Libertarian, Green, Party Candidates Arrested
SkulkBait
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Woa, how did you all miss this one?</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
h8macs writes "Third party Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) were arrested while attempting to enter the presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More information was linked to <a href='http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346' target='_blank'>here</a>.
I can't believe this is the first I've heard of this....
oh yeah, forgot ot mention that this blurb came from slashdot.
h8macs writes "Third party Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) were arrested while attempting to enter the presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More information was linked to <a href='http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346' target='_blank'>here</a>.
I can't believe this is the first I've heard of this....
oh yeah, forgot ot mention that this blurb came from slashdot.
Comments
I was shocked the night it happened, that BOTH of them were arrested for crossing a police line around the offices where the debate was held, and they were carted off to an undisclosed location. it took their respective parties about four or five hours of phonecalls to find out just exactly which jail they were being held in so as to post bail.
I was going to vote Badnarik, but Cobb said that in swing states it is more important to go Kerry, to help reasonably end the war. They both realize they dont have a true chance to win the presidency, but their running at that level promotes their party immensely, and then they can get offices at state/local government levels, not to mention increased funding.
The green party is the only true liberal party. they want to help out the downtrodden and bring prosperity to everyone through equality.
The libertarian party is for personal liberty and personal responsibility. They want to reduce the role of the federal government in our lives and let us live as we choose. Michael Badnarik would (try to) make the United States once again a free country. To read about the Libertarian party's ideals, browse the column on the right of this page. <a href='http://badnarik.org/whybadnarik.php' target='_blank'>http://badnarik.org/whybadnarik.php</a>
Do you want 34% to be the majority? What if we have 10 candidates then? I don't think anyone would like having a president that is elected with 11% of the total votes.
Do you want 34% to be the majority? What if we have 10 candidates then? I don't think anyone would like having a president that is elected with 11% of the total votes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As opposed to voting between Jack Johnson and John Jackson?
Besides, there is instant runoff voting as an option. <a href='http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm' target='_blank'>IRV</a>.
Do you want 34% to be the majority? What if we have 10 candidates then? I don't think anyone would like having a president that is elected with 11% of the total votes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As opposed to voting between Jack Johnson and John Jackson?
Besides, there is instant runoff voting as an option. <a href='http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm' target='_blank'>IRV</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to be too enthusiastic about the 7th guy on my list being elected. It would be extremely difficult to keep track of what each candidate's stance on a particular issue is. Besides, currently in America the only people that stand a chance being elected as president are the Republican and Democratic candidates. So instead of listing 9 candidates, and then listing Bush or Kerry last, why not just vote for Bush or Kerry in the first place? Some people will argue that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election. But in doing so I think that would make the Democratic Party listen to what Nader's voters were saying. If you use the IRV system, why bother listening to Nader's voters if their vote would have just went to Gore anyway?
I'm not saying we should throw people in jail if they don't belong to party X or party Y. But what do you expect trying to cross a police line at a presidential debate? They couldn't have seriously expected to be let on stage and join the debate.
If bunch of people put kerry 7th, and he still got elected, how is that any different than what happens under the current system? Its still a scumbag getting in office. But I doubt that it would happen with IRV, because all those people out there saying "Yeah, I'd really like to vote libertarian, but I just can't stand the thought of kerry in office" will be able to vote libertarian, then bush, and not even put kerry on the list. I suspect that there are a lot of people who would rather vote for a third party, but are afraid to "give" votes to the wrong candidate by doing so. IRV eliminates this problem
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It would be extremely difficult to keep track of what each candidate's stance on a particular issue is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So? Its better than having only two options, both of which are practically the same. I'd much rather have too many candidates than have to choose the lesser of two evils.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, currently in America the only people that stand a chance being elected as president are the Republican and Democratic candidates. So instead of listing 9 candidates, and then listing Bush or Kerry last, why not just vote for Bush or Kerry in the first place? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I, like many people, don't like either of them? Currently people vote the lesser of two evils because voting for a third party is "giving" a vote to the greater evil. With IRV, people can put who they really want first, and leave the lesser evil last, just in case. Even if you still end up with a Dem or Rep in office at least third parties have a chance of convincing you to put them first.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some people will argue that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election. But in doing so I think that would make the Democratic Party listen to what Nader's voters were saying. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
....Or they could just ignore that, run anti-bush campaigns and convince people that by voting third party they are voting to keep satan incarnate in office. It works much better and that small percentage of voters that cost them the election last time will fall in line anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you use the IRV system, why bother listening to Nader's voters if their vote would have just went to Gore anyway?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->They don't listen to voters now, how would this be different? Besides, if people are putting nader first on their list, then he has a very real chance of winning, a chance that the Dams can't ignore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm not saying we should throw people in jail if they don't belong to party X or party Y.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but you seem to be saying "Whats the point in trying to fix this broked system?"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what do you expect trying to cross a police line at a presidential debate? They couldn't have seriously expected to be let on stage and join the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They didn't. It was civil disobedience. They explained to the crowd what they were going to do, why they were going to do it, and that they would face the consequences of their actions. And they surrendered themselves to police immediately after crossing the line. The importance of the arrest is that it highlights the problem: Here are two candidates, who have their names on enough ballets to possibly win the election, and they still aren't allowed to debate with their opponents.
all i have to say is that the 2 party system is fine. people aren't going to vote for candidates that aren't moderate, except in extreme circumstances. and contrary to what some people would have you believe, these are not extreme circumstances.
If you're refering to the Democrats and the Republicans, then you're a bit misinformed.
If you're refering to the Democrats and the Republicans, then you're a bit misinformed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to say , this is correct. Democrats share most of their program with Tony Blair , who is centrist at the very least. Of all "socialist" european prime ministers , he's the farthest to the right (even farther than Schröder)
While Kerry's program has some clearly socialist policies (taxing rich americans) , it is mostly centrist.
Ironically , the french election system forced us to vote for the "lesser of two evils" , Chirac (right candidate) against Le Pen (fascist candidate)
Less candidates would have prevented this... but what can you do when both the candidates and the voters show irresponsibility.
Best solution (imho) would be to have a 2 turn election , keeping the 3 best candidates for the 2nd turn. Green candidate wouldn't have a chance at first , but could be heard during the presidential debates.
to Wheee; The polls determine who gets media coverage, and the media coverage determines who gets on the polls. The polls used to determine who get on the debate, but after Perot made a mockery of the incumbent and the other candidate, the Democrat and Republican parties formed the CPD, a private group which gets to choose who runs and the rules of the debate.
Yes, a private group is determining who gets to run on these debates that are televised. Theres a reason the third-party independant debates are calling themselves the REAL presidential debates, even though they look like theyre hosted in a school gymnasium for lack of funding, and can only afford to be internet broadcasted. They do get to the real issues because they arent afraid of their private sponsors getting upset when they have real opinions!
If you happen to agree with either the democrat or republicn candidate on more stances than "the other guy sucks more". Otherwise it is basically pointless to vote. IMO, the two current candidates are so alike and so incompetent that I'd rather pull all of my own teeth out and shove them up my **** then vote for either of them. I mean seriously, I have the choice between Bush (who supported the USAPATRIOT act, and the "war on drugs", and doesn't support g@y marriage or g@y adoption) and Kerry (who also supported the USAPATRIOT act, "the war on drugs", and doesn't support g@y marriage or g@y adoption). Its not even worth leaving my house to choose between them anymore they are so virtualy identical.
I personally prefer <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting' target='_blank'>Approval voting.</a> It accomplishes the same goals as instant runoff voting, but it's easier to count, and I think its more intuitive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Each voter may vote for as many options as they wish, at most once per option. This is equivalent to saying that each voter may "approve" or "disapprove" each option by voting or not voting for it, and it's also equivalent to voting +1 or 0 in a range voting system.
The votes for each option are tallied. The option with the most votes wins.
Advocates of approval voting often note that a single simple ballot can serve for single, multiple, or negative choices. It requires the voter to think carefully about who or what they really accept, rather than trusting a system of tallying or compromising by formal ranking or counting. Compromises happen but they are explicit, and chosen by the voter, not by the ballot counting.
Some features of approval voting include:
<ul>
</li><li>Unlike Instant Runoff Voting and other methods that require ranking candidates, Approval voting does not require significant changes in ballot design, voting procedures or equipment, and it is easier for voters to use and understand. This reduces problems with mismarked ballots, disputed results and recounts.
</li><li>Increasing options for voters, when compared with the common First-past-the-post system, could increase voter turnout
</li><li>It provides less incentive for negative campaigning than many other systems.
</li><li>It allows voters to express tolerances but not preferences. This is considered by some political scientists a major advantage, especially where acceptable choices are more important than popular choices.
</li><li>Each voter may vote as many times as they wish, at most once per candidate. This is equivalent to saying that each voter may "approve" or "disapprove" each candidate by voting or not voting for them, and it's also equivalent to voting +1 or 0 in a range voting system.
</li><li>It is easily reversed as disapproval voting where a choice is disavowed, as is already required in other measures in politics (e.g. representative recall).
</li></ul>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Darten+Oct 10 2004, 02:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Darten @ Oct 10 2004, 02:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm not saying we should throw people in jail if they don't belong to party X or party Y.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but you seem to be saying "Whats the point in trying to fix this broked system?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say the system was broken. But I also didn't say it was perfect.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If you happen to agree with either the democrat or republicn candidate on more stances than "the other guy sucks more". Otherwise it is basically pointless to vote. IMO, the two current candidates are so alike and so incompetent that I'd rather pull all of my own teeth out and shove them up my **** then vote for either of them. I mean seriously, I have the choice between Bush (who supported the USAPATRIOT act, and the "war on drugs", and doesn't support g@y marriage or g@y adoption) and Kerry (who also supported the USAPATRIOT act, "the war on drugs", and doesn't support g@y marriage or g@y adoption). Its not even worth leaving my house to choose between them anymore they are so virtualy identical.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're going to have to accept the fact that you are not going to get everything you want. You want to have more candidates to choose from, but if you can't find any differences between Bush and Kerry how will you be able to follow many more candidates' opinions?
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Darten+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Darten)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Some people will argue that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election. But in doing so I think that would make the Democratic Party listen to what Nader's voters were saying.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
....Or they could just ignore that, run anti-bush campaigns and convince people that by voting third party they are voting to keep satan incarnate in office. <b>It works much better and that small percentage of voters that cost them the election last time will fall in line anyway.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence, why listen to them if they're just going to fall in line?
Mainstream America runs the country, and it will likely remain that way. If the majority of the country wants g-ay mariage, g-ay adoption, illegal drugs made legel, and less security, then so be it. But right now apparently that is not what the majority of Americans want.
If you open up the election to more candidates, it is not just going to be Bush, Kerry, and the two gentlemen listed in that article. It would be most likely be many more than that. You don't want to vote for either Bush or Kerry because of those four issues, but then what is going to make you want to vote for any other candidates? If they don't agree with you on one topic are you not going to vote for them either? I didn't read that IRV article in depth, but what happens if everyone votes only for their favorite candidate? You would end up with a majority that is less than 50%.
I don't exactly expect us to agree on this. I just don't think it's a good idea to start adding a bunch of candidates.
I personally prefer <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting' target='_blank'>Approval voting.</a> It accomplishes the same goals as instant runoff voting, but it's easier to count, and I think its more intuitive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Each voter may vote for as many options as they wish, at most once per option. This is equivalent to saying that each voter may "approve" or "disapprove" each option by voting or not voting for it, and it's also equivalent to voting +1 or 0 in a range voting system.
The votes for each option are tallied. The option with the most votes wins.
Advocates of approval voting often note that a single simple ballot can serve for single, multiple, or negative choices. It requires the voter to think carefully about who or what they really accept, rather than trusting a system of tallying or compromising by formal ranking or counting. Compromises happen but they are explicit, and chosen by the voter, not by the ballot counting.
Some features of approval voting include:
<ul>
</li><li>Unlike Instant Runoff Voting and other methods that require ranking candidates, Approval voting does not require significant changes in ballot design, voting procedures or equipment, and it is easier for voters to use and understand. This reduces problems with mismarked ballots, disputed results and recounts.
</li><li>Increasing options for voters, when compared with the common First-past-the-post system, could increase voter turnout
</li><li>It provides less incentive for negative campaigning than many other systems.
</li><li>It allows voters to express tolerances but not preferences. This is considered by some political scientists a major advantage, especially where acceptable choices are more important than popular choices.
</li><li>Each voter may vote as many times as they wish, at most once per candidate. This is equivalent to saying that each voter may "approve" or "disapprove" each candidate by voting or not voting for them, and it's also equivalent to voting +1 or 0 in a range voting system.
</li><li>It is easily reversed as disapproval voting where a choice is disavowed, as is already required in other measures in politics (e.g. representative recall).
</li></ul>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, Multolano normally I disagree with your political views but I must say approval voting just makes sense.
Excellent find.
I personally prefer <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting' target='_blank'>Approval voting.</a> It accomplishes the same goals as instant runoff voting, but it's easier to count, and I think its more intuitive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Each voter may vote for as many options as they wish, at most once per option. This is equivalent to saying that each voter may "approve" or "disapprove" each option by voting or not voting for it, and it's also equivalent to voting +1 or 0 in a range voting system.
The votes for each option are tallied. The option with the most votes wins.
Advocates of approval voting often note that a single simple ballot can serve for single, multiple, or negative choices. It requires the voter to think carefully about who or what they really accept, rather than trusting a system of tallying or compromising by formal ranking or counting. Compromises happen but they are explicit, and chosen by the voter, not by the ballot counting.
Some features of approval voting include:
<ul>
</li><li>Unlike Instant Runoff Voting and other methods that require ranking candidates, Approval voting does not require significant changes in ballot design, voting procedures or equipment, and it is easier for voters to use and understand. This reduces problems with mismarked ballots, disputed results and recounts.
</li><li>Increasing options for voters, when compared with the common First-past-the-post system, could increase voter turnout
</li><li>It provides less incentive for negative campaigning than many other systems.
</li><li>It allows voters to express tolerances but not preferences. This is considered by some political scientists a major advantage, especially where acceptable choices are more important than popular choices.
</li><li>Each voter may vote as many times as they wish, at most once per candidate. This is equivalent to saying that each voter may "approve" or "disapprove" each candidate by voting or not voting for them, and it's also equivalent to voting +1 or 0 in a range voting system.
</li><li>It is easily reversed as disapproval voting where a choice is disavowed, as is already required in other measures in politics (e.g. representative recall).
</li></ul>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, Multolano normally I disagree with your political views but I must say approval voting just makes sense.
Excellent find. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just looking at this again, and man, did I mention it's an awesome idea?
God I love this idea so much it's getting me exited <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What's not written in this theory is that you also have to have several billion dollars in the bank and/or you have to be in good standing with a major political party. Why do they even have 3rd parties? Has this country gotten so screwed up that it has become okay to disregard the Constitution when it comes to certain things?
Anyway, approval voting looks like a great system. Isn't there a variant where the option with the second most votes gets the vice presidency?
A good election system requires that you can vote for you best representative. This is not the case with our current one, as anyone who vote for a third party as his best rep will essentially be "throwing away their vote."
Also, if one's opinion is "anyone but Kerry" or "anyone but Bush," then the current system does not provide a way for them to indicate that. Those are more votes not heard (or even worse, your vote can be used against you in a tight race).
I'm pretty sure that the only election reform commonly advocated that would require an ammendment is removing the electoral college. And that's not even all that common (but in leu of actual electoral reform, a good idea).
Anyway, approval voting looks like a great system. Isn't there a variant where the option with the second most votes gets the vice presidency? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It used to be that way. We got rid of it when we started getting VPs and Ps that loathed each other.
Do you really think it would be beneficial to have Kerry and Bush in office at the same time? Game over man.
I like that. I wished we could do this here in Germany too, there are some green politicians <i>I</i> would like to see arrested....
I like that. I wished we could do this here in Germany too, there are some green politicians <i>I</i> would like to see arrested.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't be quite sure but I think the Greens in the US are a vastly different party than the Greens in Europe?
I only wish the Green party in the US were not so broad reaching in their political goals. I am a strong environmentalist but I cannot support a lot of their social issues. If only they could focus on the environment.