Stoffa: Obama, Romney not only option for president, third party candidates offer alternativesThird party candidates are nothing new; Ross Perot ran in 1992 and 1996. During campaigning, he sometimes polled ahead of both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, though he ended with less than 10 percent of all votes come election day.
The Fear of Change: Gary Johnson and Third PartiesEver since Ralph Nader’s infamous impact on the 2000 presidential election, both the Democratic and Republican parties have feared an influential third party candidate. While third parties provide hope for independent voters, the establishment is worried about the threat to its power. Party leaders see the grim possibility of the spoiler effect, in which a minor independent or third party candidate draws votes away from a major candidate, affecting the outcome of an election.
From NECM.com.
From Current TV.
You might think the presidential race is settled with two candidates. But there’s one candidate you might not have heard much about. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. Johnson speaks with host Michel Martin about his policies and the challenges he has getting his message heard.
Listen to the segment here.
NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman explains why “we need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate”:
The best our current two parties can produce today — in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century — is suboptimal… Suboptimal is O.K. for ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. We need to stop waiting for Superman and start building a superconsensus to do the superhard stuff we must do now. Pretty good is not even close to good enough today.
We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party
“If competition is good for our economy,” asks Diamond, “why isn’t it good for our politics?”
We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear…
Over the last few years I have become very acquainted with politics. I formed my views during the Bush presidency, and they have remained rather stable since then. I disagreed with just about everything George Bush did as president. I disagreed with his economic policies, his foreign policies, and his huge power grab for the executive. However, upon voicing my opinions I was referred to by republicans as un-American and unpatriotic. I felt this sort of ignorant name-calling was unique to the neoconservative side of the American political system. However, recent events have proven me wrong.
Ever since Barack Obama entered office and his policies have come under attack from Americans in opposition to them, I have noticed something about democrats: they are not immune from using ignorant, ad hominem attacks. I can’t say I was surprised by this fact, but I am severely disheartened and ashamed of the democrats for allowing themselves to fall into this trap. I had gotten used to republican propaganda, which went so low as to use September 11th as a whipping boy for all of us who refused to believe that preventative war was needed to provide security. I got used to the phrase, “If you don’t like America you can get out!” They almost had me convinced I hated America until I remembered that my arguments were based on facts and statistics, instead of emotionally charged personal attacks. However, where democrats once stood with me in opposing these irrational accusations, they are now the accusers.
Read the rest here.
Last night, Free and Equal Elections sponsored a third-party debate which aired live on C-SPAN. Only Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader showed up. You can watch the whole thing here:
C-SPAN also has it in its archives, but I couldn’t get it to play.
Be honest. What have you learned from the first two presidential debates? Do you expect to be any more enlightened by Wednesday night’s third and final showdown between Barack Obama and John McCain?
If you’re like my friends and associates outside the newsroom, you’re setting the bar pretty low. If these “debates” have proven anything, they confirm our two-party choice is dumb and dumber (you pick).
…
“We have a one-party system designed by the parties,” Nader said this spring in the shadow of Philadelphia’s historic Independence Hall. Would the Founding Fathers be impressed with what’s onstage at Hofstra University Wednesday night? I’m betting they’d vote independent.