From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: THIS ELECTION IS ILLEGIT!
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:39:27 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1bn5a7INNpae@news.aero.org>, Richard Foy writes:

>In article <1992Oct16.005411.15755@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al D
>>
>>
>>         PROTEST UNFAIR ELECTION PROCESS
>>
>>The arbitrary exclusion of certain candidates from supposedly objective
>>nonpartisan debates is a disgusting spectacle, and in my opinion,
>>it renders this election illegitimate.
>......

>>
>>
>>--Al Date

>It is hard for me to understand the claim that the debate process is either
>unfair or illegitimate.

>It is not illegitimate. The reason is that the debates are not conducted
>by the government. There is no constitutional or legal requirement for
>the people conducting the debate to include all candidates.

>It is not unfair. There are, in some sates perhaps 20 presidential candidates
>on the ballot. Including all candiates would have resulting in each having
>less that 4.5 minutes total time. The vast majority of the people in this
>country would be totally outraged in a debate that included all of the
>candidates. Thus the number must be limited if the debate is to serve any
>purpose at all. The means of limitation is arbitary. It has to be. You
>can argue for one criteria. I can argue for another. I think the means
>chosen was to select those candidates that have some probability of being
>elected and have had a large degree of national attention. It seems to me
>that it is a somewhat reasonable criteria.

But the "reasonable chance of being elected" criterion pretty much *guarantees*
preservation of the status quo, wouldn't you say?  I think that being on all 50
state ballots should be enough.  That would include Bush, Clinton, Perot, and
Andre Marrou.  Perhaps a few other criteria could include some of the larger
minor candidates--such as the number of candidates their party is running
nationally or something which is not subjective.

>I would have liked to see a few more people on the debates or at least on
>one of them, perhaps the first.

I don't think that the Democrats or Republicans see *anything* to gain by
debating with third parties and independents.  Perot had too much money to be
ignored and was the exception rather than the rule.  I don't think many major
party candidates would consent to a debate with a Libertarian or a Green.

Let's assume that I'm a Libertarian (which I am) and I see a debate between
Bush and Marrou.  What are the odds that a Libertarian would change their mind
and vote for Bush?  What are the odds that a Bush supporter would change their
mind after seeing Marrou (or your favorite candidate) in the debate?  The third
parties can only *gain* support from such an arrangement, and the establishment
parties can only *lose*.

>I like some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, of the Greens, of the
>Peace and Freedom Party. Perhaps if I knew more about them I would like
>some of the ideas of all of the contenders.

That's exactly why the Republicans and the Democrats won't debate third parties
or acknowledge their existence.  It isn't in their best interests to let people
know that their ARE alternatives.  It's not a conspiracy, but it is certainly
covering their own asses.  Also, election laws have been changed by the two
parties to make a third party challenge very difficult.  This was done after
the Anderson candidacy in 1980 showed increasing resistance to the two-party
system.  I even know people who think that the "two-party system" is mandated
by the Constitution!  The scary thing is that these are voters... :-)

>It IMO unrealisitic to expect the debates to include more than they do
>until the election process is changed. If we had a Single Transferrable Vote
>the debates would open up. People would pay attention to the lesser known
>candidates. If we had such a system perhaps I would mark my choices

>1: Green Candidate
>2: Peace and Freedom Candidate
>3: Bill Clinton
>4: Libertarian Candidate Andrew Mareou(sp)

Andre Marrou.  At least you've heard the name.  Most people couldn't even
come up with that much.

>.....
>Low Perot

Perot low?  Obviously, you can't be bought (or else your price is very high!)

>....
>Last Bush

>People who like third parties would be more productive in getting what they
>want if they worked for A Signle Transferrable Vote instead of criticised
>the media for not including their candidate.

I'm not sure that I understand the principle you speak of.  Is it anything
like pushing for proportional representation?  And how would it be implemen-
ted?

As I said, I'm no believer in conspiracy theories (I guess the next Oliver
Stone movie won't be about me) but it's clear to me that the Major Parties (tm)
have nothing to gain by including others in the process.

Some states will give "major party" status to any party receiving a certain
percentage (I think usually 3-5%) of the vote.  Reportedly, the Libertarians
have a chance (albeit a slim one) of cracking 3% in a few states.  If that's
true, then the party can use its limited war chest for advertising and name
recognition--not on just trying to qualify for the ballot!  I think California
has such a law and I think the threshold is 5%.

In most polls, about 10% are reporting "other," even after Perot's return.
No doubt some of them will choose between the Three Stooges, but most will
remain "other," with Marrou being the most mentioned of the "others."

In any event, I applaud your efforts to bring attention to alternative candid-
ates.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
"The word 'politics' comes from the Greek root 'poly,' meaning many, and
'tics,' meaning blood-sucking parasites." -- Andre Marrou

Marrou/Lord '92
    * pro-choice
    * pro-Bill of Rights
    * pro-individual
    * lower taxes
    * less government
Newsgroups: ba.politics