Nader Wins the Debate

Michael Hoover hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us
Sat Oct 7 06:28:55 PDT 2000



> On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Marco Anglesio wrote:
> > This might also be LBO-talk heresy, but at ~5% I don't think that he
> > has a strong case for participation in the presidential debates.
> > Merely gaining a nomination on most (?) state ballots should not be
> > the sole criterion.
>
> What about a chance of being the president after next?
> For better or worse, Ralph claims to be in this for at least the medium
> haul, i.e., to be ready to campaign and build his party from now through
> 2004. If he had been admitted to the debates, it is conceivable that he
> might have had a real chance in that time frame -- a chance that he won't
> have without it.
> I also differ from you on the ballot criterion. Ballot access in the US
> is absurdly difficult in the US, and made so on purpose, openly in order
> to safeguard the duopoly.
> Michael

*Only* criterion for "entry" into prez debates should be whether or not candidate is on ballot in enough to states to win office should she/he carry "winner take all" direct elections in 48 states and proportional in Maine & Nebraska, thus, delivering at least 270 electoral college votes.

Under this simple rule, debates this would include Browne, Buchanan, Hagelin, Nader, and Phillips if Richard Winger's current Ballot Access News (10/1) is correct:

***** PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT STATUS Harry Browne, Libertarian, is on in all states plus D.C., except that he is not on in Arizona. Pat Buchanan is on in all states but Florida and Michigan, although he still hopes a court will put him on in Florida. Ralph Nader is on in all states plus D.C., except Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming; he hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will put him on in South Dakota and that the 9th circuit will put him on in Idaho. Howard Phillips is on in all states except Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia; he hopes a court will put him on in Massachusetts. John Hagelin is on in all states except Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia; he hopes a court will put him on in Texas.

James Harris, Socialist Workers, is on in Colorado, D.C., Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. David McReynolds, Socialist, is on in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Monica Moorehead, Workers World, is on in Florida, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Washington.

These candidates are each on in one state: Earl Dodge, Prohibition, Colorado; Dennis Lane, Grassroots, Vermont; Neil Smith, Libertarian, Arizona; Randall Venson, independent, Tennessee; Kathy Brown, independent, Tennessee; Louie Youngkeit, independent, Utah. *****

Of 5 "minor" candidates, RN is left-liberal/progressive, Buchanan & Phillips are right wingers, Libertarians like to say that their candidates are neither right nor left, and Hagelin is "new age" mixture. Left (however defined) would have less physical presence than right in debates with this arrangement but so-called "marketplace of ideas" would be more open than at present.

Most prospective voters have already decided by time of TV debates and debates apparently change few votes. Potential importance of such events is influence they might have on undecided/non voters who watch. And, if public opinions polls are to be believed, large majority of folks making up their minds early on includes fair percentage willing to consider voting for candidates/parties other than Dems & Reps if such opportunity existed. Obviously, Dems & Reps don't want to include other candidates in debates because they don't want them influencing electoral outcomes (also why they don't want to get rid of electoral college). $3B populist Perot in 1992 as exception.

Re. ballot access, since it varies from state to state, US doesn't really have national election but 50 state elections for prez. Until this year, Florida has had toughest access requirements in country. Minor party candidates had to pay filing fee (6% of office annual salary which is highest in US) *and* submit petition of 3% of all registered voters in voting jurisdiction (over 240,000 for statewide race, including prez). Major party candidates (status requires party to have over 400,000 registrants) could either pay filing fee *or* submit petition of 3% of voters registered in candidate's party.

As result of 1998 ballot initiative, access requirements for minor parties can by no greater than requirements for party with largest number of registrants. Note that above from Ballot Access News indicates that conservative Fl's prez ballot will include not only 2 major candidates and candidates on ballots in almost every state (with exception of Buchanan who is in court to get on ballot) but also SWP's Harris, SP's McReynolds, & WW's Moorhead. These folks, obviously, face other campaign obstacles in state but... Michael Hoover



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list