NationStates Jolt Archive

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/10/badnarik-arrested-media-blackout-internet-success-shutting-down-bsuh-kerry-debate-and-more/

"...To begin, the media blackout continues. Michael Badnarik [Libertarian U.S. Presidential Candidate] has now participated in three presidential debates and Richard Campagna [Libertarian U.S. Vice-Presidential Candidate] has participated in one vice presidential debate. The main stream media knew of these debates and refused to cover them...."

"...Libertarians filed a complaint against Arizona State University and the Commission on Presidential Debates to stop the final Bush – Kerry debate. ...The main stream media knew, in advance, and refused to cover the story...."

"...Michael Badnarik personally attempted to serve the papers to the CPD during the staged Bush – Kerry debate in St. Louis – AND WAS ARRESTED IN THE PROCESS. The mainstream press did know of this in advance, but refused to cover it..."

"...That Michael is not being covered by the mainstream press can only have one explanation now: Bush and Kerry are in bed with Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and many major newspapers..."

Any thoughts or ideas as to why the mainstream U.S. corporate media have failed to cover third party presidential candidates, even as they drool over the Republicans and Democrats? It is often claimed that the United States is the leader of the free press and a prime example of the free and thoughtful exchange of information and ideas. Considering how third party candidates are locked out of the mainstream debates, and largely ignored by the mainstream media, is this really true?

----------

EDIT: Judge rules on Arizona Libertarian Party suit against the Arizona State University and the Commission of Presidential Debates

Original thread here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364328

UPDATE: Arizona judge rules in favor of ASU/CPD

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog...r-day-in-court/

"THIS IS A RUSH UPDATE, DETAILS FORTHCOMING … JUDGE RULED IN FAVOR OF CPD/ASU … NO INJUNCTION GRANTED … GROUNDS FOR DENIAL: TIME RESTRAINTS … BUSH ONLY ANNOUNCED 2 WEEKS AGO TO ATTEND … APPEARS AZLP HAS GROUNDS TO FIGHT FOR DAMAGES, MAY ADD BUSH & KERRY TO DEFENDENTS LIST…

1. No restraining order, because of the doctrine of latches, and that there appears to be sufficient public purpose for this debate.

2. The Plaintiffs may continue to pursue damages for any violations of the constitutional provisions.

In summary, we couldn’t stop the debates or get Badnarik in, but we may still be able to hold them accountable through damages."

more details/analysis:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog...omments-thread/

EDIT: Other Threads -

Libertarian and Green U.S. Presidential Candidates Arrested
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364022

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

It's because either the media wants a really close race, or they want to play dumb now so that they can play it as a major event on Wednesday.

It's the old circle: They aren't covered because they have no chance of winning. They have no chance of winning because they aren't covered. :(

I think the real question is: WHY aren't they covered?

It's the old circle: They aren't covered because they have no chance of winning. They have no chance of winning because they aren't covered. :(

I think the real question is: WHY aren't they covered?


They cover Nader and he doesn't have a chance either.

It's because either the media wants a really close race, or they want to play dumb now so that they can play it as a major event on
Wednesday.

Hopefully the major event on Wednesday will be the announcement of an injunction against Arizona State University and the Commission on Presidential Debates, halting the final CPD sponsored "debate": http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364328

They don't get covered because they have absolutely no chance. If there was proportional representation, then they might get more coverage because they'd have a greater chance.

They cover Nader and he doesn't have a chance either.

Really? WHen is HIS presidential debate?

They don't get covered because they have absolutely no chance. ...

Neither does Nader/Camejo, yet they are all over the mainstream corporate media as the "spoilers." Which makes absolutely no sense considering that the Libertarian party candidate [ http://badnarik.org ] is on more state ballots that them (or any other third party for that matter). If anyone is going to spoil anything, it will be Badnarik pulling the votes of fiscally-conservative/anti-war Republican's away from Bush.

Neither does Nader/Camejo, yet they are all over the mainstream corporate media as the "spoilers." Which makes absolutely no sense considering that the Libertarian party is on more state ballot that them (or any other third party for that matter). If anyone is going to spoil anything, it will be Badnarik pulling the votes of fiscally-conservative/anti-war Republican's away from Bush.

I thought that the democrats had more in common, as they are still right wing while allowing more freedoms and aren't pimping their religion everywhere? Or are taxes all that matter?

It's the old circle: They aren't covered because they have no chance of winning. They have no chance of winning because they aren't covered. :(

I think the real question is: WHY aren't they covered?

because the media is in more control of our lives then we care to admit. That's right, it's a conspiracy theory. Seriously though, I would vote Liberatarian if there was even a slight chance of him getting close to winning, but I want my vote to make a difference.

because the media is in more control of our lives then we care to admit. That's right, it's a conspiracy theory. Seriously though, I would vote Liberatarian if there was even a slight chance of him getting close to winning, but I want my vote to make a difference.

Unless you're in a battleground state, it won't anyway.

I thought that the democrats had more in common, as they are still right wing while allowing more freedoms and aren't pimping their religion everywhere? Or are taxes all that matter?

The Libertarian Party [ http://www.lp.org ] certainly attracts Democrats also. Kerry has declared, in the first "debate", that he will continue the so called "war on terror", and that he reserves the right to use pre-emptive military force (see below for quotes and links to transcript sources). Surely this will cause many anti-war Democrats to move away from Kerry towards the third parties; while the more fiscally-conservative Democrats might go to the Libertarian Party, most will probably be attracted to the Green Party because of Cobb's stance on universal health care, etc. Fiscally-conservative/anti-war Republicans will be drawn to the Libertarian Party, but the Libertarian Party certainly attracts a good portion of Democrats also.

And, of course, since the Libertarian Party poses such a threat to both the Republican and Democratic parties, neither allows the Libertarian Party to have a voice in the mainstream (EDIT: debates)...

Sources for Kerry's positions on the "war on terror" and pre-emptive military force:

"The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War... No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America..."
-- John Kerry ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.13/index.html )

"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are."
-- John Kerry ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.2/index.html )

Seriously though, I would vote Liberatarian if there was even a slight chance of him getting close to winning, but I want my vote to make a difference.

How will your vote make a difference if you are going to vote for someone you don't truly support? Take a stand and vote what you believe! Individually, our votes may constitute a tiny voice, but together we are very loud, and so long as we refuse to give up and give in to the Republicans and Democrats, as soon as we throw off this rubbish about a "wasted" vote, the sooner our voice will grow in clarity and volume. The sooner the Republicans and Democrats will be unable to ignore us.

Here are some links to a couple articles on, and some audio and video interviews of Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian U.S. Presidential Candidate.

"Bravo Badnarik":
http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/10/bravo-badnarik/

"Conversation between two Libertarian Presidential Candidates":
http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/10/conversation-between-two-libertarian-presidential-candidates/

"Badnarik 2, Cobb 2, Bush 1, Kerry 1":
http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/10/badnarik-2-cobb-2-bush-1-kerry-1/

"Multimedia Overload: You Demanded, we Deliver":
http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/10/multimedia-overload-you-demanded-we-deliver/

"They cover Nader and he doesn't have a chance either."

Actually, they really don't. The (little) coverage devoted to them, as one person mentioned, is based on being the spoiler. That's what bothers me about Nader running, as it doesn't give him this large amount of media coverage to get his message across. And the fact that he had no problem screwing the Green Party over.

I thought that the democrats had more in common, as they are still right wing while allowing more freedoms and aren't pimping their religion everywhere? Or are taxes all that matter?

It's really hard to say. Economically, more Republicans line up with the Libertarians. Socially, more Democrats line up with the Libertarians. Yet there are even exceptions to that. Libertarians want to remove all restrictions on guns (which makes Republicans happy) AND drugs (which makes Democrats happy). They are a very interesting party, since they defy classification and traditional right/left labels, yet are so easy to describe in one word: Freedom.

The Republicans play up the left wing fringe parties, the Democrats play up the right wing fringe parties, but neither wants to play up the Libertarians.

They don't get covered because they have absolutely no chance. If there was proportional representation, then they might get more coverage because they'd have a greater chance.
The problem being that the media and partisan knuckeheads are constantly telling the American public that they don't have a chance.
"Oh, he's the spoiler!"
"Don't waste your vote!"
So everybody believes it and nobody wants to vote for a loser, right?
Maybe if more people were exposed to the ideals of third party candidates, they would realize that there are other options besides the Democrats and Republicans, and people would be shifting their voting habits and then third party candidates would be viable contenders in the political arena.
But anyway, it's not a conspiracy, it's just that both Dems and Republicans work very, very hard to keep the nation polarized during election time. Both parties are winners in the end, because they perpetuate the notion that you have to be for one or the other.
If you are one who would vote for Nader or Badnarik or whoever on ideological grounds, but are hesitant for whatever reason, look into other offices in your district that have third party candidates running. If you don't feel strongly for the major candidates running to represent you in your state legislature or county whatever office or even the House or the Senate, take a look at what the third party candidates are saying there. Perhaps you would feel "safer" voting for a third party candidate who will not be occupying the White House. I honestly believe the only way to change government is to start at the local level.

Everyone knows Ross Perot took 20% of the national vote, oh, 12 years ago, right?

Mainstream media are corporations, they don't have to cover something if they want to. That's reason enough.

Mainstream media are corporations, they don't have to cover something if they want to. That's reason enough.

I don't see anyone arguing otherwise.

The problem is rather the media has become so incredibly important in this Information Age that it is almost impossible to market yourself beyond the dogmatic 2 parties. Decenias ago, you went to get on the street and talk to the people. Nowadays, you get on TV and millions of people see you. And they all see the same. The same debate. The same atmosphere. The same arguments. That makes it less diverse.

If you look at other countries (e.g. European) you also see polarisation but it is far less and the outcome is more open. This is partly due to a different system (no 'winner takes it all') but even that doesn't guarantee anything. Europe could also become more democratic, e.g. Approval system (which the Libertarians want, too) or Condorcet. IRV ain't gonna fix anything. See Australia. Its also mathematically incorrect and hence less democratic than the current system.

It'll be interesting to see how the future will change our democratic process. One thing is, that votes will be counted electronically. We all know the Diebold scandal, don't we? So we need to be sure its going honest. Also, the Internet opens up far more possibilities for a diversity. If everyone who normally watches TV would use the Internet right now we'd see a more diverse society because people they all receive more diverse info. With the Internet, there's less monopoly on video and audio media market, so the market will become more open here (unless government regulations force us otherwise...)

Meh!

I doubt it's some conspiracy.

It's a business and probably most people really don't care what they have to say.

Something to consider:

Why don't they pony up the money and buy their own air time?

Everyone knows Ross Perot took 20% of the national vote, oh, 12 years ago, right?Yeah, but that was more because he was Ross Perot than anything else. He was a media phenomenon, and the party rose up around him. Look what happened when he disappeared--the Reform party doesn't really exist anymore.

As to the topic of the thread, if you wanted to believe in a right-wing bias in the media, you could argue that they cover Nader because he'll hurt Kerry, but won't cover Badnarik because he'll hurt Bush. Personally, I don't think that's the case, since Nader's coverage has been largely of the horse-race type. I think it's pure laziness on the part of the corporate media that's more worried about profits than they are about doing their damn jobs.

It's really hard to say. Economically, more Republicans line up with the Libertarians. Socially, more Democrats line up with the Libertarians. Yet there are even exceptions to that. Libertarians want to remove all restrictions on guns (which makes Republicans happy) AND drugs (which makes Democrats happy). They are a very interesting party, since they defy classification and traditional right/left labels, yet are so easy to describe in one word: Freedom.

The Republicans play up the left wing fringe parties, the Democrats play up the right wing fringe parties, but neither wants to play up the Libertarians.

Economically speaking, the Republican party of today as evinced by the actions of its elected officials has nothing in common with Libertarians; they merely have used Libertarian propaganda to appeal to them, using and discarding them.

Any libertarian who votes Republican on the basis of them being in any fashion "libertarian" is deluded.

It's really hard to say. Economically, more Republicans line up with the Libertarians.

but only in the vulgar-libertarian "yay corporations! boo workers!" sense. which isn't really all that libertarian, even economically. have you seen the size of those handouts all these 'libertarian' republicans like to give to favored corporations?

As to the topic of the thread, if you wanted to believe in a right-wing bias in the media, you could argue that they cover Nader because he'll hurt Kerry, but won't cover Badnarik because he'll hurt Bush. Personally, I don't think that's the case, since Nader's coverage has been largely of the horse-race type. I think it's pure laziness on the part of the corporate media that's more worried about profits than they are about doing their damn jobs.

Yes, but they don't cover the Greens, the Socialists (and perhaps the Libertarians) because those would lower Kerry's # of votes! Hence this is obviously in the Dems advantage. So the media is biased toward the Dems. Conspiracy... :rolleyes:

Yes, but they don't cover the Greens, the Socialists (and perhaps the Libertarians) because those would lower Kerry's # of votes! Hence this is obviously in the Dems advantage. So the media is biased toward the Dems. Conspiracy... :rolleyes:
They also don't cover the Constitution or the Natural Law parties, which would pull more from the Republicans than they would the Democrats. Face it--they don't cover anyone but the big two. I'm not saying there's a right-wing bias in the news (except for Fox)--I'm saying there's a cult of laziness and a desire to do things as cheaply as possible to maximize profits, and if covering less of a story is the best way to do that, then they do it.

When I was a kid, I was taught that the two party system was the greatest political invention ever, it strengthened our democracy.

Now I realize that line is bull. WHy do most other countries do just fine with three or more parties? So why do we have to be different?

The reason is that a third party (or fourth etc) would be the first real alternative we have had in a long time. The two parties are more alike than unalike. They represent the established interests, with a nominally varied balance of power. It's one alignment of the big guys against another alignment of the big guys; nothing democratic about it at all.

"Meet the new boss; same as the old boss!"- The Who

When I was a kid, I was taught that the two party system was the greatest political invention ever, it strengthened our democracy.

Now I realize that line is bull. WHy do most other countries do just fine with three or more parties? So why do we have to be different?

The reason is that a third party (or fourth etc) would be the first real alternative we have had in a long time. The two parties are more alike than unalike. They represent the established interests, with a nominally varied balance of power. It's one alignment of the big guys against another alignment of the big guys; nothing democratic about it at all.

"Meet the new boss; same as the old boss!"- The Who
It's completely democratic. You can vote for whoever you want, you just can't control the votes of others, which is what you seem to be after.

It's completely democratic. You can vote for whoever you want, you just can't control the votes of others, which is what you seem to be after.

Including (EDIT: into the mainstream CPD debates, thus providing much more national media coverage of), at the very least, all the third parties who are on enough state ballots to theoretically win an Electoral College majority (Libertarians, Greens, Constitution, Nader) would give people at least 6 total voices/choices to hear. Surely giving people more ideas and more choices is more democratic?

What are the Republicans and Democrats afraid of? Losing their power? Is not restricting the power of those who rule the entire point of democracy, rule by the people?

Including (EDIT: into the mainstream CPD debates, thus providing much more national media coverage of), at the very least, all the third parties who are on enough state ballots to theoretically win an Electoral College majority (Libertarians, Greens, Constitution, Nader) would give people at least 6 total voices/choices to hear. Surely giving people more ideas and more choices is more democratic?

What are the Republicans and Democrats afraid of? Losing their power? Is not restricting the power of those who rule the entire point of democracy, rule by the people?

Then again, could it be that people just don't buy the Libertarian or Green messages?

You are a Libertarian right? ;)

Including (EDIT: into the mainstream CPD debates, thus providing much more national media coverage of), at the very least, all the third parties who are on enough state ballots to theoretically win an Electoral College majority (Libertarians, Greens, Constitution, Nader) would give people at least 6 total voices/choices to hear. Surely giving people more ideas and more choices is more democratic?

What are the Republicans and Democrats afraid of? Losing their power? Is not restricting the power of those who rule the entire point of democracy, rule by the people?
The Republicans nor the Democrats are doing anything to stop democracy. If you want to start your own media enterprise and report on third party candidates, be my guest. But until then, let the people who earned what they have use it as they see fit. It's akin to saying that you should pay for me to have cable TV because then we'd both have it, and that's more better than just the people who deserve it having it.

It's completely democratic. You can vote for whoever you want, you just can't control the votes of others, which is what you seem to be after.

I think you miss my point.

Which is: Whichever of the two major parties you vote for, the results for the average citizen are fundamentally the same. Either way. So your vote doesn't count.

I'm not talking about controlling anybody's vote. I'm saying that right now nobody's vote counts for crap.

I think you miss my point.

Which is: Whichever of the two major parties you vote for, the results for the average citizen are fundamentally the same. Either way. So your vote doesn't count.

I'm not talking about controlling anybody's vote. I'm saying that right now nobody's vote counts for crap.
Individually, no one single vote has ever counted for anything. Many votes could swing an election, so it's still democratic since the possibility of a third choice exists. If you have a target 3 miles away and you can hit it with an arrow .5% of the time, is the target unhittable?

It's completely democratic. You can vote for whoever you want, you just can't control the votes of others, which is what you seem to be after.

but a two party system is a systemic outcome due to the kind of tactical voting strongly encouraged by our "first past the post" electoral system. under a different system, the same people would vote for different parties, even if the democrats and republicans still existed and still had exactly the same platforms. it's not about controlling other people's votes, its about changing the rules of the game to more accurately reflect how people would vote.

but a two party system is a systemic outcome due to the kind of tactical voting strongly encouraged by our "first past the post" electoral system. under a different system, the same people would vote for different parties, even if the democrats and republicans still existed and still had exactly the same platforms. it's not about controlling other people's votes, its about changing the rules of the game to more accurately reflect how people would vote.
Forcing media to film multiple parties and forcing the existence of said multiple parties is far more undemocratic than free choice.

It's completely democratic. You can vote for whoever you want, you just can't control the votes of others, which is what you seem to be after.

LOL :D democratic, democracy are not propositions.

Forcing media to film multiple parties and forcing the existence of said multiple parties is far more undemocratic than free choice.

who said anything about forcing any private organization to do anything?

who said anything about forcing any private organization to do anything?
The point of this topic is that it's "unfair" for the media to only cover two candidates. Obviously, they want something to be done about it, or they wouldn't have brought it up.

but a two party system is a systemic outcome due to the kind of tactical voting strongly encouraged by our "first past the post" electoral system.

It also raises the polarisation.

The only election method which does not encourage strategic voting is Condorcet (http://www.electionmethods.org/Condorcet.htm) because it passes Strategy-Free Criterion (SFC) (http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#SFC). No other currently known election method (including Approval and the dreaded IRV) is able to pass this criterion.

IOW, even here in Europe (Plurality) and in Australia (IRV) strategic voting exists.

The point of this topic is that it's "unfair" for the media to only cover two candidates. Obviously, they want something to be done about it, or they wouldn't have brought it up.

it is unfair, but the lack of coverage is mainly to do with the electoral system in place. why bother covering third parties when "they aren't going to win"? change the rules and you change the coverage.

of course, there is also the influence of our unfree media. reporting costs money, money that the corporate news would rather keep as profit. but this is a general problem of corporate media, and not linked exclusively to elections.

it is unfair, but the lack of coverage is mainly to do with the electoral system in place. why bother covering third parties when "they aren't going to win"? change the rules and you change the coverage.

of course, there is also the influence of our unfree media. reporting costs money, money that the corporate news would rather keep as profit. but this is a general problem of corporate media, and not linked exclusively to elections.
The Republicans were a 3rd party way back when. They've done alright for themselves.

The Republicans nor the Democrats are doing anything to stop democracy. If you want to start your own media enterprise and report on third party candidates, be my guest. But until then, let the people who earned what they have use it as they see fit. It's akin to saying that you should pay for me to have cable TV because then we'd both have it, and that's more better than just the people who deserve it having it.

Ah, but the Republicans and Democrats aren't using only their own resources, are they? :)

According to opensecrets.org [ http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp ], 22% of campaign funds raised by the Bush campaign come from federal funding, while 24% of campaign funds raised by the Kerry campaign come from federal funding. Where do those federal funds come from? Taxpayers. What about people who support the Libertarians, or Greens, Constitution Party, Nader/Camejo, all these taxpayers whose income is being taken away and given to Bush and Kerry?

Not only are Bush and Kerry both recieving public funds for their campaign, but they are also going to use a public resource, a campus of the Arizona State University, to hold their final debate. Again, public resources are going to be used for private gain. More on this topic here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364328

How can Bush and Kerry fund their campaigns/debates with public taxmoney, and use public resources to hold the campaigns/debates, and still exclude other candidates? Such is immoral and undemocratic, plain and simple.

(EDIT: you'll also notice at the same opensecrets.org link above that the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, has taken exactly $0 in public/federal funding, and will continue to do so, reguardless of qualification, as a matter of principle.)

IIRC, any candidate can get federal matching funds if certain requirements are met.

IIRC, any candidate can get federal matching funds if certain requirements are met.

Yes, and as soon as public money or public resources are used to finance a campaign or debate, said campaign or debate ceases to be a private affair. If our taxmoney, if Mr. Badnarik's (Libertarian), Mr. Cobb's (Green), Mr. Peroutka's (Constitution), Mr. Nader's (Independent) taxmoney is being used to fund the Bush-Kerry debates, it is immoral, unethical, and undemocratic to exclude them from said debates, reguardless of popularity or polling results of any kind. It is robbery, plain and simple.

Yes, and as soon as public money or public resources are used to finance a campaign or debate, said campaign or debate cease to be a private affair. If our taxmoney, if Mr. Badnarik's (Libertarian), Mr. Cobb's (Green), Mr. Nader's (Independent) taxmoney is being used to fund the Bush-Kerry debates, it is immoral, unethical, and undemocratic to exclude them from said debates, reguardless of popularity or polling results of any kind. It is robbery, plain and simple.
Bush's tax money goes to roads he doesn't drive on. Kerry's tax money goes for schools he doesn't go to. Nadar's tax money goes to social services he doesn't use. There's a compelling public interest in debates, it lets people see which of the choices they like best. If Badnarik could get 33% of the pre-election vote in a poll, he could then reasonably argue that he should be included as well.

The Republicans were a 3rd party way back when. They've done alright for themselves.

only because the whigs imploded over slavery.

only because the whigs imploded over slavery.
Fact remains it happened.

Bush's tax money goes to roads he doesn't drive on. Kerry's tax money goes for schools he doesn't go to.


(EDIT: There is a) compelling argument to insist that Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry need not pay for such things. But, do Bush and Kerry not use these roads or schools because they so choose, or because they are forced out of them? If Badnarik, or Cobb, or Peroutka, or Nader didn't want to get into the debates, that would be one thing. But they do want to be in the debates, and they pay for them like everyone else, through their taxes. But reguardless of their willingness to pay for the debates, via tax money, they are being forced out.

(EDIT: There) is also a compelling arguement to insist that all federal campaign funding be ended, as not everyone who pays taxes supports Bush or Kerry either. With an end to public campaign financing and an end to the use of public resources for campaigns, Bush and Kerry would be totally free to do whatever they want with their own resources. Such is not the case now.

There's a compelling public interest in debates, it lets people see which of the choices they like best.


Exactly. Which is why all of the choices should be included. :)


If Badnarik could get 33% of the pre-election vote in a poll, he could then reasonably argue that he should be included as well.

Badnarik already appears on 48 state ballots, as well as the ballot in Washington D.C. Not only does he pay for the debates being held by Bush and Kerry with his tax money, as his supports do as well, and so have a right to appear with Bush and Kerry at said debates, but the fact that he can get so much support across the nation is in and of itself enough reason to be included in the debates.

Bush's tax money goes to roads he doesn't drive on. Kerry's tax money goes for schools he doesn't go to. Nadar's tax money goes to social services he doesn't use. There's a compelling public interest in debates, it lets people see which of the choices they like best. If Badnarik could get 33% of the pre-election vote in a poll, he could then reasonably argue that he should be included as well.

None of these have any direct influence on the democratic process itself. It is not directly related. Money from the government to fund the campaign of a party is directly related to the democratic process. Even more so in this Information Age.

To get on a ballot you need to get signatures of generally about 4 or 5% of the populance. If he could get 33%, then I would agree that he should be able to participate in a debate.

To get on a ballot you need to get signatures of generally about 4 or 5% of the populance. If he could get 33%, then I would agree that he should be able to participate in a debate.

How are third parties supposed to get the media recognition necessary to poll so high if they are excluded from the (public taxpayer funded) media debates to begin with? If the third parties do eventually qualify, what is to stop the Republicans and Democrats, through the Commission on Presidential Debates, from resetting the requirements even higher than it already is (15%)?

Polling results do not matter. If third parties and their supporters are being made, though taxation, to contribute to other campaigns and debates, third parties should automatically be included in those debates.

Judge rules on Arizona Libertarian Party suit against the Arizona State University and the Commission of Presidential Debates

Original thread here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364328

-----

UPDATE: Arizona judge rules in favor of ASU/CPD

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog...r-day-in-court/

"THIS IS A RUSH UPDATE, DETAILS FORTHCOMING … JUDGE RULED IN FAVOR OF CPD/ASU … NO INJUNCTION GRANTED … GROUNDS FOR DENIAL: TIME RESTRAINTS … BUSH ONLY ANNOUNCED 2 WEEKS AGO TO ATTEND … APPEARS AZLP HAS GROUNDS TO FIGHT FOR DAMAGES, MAY ADD BUSH & KERRY TO DEFENDENTS LIST…

1. No restraining order, because of the doctrine of latches, and that there appears to be sufficient public purpose for this debate.

2. The Plaintiffs may continue to pursue damages for any violations of the constitutional provisions.

In summary, we couldn’t stop the debates or get Badnarik in, but we may still be able to hold them accountable through damages."

more details/analysis:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog...omments-thread/

Polling results do not matter. If third parties and their supporters are being made, though taxation, to contribute to other campaigns and debates, third parties should automatically be included in those debates.

Exactly. Moreover, a poll is not necessarily representative.

In the current situation it appears there are only 2 candidates. You know, it would really be fascinating it all the members were to debate with each other (done in at least Netherlands and Belgium*). Then you'd at least know them all and see the differences. Sure, it doesn't mitigate factors such as strategic voting (which still happens in EU and AUS as well) but its a step i the right direction.

(* = Not entirely true though. They do use polls to decide who may be included in the debate, and 6 persons may join. So the very small parties aren't included in the official debate. However, they do get time to get on TV in various ways. Everyone who got votes automagically gets time on TV at public TV, too.)

@ Mar you might be interested how Pim Fortuyn got publicity here in NL...

only because the whigs imploded over slavery.Actually, I believe the Republicans really only became a true party after the Whigs all but dissolved. They came out of a vacuum, and arguably wouldn't have become the majority they did without the Civil War.

Damn anti-Libertarian bias!