[Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Tue Jul 8 17:06:02 CDT 2008
I dont think that either Kucinich or RP got any near to a fair
presentation to the voters. The system doesnt not
require fairness, but the unfairness of "enforced fairness" is perhaps
even more undesirable.
*
Carl is correct in his statement that roughly 3 out of 4 did not vote
for Reagan in 1980 since voter turnout was about 50%,
and he got about half of the votes of those who bothered to vote, which
translated to 91% of the electoral vote, a fitting
message at the eviction of Jimmy Carter. Australia requires people to
vote. You can be fined in Australia for not voting,
and the method of voting is IRV.
*
Carl,
Please explain how you classify M/O as being well to the right. I see
both of them as being mid-left to left.
Please advise how you reached your assessment.
*
I consider myself to be an anti-war conservative (libertarian)
constitutionalist Republican who has little in common with the
Republican party as it exists today.
Whether McCain does have any ideology at all is up for question but I
would classify McCain as Moderate to Liberal,
Authoritarian/Statist, Interventionist/Warmonger, a Neo-con, and way to
the left of me.
I don't equate being to the right with warmongering.
Of course the lines are blurred. About 75% of those polled recently by
the Chicago Tribune favored the supreme court interpretation of
the 2nd amendment, which I suppose is a right-wing position, and both
McCain and Obama are rated badly
by the pro-gun groups, with McCain getting an F-minus rating, which
would put M/O to the left of the population on that issue.
Conversely, I suppose that readers of the Tribune average fairly far to
the left, since it is a Chicago paper.
I support the 2nd amendment as the right of an individual to take up
arms (any sort of arms one can afford including but not limited to
fire-arms,
anything from a pitchfork [a very poor weapon actually] to a bazooka)
against fellow man if it becomes necessary
in the defence of liberty, particularly against an abusive government
when necessary as is implied by the historical context, but I dont own a
gun and dont
like either the police or the military very much. All who use arms or
direct the use of such force will of course be accountable for
their actions.
C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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