SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ballot Access News reports:
On August 5, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled against Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in their debates lawsuit. The case had been filed on September 28, 2015, and is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, D.C., 1:15cv-1580.
[...] The 27-page decision[Redirects to a PDF] [...] says, "Because Plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law."
[...] Footnote three, based on the judge's own research (or the research of her clerks), has factual errors. The judge relied on election returns published by the FEC, but the FEC returns do not say which candidates were [...] in states with a majority of electoral college votes, and the opinion's list of candidates is erroneous.
[...] Another factual error in the decision is on page 21. The decision says Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, lost a case over debates in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. Actually Forbes was a candidate for U.S. House.
In the comments, Richard Winger notes a similar case.
the lawsuit Level the Playing Field v FEC is still pending, before another judge, in the same court
The presidential debates were previously moderated by the League of Women Voters (1976, 1980, 1984). The Democrats and Republicans screwed things up in 1988. The Commission on Presidential Debates, a corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:13PM
Everybody is complaining about this being a travesty of justice and an indictment on the rigged-status of the elections. So, putting aside legalistic quibbles and technicalities, what do you all want?
It sounds like many of you are advocating that the government to compel a private organization what it can or can not say? (How would you feel if the government forced all news organizations to say how the TPP was a good thing?)
Moreover, it also sounds like you are advocating the government force Trump and Clinton to attend these debates. (How would you feel if the government forced you to go on national television to discuss your opinion on controversial topics?)
Is there another nuance which I'm somehow missing?
(As a side note, I hate how the argument of "the plaintiffs have no standing" keeps being used to avoid discussing something. it stopping an honest discussion of watchlists revealed by Snowden, or parents objecting to the reference to God in the "Pledge of Allegiance." Clearly the person has an interest as they wouldn't be wasting their time with a lawsuit otherwise... Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, though.)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:33PM
Uh, yeah. These are people vying for the office of the highest official in our government. They're trying to become public officials whose policies will affect the lives of 300+ million people on a daily basis, so I have absolutely no problem with the government (us, their prospective future employer) forcing them to go on national television to discuss the policies they plan on implementing. Or rather, consider it a job interview, because thats what it is, if they don't go to the interview they're automatically ineligible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:35PM
consider it a job interview
Yes.
forcing them to go on...
At a minimum, have a podium/chair for each candidate with that candidate's name on it.
An empty podium clearly means "I didn't care enough to show up".
...national television
Don't stop there.
Make sure it is on *broadcast* media (not just 1 corporate cable media outlet).
Further, go back to the Fairness Doctrine and make *all* media outlets[1] "operate in the public interest"--or lose their licenses to the public airwaves|public rights of way over which their cables are laid.
[1] A channel|network doesn't want to show the debate live?
Do a delayed presentation within a day or so.
(Even better for some folks.)
...and have the FCC make sure it is streamed and that there is an online archive for folks like me who haven't bothered with TeeVee for years and years.
Not just video; audio MP3s too.
Full text transcripts as well.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday August 08 2016, @05:05PM
You are trying to reason with people utterly incapable of it and opposed to it in any event. They are all about the feelz. They don't know what they want, they just don't like the result and wanna vent.
Lemme add more direct questions to your excellent list. That will be ignored or answered only with hate/rage/emotion.
Do you guys want the government itself to make laws regulating how the debates for political office are organized?
Can you even see the inherent contradiction in that idea?
Do you want the Legislature making such laws or are you really asking the courts to simply hand down our election laws form "on high?"
If it is somehow acceptable to force the inclusion of Stein and Johnson, two candidates who all are in agreement have zero chance of receiving a single electoral vote, what is the limiting principle to stop the stage becoming a circus of twenty candidates? Is our political discourse really improved if every round of questions has to waste time hearing from Vermin Supreme and/or the "the rent is too damned high!" guy?
Who should have the authority to establish the limiting principle? Why should this be a matter for the Judiciary?
The CPD has established a 15% cutoff. Explain why this isn't reasonable? This cutoff already implies that a candidate at the edge of the cutoff would have to more than triple their support, almost solely based on their debate performance considering the timing, to actually win. Explain clearly why the limit should be lowered.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 08 2016, @06:59PM
You can't discuss a "cutoff" which is based on inherently-flawed polling.
But, having lived in a place where there are a lot more parties, seeing the benefits (and drawbacks), and considering they use a "5% of votes cast" as threshold for public financing (reimbursement after the fact), a somewhat logical answer to your question would be:
You should be treated equally if you got more than n% of the total votes cast in all primaries (candidates who actually lost primaries may decline to show up).
Not perfect, but more reasonable than the current version. You might make it n% of the total voting-age population, discouraging the big guys from cheating on their primary numbers while pointing out the reality of each candidate's support when you dismiss them.
Back to the central question of whether the government should be legislating its replacement process ... yes and no.
- No because the TVs are private entities allowed to do what they want under the First. It's all a private show by private corps who pay otherwise for their public wavelengths.
- Yes because all the networks agree on the debates, making it a Cartel situation which we have legal precedent to denounce the side-effects. By allowing the media to collectively decide on which candidate to reject, based on biased and unreliable polls themselves generated by for-profit entities, the "consumer" gets harmed.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday August 08 2016, @07:38PM
But, having lived in a place where there are a lot more parties
You do know our system of government doesn't work that way, right? And most Americans wouldn't want it.
You can't discuss a "cutoff" which is based on inherently-flawed polling.
So are you making the argument that the polls are wrong or that they are a bad metric on general principle?
If it is the polls are wrong, lemme just cut to the chase and call you out. Please. Please say you believe that Johnson and Stein combined could win more than 5% of the national vote or that one of them could actually receive an electoral vote. Remember, the election for a President is all about the EC, not the popular vote. So go ahead and say that and we can all point and laugh. Yea I was talking about reasoned debate above but seriously, a belief that either of those goofballs could get an electoral vote isn't the sort of thing to rationally debate, that is government mind control beam level zany.
Johnson isn't even a very good Libertarian and Stein is crazier than Bernie. That is the best we can muster for alternatives? Ugh.
And if you are saying the polls are a bad metric on principle you have to propose something better. Neither the LP or Greens have formal primaries so the obvious metric of counting votes in their primary vs the two established parties isn't viable. Perhaps they should consider that problem. If they actually want to be considered a 'real' party they should behave like one?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @08:56PM
And most Americans wouldn't want it.
I don't like parliamentary systems, but allowing people to vote for as many candidates as they wish and giving every candidate the possibility of winning is definitely necessary. Two party systems are awful, and if most Americans support it, then they are fools.
So are you making the argument that the polls are wrong or that they are a bad metric on general principle?
A lot of polls don't even bother to include third party candidates at all.
or that one of them could actually receive an electoral vote.
The concept of an electoral college isn't necessarily bad, but our implementation is just ridiculous. It should be proportional, at the very least.
Johnson isn't even a very good Libertarian and Stein is crazier than Bernie.
Johnson is a far better libertarian than Trump (who doesn't even claim to be one), and Stein is far more liberal than Hillary for people who want that. Both Trump and Hillary seem to despise freedom of speech (sometimes in different ways, and sometimes in the same ways, such as 'shutting down' portions of the Internet to hinder terrorists), support mass surveillance, and other nasty unconstitutional policies. A piece of parasite-infested dog shit is better than these clowns.
If they actually want to be considered a 'real' party they should behave like one?
The "real" parties seem intent on systematically ignoring the constitution. Maybe being a "real" party is overrated.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 08 2016, @09:03PM
> You do know our system of government doesn't work that way, right? And most Americans wouldn't want it.
Calling bullshit on that statement. Many people would like a party where fiscal conservatism doesn't equate to constant assaults on abortion or healthcare...
There are undercurrents in both major parties. The divide between Bernie and Hillary is wide enough to fit over 80% of European parties, adn don't get me started on Trump vs the Religious right. Those currents are just muzzled after the primaries, and in the reps case were silenced by the Cheney doctrine.
If various independent parties carried the banner of each subgroup after the elections, the result would be a more compromise-friendly system. I'm pretty sure the current approval rating of congress seem to imply that the current mode isn't popular.
> That is the best we can muster (snip) ?
FTFY.
300 million people, and all we get to "choose" from is a handful of lesser evil - least dangerous people with negative opinion ratings?
> polls
I did propose something better. If you want to be treated equally to the duopoly, have your voters come out massively during a "primary" to register their support for you in a clear verifiable way. You don't have to claim to be able to win even a single electoral vote, if you can say you represent the voting aspirations of 6 million Americans....
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:20AM
I did propose something better.
Ok, fair enough. Went back and reread and ya did. It is a bit muddled on the whole concept of a party preference primary, but the basic idea is pretty close to what I mentioned. Note that it should not be based on votes by a candidate, but by the parties. So if the Libertarians and Greens actually fielded candidates in the primaries the debate threshold would be based on adding up the entire primary vote count and then allow Parties (all votes for that party regardless of nominee) who received 15% of the total to send their candidate to the debate. This would be fair since, just like the major parties, Libertarians would be expected to generally support their eventual nominee in the main election like most Dems and Repubs bury the hatchet and end up voting for their nominee. #NeverTrump being an anomaly yet to be tested to see if it collapses down to a small diehard group in the end.