[Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Tue Jul 8 15:30:28 CDT 2008
In fact the official candidates (M & O) are well to the right of what people say
in polls that they want. But they're told that only official candidates can
win. So they don't vote (50%) or vote for the lesser evil from those candidates
who "can win."
The result is a system that's not supported by the populace, whatever the media
say. In the "Reagan landslide," 3 out of 4 eligible voters didn't vote for him.
It certainly wasn't that "their message didn't resonate w/ voters as a whole." --CGE
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Just another example of media (aka cororate) control of information, and
> not by far the worst, imho. But fwiw, I don't think ANY amount of
> coverage would satisfy Nader, and it could be argued that Kucinich, Paul
> and others got enuff of a forum to know that they and their
> message didn't resonate w/ voters as a whole (yeah, too bad).
>
> --Jenifer
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 7/8/08, Walter Pituc /<wpituc2 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: Walter Pituc <wpituc2 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
> To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Prairie Greens of East Central Illinois"
> <prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net>, "Peace-discuss List"
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 1:08 PM
>
> No, I think you are mistaken Jenifer. I will not argue about the
> spoiler argument here because I know people have different political
> persuasions and different takes on it on the peace list and I
> wouldn't want to devolve this into mere partisan bickering, but what
> I will argue for right here is the desperate need for equal access
> to debates to non-major party/Indy presidential candidates. If we as
> a nation truly believe in equality under the law, then we would have
> fairer ballot access laws, open and inclusive debates, publicly
> funded campaigns, and equal media coverage.
>
> From a purely civil libertarian perspective, if you are a citizen
> of the United States you should get a fair shake at being able to
> run for office and for equal treatment under the law. In Europe and
> elsewhere, there is more political diversity and more transparent
> and equal treatment (relative to us at least) of more marginal
> voices in society because the laws there allow for it.
>
>
> -Walter
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Jenifer Cartwright
> <jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> So what y're saying is that spoiler Nader (who just couldn't
> bring himself to back McKinney) might throw the election to
> McCain? That's the kind of deja vu that would end the world as
> we've come to know it (think: Supreme Court nominees).
>
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Tue, 7/8/08, Walter Pituc /<wpituc2 at gmail.com
> <mailto:wpituc2 at gmail.com>>/* wrote:
>
> From: Walter Pituc <wpituc2 at gmail.com
> <mailto:wpituc2 at gmail.com>>
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
> To: "Prairie Greens of East Central Illinois"
> <prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net>>,
> "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>>
> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 11:57 AM
>
>
> Here is a good piece by the The Nation about the need for
> truly inclusive Presidential debates. We tout our country as
> a democracy yet we exclude many candidates (who have a
> mathematical chance of winning based on how ballot lines
> they have) from participating in national debates. I
> especially hate the truly undemocratic Commission on
> Presidential Debates (CPD) which decides who gets to debate
> and who doesn't. It's no surprise that the CPD is fully
> funded by corporations and TV executives and is basically
> controlled by the two major parties.
>
> -Walter Pituc
>
> http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/334812
>
> -----------------------
> An Opportunity to Open Presidential Debates
>
> posted by John Nichols on 07/06/2008 @ 3:09pm
>
> The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey of
> registered voters nationwide puts Democrat Barack Obama at
> 46 percent.
>
> Republican John McCain pulls 44 percent.
>
> Is everyone else undecided? No.
>
> A striking six percent of Americans who are likely to vote
> this fall back an alternative candidate: Independent Ralph
> Nader.
>
> Another three percent back Libertarian Bob Barr.
>
> Those are some of the highest percentages in years for
> independent or-third-party candidates. And they matter,
> especially Nader's six percent.
>
> Google and YouTube are organizing a unique presidential
> forum in New Orleans for September 18. It is likely to be
> the first debate (or debate-like "event") after the
> major-party nominating conventions are finished.
>
> A candidate polling at 10 percent in national polls -- just
> four points ahead of where Nader is now at -- earns a place
> in the forum.
>
> As Nader's campaign says: "If we get on the Google sponsored
> debates, we're convinced Nader/Gonzalez will move toward 20
> percent.
>
> "At twenty percent, people see a three way race."
>
> "When people see a three way race, everything is possible."
>
> "And we believe that in this momentous election year,
> everything is possible."
>
> Frankly, the 10 percent threshold is too high.
>
> Presidential debates should include all candidates who have
> qualified for a sufficient number of ballots lines to
> accumulate the electoral votes to be elected president.
>
> It is not all that easy getting on ballots. And those
> candidates who meet the standard -- usually no more than two
> or three beyond the major-party contenders -- deserve a forum.
>
> Would that put too many candidates on the stage? Don't be
> silly. Both Obama and McCain came from crowded fields of
> Democratic and Republican contenders who debated frequently
> -- and functionally -- prior to and during the primary season.
>
> In other countries, such as France, presidential debates are
> open not merely to the two most prominent candidates but to
> the nominees of all parties that display a reasonable
> measure of national appeal. The discussions are livelier and
> more issue-focused, and they tend to draw the major-party
> candidates out -- providing insights that would otherwise be
> lost in the carefully-calculated joint appearances that pass
> for fall debates in the U.S.
>
> The corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates -- which was
> set up by former chairs of the major parties and their
> big-media allies to limit access to the most important
> forums for presidential nominees -- has made mockery of the
> democratic process. And some, admittedly very foolish
> people, have actually convinced themselves that one-on-one
> "debates" organized by party insiders to fit the schedules
> of friendly television networks are meaningful.
>
> The truth is that America needs more and better debates. And
> Google and YouTube have taken an important step in opening
> up the process by establishing the ten-percent threshold --
> a standard that is significantly easier for an independent
> or third-party candidate to meet than the CPD's
> overly-strict and anti-democratic regulations. (Among rules,
> the commission requires a candidate who is not running with
> the approval of the Democratic and Republican parties to
> attain a 15-percent support level across five national polls.)
>
> Will any independent or third-party candidate reach the ten
> percent threshold this year? Nader appears to be best
> positioned to do so. Despite scant media attention, he has
> polled in the four- to six-percent range in several
> different polls. Getting up to ten percent will be hard. But
> as Obama softens his positions on civil liberties, political
> reform, trade policy, presidential accountability and ending
> the war -- issues on which Nader has long focused -- his
> prospects improve.
>
> And one does not have to be a Nader supporter to hope, for
> the sake of democracy, that they improve sufficiently to
> earn him a place in the Google/YouTube debate and other fall
> match-ups. And if Nader gets in, why not Barr and likely
> Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney?
>
> An Obama-McCain-Nader-Barr-McKinney debate would be less
> crowded than most of the Democratic or Republican primary
> debates, and much less crowded than the debates in the last
> French presidential election. But it would still be
> sufficiently energetic and ideologically diverse to boost
> the quality of the presidential dialogue and give America
> something closer to a genuinely democratic discourse.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list