meh, Stein. I'd rather the election be between Stein and Johnson than Romney and Obama, undoubtedly, and I hope Stein succeeds in her legal trouble over the debate entry attempt some days back. Not all that sold on her as a candidate though.

I'm okay with both of them. They are both better than Obama/Romney by a long shot.

I'd like to know why this debate is only being shown on C-SPAN and EVERY FOREIGN NEWS NETWORK WITH A US BUREAU, but not any TV channel an actual American voter would likely flip to.

Because they want to hide the third parties, Tolstoy. They're all the same in that regard. Doesn't mean it's smart or right; Romney and Obama could seriously take some advice from those two on the budget and on the environment because we all know that increasing the ability of the oil drillers to fuck up the Arctic **Wildlife Reserve** (as in **not oil field**) is not environmental.

because people don't care. It has nothing to do with hiding. There is just no economic advantage to showing a debate between two people no one has heard of. Stein is sitting below 10% and Johnson is not much higher.

It's not a conspiracy that third parties don't get the time of day. It's an inevitable result of our first-past-the-post or winner-take-all voting system. A vote for Johnson only helps Obama, a vote for Stein only helps Romney.

If you want more parties then you need to alter the way we vote in this country. There's nothing in the consitution which would prevent a state from adopting a parliametary system. These other parties ought to focus their efforts on getting Rhode Island on the Westminster system if they ever want to become relevant. That, or have the entire national party work to win one House seat. A Green or Libertarian gadfly in Congress is worth so much more than an also-ran presidential candidate.

dang I meant to watch this, was it a good show?

By Westminster I mean basically any parliamentary government BESIDES the UK, since they obviously still have first-past-the-post.

"There is just no economic advantage to showing a debate between two people no one has heard of"

No one has heard of them because the media refuses to acknowledge their existence, not because there's no demand for viewpoints beyond those permitted by our corporate masters.

No, Tolstoy. It's because of how we vote. Are you just refusing to understand it? A person on the left who votes for Stein reduces Obama's vote and makes Romeny's larger in proportion. If Obama were set to win a state 55-45 but Stein pulls in 15 percent of the vote, then Romeny wins the state even though the majority of people didn't want him. So people on the left, even those far more sympathetic to the Green Party than the Democrats, vote for Obama to keep this from happening. And why shouldn't they? Romney would be way worse from their perspective than Obama, even though Obama is far from a tree-hugging loon.

Your complaint is with the system, not the media.

Tolstoy, You are right that it is more complex than I made it seem. I would say that the issue is that these candidates can't raise money, mainly do to what Invictus said, because they can't raise money then they can't buy ads, since they can't buy ads then people don't see them. Is there some suppression, sure. But, Don't think it is the primary issue.

Well the suppression is built into our system. It's "WTA" attitude (by design or default, I don't know) allows only 2 parties to thrive at any given time.

The "supression" is by default. First-past-the-post predates political parties.

Invictus, I agree with you about the necessity of changing the electoral system, but unfortunately most - even I daresay a majority of third party activists - do not agree. Even among those who do agree, there is no consensus about what kind of a system to advocate for. This all makes it very difficult to move in this direction at all. But there is a clear consensus among us that third party candidates should be allowed to get into presidential debates.

But I do not agree with your pie-in-the-sky "just throw all your resources behind one candidate" strategy. Politics is local. The number of California Libertarians who would donate to a serious congressional candidate in Pennsylvania or Oklahoma is a lot smaller than the number of California Libertarians who would donate to a serious congressional candidate in California. Then you have the labor problem - while there are enough Libertarian political activists to flesh out a full congressional campaign, how are you going to get all of them to uproot for a few months?

I think I did remember hearing that... to my understanding its a more stable system than a "representative proportional" type, but the problem is that change is slow.

"I agree with you about the necessity of changing the electoral system, but unfortunately most - even I daresay a majority of third party activists - do not agree."

Well, then they're dummies. The way we votes makes a two-party system inevitable. Period.


As for the problems of focusing on one candidate, I agree it wouldn't be easy. But you would need the entire national organization of a third party to match the power of a major party congressional campaign. I'm pretty sure this is what has allowed the Green Party to get into parliament in Canada. If Libertarians and Greens are only interested in protest votes in local elections and tilting at windmills every four years then they deserve the landslide losses they recieve.

"tilting at windmills"

-I will always love this expression :P

This is all about ego and nothing about building a party. If these groups were serious about building a party they'd focus on competing in local races and campaign finance reform. Instead they want the cheap thrill of "running for President" which will do nothing even if a meteor strikes America and they somehow win the Presidential election, because they have no organized party structure to support them at any other level of government.

Basically what Invictus said.

"This is all about ego and nothing about building a party. If these groups were serious about building a party they'd focus on competing in local races and campaign finance reform."

Um... campaign finance reform has crippled third parties' fundraising abilities and the Libertarian Party (for one) at one point had over 500 people elected to local office nationwide. I'm sure the number is still in the hundreds today.

"Instead they want the cheap thrill of "running for President" which will do nothing"

Running a presidential candidate gets more (free) media coverage than anything else a third party does.

Next ignorant suggestion, please.

I guess all us third party crazies who aren't happy with The System should just give up and decide - Corporate Fascist Warmonger A, or Corporate Fascist Warmonger B? I'd rather *@#^!()$^#&*@ @*^*)@&^! Joe Stack )(!&@*^#@^ *~+#&*@#^ (!*(+{\.

Why do you consider them both good, bo, when they disagree with each other on every single thing?

You know what would get more coverage, Tolstoy? Congressman Joe Schmoe (L). Free media coverage of a failed campaign will never change public policy, a loudmouth Libertarian Congressman might. Or at least would give those ideas a sustained place in the news cycle. Get one guy in, and at the very least the GOP will have to pick up a fair amount of the Libertarian agenda.

"Free media coverage of a failed campaign will never change public policy"

Ron Paul's 'failed campaign' made the Federal Reserve a campaign issue that has spawned several bills in congress and made the operations of the Fed a topic for public discussion. That's more than he ever achieved as one of 435 elected representatives. Ross Perot made the national debt a campaign issue that both Bush and Clinton had to address in 1992 - which some believe was his whole objective.

I can't think of one idea the GOP picked up because of Ron Paul's 12 terms in congress. In fact, on the subject of Ron Paul, the only thing the Republican leadership could think of was how to get rid of him - including backing the democratic candidate in the general election.

Audie Bock was a Green who got elected to the California state assembly back in the '90s because the Democrat got really really complacent (the district was something like 80% D). NOTHING came of that one term. The Democrats did not pick up any of her ideas - they had no need to. She served one term; in the next election the Democratic Party threw the kitchen sink at her and knocked her out of office. In the grand scheme of things, her effort was for naught.

Ron Paul has shown the power of the "failed campaign" to educate, organize, and mobilize voters. His "failed" presidential runs have without question been the best thing to happen to the libertarian movement in its entire history. There's more to politics and political culture than winning elections.