…. we can chip away at the two parties and gain access for ….. candidates.”

Sir, then out side of some temporary ‘warm fuzzies’ for Republican Ron Paul, why did nothing of substance happen in 2008 ?????

You will agree that it was a MAJOR disappointment for non Democans and non Republicrats and that Obama, my Yokohamo Mamma, has produced little change except for some coins in the sofa cushions ?????

I DID NOT say it was fair. You have to understand that democrats and republicans have both had a century and a half of taking taxpayers money to provide “services” and patronage.

So when a follower of Lyndon LaRouche gets 30% of the vote, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with voters agreeing with that candidates message. Most voters do not follow campaigns as we would like.

Most voters vote for the candidate they have heard of. That means the candidate that went to the bother of raising the necessary funds to advertise on Maury and WWE RAW.

Most democrat and republican candidates know this and don’t bother to fill out questionnaires (except for brief vital statistics) as these questionnaires can easily be used against a candidate.

These questionnaires ARE great for any opposition party candidate, they DO provide an idea of where a Libertarian or Green might stand on any given issue, for the voter that is so inclined to seek out the candidate that suits their outlook. They are free advertising for the low dollar campaign.

But you are right, it isn’t fair.

PEACE

Do you not find it possible/likely that the rigging of debates higher up the ticket (POTUS, Governor) hurts the credibility of down-ticket candidates? Not only does this hurt lower candidates when it comes to down-ticket voting, but it also aids the idea that there are only 2 credible parties. There are numerous down-tickets Dems and Republicans who raise cash poorly, but still fare better than Libertarians and others.

To put this mostly on the candidate, as y’all have done, I find unfair.

Robert is correct. Except for the POTUS race, few voters pay any attention to debates or even to LWV or other voter information services.

All other races come down to the candidate getting his message out, and that takes money. And raising money is a thankless task that can leave a candidate feeling dirty.

I was in a debate that was televised on a cable network. My performance was less than stellar, and thankfully more people watch WWE RAW than all the news channels combined. But the debate was covered by the local daily paper, which made my performance look far better:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/14/copy/debate12.ART_ART_10-14-08_B1_QHBJJVP.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Again, few people read the daily paper anymore. The ONLY reason I polled as poorly as I did was because I failed to raise sufficient funding. Voters will not vote for a candidate they have never heard from.

PEACE

But some Ls use the institutional barriers as excuses. IMO the biggest barrier is self imposed.

There was also never a question of Ventura’s debate access – he was even in the pre-convention primaries against 6 DFL candidates (while Coleman sat out ’til the DFL candidate was settled). Again, Ventura did not run and would not run without debate access.

My point with Ventura is simply that there was no AGREEMENT when he announced for guv the first time that he WOULD get in the debates. He had to earn it.

Had either Perot or Ventura been abolitionist anarchists and had RUN on such a platform, it’s my assessment that neither would have gotten in his respective debate.

Maybe that’s OK for some. Perhaps in the long run it’s better to hold high the abolitionist banner to build a cadre of intensely committed abolitionists. Perhaps because I’m not an abolitionist, I’m not seeing that as an effective path.

Both men were high profile figures and neither could have done what they did without being in the debates. Blocking debate access is the biggest sham of our ‘democratic’ (republican, whatever) process.

Perot was polling well because he had the money and profile to raise the public’s awareness of his campaign well before the debates. Also, the debate access threshold % was much lower back then.

To suggest a lower profile, less-funded candidate could do the same is an insult to third party and independent activists everywhere. As if Ventura or Perot had some magic trick to their success out of money or notoriety that others fail to capitalize on. Ugh.

Did Ventura run KNOWING he’d be in the debates, or did he earn his way onto the debates? Big difference.

Yes there will be a viable party, and I would bet it would be the Modern Whig Party…….

“Whoa Nick, are you aware that the Whigs do not even send in completed, postage page voting forms ????? Like the various [so called] reformers and Unity 08, these folks are not worth working with. A complete waste of time!”

Don’t forget that Perot and Ventura had debate access, which few third-party/independent candidates are ever granted (Perot because he’s loaded, Ventura because he was already a well-known celebrity and the DFL and Republicans thought it would hurt more than help him). Ventura himself has credited this fact more tha anything, and has always said he would only run for offices he was granted debate access to (side note: ‘I Aint Got Time to Bleed’ is a run read).

Debate access is huge, and can (in larger races) help a candidate overcome the money or credibility gap. Unfortunately, the media (knowingly?) and the public are suckers for the classic catch-22 that keeps third voices from debates: Candidate X must poll Y% to be seen as ‘credible’ enough t debate… Even though Candidate X can likely only get such credibility from BEING IN THE DEBATE!

How many people would have heard of Ron Paul were he not in the debates? How many would have taken Perot or Ventura seriously?

Debate access is huge, and often underlooked compared to the other issues (campaign finance, ballot access, plurality voting, single-member districts, and gerrymandering).

story here..

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/11397/1/

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1156077345/Bernard-Schoenburg-Green-candidate-Whitney-evolved-from-socialist-past

Top 10 reasons to encourage third parties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofWE13jpo6U

The more Greens on the ballot, the more that will be elected.

It’s simply a matter of recruiting more Green Party candidates, allowing, and helping those Greens, or Green Independents, or Independent Greens to make it on the ballot.

They’ll learn by running again, and again.

Good story.

Isn’t it a little fishy that they don’t include any actual third party representatives in the discussion?