NationStates Jolt Archive

Michael Badnarik, U.S. Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, and David Cobb, U.S. Presidential candidate for the Green Party, have been arrested after crossing a police line outside the second Republican/Democrat U.S. Presidential Debate in St. Louis. Badnarik, Cobb, and a group of protesters, calling for the inclusion of third party candidates in the debates put on by the Commission on Presidential Debates, approached the police line. The two men addressed the crowd, and then they pushed their way through the line. After crossing the line both men surrendered peacefully to police and were arrested.

(EDIT: Badnarik's campaign blog has just posted pictures:
http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/10/badnarik-arrest-pictures/ )

Additional information, with links to other sites/articles, can be found at Badnarik's campaign blog:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/08/michael-badnarik-arrested/

and David Cobb's campaign website:

http://www.votecobb.net/news/arrested

EDIT: And this article from the Associated Press wire:

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/9872659.htm

EDIT: Other threads -

Arizona Libertarian Party Moves To Prevent Final U.S. Presidential Debate
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364328

U.S. Mainstream Corporate Media Bias Against Libertarians And Other Third Parties
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364531

Hahaha! I just knew that my candidate, Badnarick, would do something like this. The man is brilliant.

Fascism anyone? Arrest your opponents, makes getting elected so much easier.

Fascism anyone? Arrest your opponents, makes getting elected so much easier.

rofl I seriously doubt the police even knew who they were.

All candidates should have been at the debate. Frankly I think its unconstitutional to stop them.

It is! They were actually SERVING the CPD!!

All candidates should have been at the debate. Frankly I think its unconstitutional to stop them.It's a bit of a stretch to say that they're unconstitutional, but you're right--they should have been included in the debates.

Hmm. I must be the only American Libertarian awake.... This topic would be going crazy in the daytime here.... Oh well.

They've actually already debated... if anybody cared to watch it, all they would have to do is put the tv on c-span or visit the c-span website

I agree with the notion the cops said "who" when they arrested them.

They probably didn't accomplish anything except get the flocks going YEA!

However, I do agree there should be at least one debate with all parties candidates!

Well at least we now have a glimpse of what the Republicans and Democrats are ready to do to prevent the rise of third parties.

Arresting the candidates has little direct effect. But now that they have been arrested, the American public can see them as radical lawbeakers who are not serious about politics. Propaganda is always the best way to suppress change.

They arrested Badnarik?!?!
NO!!!

Well at least we now have a glimpse of what the Republicans and Democrats are ready to do to prevent the rise of third parties.

Arresting the candidates has little direct effect. But now that they have been arrested, the American public can see them as radical lawbeakers who are not serious about politics. Propaganda is always the best way to suppress change.

Just like they arrested Ross Perot, Pat Buchanon, Forbes, and Ralph Nader? :rolleyes: Are you Euros really this ignorant or is this just a troll? :D

All candidates should have been at the debate. Frankly I think its unconstitutional to stop them.

it may have been unfair to keep them out but it isn't unconstitutional because these debates aren't government things... they're actually run by private companies (with the exception of PBS which is still independant) and they have the right to choose who is allowed to be in the debate.

The direction this country is headed in is absolutely insane. I'd be willing to bet that it'll turn into a full-blown Orwellian nightmare in the next...15-20 years. Canada, anyone? I'm not really a fan of socialism either, but it's better than having all your civil rights restricted.

So much for this country being a "democratic republic"...the McMedia and McParties win again at our expense--as usual.

it may have been unfair to keep them out but it isn't unconstitutional because these debates aren't government things... they're actually run by private companies (with the exception of PBS which is still independant) and they have the right to choose who is allowed to be in the debate.

It is also claimed that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ( http://www.cpb.org ) is a non-profit, private corporation...which was created by the Congress, whose board is appointed by the President, approved by the Senate, and who recieves regular sums of money from the Congress. (Sources: http://www.cpb.org/about/ , http://www.cpb.org/about/corp/bios/board/ ) Clearly, such a claim that the CPB is private and independent is false when the CPB shares such an intimate relationship with the government.

The claim that the Commission on Presidential Debates is a non-partisan, private corporation are similarly rejected considering that the CPD is extremely partisan (no third parties allowed!), considering the public funds that both the Republicans and Democrats recieve, considering that these debates are held on public property (as will happen with the last debate in Arizona), and considering the very close relationship the CPD and those running it have with American corporations; corporations which exist by government charter.

Badnarik's website has an article about claims by the Arizona Libertarian Party and the Badnarik campaign that public funds are being used for the next debate in Arizona: http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/08/a-private-debate-with-public-funds/

If public funds are indeed being used, then it is a public debate, and third party candidates cannot be excluded without violation of basic civil and human rights.

Well at least we now have a glimpse of what the Republicans and Democrats are ready to do to prevent the rise of third parties.

Arresting the candidates has little direct effect. But now that they have been arrested, the American public can see them as radical lawbeakers who are not serious about politics. Propaganda is always the best way to suppress change.
Oh, this is nothing. Ballot access laws and the constant smearing of any political group that's not one of the big two by both parties as being radical and out of touch with the mainstream does far more damage than any arrest for civil disobedience.

There are rules, guidelines if you will, on who gets to participate in the Presidential debates. Nader, Badnarick, and Cobb collectively do not meet the criteria.

"The Man" is not keeping them down ... their own lack of popularity is.

gee they crossed the police lines in order to get arrested
THEN THEY GOT ARRESTED

the fascist bastards

They have to follow the rules like everyone else. :rolleyes:

All candidates should have been at the debate. Frankly I think its unconstitutional to stop them.
Unfortuneately, since Perot was let into a Debate (and history has shown that, while it may have looked differently at the time, he schooled them and was right on damn near every count), the D&R party(s) decided to create and sponsor a comission to sponsor debates, with the rule that you need at least 15% of the vote behind you in order to get in on it.

In other words, it's damn near impossible to get a third party. If there were three parties there, the the only way one person could collect enough electoral votes to gain the presidency is if they're just barely in the minority in CA & NY.
Or if the debates changed anyone's mind on who they're voting for, in which case it would be one of those Ayn-Randian fantasy self-regulating systems which the Libertarians have wet dreams about.

There are rules, guidelines if you will, on who gets to participate in the Presidential debates. Nader, Badnarick, and Cobb collectively do not meet the criteria.

"The Man" is not keeping them down ... their own lack of popularity is.



They have to follow the rules like everyone else.


Unfortunately, these rules/guidelines are engineered in such a way as to ensure that the third parties can never meet them. The CPD rules require that, in order to participate, a candidate must poll at 15% or higher. The thing is, however, in order to poll 15% or higher a candidate is going to need a large amount of mainstream media coverage. How does a candidate get a large amount of mainstream media coverage? By participating in large mainstream media debates....it's a nice Catch-22 situation actually. The Republicans and Democrats are perfectly happy with this situation, of course, seeing as how they had the benifit of already having widespread mainstream media recognition before this rule was made up and implemented...

And besides, reguardless of what the rules are, there is still the issue of public funds being used for supposedly "private" debates.

All candidates should have been at the debate. Frankly I think its unconstitutional to stop them. All 37? Would have been quite a debate.

Will those two men still be on the ballot now that they've been arrested?

According to Badnarik's campaign website, the Arizona Libertarian Party has successfully served both the (EDIT: Arizona State University) and the Commission on Presidential Debates with papers requiring both to appear in court to answer allegations by the AZLP that by using the (EDIT: Arizona State University) campus to host the final CPD debate, excluding third party candidates in the process, the State of Arizona is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties, according to the Arizona state constitution. The hearing is going to be held this next tuesday. More information can be found here:

http://thelfactor.org/arizona_state_lawsuit.html

here:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/08/michael-badnarik-arrested/

and here:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/08/a-private-debate-with-public-funds/

They both got bail, didn't they? And I hope they were clever enough to be arrested in a state where being arrested for a misdemenor before the election doesn't disqualify you from the ballot.

America has hit a new low. We call oursleves a democracy, yet refuse to give candidates a voice and arrest them for trying to have one.

All 37? Would have been quite a debate.


Third party candidates like Badnarik (Libertarian) and Cobb (Green) simply consider the "15% in the polls" requirement outrageous, for reasons I have described a couple of posts up (EDIT: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7210359&postcount=22 ). Many people have suggested that a far more reasonable replacement for the "15% in the polls" rule would be a rule requiring that a candidate be on enough state ballots to theoretically be able to win an Electoral College majority. This way the serious third party candidates can be easily included.


Will those two men still be on the ballot now that they've been arrested?


According to Badnarik's campaign blog, both man have been released without the need to pay bail. They were simply given tickets for trespass and failure to obey the 'reasonable' orders of a police officer. This should not threaten their ability to remain on the ballot in any way. (EDIT: The United States Constitution (Article II, Section I) governs who is eligible for the Office of President. The U.S. Constitution, as far as I can tell, is silent on the issue of a potential President having a criminal record. If I'm not mistaken, our current president has a record for drunken driving, which is surely a far more heinous crime than crossing a line and being willingly arrested.)

The thing is that your American political system is just set up for a two parties with the most votes win the election (and that is getting even funnier with the electorats). So therefore can a republican candidate win easy if there are two democratic candidates who take democratic votes from eathceter. Therefore is it very unlikely that any new party will have any impact except taking the votes from the party they have most similarity with and help the party that they have least incommen with win. So therefor inviting them to the president debates would be not worth mutch. A thing that would work is that you have two election their the second is the decided one between the two who got the most elections in the first. Work pretty good in french except last election. Even if that probably isn't realistic.

If you knew what was needed to be registered in any state ballots, you would know that all third-party candidates are serious, for a given value of 'serious'.

Third party candidates like Badnarik (Libertarian) and Cobb (Green) simply consider the "15% in the polls" requirement outrageous, for reasons I have described a couple of posts up (EDIT: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7210359&postcount=22 ). Many people have suggested that a far more reasonable replacement for the "15% in the polls" rule would be a rule requiring that a candidate be on enough state ballots to theoretically be able to win an Electoral College majority. This way the serious third party candidates can be easily included.



I don't care either way, but frankly if they don't have "15% in the polls" by this point in time it's not realistic to assume the debates will make any difference.

I don't care either way, but frankly if they don't have "15% in the polls" by this point in time it's not realistic to assume the debates will make any difference.

Well, we will never know whether the debates can make a difference for third parties, if the candidates are never allowed to participate in the first place...

I don't care either way, but frankly if they don't have "15% in the polls" by this point in time it's not realistic to assume the debates will make any difference.
It can, if including a third party in it would drain 5% from one side and give it to the third party. That could make a huge difference.

The thing is that your American political system is just set up for a two parties with the most votes win the election (and that is getting even funnier with the electorats). So therefore can a republican candidate win easy if there are two democratic candidates who take democratic votes from eathceter. Therefore is it very unlikely that any new party will have any impact except taking the votes from the party they have most similarity with and help the party that they have least incommen with win. So therefor inviting them to the president debates would be not worth mutch. A thing that would work is that you have two election their the second is the decided one between the two who got the most elections in the first. Work pretty good in french except last election. Even if that probably isn't realistic.

Badnarik lists some alternatives to the current system of voting, in response to questions posed by readers of Slashdot. His responses can be found here:

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/1423219&tid=11&tid=219

Look at the very first question/response for his views on reforming the voting system in the United States.

Additional information on the Arizona Libertarian Party suit against the (EDIT: Arizona State University) and the Commission on Presidential Debates:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/09/shutting-down-round-three-of-the-bush-kerry-infomercials/

Michael Badnarik, U.S. Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, and David Cobb, U.S. Presidential candidate for the Green Party, have been arrested after crossing a police line outside the second Republican/Democrat U.S. Presidential Debate in St. Louis. Badnarik, Cobb, and a group of protesters, calling for the inclusion of third party candidates in the debates put on by the Commission on Presidential Debates, approached the police line. The two men addressed the crowd, and then they pushed their way through the line. After crossing the line both men surrendered peacefully to police and were arrested.

Additional information, with links to other sites/articles, can be found at Badnarik's campaign blog:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/08/michael-badnarik-arrested/

and David Cobb's campaign website:

http://www.votecobb.net/news/arrested

EDIT: And this article from the Associated Press wire:

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/9872659.htm

Thanks for posting this, Marineris Colonies. Maybe some people will notice that their perception that Americans are truly free is just an illusion. Maybe even if they knew it was an illusion they would still accept the situation as appropriate, and I respect their right to do so, but for God's sake don't kid yourself about your freedoms.

Go Green!

I was hoping they were unfarely arrested, too bad, atleast they were doing something good.

Unfortunately, these rules/guidelines are engineered in such a way as to ensure that the third parties can never meet them.

Please, reread my post.

I was speaking on their arrest and not on their inability to garner the required support of the nation to get the fund and on the ballot.

I didn't want to hear general forumers bitching about why their were arrested; they had to follow the same rules as every other American in regards to protesting.

Please, reread my post.


Your post reads as follows:

-----

They have to follow the rules like everyone else

( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7209547&postcount=20 )
-----


I was speaking on their arrest and not on their inability to garner the required support of the nation to get the fund and on the ballot. ...they had to follow the same rules as every other American in regards to protesting.


Since there is/was a lack of additional explaination in reguards to exactly what "the rules" was supposed to mean in the original post, I assumed that you were refering (EDIT: as was Keruvalia in the other post I quoted) to the rules set by the CPD for debate participation, as it is the arbitrary and unfair rules set by the CPD that lead Mr. Badnarik and Mr. Cobb to engage in their act of civil disobedience to begin with. If you meant to refer to law enforcement and protest control and containment, a better phrase might have been "the law," as the CPD rules are not as far as I know actual law (yet...), thus avoiding potential confusion. :D

The thing is, these other 35 candidates combined don't total more than about 5% of the electorate. The margin of error on a major poll is more than any one of their total. Excluding them from the debate saves money, and lets people see a candidate that will actually win, as opposed to someone who will not even carry a single county in the 11/2 general election.

A valid third party would be nice. But first they need to realize that the American people will not pay attention to a single issue or lunitic fringe (both left and right) candidate. And in this country, there is no such third party. Libertarians come close, and Perot (with 19%) in 1992 was a legit candidate, but that's it.

It also pays to remember the last serious third-party group before Perot. By serious, I mean double-digits. That would be the pro-segregation Democrat George Wallace, who took 13.5% in 1968.

The thing is, these other 35 candidates combined don't total more than about 5% of the electorate. The margin of error on a major poll is more than any one of their total. Excluding them from the debate saves money, and lets people see a candidate that will actually win, as opposed to someone who will not even carry a single county in the 11/2 general election.

A valid third party would be nice. But first they need to realize that the American people will not pay attention to a single issue or lunitic fringe (both left and right) candidate. And in this country, there is no such third party. Libertarians come close, and Perot (with 19%) in 1992 was a legit candidate, but that's it.

It also pays to remember the last serious third-party group before Perot. By serious, I mean double-digits. That would be the pro-segregation Democrat George Wallace, who took 13.5% in 1968.

It's a self-sustaining circle. The reason they don't have a large voting pool is because they are left out of the national spotlight. The reason they are left out is because they don't have a large voting pool.

The cycle has to be broken somewhere. WHere better than at a political debate where we can hear something resembling an agenda from each candidate?

You know, this is messed up and all very serious and all, but I have to say...


gee they crossed the police lines in order to get arrested
THEN THEY GOT ARRESTED

the fascist bastards



That made me laugh :D

The thing is, these other 35 candidates combined don't total more than about 5% of the electorate. The margin of error on a major poll is more than any one of their total. Excluding them from the debate saves money, and lets people see a candidate that will actually win, as opposed to someone who will not even carry a single county in the 11/2 general election.


How are third party candidates expected to gain enough support to justify their inclusion in the debates if they are from the beginning excluded from the major media events that would supply them with with the exposure they need? Remember that when the CPD debate rules where created (the CPD was itself created in 1987 - http://www.debates.org/pages/about.html), the Republicans and Democrats already had the necessary media coverage. Now that the Republicans and Democrats have the third parties locked out of the debates, they are effectively denying the third parties the ability to meet the requirements of the 15% rule. Meanwhile, since the Republicans and Democrats guaranteed that they would always meet the 15% rule, as they were already easily meeting this requirement before they made it up, the Republicans and Democrats need not worry about it.

And considering draconian ballot access rules which require the third parties to gather tens of thousands of signatures just to get on the ballot per state, surely there is more than enough popular support behind the Libertarians (on 49 ballots) and Greens (on 28 ballots as of September 1) to justify their inclusion in the CPD debates. Of course, again, the Republican and Democrats need not worry about these ballot access rules as they were, again, already well established parties before said rules were created...

Badnarik's campaign blog has posted some pictures of protests outside the CPD "debates" in St. Louis, as well as pictures of Badnarik and Cobb marching together, addressing police and the crowd, and then moving forward to cross the police line:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/10/badnarik-arrest-pictures/

I think the best way to vote for President would be a big reality TV event. Text message your vote. I mean, what would happen if seven politicians got together in one house and started getting real? Think of the ratings! Think of the diversity! We could make the vice presidential candidates eat bugs or something.

Most Extreme Political Elimination!!!!

It's a self-sustaining circle. The reason they don't have a large voting pool is because they are left out of the national spotlight. The reason they are left out is because they don't have a large voting pool.

Perhaps for two of the parties, Green and Libertartian. Perhaps. For the others, they seem to be single-issue parties, and not even good issues at that. According to politics1.com (http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm), this includes two prohibition parties and 4-5 socialists. Along with convicted felon (who cannot even vote for himself) Leonard Peltier, currently serving 2 consecutive life sentences in a federal prison and porn star Marilyn Chambers Taylor.

For the Greens, well, the Green Party has Party Ballot Status in 24 states, and their candidates David Cobb and Pat LaMarche are on the ballot in 28 States for the 2004 election. But, they are actually on the ballot in a whopping 6 states. 6. Out of 50.

The Libertarians fare better, being on the ballot in 48 states. But when you cannot even get on the ballot in all states, there is something missing, and that is support based on your position. Third parties just don't have it. Until another incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party comes along, with a well known defection from either the Democrats or Repblicans, third parties will continue to lack any real credibility. Again, with the occational exceptions of the Greens and Libertarians.

And to Gymoor:
I think the best way to vote for President would be a big reality TV event. Text message your vote. I mean, what would happen if seven politicians got together in one house and started getting real? Think of the ratings! Think of the diversity! We could make the vice presidential candidates eat bugs or something.
That would be funny as hell!

The Libertarians fare better, being on the ballot in 48 states. But when you cannot even get on the ballot in all states, there is something missing, and that is support based on your position. Third parties just don't have it. Until another incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party comes along, with a well known defection from either the Democrats or Repblicans, third parties will continue to lack any real credibility.


Since the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, it has achieved ballot status in -

1976: 32 states
1980: 50 states, District of Columbia and Guam (only 9 years after the party was founded!)
1984: 39 states
1988: 49 states, District of Columbia
1992: 50 states, District of Columbia, Guam (again)
1996: 50 states (first third party to do so twice in a row)
2000: 49 states, District of Columbia

(sources: http://www.lp.org/organization/history/ , http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm )

Now in 2004, the Libertarian Party is on 48 state ballots plus the District of Columbia. If I've heard correctly, it would have been 49 states, but the New Hampshire Libertarian Party failed to submit some paperwork on time, or something like that (clerical snafu, not lack of support). And again, if I recall correctly, the Libertarian Party is currently in court in Oklahoma, so it might still get 49 states if successful there.

Considering the fact that the Libertarian Party has been on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. three times in its 33 years of existance (!), and that this year marks the first time since 1988 that the Libertarian Party has been on less than 49 state ballots, I'd think it is safe to say that the Libertarian Party has plenty of support for it's position. If anything, draconian ballot access laws, that allow the Republicans and Democrats to literally skip into all 50 states easily, while third parties have to toil and struggle for each one, are to blame for the Libertarian Party not having all 50 states in every election since 1976.

The Libertarian Party has plenty of credibility. Its the Republicans and Democrats, who have to use ballot access laws and biased partisan "debates" in order to hold third parties down, who have the serious credibility problem.

According to Alexa.com ( http://www.alexa.com ), traffic to Badnarik's campaign website ( http://www.badnarik.org ) has skyrocketed since he and Cobb were arrested in St. Louis. Detailed statistics can be found at http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&y=r&q=&url=www.badnarik.org .