Open Debate

[Prometheus]

Leisurely watching C-Span today (no there wasn't anything better on) I came across a presentation about a complaint filed against the Presedential Debate Commission. Fun stuff, eh?

Anyway, I found the discussion to be interesting and thought provoking in a good way. You can find a Real Player movie to watch about it at www.c-span.org if you do a search on the phrase below or "open debate." Maybe you'll all just think I'm even more wierd for having brought it up, but I think it's worthy of a view. Can't promise it'll work well though. It's kinda hacky on my computer right now.

FEC Complaint Filing Against Presidential Debates Commission

If that doesn't work out well for you, the website of the hosting organization is at: www.opendebates.org.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

so uh... what was the nature of the complaint?

You know, for those of us disinclined to spend the time and greatly hampered by the bandwidth even were we so inclined.

[Prometheus]

Hehe. True. The focus of the complaint is that (said carelessly) the Democratic and Republican parties are running the Presidential Debates Commission in such a matter that does not serve democracy or the electoral process. My favorite part of the video was from Alan Keyes. One thrust of his comments was that the decline in voter turnout is due not to the laziness of the American public, but to their perceptiveness in not wanting to be taken for fools in that they are not actually being given real choices...only those that are presented to them through the electoral process.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

ok, now THAT is fairly interesting.

[Prometheus]

If bandwidth is your problem, you might try visiting the opendebates.org website instead or trying to find a transcript somewhere. The first 40 minutes were kinda dull sometimes, but Alan Keyes did a very good job of bringing some emotion into it. If, however, even with the bandwidth problems you can still watch the movie, I'd recommend his portion of it especially along with the rest.

[EUOL]

Very interesting argument.  I've often wondered it myself.  I didn't really feel I was given a good choice in the last election, and this one is shaping up to be the same way.  The guy I was most likely to vote for--Lieberman--got knocked out because he doesn't follow the party line obediently enough.  The guys left--Bush, Kerry--don't really matter.  It feels like the presidency has come down a clash between massive powers that want economic benefits, and the rest of us are just kind of left out of the loop.  Last election, I voted for Nader--not because I liked him, but because he WAS a crackpot, and I felt my vote could best go to him and therefore spoil the plottings of the two forces that were demanding I choose between them.  

That said, I tend to be a conservative.  But, why can't I have a candidate that fits what I want, rather than what the party tells me I should want?  What if I'm inclined to believe that we need a system of socialized medicine, but don't believe in abortion?  I have to choose which of these issues matters most to me, then throw away the other ones, because there's no way I'm ever going to get both in one candidate.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

exactly. And a third party doesn't begin to cover it. multiple parties are the only way to have candidates who can cover a broader spectrum of issues, instead of just the two most popular issues (on which you can still be divided with either party). I still think parties are necessary because they provide a organizing and backing support that make people aware of what's going on.

Four years ago I did some brief research for my column. We actually had something like 5 or 6 parties backing candidates last election. The problem is, I disagreed with the dems and the reps on about 50% of the issue each, but all the other parties, like Libertarians and the Green Party, seemed to be so focussed on one issue that made me sure they could never function in a position with a full gammut of issues facing them.

Sigh. American politics.

[fuzzyoctopus]

And so we see why American voter turnout has a history of being so poor.  We get fed up at not feeling like we have any control over who we vote for.

[House of Mustard]

Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree.  In truth, I'm pretty liberal on most issues (environment, social welfare, even affirmative action) but I always vote Republican because I can't support a party that supports abortion.  It's too bad that we are stuck prioritizing which issue is the most important, and voting simply based on that issue.

That said, there's a lot of good that comes from our two party system.  It adds a lot of stability to the country (really, it's an extremely conservative idea: with both parties vying for votes, both remain very centrist and very little radical change is ever accomplished).  Countries that have a parliamentary system are much more prone to governmental schisms.  

I guess whether you think that conservative stability is good or bad, though, is up to you.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

See, here's my thing. Yeah, I hate having to choose between two. I never felt Gore or Bush were worth voting for either. So go third party? No, they weren't either. No one even came close to my particular views since, imo, a man has to be able to build a consensus and work with the system (even if his design is to change that system) to get things done. None of the "third party" candidates seemed capable of getting things done even were they elected -- ignoring the fact that their ideological foci seemed pretty wacky in the first place.  But it's all moot because they're not capable of being elected, which is a whole new can of worms.

So who do you vote for? I couldn't justify voting for anyone. There wasn't anyone I wanted in the white house. And what does writing in REALLY accomplish? Not much.

Anyway, my little rant, for what it's worth. fortunately, next presidential election (2008) it won't matter, because I'll start writing myself in, since by inauguration day 2009 i'll be 35 and Constitutionally permitted to serve as Pres. This year, I'll probably write myself in for Senate and House.

As for stability.... I don't know that it needs to be so stable. It's already built into the system to get law-passing slow, Constitutional amendments are hard to do, and we have the Supreme Court back up (which could also use more than 2 sides, imo).

[Prometheus]

I'm generally in favor of the two party system, and despite my starting of this thread, I'm actually not enormously dissastisfied with American politics in general right now. I still think the way we have things gets a lot of good done.

Trying to bust up the two-party system also wasn't a tenet of the people who are filing this complaint. It isn't their thrust to expand the voting options. (quite as much as I probably made it sound) Rather, they favor a much more open debate format for the electoral debates so that more viewpoints will be heard. Just forcing the major party delegates to deal with the more silenced voices rather than battling over previously agreed 'safe' debate options would have an enormous effect on not just the debates, but on what the political candidates for the heavyweight parties would have to prepare, do, and say during the electoral process in order to maintain support.

We might not get more options in voting out of the efforts of this opendebates.org group even if they are successful, but their goal is to obtain a better debate, and hopefully better options rather than ones that have been groomed and established by forces that are not the voice of the American public.

[House of Mustard]

Actually SE, the Supreme Court currently has three sides, something it's maintained for at least ten or twelve years.  The third side isn't really labeled - it's more of a 'miscellaneous' category.

Left: Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer
Right: Scalia, Stevens, Thomas
Misc: O'Conner, Kennedy, Rehnquist

I am pretty sure that I got those right -- I took four different classes on Constitutional Law, but right now my mind is a little muddied (it being Friday and all).

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

well slap my belly and call my pinky. I haven't paid enough attention to recent SC events. Meaning, the last 30-40 years. So uh... well. I'm wrong, on the Supreme Court thing.  I'll have to catch up on my history.

[House of Mustard]

*Mustard slaps Ehlers belly.

Hey Pinky!

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Narf!