Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

[shanek]

More news:

http://www.nysun.com/article/2962

The third and final debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry has been thrown into doubt after a state judge in Arizona ordered a hearing on whether the event, scheduled for Wednesday, should be halted because the Libertarian Party's nominee for president has not been invited.

Judge F. Pendleton Gaines III instructed the debate's hosts, Arizona State University and the Commission on Presidential Debates, to appear in his courtroom in Phoenix tomorrow to respond to a lawsuit filed last week by the Libertarians.

Mr. Euchner said the university's claim that no public money is involved is laughable. "The fact they've got their hat in hand helps us," he said. "The evidence is pretty clear that if there's a shortfall here that A.S.U. is holding the bag. They made, essentially, an interest free loan."

Mr. Euchner said the state's involvement in the debate is part of what many Libertarians see as a pattern of improper use of government funds to promote the two major parties. "Taxpayers foot the bill for the Democratic and Republican national conventions," he complained. "Anything they can get the taxpayers to pay for that way, they do it."

Judge Gaines was appointed to the bench in 1999 by Gov. Jane Hull, a Republican. In his show-cause order issued Friday morning, the judge also required that the university and the debate commission be served with the lawsuit by Friday afternoon. An attorney for the university accepted service, but security guards at the commission's headquarters in Washington ordered process-servers to leave the building, Mr. Euchner said.

Indeed, Mr. Badnarik and the Green Party nominee, David Cobb, were arrested Friday night after they crossed a police line at the presidential debate in St. Louis. Mr. Badnarik said he was trying to serve the lawsuit on a representative of the debate commission. The two candidates were released after being given tickets for trespassing and refusing a reasonable order from a policeman.

In August, a federal judge in Washington sharply criticized the Federal Election Commission for ignoring evidence of bias on the part of the debate commission. Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. noted that in 2000 the debate commission gave security guards "facebooks" with pictures of third-party candidates and instructed the guards to prevent those in the photos from entering the debate venues, even with valid audience tickets. "The exclusion policy appears partisan on its face," Judge Kennedy wrote.

 

[shanek]

Where are the other four polls?

Other four polls for what?

BEEP! Faulty logic. It isn't: "Polls are invalid" OR "The CPD's requirement is invalid".

It should be either: "Polls are invalid" OR "Polls are not invalid".

I knew you'd deliberately twist the logic...If polls are invalid, then the CPD's 15% requirement is invalid because polls are invalid. If polls are valid, then the poll showing 68% want Badnarik included in the debates is evidence that the CPD's 15% requirement is unreasonable.

 

[CFLarsen]

"The CPD requires 15% in five national polls"

So, where are the other four?

 

[DanishDynamite]

1: The CPD requires 15% in five national polls (most of which don't even give respondents the option of any third-party candidates) in order to participate in the debates.

2: 68% of American voters want to see Badnarik in the debates.

Sorry for butting in, but aren't you comparing apples and oranges? Surely the 15% required by the CPD (as minimum for including a candidate) means that at least 15% of the voters would vote for that candidate. This is an entirely different question from how many would like to see some candidate in the debate.

BTW, what is the background of this CPD? Is it a government institution? If not, how could it possibly be this biased? And if it is, why isn't there a similar private institution, providing better service?

 

[Rob Lister]

"The CPD requires 15% in five national polls"

So, where are the other four?

I've read the thread twice now and I'm still not sure about this reference to the CDP and Polls.

I'm not sure the referenced poll even constitutes a single required poll. It might but perhaps Shank could clarify.

I would think, but I admit that I don't know, that the CDP would require five polls showing 15% would vote for a particular candidate, not that 15% think a particular candidate should or should not be included in the debates. The difference is more than subtle.

If so, he doesn't need four more, he needs FIVE more -- there is no first.

 

[shanek]

"The CPD requires 15% in five national polls"

So, where are the other four?

I still don't know what you mean by "the other four..." Here's the press release on their candidate selection:

http://www.debates.org/pages/news_030924.html

I can't find anything on their site saying which five polls they used, what the results were, and whether or not Badnarik was included.

 

[CFLarsen]

Correct: Is it 15% of the asked or 15% of the voters?

Shanek...?

 

[shanek]

BTW, what is the background of this CPD? Is it a government institution? If not, how could it possibly be this biased? And if it is, why isn't there a similar private institution, providing better service?

It's managed jointly by the Democrats and Republicans. It's not really a private institution since it's operating under the FEC's guidelines. That means they have to be non-partisan, which they claim to be, but they're really bi-partisan. A Federal judge has already lodged a complaint against them for violating their agreement with the FEC, and the lawsuit this week involves clauses in the Arizona state constitution prohibiting public funds from being used for partisan purposes.

There are other debates that Bush, Kerry, and the others were invited to. They've been shown on C-SPAN and other places. But what incentive do Bush and Kerry have for going to these debates when they can "debate" in a forum where they can avoid tough questions and genuine competition?

 

[shanek]

Correct: Is it 15% of the asked or 15% of the voters?

Shanek...?

They say 15% of the "national electorate." This poses another problem: most polls focus on likely voters, which screens out a LOT of the national electorate.

 

[CFLarsen]

They say 15% of the "national electorate." This poses another problem: most polls focus on likely voters, which screens out a LOT of the national electorate.

Voters or polled, shanek? It's that simple.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It's managed jointly by the Democrats and Republicans. It's not really a private institution since it's operating under the FEC's guidelines. That means they have to be non-partisan, which they claim to be, but they're really bi-partisan. A Federal judge has already lodged a complaint against them for violating their agreement with the FEC, and the lawsuit this week involves clauses in the Arizona state constitution prohibiting public funds from being used for partisan purposes.

I'm not sure I understand. Is it a private institution or a government institution? The fact that it has to work within the laws of the land wouldn't seem to indicate whether it is one or the other.

There are other debates that Bush, Kerry, and the others were invited to. They've been shown on C-SPAN and other places. But what incentive do Bush and Kerry have for going to these debates when they can "debate" in a forum where they can avoid tough questions and genuine competition?

The main difference would seem to be that one debate is on national TV, the others are localized.

Just to yank your chain a bit, in this country the channel with the most viewers is the national "government" channel and it is obligated to have every eligable party present its program on primetime. Equal time for every party.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just to yank your chain a bit, in this country the channel with the most viewers is the national "government" channel and it is obligated to have every eligable party present its program on primetime. Equal time for every party.

And we are not merely talking about the political parties that already are represented in the Parliament. You need 20,000 to sign a petition, before you are allowed to run at a national election. And if you are, then you are automatically in the debates.

That darn "socialism", eh?

 

[Rob Lister]

A Federal judge has already lodged a complaint against them for violating their agreement with the FEC,...

Did you misstate? Judges, acting in that capacity, don't normally lodge complaints. They may sign them, but they don't file them, so far as I know.

 

[Larspeart]

Shanek, are you toally not getting what he is asking?

I think 5 of us have got it and been waiting for the answer now.

15% of VOTERS, or 15% of 'people POLLED'?

What is so tough here?

 

[CFLarsen]

Shanek, are you toally not getting what he is asking?

I think 5 of us have got it and been waiting for the answer now.

15% of VOTERS, or 15% of 'people POLLED'?

What is so tough here?

Finding evidence that it was "polled". If it isn't, then his whole argument falls flat.

Watch and learn.

 

[shanek]

Voters or polled, shanek? It's that simple.

[sigh...] It depends on WHO IS POLLED. It's 15% of those polled, but those polled should be from the "national electorate." Polling likely voters only doesn't properly sample the national electorate.

 

[shanek]

I'm not sure I understand. Is it a private institution or a government institution?

That's just the point, it's ambiguous. It's like a weird two-headed creature. Kind of like the Federal Reserve, except that the Fed is staffed directly by government appointees.

Just to yank your chain a bit, in this country the channel with the most viewers is the national "government" channel and it is obligated to have every eligable party present its program on primetime. Equal time for every party.

Just to yank back: We have a statewide channel here doing the gubernatorial debates and they are deliberately keeping our candidate out. We're having a bit of a lawsuit about that, too...

 

[CFLarsen]

[sigh...] It depends on WHO IS POLLED.

Evidence?

It's 15% of those polled, but those polled should be from the "national electorate." Polling likely voters only doesn't properly sample the national electorate.

Explain what it means to be from the "national electorate". Not all are Americans here.

Does it mean you vote? Yes or no?

Were the 68% in the Rasmussen poll from the "national electorate"? Yes or no?

 

[shanek]

Did you misstate? Judges, acting in that capacity, don't normally lodge complaints. They may sign them, but they don't file them, so far as I know.

That's almost definitely a misstatement on my part. I'll see if I can find the original news item.

 

[shanek]

Finding evidence that it was "polled". If it isn't, then his whole argument falls flat.

Watch and learn.

That WHAT was polled?