The google presidential debate petition

[alien space marine]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BAWGIaBr3D8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BAWGIaBr3D8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I know that americans are annoyed when people tell them who to vote, So I am not going to tell who to vote for.

I do think you should make sure that the leading 3rd party candidate gets the opportunity to debate the Dem/Rep, Having only two parties and two candidates at the presidential debates is complete malarkey.

[A Black Falcon]

There's really no point, though. The Democratic and Republican party primary debates allow in everyone, and they're quite chaotic until they narrow things down in the later debates as people quit... of course that makes sense, as you're never sure who will emerge as the winner (how many predicted Obama would win at the time of the first Democratic debate? Not many people!), but in the general election? There are only two possible winners, the Republican or the Democrat. Because of our political system, all other candidates are completely irrelevant except perhaps as spoilers. Voting for them doesn't change that fact, it just wastes your vote.

As a result, I have no problem with only having people in the main presidental debates who actually have a chance to win. This is why it was right to include Perot in 1992, who was a serious candidate who did very, very well popular vote wise (he had an honest shot...), but including a Nader, now? No. It would just distract from the candidates who could win.

Argue for a change to our political system to one with coalition governments or runoffs or something like that, but including minor, irrelevant candidates in the few, time-limited debates that the parties agree to (three with the presidential candidates and one with the VPs is the normal thing)? It would just encourage more people to waste their votes on people like Nader... and it's exactly that kind of thing that put Bush in office. A couple hundred fewer Nader voters in Florida in 2000 and Bush never would have been close enough to steal the election...

[Dark Jaguar]

Sorry ABF, that's an attitude that undermines the system.

Vote for the candidate you prefer, don't vote in a roundabout way based on who might "win". If you do the latter, it only reinforces a self-defeating system. Look at it this way. Imagine down the line that there was only ONE party candidate that ever recieved any votes, and we were reduced to a 1 party system? In this system, the only votes that ever matter are the ones in that party's primaries, and they start trying less and less. Anyone that votes for the other party is told their votes are being "thrown away" and it's immoral for them to do so, that they should only care about the main party.

This is basically the same thing. As much as you might think in the short term that you have to vote for someone with a "chance to win", that attitude only guarentees that extra candidates that step outside the dictated party lines of our current parties will never have a "chance to win". It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

AND ANOTHER THING! "Activist judges" are nothing new, they are INTENDED! Judges being free to overthrow what they see as unconstitutional laws are a must, to prevent tyranny of the majority!

And what's with Myspace and Facebook? I don't care about "THE prom" you idiot, most people are nowhere NEAR you, they don't know your highschool exists! Stop treating it like it's world news!

Did that commercial just show sumo wrestlers fly off in the shape of a jet? What?! That was for BANKING? Are you SO at a loss as to what differentiates you from the competition that you just make up random nonsense?

Makes me want to go to the maternity ward and switch around babies at random...

[alien space marine]

I cant believe I am hearing that from you ABF, The democratic system itself is at stake.

The only wasted votes are the demoralized quarter of the population who don't even show up to vote, The same case with my country and most of the free world.

It was the electoral college not Nader that rob the election, How many Nader voters would have voted for Gore anyway? If people on the right would vote for guys like Chuck Baldwin it would be balanced out, Thats why the 3rd party guys should help each other out regardless of difference in politics.

Some say you shouldn't do anything untill after this election, Fine but make sure in the future that you work to break the two party monopoly.

[A Black Falcon]

How many Nader voters would have voted for Gore anyway?

The vast, vast majority.

Sure, Gore did manage to win anyway, before the Supreme Court decided that Bush won despite losing, but if not for Nader, there would not have been an issue. I think it's horrible that he's running again, really... there is no decent explanation other than that he must have a pretty big ego. In 2000, he ran on a campaign of "the two parties are the same". It was a delusional and idiotic message that played to the worst instincts of Americans, to look only at the "same" surface and not actually investigate the issues and realize how DRAMATICALLY, DRAMATICALLY different Bush and Gore were. And so he helped defeat a great candidate who would have done great things, and replace him with the worst president America has ever had. Great job, "they are both the same!"

... Yes, like a lot of Democrats, I'm still quite bitter at Nader. :)

America is a two party system. Occasionally third party candidates actually matter (when they push a candidate to take a stronger position on something, for instance), but usually they don't. So when you vote, the only relevant votes are Republican or Democratic. Voting any other way is voting against the major party you more identify with. This is a fact.

And despite disliking some of the things the Democrats do, I would NEVER, EVER vote for a third party candidate unless there was a really good reason (like a Green Party candidate with an actual chance to win or something) in a general election. Doing that would be voting for the Republicans, which would, quite obviously, be very much again my interests...

Sorry ABF, that's an attitude that undermines the system.

Vote for the candidate you prefer, don't vote in a roundabout way based on who might "win". If you do the latter, it only reinforces a self-defeating system. Look at it this way. Imagine down the line that there was only ONE party candidate that ever recieved any votes, and we were reduced to a 1 party system? In this system, the only votes that ever matter are the ones in that party's primaries, and they start trying less and less. Anyone that votes for the other party is told their votes are being "thrown away" and it's immoral for them to do so, that they should only care about the main party.

That's wrong, as I said. Anyone who thinks that voting third party will actually help us change our system is deluding themselves... it's not the parties that make it a two party system, it's the winner take all nature of the American political system. In order to have a system where people could vote for third parties without wasting their votes, we would, as I said, need major constitutional reform and significantly change ur style of government -- proportional representation (so that some members of the congress are chosen based on party lists, with seats distributed based on how many people vote for that party in the election -- so that any party that gets over a certain threshold nationwide (or statewide or whatever) automatically gets seats), a European-style multi-party parliamentary system with coalition governments, whatever. But with winner take all, only one person can win the election -- so voting for someone who cannot win wastes your vote.

There have been a few elections with three or more candidates who could all win, so it's not ALWAYS just two, but it usually is. It's hard to have a real three person race where they all can win... things naturally distill down to two sides. America has had two main political sides ever since 1789 (when the Federalists and Anti-Federalists started arguing about whether they should approve or reject the Constitution), and unless, as I said, we come up with a new form of government, that's not going to change. Voting for third party candidates who can't win will NOT change that.

AND ANOTHER THING! "Activist judges" are nothing new, they are INTENDED! Judges being free to overthrow what they see as unconstitutional laws are a must, to prevent tyranny of the majority!

Of course. Judicial activism is the basis of the American judicial system. Right wingers are only complaining about it because judges are limiting a few (but not most) of the things they want to do.

[Dark Jaguar]

I'm against parties actually getting constitutional recognition, that reform is not what I'd consider a good idea.

However, you totally missed my point.

Yes, it's winner take all. I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that ALL the candidates "can win", they just need a majority. The "electability" of a candidate is a really stupid qualifier because instead of actually being honest, they strive for "expediancy", which is a concept I hate. To say "well really no one's going to vote for this person, because no one's going to vote for this person" is a self defeating circle of the worst sort.

Rather, I encourage people to vote for who they want to be president. To be concerned about the "meta-game" of considering "who has a chance" merely creates that same circle all over again, where you only vote for someone because you don't think others will vote for the one you really want, and others DO THE SAME THING, and it becomes self fulfilling!

Don't you see how utterly stupid it is to make such a self fulfilling prophecy as that?

In spite of "consequences" in the meta game, don't you think it's far more in the proper spirit of things to vote for who you want to be president?

[alien space marine]

If a right wing 3rd party also siphoned away republican votes it would balance itself out, Its not just about electibility the 3rd party man has the opportunity to voice awareness on issues ignored by the two main party candidates and make them accountable, Nader and Baldwin have a right to be at the debates!!

It doesn't matter if you don't like it , Nader and the other 3rd parties have a right to run.

It was the NDP that put pushed for universal health care in Canada,They weren't even the ruling party but they pressured the minority goverment to pass their health care reform bill threw if they wanted the NDP's cooperation in getting their own bills passed, NDP have never won themselves into power federally but they are a asset to the public.