Let's Get Bob Barr In The Debates!! (Can apply to any third party candidate)

The Commission for Presidential Debates is the private corporation with a government granted monopoly responsible for staging the candidate debates every four years. They are the gatekeepers; if the Commission says 'no,' a candidate is deprived of the publicity and exposure that only participation in the debates can provide.

Bob Barr is polling better than any previous Libertarian Presidential candidate. In the most recent Zogby poll, Barr is at 11% in New Hampshire and 10% in Nevada, and his percentage is larger than the difference between Obama and McCain in Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. Another Zogby poll shows 55% of all Americans -- and a majority of both Republicans and Democrats -- want Bob Barr included in this fall’s debates. But unless we act, the Commission will exclude Bob Barr from the Presidential debates.

The Commission has a formula to determine participation, which they created on their own: a candidate must have 'a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.'

Sounds objective? The Libertarian Party of Georgia thinks not. Why 15%? Why not 30%? Why not 5%? Why any percentage at all? The formula used by the Commission For Presidential Debates is arbitrary and serves only to deprive voters of information and choice.

We must tell the Commission On Presidential Debates to include Bob Barr in the debates this fall. They created the 15% rule and they have the power to suspend it. Call the Commission at (202) 872-1020 and let them know you want to see Bob Barr in the Presidential debates! Fax them at (202) 783-5923. Tell them soon, and tell them often. Share these phone numbers with every freedom minded person you know.

A Little Bit Of History

There is a reason why the Commission picked the arbitrary level of 15% for inclusion in the debates. Here’s the background: Ross Perot was in the debates in 1992 and 1996, and both times his candidacy prevented ultimate winner Bill Clinton from achieving a majority of the popular vote. While anyone with a knowledge of the US Constitution and the Electoral College understands the popular vote total has nothing to do with electing a President, many in government feared repeats of such a result would undermine election legitimacy in the mind of the public. Besides, the Commission -- led by equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats with NO third party representation -- saw how close Perot came to upending the old political order. Republicans and Democrats on the Commission for Presidential Debates agree on only two things: protecting incumbents, and limiting competition from third party candidates.

The Commission came up with this 15% formula in time for the 2000 election cycle, when Ralph Nader was getting lots of media play. In fact, Nader sued the commission over this rule, but nonetheless was prevented from appearing in the debates with George W. Bush and Al Gore. Libertarian candidate Harry Browne also was barred.

The very existance of the Commission On Presidential Debates is an affront to free elections. Every candidate on the ballot in enough states to compete for a majority of Electoral Votes should be included, and no quasi-government agency should have the power to alter that. In addition to Bob Barr, such a procedure will include former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney from the Green Party, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, and Ralph Nader as an independent running on various party lines in different states. A Presidential debate with a total of six candidates seems perfectly reasonable -- especially considering the hoards that took part in the early Republican and Democrat primary debates.

While the Libertarian Party of Georgia has serious policy disagreements with McKinney, Baldwin, and Nader, we nonetheless support their inclusion in the Presidential debates. We believe Bob Barr will blow them all away in a fair debate about relevant issues. All we ask is that the Commission On Presidential Debates relax their arbitrary limits and permit all the candidates to explain their positions to the American voter. Call them at (202) 872-1020 and tell them so!

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

I am an Obama supporter, but I enthusiastically support the idea that all candidates should be involved in the debates. I hate that they aren't. All options for all voters should be on the table and given equal time.

I've got mixed feelings. On one hand if they can't clear 15% they're just a candidate to throw away votes on. And adding another four candidates to the debates means that only a third as many questions can be asked.

And I feel debates are important to the election process because I think a fair number of Americans aren't doing independent research and may base their choice on them.

On the other hand without inclusion it'd be really hard for a third part to grow to a credible level.

I suppose I would support a mix. Either some debates with all and some without. Or perhaps some debates where it starts off with everyone and then in the second half it's rapid fire questions for the frontrunners.

I'm in full support. If you can jump through the appropriate hoops to be on the ballots, then you deserve (as do the american public) to be part of the debates.

__________________
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Disclaimer:
I do not support McCain or Obama, please refrain from making the assumption that because I post something negative about your candidate, that I must be supporting the other. We do have more than 2 people running for president.

I oppose this 100%. There needs to be a threshold. We cant have any Tom, Dick and Harry that’s wants to throw their hat into the ring be allowed in the debates. The guy with 1% support shouldn’t get equal time. Sorry That doesn't serve the public interest at all. The people need and want to hear the real candidates. Not Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. I have never seen a worse debate in my life than the California recall debate where everyone and everyone running was let into the debate. It was a total joke, little more than a 3 ring circus than a discussion on who is best to lead the state.

15% support is more than a fair threshold. The problem is that the third parties put the cart before the horse as always. They trick themselves into believing that the reason they cant get any support is because they aren't invited to the game. That isn't true. The problem with most all 3rd parties is that they nominate radicals who don’t resonate with America. Until the 3rd parties start coming more into the mainstream they will not and should not automatically get the same time as everybody else. That doesn't serve the public interest at all.

__________________
Mens Sana in Corpore Sano

The Commission should be disbanded. Instead, the debates should be conducted by the FEC and tied directly to federal matching funds. Any candidate that qualifies for these funds (whether or not they actually accept these funds) would be allowed into the debates.

Any candidate that bypasses this debate procedure by opting for private debates will be denied federal matching funds and will be required to repay any funds received to date before they'll be allowed to debate privately.

I never vote for Republicans or Democrats unless I really happen to like one of them running or there are no third party or independents on the ballot, so yes, i would like to see Presidential debates with more than just two candidates.

Then you oppose freedom.

This is totally false.

The Corrupt Status Quo versus American Values

Third Parties Fight for American Democracy

People are disgusted with the pro-war, pollution-loving, corrupt Republicans and Democrats. So why don't third parties succeed more? The answer, observes Joel S. Hirschhorn, is that third parties are artificially held back by special laws and habits created by the two corrupt parties, for the purpose of reducing our choices in elections.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

A great democracy offers citizens sharp political choices. That’s what gives political freedom meaning. With two-party control of America’s political system, political options and discourse are stifled. We badly need more visible third-parties that can fully participate and reach the public with information about their platforms and candidates. In a nation that so worships competition it is hypocritical that there is so little political competition.

In truth, the Democratic-Republican partnership opposes competition. They have convinced Americans that votes for third party candidates are “wasted.” Yet the biggest wasted vote is for a Democrat or Republican that is almost certain to win or lose, and takes your vote for granted. This year, even in the face of enormous public dissatisfaction with the two major parties, and a widespread belief that both are hopelessly corrupted by big money from corporate and other special interests, too many voters sheepishly picked from column D or R, even for sure winners or losers.

Rest of Article Here



"Too many libertarians (whether or not they're in the Libertarian Party) fail to recognize the enormous obstacles that any third-party campaign faces -- and they ignore the tremendous opportunities the Libertarian presidential campaign offers.

* Obstacles

America has a 2-party system, but not because of popular demand.

The Democrats and Republicans have legislated third parties into irrelevance -- using five principal methods: donation limits, reporting laws, campaign subsidies, the Debate Commission, and ballot-access laws.

To give you just two examples of the impact of these hurdles:

In 2000, the presidential campaign raised $2.6 million, but $250,000 of that had to be diverted into ballot-access drives in just two states: Pennsylvania and Arizona. That's money that could have gone into advertising, but instead was of no value in campaign outreach.

In my home state of Tennessee, Republicans and Democrats are listed on the ballot with their party labels. But candidates of any other parties must be listed as "Independent." Thus anyone who enters the polling booth determined to vote against the two major parties must know already which third-party candidate to vote for. If he doesn't, he'll be afraid to choose among the "Independents," not knowing which of them might be a Nazi or a Communist.

These are just two examples of the legislative barriers placed in the way of third parties. To list all the various hurdles would fill a good-sized book."

Rest of Article Here

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.

Oh quite to the contrary. You are the one who opposes freedom. You are the one who wants to force the commission on presidential debates a private NPO to let in 3rd party candidates who have absolutely no chance of winning the election. I respect the rights of private organizations you don’t.




That is noting more than a rant.

Should anyone who wants to be on the ballot simply be put on. Should there be no signature drive?

Should a private institution be forced by the government to let candidates into their debate?

Is the public good served by giving the fringe an equal time soap box taking away time from the candidates the public actually wants to see?

__________________
Mens Sana in Corpore Sano

This particular private organization is involving itself in a very public matter - the selection of the President of the United States. If a private entity is involved in public matters, the situation is very different.


No, it's nothing more than the truth.

What exempts Republicans and Democrats from having to do this? ONLY THEIR OWN LAWS. Why should they be exempt and everyone else forced to do something they don't have to? Organization as a party? Ok - then the Libertarian Party is organized as a party. They meet the Demopublican standard.

Yes, if the private institution has an impact over which government officials will gain power. The private institution is involved in a very public matter.

Actually the public would be greatly served by being forced to learn more about several different political viewpoints. Maybe we would cease to have such an ignorant population.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Schopenhauer

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hilter did in Germany was 'legal'" - Martin Luther King Jr., from a Birmingham jail, April 16, 1963.