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: 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.