Petition to get Nader into the debates--please sign!

Here's a copy of the petition, but you must go to:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ralph04/petition.html

in order to sign it.


The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation, will be excluding Ralph Nader from the 2004 presidential debates.

We the undersigned request that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) include Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo in the presidential and vice presidential debates.

The CPD is defying the wishes of the American people. Two polls have come out in the past week showing that a significant majority of Americans want to see third party and Independent candidates, and specifically Ralph Nader, included in the 2004 presidential debates. Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo are both constitutionally eligible, have ballot access in enough states to receive at least 270 electoral votes, and have sufficient indicators of electoral support which meets the criteria of the Citizen's Debate Commission.

Although the CPD proclaims that it is "objective and nonpartisan", in reality, in multiple election cycles, the criteria of the CPD are routinely applied to exclude third parties and Independent candidates. Consequently candidates who raise issues distinct from the Republican and Democratic candidates who are both pro-war, pro-Patriot act and pro-WTO/NAFTA are not likely to enter into the CPD's parallel interviews misnamed as "debates". CPD policy is reminiscent of what Anatole France once observed: "The law, in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges" of France.

The criteria, CPD's law, in its majestic objectivity keep all the third parties and Independents alike out of all the debates all of the time, making the presidential debates less useful in confronting and solving the problems facing our country.

We believe that the American electorate should be given the opportunity to witness the ideas of the two corporate sponsored candidates challenged by Mr. Nader who represents the positions held by an overwhelming number of the American people

 

I signed. Abandon the two-party system, VOTE NADAR!

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Or ANYONE other than Kerry or Bush for that matter.

 

I signed.

Competition is the capitalist way.

 

rememember 2000? Nader lost gore the election and we ended up wit this guy. thuis race will be close, and the more we support and candidate who takes that nessecary 3percent the harder it will be to get that republican out of office.

 

Speaking of the debates, the last update I heard was that Kerry and Bush were still squabbling over the rules, even for this Thursday's debate. Bush wanted audio and visual indicators that the audience and TV viewers could see every time Kerry went over the time limit. I forget what Kerry wanted. Something about being able to walk around the stage.

Man, this campaign has gotten dumb.

 

I signed the petition as well and also feel that anyone who got on the ballot in at least 35 states should have a place at the debates. This would not only include Nader who will be on the ballot in at least 36 states and the District of Columbia, but also Michael Badnarik (Libertarian), who'll be on the ballot everywhere except New Hampshire and Oklahoma, and Michael Peroutka (Constitution party) who'll be on the ballot in at least 37 states.

 

Oh that pain in the ass wants to be treated like the Republican and Democratic candidates?! WhatEVEERRRR! As IF!
Get lost Nader, no one wants to hear it!

Hey I signed it, I'm all for Democracy. I wonder what it's like.....

 

I'd be a little more impressed if NADER supporters could actually spell the name of the spoiler they are voting for.

NO thanks. I don't want BUSH in office an other four years. Which, of course is the ONLY result of Nader getting on ballots. NO ONE in power cares about anyone "making a statement." Your "statement" voting for a third party candidate will continue to go unnoticed, as Capitol Hill functions as usual. Political repercussions as serious as what we are seeing, with war monger Bush in office, requires an ELECTABLE candidate. And Nader isn't one.

And I also have NO respect for a candidate who takes money from the GOP. THEY want him to run. Don't you realize the RIGHT wants Nader on the ballots. It was a Republican Rightwinger who got this SPOILER back on the Florida ballots. I have lost ALL respect for Nader. I hope he gets run over by a Corvair. (j/k)

 

You will please notice that I spelled it correctly when I started the thread. At any rate, spelling flames are usually unproductive and do nothing to promote open exchange of views....

We arent talking about BALLOTS here, although the Dems are doing their part to prevent democracy there, as well. This thread is about access to the DEBATES.

If third parties are so inconsequential, then why the hell are people getting so upset about Nader's candidacy?

That's what was said about Jesse Ventura, UNTIL he was allowed to debate the other candidates. All of a sudden he became so "electable" that he won the freaking election! The same thing could happen with Nader or another 3rd party candidate. Then we wouldn't have to worry about another 4 years of Bush, OR 4 years of corporate bullshit from Kerry!

This is about ACCESS to the debate system. If Nader really isn't "electable", then why not let him prove it by falling on his face in a debate? Or are you really worried that he will make both Bush and Kerry look like exactly what they are--the left and right wings of the "Corporate Party"? Heavens--we can't allow people to know that there are alternatives to Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, that would lead to dangerous things like DEMOCRACY, and all that shit...

Can you provide proof of payments from the GOP to the Nader campaign? Not individuals who might be registered republicans, but from the party itself?

Hell, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, right? Don't you realize that a sizable percentage of the LEFT wants Nader, as well? The debates should be open to ALL the candidates who are on enough state ballots to have a theoretical chance of winning the election. Let the Libertarians, Greens, Constitution, Natural Law, and Socialist parties in, as well. Let's make the DEBATES exactly that--DEBATES, instead of scripted sound bite opportunities for the 2 corporate-approved establishment candidates. While we're at it, let's make all TV and radio stations carry the ENTIRE debate, from start to finish. Make them do SOMETHING in the public interest to justify all that public broadcast spectrum that they are given.....

It's called DEMOCRACY. You don't get there by limiting people's choices or access to information....

 

You are right. The fear of Bush in office for an other 4 years got me really pissed off. Sorry.

I never said third party candidate are "inconsequential" just that Nader and other third party candidates have no chance of winning, they ARE "consequential" in the fact that they take votes from other candidates, thus throwing the election. In Nader's case, in favor of Bush.

Totally! And I would fight to my death for your right to vote for this guy or anyone else you wanted to. I think, however, that not everyone who feels they want to run for president should be in the debates. Do you really want to sit through a debate with 27 candidates in it? I sure don't.

I can't in good conscience, and plenty of experience (including voting third party in my first elelction and feeling responsible for Ronnie RayGun winning the election!)vote for Nader, my logic and experience won't let me. You have every right to, as I have a right to disagree.

My dh is probably voting third party, so we are having this discussion regularly at home, too.

What happened with Ventura is not what can happen in a National election. Do you really want to use Ventura as an example of how fine third party voting is......I wouldn't........

Neither the GOP nor Nader are going to admit money has exchanged hands, but it my belief (and that of many) and there is evidence that it has, the GOP often uses "private" groups for things like this, say....Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? The GOP is really good at covering their tracks when they do devious things, giving Nader money is one of those.

 

I never said "anybody who wants to run" should be included in the debates, just those candidates who are on enough state ballots to have at least a theoretical shot at winning. As to the electoral college system, abolishing THAT should be on the agenda, as well, but we're stuck with it for the time being, and it provides a simple criterion for debate inclusion. Democracy isn't always convenient, and it doesn't always fit into a 60-minute slot between commercials. But I would rather "sit through" a debate with the 6 or so candidates who would meet these requirements than allow the 2 corporate parties to get away with hijacking the democratic process. I know that actually being engaged and involved in the political process (beyond instinctively pulling the lever for a democrat or republican like one of Pavlov's dogs) isn't "trendy" or "cool", but it is a requirement for being an informed citizen of a democracy, and not just a mindless consumer. Heaven forbid that the electorate might have to LISTEN and THINK in order to pick a candidate, rather than just voting along party lines (and against their real interests) based on whatever social wedge issue the republicrats are exploiting that week.

I don't care for Ventura's politics, either. But he is an excellent example of how "electability" is strongly influenced by media exposure and access to the debate process. If you give a DECENT candidate a chance to influence the process, the same way Ventura did, you might end up with some real change.

 

Its an Ego Trip for Nader. He knows that there is no chance in hell to win, yet he takes the precious 3 percent of votes, that Kerry will drastically need in November. He loves the media exposure, and his frivolous rallies.

 

The more we restrict our third party candidates the less and less chance there is of ever getting a strong multiple-party presence here in the US.

 

What media exposure would that be? The corporate media is ignoring Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, and the rest of the 3rd party efforts, as usual.

 

I wholeheartedly agree!!!!

I am not really sure what should be the criteria for being allowed in the debate. But there needs to be some criteria, or the debates will be 50 people debating, and nothing will get discussed properly. What should the criteria be? Based on polls? No. That could be easily corrupted, as well as interpreted differently by different interests. The candidate needs to belong to a "legitimate" party, which has National acceptance? Well, not having this (in the Reform Party) is why Nader lost his first bid on the Florida ballot this year. He was taken off of the ballot because he did not belong to a National Party. Then (due to GOP efforts, many say) he was placed back on.

I don't know if he shouldn't be "allowed" in the debates I just know I am not signing the petition. Although anyone who wants to has every right to.

We have some form of Democracy left in this county. As well as the right to freely debate with each other.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more! This was one of the checks and balances put into place when the country was founded. It is a means to allow the smaller states in the union to have a voice in the presidential election. Without it, many if not most presidential candidates would ignore these states! Don't also forget that if we did not have the electoral college, in 1960, Nixon would have been elected. I think alot of Gore's sympathizers feel this way because of the results of that election. It is important not to look for short-sighted solutions to long lasting situations.

I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it's worth saying again in that I feel that we need to modify the electoral college away from a winner-take-all scenario to a situation where two electoral college votes go to the statewide winner, but the remainder in the state go to whomever was the winner in the respective congressional districts. Both Maine and Nebraska have this type of setup.

 

Well, as it is, all states get ignored except for the "swing states". I think the electoral college is out of date. The U.S. population is spread out enough that we should definitely modify it.
Colorado is voting on changing their system too, winner wouldn't take all, it would be split proportionally. I like that idea.

 

I think that the REAL intent of the electoral college system was to provide a "safety valve" in the event that a popular vote elected somebody who threatened the power structure, or was otherwise deemed "unacceptable" by the ruling class.

The general population (even white landowning males) was not considered "sophisticated" enough to be able to choose their own leaders directly, so they were forced to go through a layer of bureaucracy appointed by various political/business interests.

 

Yep, that is the real reason for the Electoral College, from the Federalists who started this. Sucks, IMO. The PEOPLE should elect the leader. I don't know how this can be debated.

The original "right to vote" which only went to land owning white men, have been overcome, as should the Electoral.