Do we REALLY have a choice when it comes to electing a president? (2 Viewers)

[SaintRob]

Do we really have a choice when it comes to electing a President of the United States? I don't feel like we do. Sure, we get to choose between 2 people that have been pre-selected (kind of by us, kind of by the media, kind of by their own internal party leaders), but it sure seems like we get force fed those two. There's very little exposure to any of the other parties. The Green party gets a little recognition with Nader. Independents got slight consideration with Ross Perot several years back.

Part of the problem is the way parties other than Republicans or Democrats are eligible to receive federal funding for campaigns. For a party, other than the two majors, to receive federal funding, the party must receive a minimum of 5% of the popular vote in the preceding presidential election. How do you get votes if you can't get your message out? How do you get your message out if you can't get exposure?

Which leads me to this: we really need more media attention from the other parties, especially the Constitution party and the Libertarians as well as the Green. However, the media tends to go with the parties or candidates that have the financial backing to buy up ad space. The deck is really stacked against other parties getting any kind of real recognition other than at the grass roots level.

I think we would really benefit from having more choices other than just the Republican and Democratic nominees. Sure, we get to have several other relatively unknown choices on the ballot or even a write in. But let's be honest, that's of no real benefit without the backing that the other two parties get. I think that the nominees from the Green, Libertarian and Constitution party - minimally - should be given the opportunity to debate along with the Dems and Repubs.

Why those 3, you may ask. I don't have a solid answer for that. Those appear to be the most 'mainstream' of the smaller parties, I guess. Maybe we should take the top 5 or 6 parties by number of registrants. I just think we'd be better off with more choices and having several parties in all elected offices than to constantly have the top 2 that we currently have, bickering all the time, creating partisan polarity.

Thoughts?

 

[Maxp]

The only way we'll see a viable third party is if one of the major parties breaks into two.

 

[Taceo]

The only way we'll see a viable third party is if one of the major parties breaks into two.

I agree. Which means that two conflicting units within one major party would essentially concede future elections to the other party. Eventually it should balance out to three separate mindsets with roughly 1/3 support of registered voters, but it would be a very rocky transition.

 

[Jackavelli]

I agree, although I don't know too much about it to comment. The political system in this country is broken, most politicians only care about telling you what you want to hear so that they can get elected and reelected. I have no idea what would change this but your idea seems a step in the right direction. Although the system is setup for only the big 2 and they are not going to let go of that power. The only thing I can think of is to make it automatic for every citizen who is 18 to be automatically registered to vote. Then the politicians would listen to everyone and not just a small group of people who are registered voters.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

i believe the debate process is one of the most important factors controlling why we dont see more inclusion of third parties

JUAN GONZALEZ: Tonight, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri will host the first and only vice-presidential debate between Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Delaware Senator Joseph Biden. The debate will be moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS.

Senator McCain and Governor Palin have been sowing doubts about how fair Ifill will be because of a book she’s writing that’s called Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. The McCain campaign and right-wing pundits allege that Ifill might be biased in favor of Senator Obama.

What’s missing, however, is any concern about the fairness of the very structure of the debate. The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate, as well as the topics raised during the debates. But the contract remains a secret, and the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation created by the two major parties, has refused to release the contract to the public.

GEORGE FARAH: Unfortunately, Amy, we don’t know the extent of the rules, because, precisely because, the Obama and McCain campaigns have absolutely refused to release the detailed contract that dictates the terms of tonight’s debate. We only have limited knowledge.

With respect to the new rules that we do know about, because the campaigns are terrified that both Biden and Palin will make a major gaffe during tonight’s performance, they have severely restricted the response times, so each candidate only has ninety seconds to respond to a particular question and then, only two minutes afterwards, to have some sort of discussion. This is in sharp contrast to the amount of time that was given to Obama and McCain during their debate.

And, of course, Amy, you’re not going to see any third party voices in tonight’s debate. The Republican, Democratic parties, who exert near absolute control over these public forums, have determined and made sure that no third party voices are ever seen on the debate stage and can challenge their dominance of our political system.

GEORGE FARAH: We used to have a fantastic, genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor: the League of Women Voters. From 1976 until 1984, the League of Women Voters hosted our most important public forums, and they made sure the debates served the public interest rather than the interest of any political party. And they had the guts to stand up to the two major parties.

In 1980, for example, former Republican Congressman John Anderson ran as an Independent for the president of the United States. President Jimmy Carter adamantly refused to debate him, but the League said, “You know what, Mr. President? Too bad.” And they hosted a presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and John Anderson that was watched by over 40 million people.

Fast-forward four years later, the Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan campaigns actually vetoed sixty-eight of the moderators that the League of Women Voters had proposed for the three debates. What did the League do? They issued a scathing public press release castigating the candidates for abusing the process, and the Reagan and Mondale campaigns were forced to accept aggressive moderators.

Again, four years later, the League of Women Voters were refusing to implement any contract that was negotiated by the George Bush and Dukakis campaigns. They had negotiated the first secret contract, a twelve-page memoranda of understanding, that dictated who would participate and how the format would be structured. The League said, “This is an outrage!”

AMY GOODMAN: You mean that that was longer than the initial proposal for the $700 billion bailout?

GEORGE FARAH: Nine pages longer. And they absolutely refused to implement the contract. Well, guess what. The parties did not like the fact that an uppity women’s organization, pro-democracy, was telling their boys who could participate in their debates and under what condition. And so, in 1987, they created this private corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It sounds like a government agency; it’s not. And every four years, it awards absolute control to the Republican and Democratic parties over our political forums.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And who sponsors this organization?

GEORGE FARAH: Well, that makes things even worse. Unfortunately, much of the money that finances the presidential debates that are hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates are private corporations that have regulatory interests before Congress. Anheuser-Busch has spent the most money of any company in the United States on presidential debates, which is partly why every four years we get a debate in St. Louis, and we don’t have a debate this year in New Orleans, which is dying for a debate, and massive civic groups were demanding that a debate be held there to highlight some of Katrina’s problems.

Another consequence of corporate sponsorship is that the corporations are able to give a contribution this way to both parties. You know, we have limitations in this country. Corporations can’t give direct contributions to the candidates. Well, the Commission provides an end-run around. When a corporation gives money to the Commission on Presidential Debates, it knows it is giving money to both the Republican and Democratic parties, supporting their duopoly over our political process and excluding third party voices that may be hostile to corporate power. And all four third party candidates that are on ballots this year are sharply critical of growing corporate power.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and


http://www.opendebates.org/

 

[Ti Rider]

Two parties? It's basically one party with two polar halves with both sides beholden to different big businesses. How could anyone anyone argue with just how quickly they circled the wagons to protect each other in the latest financial meltdown. There was a tiny bit of squabbling and finger pointing but no true effort to get to the truth. Why because this whole "crisis" was created by the noble but shortsighted goal of home ownership for every American. Like always the "unintended consequences" are far worse than anyone predicted and then it was swept under the rug. The whole political process surrounding the bailout has made me even more cynical toward politics and the sham "two" party system. Republicrats indeed.........

 

[Saint77]

They present the candidates, that we get to pick from. End of story. Seems to me that the original intent at the countries creation was so that any old joe with certain baisc qualifications could give it a shot, but the two exclusive clubs have weeded out all but themselves and thier main compitition. This is why soem of us dont feel comfortable voting at all. The pooch is screwed. No revolts for you, and your all too complacent to protest en masse.

 

[SaintRob]

The Republican, Democratic parties, who exert near absolute control over these public forums, have determined and made sure that no third party voices are ever seen on the debate stage and can challenge their dominance of our political system.

And so, in 1987, they created this private corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It sounds like a government agency; it’s not. And every four years, it awards absolute control to the Republican and Democratic parties over our political forums.

This is outrageous! We should all write our senators and representatives to demand a change to this.

Oh! I've got a way to get a network interested! We could have a new reality television show: "Who Wants to be the Next American President?" Then the leaders of the smaller parties could campaign and debate each other, reality TV style with the TV audience phoning in votes to eliminate candidates. The final 2 candidates get to go head to head with the Democratic and Republican nominees in a televised debate.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

This is outrageous! We should all write our senators and representatives to demand a change to this.

Oh! I've got a way to get a network interested! We could have a new reality television show: "Who Wants to be the Next American President?" Then the leaders of the smaller parties could campaign and debate each other, reality TV style with the TV audience phoning in votes to eliminate candidates. The final 2 candidates get to go head to head with the Democratic and Republican nominees in a televised debate.

Theres much more to the interview at the link and downloadable audio too. I didnt want to post the whole thing, board rules and such but theres definitely a lot of interesting info in the interview. I was actually completely unaware about how the debates are formatted and who controls them until I heard that interview on NPR. Its really a slap in the face to our political discourse in this country.

 

[Pasty]

Republicrats

 

[Taurus]

Which is why your vote for a 3rd party is never 'wasted'. And may be, in fact, the most patriotic thing you can do.

If one of the smaller parties can just consistently reach that 5% threshold, they can start to insist on their message getting out.

 

[Saint77]

Let me tell ya what im seeing in Ohio. Ohio's Secretary of State is in charge of all electoral duties, voting machines, absentee balloting, early voting, etc and so on. During Bush's runs. the Ohio SoS was a Republican, Ken Blackwell, who was also the Chairman for the Bush Chaney reelection committee. Oh, and he also had stock in Dibold, IIRC makers of voting machines.

This year, its Jennifer Bruner. She is a Dem, She has intituded early voting in Ohio. All voters in Ohio must show real legitimate picture ID at the time of voting. EXCEPT. when early voting. Bruner apprarently felt that all oen must do is presne the last 4 digits of ones social, or a paycheck, or a bill. NO picture ID is required. This move was not put up for a vote, no review by committee. No examination by the Ohio House or Senate. This was all on Jenny. the Dems, including Dem Govnah Strickland, Jerry Springer, Jimmy Hoffa Jr and the Teamsters Union, and others are making a massive early voting push. There are rumors of staff from organizations like ACORN, making the rounds in neighborhoods that are known to have large numbers of illegals, tryign to get people to register early to vote. Much like Blackwell, there is room for fraud here.

No tin foil hats fo rme, but this party war is outright unacceptable IMHO. They just make rules up as they go along. No such thing as conflict of interest, Go team!

 

[killah]

Republicrats

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PYCMxD4pylM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PYCMxD4pylM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[brophy]

with more than two parties, we would be forced to actually discuss the impact of policies or diplomacy rather than just rag on and on about how the other party sucks and is trying to destroy America. That is a level I don't think I am prepared for.


PS - your party sucks!

PSS - how would Congress work if we didn't segregate the candidates as R or D? How would we be 'represented'?

 

[Big_L]

Do we really have a choice when it comes to electing a President of the United States? I don't feel like we do. Sure, we get to choose between 2 people that have been pre-selected (kind of by us, kind of by the media, kind of by their own internal party leaders), but it sure seems like we get force fed those two. There's very little exposure to any of the other parties. The Green party gets a little recognition with Nader. Independents got slight consideration with Ross Perot several years back.

Part of the problem is the way parties other than Republicans or Democrats are eligible to receive federal funding for campaigns. For a party, other than the two majors, to receive federal funding, the party must receive a minimum of 5% of the popular vote in the preceding presidential election. How do you get votes if you can't get your message out? How do you get your message out if you can't get exposure?

Which leads me to this: we really need more media attention from the other parties, especially the Constitution party and the Libertarians as well as the Green. However, the media tends to go with the parties or candidates that have the financial backing to buy up ad space. The deck is really stacked against other parties getting any kind of real recognition other than at the grass roots level.

I think we would really benefit from having more choices other than just the Republican and Democratic nominees. Sure, we get to have several other relatively unknown choices on the ballot or even a write in. But let's be honest, that's of no real benefit without the backing that the other two parties get. I think that the nominees from the Green, Libertarian and Constitution party - minimally - should be given the opportunity to debate along with the Dems and Repubs.

Why those 3, you may ask. I don't have a solid answer for that. Those appear to be the most 'mainstream' of the smaller parties, I guess. Maybe we should take the top 5 or 6 parties by number of registrants. I just think we'd be better off with more choices and having several parties in all elected offices than to constantly have the top 2 that we currently have, bickering all the time, creating partisan polarity.

Thoughts?

I agree 100%. We need more choices than just Republican and Democrat.