Two presidential candidates arrested at last nights debate.

[cnaw]

Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party were protesting their exclusion from the debate between President Bush and ...

so much for the land of the free. Any country feeling like invading us to liberate us from our screwed up goverment?

[Ste]

I'd be glad to.
Unfortunately my government doesn't agree

[xontas]

it would be funny if it wasnt so dangerous

[A2]

Two third-party presidential candidates were arrested at the presidential debate in St. Louis when they tried to serve the debate commission with a show cause order.

Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party were protesting their exclusion from the debate between President Bush and Democratic Party nominee John Kerry.

As they both belong to different parties, should they both be referred to as belonging to a third party. News reports make it sound like there are only 3 parties in USA politics, the Republicans, represented by a slow lumbering elephant, the Democrats, represented by an ass (type of donkey), and a mythical "3rd party" emcompassing everyone else.

[Mushroom]

Originally Posted by A2

As they both belong to different parties, should they both be referred to as belonging to a third party. News reports make it sound like there are only 3 parties in USA politics, the Republicans, represented by a slow lumbering elephant, the Democrats, represented by an ass (type of donkey), and a mythical "3rd party" emcompassing everyone else.

Ridiculous...
...everyone knows there are only 2 parties in American politics

[Event_Horizon]

Government should reflect the majority of its population. I think it can be agreed that just about all Americans fall into either being a democrat or a republican, nobody really cares about the green party or libertarian party or what not. If we gave every party a chance to be in a debate we could have well over 100 people up their representing different parties. The American people want to see a debate between two people that are representing parties that comprise the American people. Next.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Government should reflect the majority of its population. I think it can be agreed that just about all Americans fall into either being a democrat or a republican, nobody really cares about the green party or libertarian party or what not.

One of the principles of any democratic society is that the minority view should be able to become the majority view. If you justify excluded political parties on the basis of their support being minor then how could a party ever break through?

Besides, the "protest" wasn't simply a "We want to be included" sort of whine. It was an attempt to serve papers that (I believe) tax payers money shouldn't be used to indirectly fund campaign materials for two political parties.

Having said that, it's disengious to say that it's simply because no-one votes Green or Libertarian. Ross Perot gained a fair proportion of the vote, had something like $30m in Federal matching funds and most voters wanted him included in the debates. The Commission which runs the debates (which is run by the Democrats & Republicans) still wanted to exclude him though, the next time round.

[cnaw]

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Ridiculous...
...everyone knows there are only 2 parties in American politics

Yeah yeah, i know you are joking . But I'm going to list a few of the people running for president, with their name linked to their party. David Cobb, John Kerry, Michael Peroutka, Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, Walt Brown, Róger Calero, George Bush, and John Parker

[KlavoHunter]

Clearly, it's because the views of the 3rd-party candidates does not truely matter. Anyone who is going to vote for them made up their minds to do so a long time ago. The only question for voters now is "Bush, Kerry, or neither?"

[cnaw]

Originally Posted by KlavoHunter

Clearly, it's because the views of the 3rd-party candidates does not truely matter. Anyone who is going to vote for them made up their minds to do so a long time ago. The only question for voters now is "Bush, Kerry, or neither?"

The GOP was a 3rd party at one time. GOP history

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by cnaw

so much for the land of the free. Any country feeling like invading us to liberate us from our screwed up goverment?

It is not the government that's oppressing you, citizen.

The debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private organization. They are aired by private radio and television networks. If you think the debates are too exclusive, you're certainly free to sponsor your own debates and invite whomever you want to attend. If enough candidates show up I suspect the press will cover it. Of course, the major party candidates will likely choose not to show up at your debate--but surely that's their choice and not yours or the government's?

I'm not sure what remedy you seek. Government coercion to force more candidates to be included in privately-sponsored debates? They'll still have to draw the line somewhere, but now it's the government saying who can and can't debate.

As bad as the political system in the US may be, putting the government in charge of it can only make it worse.

[cnaw]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

It is not the government that's oppressing you, citizen.

That was a poor attempt at humor to solicit a reponse from the non USA participants on this board. I know about CPD. I happen to be a big supporter of open debates, and have been following the debates between Michael Badnairk and David Cobb(of which both Kerry and Bush have been invited, but have not even repsonded with a decline). Polls have shown that 57 percent of likely voters would like to see "other candidates" included.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

As bad as the political system in the US may be, putting the government in charge of it can only make it worse.

Made me laugh

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

The debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private organization. They are aired by private radio and television networks.

Weren't they, in this case, held on public property (thus indirectly funded with tax dollars)? And the private radio / television networks are using airways which are decreed as public property in the US, no?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Weren't they, in this case, held on public property (thus indirectly funded with tax dollars)? And the private radio / television networks are using airways which are decreed as public property in the US, no?

Bet you a fiver they paid rent.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jester

Bet you a fiver they paid rent.

They didn't. Directly at least. Or at least enough to cover the costs.

The costs associated with the event were set at $2m which the Arizona State University say (on their Debate page, which is down at the moment) they intended to recoup through corporate sponsorships, individual donations, etc. Not from direct payment from CPD.

So at the very least (presuming they recouped the full $2m which I presumed they did), they are indirectly collecting funds for CPD which is a bi-partisan organisation (not a non-partisan one).

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Weren't they, in this case, held on public property (thus indirectly funded with tax dollars)? And the private radio / television networks are using airways which are decreed as public property in the US, no?

If public ownership of schools and airwaves is justification for controlling who is allowed to speak at those schools and over those airwaves then free speech takes another torpedo amidships.

Damn Commie!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

If public ownership of schools and airwaves is justification for controlling who is allowed to speak at those schools and over those airwaves then free speech takes another torpedo amidships.

No, not at all. But if you have laws saying the state (and it's apparatus) can't assist one candidate or another it seems prudent to obey such laws. But really, do what you want. If I was a Libertarian in Arizona and I knew state facilities in my area were being unfairly used then I might feel differently. For what it's worth I don't think Universities should have such restrictions placed on them, and should be entirely independent of state structures. But as the law stands I can see why Badnarik / Cobb would be trying to serve papers there.

As for the airways, I'll be glad when we move away from broadcast TV being an important media (and everything is some kind of video-on-demand type system). In the meantime, I presume the FCC (or whomever) had some kind of restrictions placed on the licences they handed out to whomever. It's facile to talk about private property rights when you're dealing with something which has been declared as a public good.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

No, not at all. But if you have laws saying the state (and it's apparatus) can't assist one candidate or another it seems prudent to obey such laws. But really, do what you want. If I was a Libertarian in Arizona and I knew state facilities in my area were being unfairly used then I might feel differently. For what it's worth I don't think Universities should have such restrictions placed on them, and should be entirely independent of state structures. But as the law stands I can see why Badnarik / Cobb would be trying to serve papers there.

As a Libertarian, Badnarik should be seeking to abolish such laws--not enforce them.

As for the airways, I'll be glad when we move away from broadcast TV being an important media (and everything is some kind of video-on-demand type system). In the meantime, I presume the FCC (or whomever) had some kind of restrictions placed on the licences they handed out to whomever. It's facile to talk about private property rights when you're dealing with something which has been declared as a public good.

The FCC has very few regulations which govern political speech--and for obvious reasons. Personally, I would sell off the airwaves and get the government out of the business of regulating communication; but I agree that radio/tv will be technologically obsolete anyway.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

They didn't. Directly at least. Or at least enough to cover the costs.

The costs associated with the event were set at $2m which the Arizona State University say (on their Debate page, which is down at the moment) they intended to recoup through corporate sponsorships, individual donations, etc. Not from direct payment from CPD.

So at the very least (presuming they recouped the full $2m which I presumed they did), they are indirectly collecting funds for CPD which is a bi-partisan organisation (not a non-partisan one).

I owe you a beer.