). But there's no way I'm on board with some debate panel making completely subjective evaluations about which candidates are qualified based on their political experience.Perot wasn't "the last third party candidate." There have been dozens of third party candidates since then. None of them have been in the general election debates. This isn't really about Johnson. He's being treated the same way as all the rest of them. If you want Johnson in the debates you have to be willing to either accept all of them or explain why Johnson is so special.

 

[roadkill1292]

That's like keeping Boise State out of the BCS title game because of their schedule but the SEC schools won't go to Boise for a game.

I agree it's like that. When there are limited spots in a football game or in a debate it's impossible to please everyone.

You are uncharacteristically missing a couple of points here. It's disingenuous -- plus unsavory and abusive of power -- to say that someone isn't popular enough to be included in the debates and then never giving them a venue for improving their popularity.Second, while we have yet to figure out how to include a third team on the gridiron and have it remain the same game, that is not true of a simple debate where there is no downside to having a demonstrably viable candidate participate and lots of upside. The man is not a Frank Perdue lookalike like the last third party candidate, he has a proven record as a political leader.

I don't think I'm missing anything. Debates are not the sole means by which candidates can gain popularity. Unfortunately, most of the other ways involve having lots of money. I'm in full support of meaningful campaign reforms that would, for example, provide candidates with free media and/or better public financing. Debates are a bit different, though. Even though it's relatively easy to have a debate with 3 candidates, it isn't easy to have a debate with 20 candidates. So I don't agree with you about "no downside." Now, I agree that Johnson "has a proven record as a political leader" and therefore should be a more credible candidate than a lot of third party candidates (well, Virgil Goode was a member of the House of Representatives so he has a record too. And I think Jill Stein had some state office in Massachusetts). But there's no way I'm on board with some debate panel making completely subjective evaluations about which candidates are qualified based on their political experience.Perot wasn't "the last third party candidate." There have been dozens of third party candidates since then. None of them have been in the general election debates. This isn't really about Johnson. He's being treated the same way as all the rest of them. If you want Johnson in the debates you have to be willing to either accept all of them or explain why Johnson is so special.

This is extremely well articulated which helps mask how substantially wrong it is on practically every point. You're the only one arguing for debates with 20 candidates. My point was that there is no downside to inviting Gary Johnson to this year's.Second, the debate panels are making pretty subjective evaluations about which candidates are qualified now; it's just obscured by a specific number being mentioned. But the number itself is pretty arbitrary.Finally, there are several threads in here which examine Johnson's record and experience in governing. I'd say it's pretty clear why he's head and shoulder above most of the other third party candidates.

 

[lod01]

What a clown.

How so?

The was a Gary Johnson look-a-like at the 'We are a bunch of Clowns' meeting that was headed by GoBirds.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

In a post Citizens United world, might as well have a dollar amount as the qualifier. It would be unambiguous and honest.

 

[SacramentoBob]

In a post Citizens United world, might as well have a dollar amount as the qualifier. It would be unambiguous and honest.

Must have raised at least whatever Ron Paul raised last month + $1 to be included.

 

[ren hoek]

But then, in your second paragraph, you call the 2 party system a "tyranny"- and at the same time you claim to not being extremist- yet how can anything be more extremist than that?

How is pointing out that the US government is tyrannical extremist? That doesn't make any sense.

I wonder if you understand what tyranny really means; if you did, I doubt you would use it so lightly. It's like pro-lifers referring to abortion as a "Holocaust" or a modern-day black activist referring to criticism from the media as a "lynching"- when people use words such as these, it's a sure sign they are promoting political extremism.

tyr·an·ny   [tir-uh-nee] Show IPA

noun, plural tyr·an·nies.

1.

arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

I don't use it lightly at all. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Then, you appear to call for a "sensible, autonomous political uprising." I challenge you to name a SINGLE one of these in history. Even if you can come up with one that started out that way, you'll never find one that finished. It is exactly these "sensible" political uprisings that I fear would be the result of doing away with our two party "tyranny."

Who cares? It doesn't take a genius to see that Obama and Romney are clearly going to maintain the same destructive policies Bush did, which were delineated in my original post. It also doesn't take a genius to see that Gary Johnson has given us no earthly reason to believe he will continue to do those things. You are really off the mark if you think it's better the country hear the empty rhetoric of the reigning corporatocracy rather than hearing from another independent voice. This is your logic right here: http://i.imgur.com/PITJ1.jpg

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

But I still haven't heard a good explanation why the 270 rule makes more sense than one that is somehow pegged to the likelihood that a candidate might win the Presidency. It seems to me that should be the touchstone of any qualification requirement and the 270 thing doesn't seem to do a good job approximating it.

I like the idea of using ballot-appearances rather than poll numbers because ballot-appearances are legitimately ***OFFICIAL*** while numbers from a CNN poll or whatever are merely "official" and can be affected by subjective choices about which candidates to list, etc.

Ballot appearances are "official" but they don't really tell us very much about anything. And setting the threshold at 270 seems arbitrary to me. What is the purpose of the requirement? To prove you're actually running for President? Roseanne is running for President. Why should she be excluded from the debate and Johnson included just because his party managed to get more signatures than hers?

Two-seventy might not be the right number, but I wouldn't call it arbitrary. It's what wins the election. And getting signatures for ballot eligibility is a meaningful step in a serious run.According to the Internet, Roseanne will be on the ballot in Florida. If I were organizing a debate, would I include her along with the 20 or so other candidates who made it onto the ballot in at least one state? I wouldn't. Twenty is too many, so I'd probably choose a higher threshold than one electoral college vote. I don't know whether I'd choose 270. On the plus side, it's non-arbitrary and would limit the field to a good number of candidates for a debate — four or five, I'm guessing, but I don't feel like Googling anything else right now after I've already Googled Roseanne Barr. But maybe a different number is better. I'd get more than two candidates into the debate, though, if I thought it would improve its quality. (I'm not sure what I'd do if Romney and Obama jointly boycotted the addition of anyone else.)

270 in the current race would mean four candidates (Obama, Romney, Johnson, Stein). Goode would just miss. I don't think anybody else is close.But I think if there were an official announcement that debates would include anybody with 270, we would see a lot more fringe candidates reach that threshold next election. What would you do if 20 candidates got on that many ballots? Raise it to 350?

On second thought, I think using polls makes more sense than using ballot appearances.I think the first debate should have between three and seven candidates, and then subsequent debates should be progressively more limited. Ballot appearances are pretty static in October, so they can't react to the performances in the first debate like poll numbers can.If nobody is close after Goode, it seems like the natural cut-off for the first debate this year would be five candidates. There may be different natural cut-offs in other years, with no clear tiering in still others (which would make it harder to choose the appropriate number of candidates).I'd just like to see better debates. I think initially including more than just the R and D candidates would help. I also think a format that didn't let evasive non-answers off the hook would help. Both wishes seem pretty unrealistic, however, as long as the R and D candidates can effectively veto formats they don't like. I don't really see a good solution.

It doesn't need to be the same criteria for all debates. It could start with the first debate being anybody who is on some amount of ballots and then move to you need to be at such percentage in the polls. That percentage might move up before a third debate

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it seems like the solution to the problems for third-party proponents could be solved if you guys could just manage to take over one state. What ever happened to that Free State Project that was supposed to make New Hampshire Libertarian?

If the Libertarian party took over New Hampshire, it could condition ballot access on participation in a debate with all candidates. Then the major party candidates would be forced to participate unless they were willing to give up those electoral votes.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What ever happened to that Free State Project that was supposed to make New Hampshire Libertarian?

Just looked at the website and it looks like they managed to get 1000 people to move in 9 years. At that rate, you guys should control New Hampshire by 2526 or something.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What ever happened to that Free State Project that was supposed to make New Hampshire Libertarian?

Just looked at the website and it looks like they managed to get 1000 people to move in 9 years.

That's barely keeping up with the rate of communism, which is 875 to 984 pinkos added per nine years.[/Allen West]

 

[Topes]

Actually, there is. Said candidate must simply meet their requirements. One of those is 15% support in national poll. There are surely others. They're very restrictive.

I think the 15% in the national polls is the only requirement.What Gary Johnson is proposing is much better, IMO. "All constitutionally-eligible candidates are included whose names will appear on the ballots in states whose cumulative total of electoral college votes is 270 or more".

Nader would have been invited for 2 elections under this rule. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would be this year.

What's the principled reason to limit inclusion to only those candidates that appear on ballots in states with over 270 electoral votes? It's theoretically possible for a candidate to be elected President even if he only appears on the ballot in one state. Seems like Johnson is unfairly discriminating against Virgil Goode.

So how does one get 270 electoral votes by winning one state exactly?

He wins one state, the other two split down the middle, no one gets 270, and the vote is thrown to Congress and the one-state winner wins there.

Alternately, LOTS of write-in votes.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.

So I answer the question, you don't like that I did, so you change the rules. Got it.

Actually I do like that you answered it. Your deep knowledge of American history always impresses me and I always learn something from you.It was my error not to clarify my point originally and restrict it to modern times. I don't think it weakens my argument.

Fair enough. What do you consider modern times? (Because I'm pretty sure I can think of another one.)And you didn't guess who I was talking about.....

Modern times starts with the media age- say Eisenhower. However, I don't believe any of the Presidents since Woodrow Wilson could be considered political extremists. Before that, I'm a little weaker.My guess is Andrew Jackson.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

So basically let's sum up. You said "multiple parties lead to dictatorships" you then pull out two examples of dictatorships that came about for many reasons, the least of which was multiple parties. I point that out and it's a strawman. You then say "It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent" I point out you aren't preventing her lack of money is, which pretty much anyone could see. She was leading the GOP polls remember and she has still is in Congress helping make law. Again that's a strawman. So it appears anytime I point out a flaw in your half baked defense of our rigged system it is a strawman argument.

Well, that's your summary, not mine. The essential difference between us regarding Bachmann is that you believe that if she had enough money she would have been the nominee. I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.I should add that with every argument there are always usually one or two examples that contradict it. The only modern example I can think of is Huey P. Long of Louisiana. Had he not been assassinated, it was his intention to run for President in 1936, as a third party candidate. He represents, so far as I know, the only time in modern American political history that an actual extremist had a reasonable chance of being elected.

Long was a bit of a criminal but extremist? He opposed the KKK and it cost him an election. Once he was governor he mandated free textbooks in schools and used the power of the state to get it done, he supported night school which went on to teach 100k how to read. In fact they tried to impeach him because he wanted to tax oil companies to support his social agenda. Once in the Senate he became known for being a leader of the Progressive Bloc which was from where FDR drew support. Perhaps you could point out which of his policies he enacted made him an extremist for me.

Long accomplished the items you speak of by controlling every member of the legislature, judiciary, police force, and civil governing apparatus in his home state. He ruled Lousiana much as Mussolini ruled Italy- as a fascist dictator. You're correct that Long was not an extremist in terms of ideology- (at least, most contemporaries didn't think so, though John Dos Passos certainly did) but there are different definitions of extremism. Huey was the Kingfish.

He was not a Fascist. That's what the rich called him when he started making laws that cost them money:

Fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

He didn't exalt race and he wasn't much of a nationalist. I don't recall him advocating severe regimentation. And he believed in the power of the vote if nothing else.

No offense, but I think you have bought into a progressive, revisionist view of Huey Long. You need to read Robert Penn Warren.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Modern times starts with the media age- say Eisenhower. However, I don't believe any of the Presidents since Woodrow Wilson could be considered political extremists. Before that, I'm a little weaker.My guess is Andrew Jackson.

Eisenhower it is. I will be back.Oh, and the answer was Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson.

 

[NCCommish]

Yes, you are creating a strawman, because I never wrote that extremist idiots aren't getting elected in this country, I wrote that they're not getting elected to POTUS. Idiocy notwithstanding, if you have an example of a true extremist who has ever been elected to the Presidency, I'd love to know.

So basically let's sum up. You said "multiple parties lead to dictatorships" you then pull out two examples of dictatorships that came about for many reasons, the least of which was multiple parties. I point that out and it's a strawman. You then say "It is Michelle Bachmann which I am trying to prevent" I point out you aren't preventing her lack of money is, which pretty much anyone could see. She was leading the GOP polls remember and she has still is in Congress helping make law. Again that's a strawman. So it appears anytime I point out a flaw in your half baked defense of our rigged system it is a strawman argument.

Well, that's your summary, not mine. The essential difference between us regarding Bachmann is that you believe that if she had enough money she would have been the nominee. I don't believe that: it is my contention that no one as extreme as Bachmann has ever won the nomination in modern times and ever will (I use "modern times" to keep Yankee from bringing up some example from before our current media-driven poltical system was established- nice try!) To prove my point, I brought up other examples of extremists far more popular than Bachmann- Joe McCarthy for one- with no chance at the nomination.I should add that with every argument there are always usually one or two examples that contradict it. The only modern example I can think of is Huey P. Long of Louisiana. Had he not been assassinated, it was his intention to run for President in 1936, as a third party candidate. He represents, so far as I know, the only time in modern American political history that an actual extremist had a reasonable chance of being elected.

Long was a bit of a criminal but extremist? He opposed the KKK and it cost him an election. Once he was governor he mandated free textbooks in schools and used the power of the state to get it done, he supported night school which went on to teach 100k how to read. In fact they tried to impeach him because he wanted to tax oil companies to support his social agenda. Once in the Senate he became known for being a leader of the Progressive Bloc which was from where FDR drew support. Perhaps you could point out which of his policies he enacted made him an extremist for me.

Long accomplished the items you speak of by controlling every member of the legislature, judiciary, police force, and civil governing apparatus in his home state. He ruled Lousiana much as Mussolini ruled Italy- as a fascist dictator. You're correct that Long was not an extremist in terms of ideology- (at least, most contemporaries didn't think so, though John Dos Passos certainly did) but there are different definitions of extremism. Huey was the Kingfish.

He was not a Fascist. That's what the rich called him when he started making laws that cost them money:

Fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

He didn't exalt race and he wasn't much of a nationalist. I don't recall him advocating severe regimentation. And he believed in the power of the vote if nothing else.

No offense, but I think you have bought into a progressive, revisionist view of Huey Long. You need to read Robert Penn Warren.

No offense but I read the actual history of what he did. Not a novel that the author said:

Warren claimed that All the King's Men was "never intended to be a book about politics."

No offense but I'd suggest you get your history from a history book.

 

[roadkill1292]

The Tom Tancredo endorsement of decriminalizing marijuana made me think of this thread. Johnson's ideas on the subject, a subject the two major party candidates are in agreement on and won't dare discuss, are something that could be heard by and influential to millions if he were allowed to participate.

 

[joffer]

at Timmy in this thread

 

[Fennis]

The Tom Tancredo endorsement of decriminalizing marijuana made me think of this thread. Johnson's ideas on the subject, a subject the two major party candidates are in agreement on and won't dare discuss, are something that could be heard by and influential to millions if he were allowed to participate.

now if he signs up for open borders we know we've made real progress.

 

[The Z Machine]

the 270 rule makes sense to me

I agree. You could also say all 50 states and DC to up the ante.

 

[matuski]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

You have this exactly backwards. We will never get any clarification or differentiation until there is a third party.Right now you have nothing but partisanship. Nobody has to say anything, do anything. You throw a third party in the mix with some real ideas, and suddenly people have to start making sense.Not a hater tim, but this post was not well thought out.

 

[timschochet]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

You have this exactly backwards. We will never get any clarification or differentiation until there is a third party.Right now you have nothing but partisanship. Nobody has to say anything, do anything. You throw a third party in the mix with some real ideas, and suddenly people have to start making sense.Not a hater tim, but this post was not well thought out.

I understand that almost everyone here, from the most progressive to the most conservative, seems to disagree with me on this. But I still think I am right. I've explained why in detail earlier in the thread.

 

[drummer]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

You have this exactly backwards. We will never get any clarification or differentiation until there is a third party.Right now you have nothing but partisanship. Nobody has to say anything, do anything. You throw a third party in the mix with some real ideas, and suddenly people have to start making sense.Not a hater tim, but this post was not well thought out.

I understand that almost everyone here, from the most progressive to the most conservative, seems to disagree with me on this. But I still think I am right. I've explained why in detail earlier in the thread.

You know the country isn't about you, right?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That's like keeping Boise State out of the BCS title game because of their schedule but the SEC schools won't go to Boise for a game.

Except that Boise State actually wins a bunch of times before they're excluded.

 

[timschochet]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

You have this exactly backwards. We will never get any clarification or differentiation until there is a third party.Right now you have nothing but partisanship. Nobody has to say anything, do anything. You throw a third party in the mix with some real ideas, and suddenly people have to start making sense.Not a hater tim, but this post was not well thought out.

I understand that almost everyone here, from the most progressive to the most conservative, seems to disagree with me on this. But I still think I am right. I've explained why in detail earlier in the thread.

You know the country isn't about you, right?

If it was all about me, I would absolutely want Gary Johnson to be part of the debate. Personally, I think I would really enjoy the debate much more that way. I don't believe it would be good for the country.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

You have this exactly backwards. We will never get any clarification or differentiation until there is a third party.Right now you have nothing but partisanship. Nobody has to say anything, do anything. You throw a third party in the mix with some real ideas, and suddenly people have to start making sense.

Not a hater tim, but this post was not well thought out.

I understand that almost everyone here, from the most progressive to the most conservative, seems to disagree with me on this. But I still think I am right. I've explained why in detail earlier in the thread.

You know the country isn't about you, right?

If it was all about me, I would absolutely want Gary Johnson to be part of the debate. Personally, I think I would really enjoy the debate much more that way. I don't believe it would be good for the country.

You keep saying it but it doesn't make it true. I can not see how letting Johnson on stage hurts this country. I don't see how letting anyone on stage who has shown they have the organization and money to get on enough ballots to win 270 electoral college votes outright hurts this nation. I think you don't like it because you seem to have a problem with anything that takes away from business/money being the only voice and might give a voice to the people.

 

[Rayderr]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

1992 proves otherwise. Prior to the debates. Clinton was in a distant third. If we had gone by your logic that because someone is doing poorly in the polls, they have no chance of winning, and therefor shouldn't be included in the debates, Clinton wouldn't have been invited and Bush Sr. would've won re-election in a landslide. At the cery least, you have to say that the inclusion of Perot affected the outcome of the election.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

1992 proves otherwise. Prior to the debates. Clinton was in a distant third. If we had gone by your logic that because someone is doing poorly in the polls, they have no chance of winning, and therefor shouldn't be included in the debates, Clinton wouldn't have been invited and Bush Sr. would've won re-election in a landslide. At the cery least, you have to say that the inclusion of Perot affected the outcome of the election.

This is incorrect. Bill Clinton never trailed in the polls after the Democratic National Convention in 1992. Perot was at around 14% at the time of the debates. In a very distant third.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123335&page=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

1992 proves otherwise. Prior to the debates. Clinton was in a distant third. If we had gone by your logic that because someone is doing poorly in the polls, they have no chance of winning, and therefor shouldn't be included in the debates, Clinton wouldn't have been invited and Bush Sr. would've won re-election in a landslide. At the cery least, you have to say that the inclusion of Perot affected the outcome of the election.

This is incorrect. Bill Clinton never trailed in the polls after the Democratic National Convention in 1992. Perot was at around 14% at the time of the debates. In a very distant third.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123335&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

 

[Rayderr]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

1992 proves otherwise. Prior to the debates. Clinton was in a distant third. If we had gone by your logic that because someone is doing poorly in the polls, they have no chance of winning, and therefor shouldn't be included in the debates, Clinton wouldn't have been invited and Bush Sr. would've won re-election in a landslide. At the cery least, you have to say that the inclusion of Perot affected the outcome of the election.

This is incorrect. Bill Clinton never trailed in the polls after the Democratic National Convention in 1992. Perot was at around 14% at the time of the debates. In a very distant third.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123335&page=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: On the Trail; POLL GIVES PEROT A CLEAR LEADPublished: June 11, 1992In a three-way general election matchup, Ross Perot has moved to a clear lead over both President Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton in the latest Gallup Poll.In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent.No previous independent or third party candidate has ever placed second, much less first, in nearly six decades of Gallup's nationwide polling for President

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

1992 proves otherwise. Prior to the debates. Clinton was in a distant third. If we had gone by your logic that because someone is doing poorly in the polls, they have no chance of winning, and therefor shouldn't be included in the debates, Clinton wouldn't have been invited and Bush Sr. would've won re-election in a landslide. At the cery least, you have to say that the inclusion of Perot affected the outcome of the election.

This is incorrect. Bill Clinton never trailed in the polls after the Democratic National Convention in 1992. Perot was at around 14% at the time of the debates. In a very distant third.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123335&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

It's kind of hard to find historical data of when the debates were. Ventura was in the double digits from the beginning (because Perot had built a Reform Party "brand", even if the party itself was in its death throes). It's true that the debates largely won the race for The Body. I have no doubt that there is a hypothetical situation where some candidate polling below 15% could somehow own a debate and win in a fragmented presidential election (this isn't that scenario). But I don't think anyone really thinks that the CPD should have to have rules that allow for every conceivable scenario, no matter how implausible.

I hate the debates. I'd love to shake them up in lots of ways. I probably personally like Johnson as much as any of the candidates. But I think this argument is kind of silly. He's been in this race a year and he's polling 4-5% (6% if you include polls by libertarian magazines). And of course, this strategy is kind of anti-libertarian.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

1992 proves otherwise. Prior to the debates. Clinton was in a distant third. If we had gone by your logic that because someone is doing poorly in the polls, they have no chance of winning, and therefor shouldn't be included in the debates, Clinton wouldn't have been invited and Bush Sr. would've won re-election in a landslide. At the cery least, you have to say that the inclusion of Perot affected the outcome of the election.

This is incorrect. Bill Clinton never trailed in the polls after the Democratic National Convention in 1992. Perot was at around 14% at the time of the debates. In a very distant third.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123335&page=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: On the Trail; POLL GIVES PEROT A CLEAR LEADPublished: June 11, 1992In a three-way general election matchup, Ross Perot has moved to a clear lead over both President Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton in the latest Gallup Poll.In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent.No previous independent or third party candidate has ever placed second, much less first, in nearly six decades of Gallup's nationwide polling for President

So you meant WAY prior to the debates when nobody was using polling to determine who should debate? Yes, Perot has a lead back in early summer, when he was only on half the ballots (so would have been excluded by Johnson's proposed rule).

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I also think this is far more likely to happen in state-wide race like Governor or Senator. In modern presidential elections, the conventions have shown far more ability to move voters than the debates have. Which tells me that as bland and safe as the debates are, they aren't as effective as a hyper-managed one-week informercial for the candidates. Candidates for state offices just don't have an equivalent unless they happen to be one of the few chosen as "rising stars" to give a big speech (and those are almost never the ones in close races).It sucks, but it appears to be the way things work.

 

[Rayderr]

I don't blame him or his followers for wanting this to happen, but it's not good for the country. Either Obama or Romney is going to be President for the next 4 years. The public needs to hear more from them, not less. A third person is a distraction.

1992 proves otherwise. Prior to the debates. Clinton was in a distant third. If we had gone by your logic that because someone is doing poorly in the polls, they have no chance of winning, and therefor shouldn't be included in the debates, Clinton wouldn't have been invited and Bush Sr. would've won re-election in a landslide. At the cery least, you have to say that the inclusion of Perot affected the outcome of the election.

This is incorrect. Bill Clinton never trailed in the polls after the Democratic National Convention in 1992. Perot was at around 14% at the time of the debates. In a very distant third.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123335&page=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: On the Trail; POLL GIVES PEROT A CLEAR LEADPublished: June 11, 1992In a three-way general election matchup, Ross Perot has moved to a clear lead over both President Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton in the latest Gallup Poll.In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent.No previous independent or third party candidate has ever placed second, much less first, in nearly six decades of Gallup's nationwide polling for President

So you meant WAY prior to the debates when nobody was using polling to determine who should debate? Yes, Perot has a lead back in early summer, when he was only on half the ballots (so would have been excluded by Johnson's proposed rule).

point being that even those that seem to have no chance of winning, can actually win. Thus making Tim's argument invalid. Plus Perot still did take a fair amount of votes and had he not been in at all, Bush likely would've taken a majority of them and won.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't know. For instance this first debate is the only chance Romney has to directly affect the outcome. How the economy does, whether there is more world tension, all of those things that may change the dynamic are out of his hands. He is on the wrong side of the trend. Now he can't reverse it but he may well start to chip away. Of course if he comes out anything but on fire he will likely solidify the lead for Obama and the next two debates will have less influence. I would say this first debate is really a must win for Romney. People pay less attention with every debate.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

tim's shown himself to be an elitist who thinks few others are capable of his brilliance. Iirc, he's even against every citizen in America having a vote. No big shock to see him take this stance, as sad and disgusting as it is.

OK, briefly, because I won't have time to discuss this later:1. I am not brilliant. I am an elitist, I suppose, because I believe that we would be better off if only informed people made political decisions. But anyone is capable of being informed, if they want to. A better word to describe me is "pluralist."2. I am not against every citizen having a vote. Don't know where you get that. I do believe it's reasonable to show some form of ID at the voting booth. But some of these other attempts, mostly by Republicans, to restrict voting are terrible and I am opposed to almost all of them. 3. But the accusation that I am in favor of the status quo is largely correct. I believe that a two party system is preferable to a mulit-party, parliamentary system. Simply put: two parties means the extremists are weeded out, and it is also difficult for populism (my main enemy) to gain too large a foothold. Not impossible, but difficult. 4. When I wrote that most of the people who are watching the debate know nothing about the two candidates, that was an overstatement. What I meant to say is that they know far less than you and I do (anyone reading this post). They are not to be confused with the majority who doesn't know, doesn't care, and won't vote. The people I'm talking about think they know, but in reality all they have is the most superficial understanding possible.

If you think we'd be better off having only "informed people" making political decisions, why let every citizen have a vote? If you're for every citizen having a voice, why refuse to allow them to hear more than two opinions?