Free & Equal
Fighting for a more equal election process
Send Correspondence To:
Free & Equal, 1608 S. Ashland Ave. Suite 86386 Chicago, Ill, 60608
For press inquires only please click here or contact:
Has RT expressed any interest in broadcasting the debate alongside Al Jazeera? Seems like an excellent fit, given the circumstances…
Will the candidates be on the same stage at the Hilton in Chicago? Is this something I can get tickets to and attend?
that IS avalid email address I submitted! Where is that debate you promised me is it on the internet anywhere? tell me NOW
Why isnt Tom Hoefling included in this event?
I could not find a way to submit a question for the debate.
I want to ask Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson the following: Corporate charters granting limited liability are the original sin of corporate capitalism, the prime government intervention in the free market of common law. Limited liability allows investors to privatize profits while socializing costs such as environmental pollution and losses from excessive risk-taking. It promotes massive concentrations of economic and political power, and allows those in control of that concentrated power to steal from individual workers, consumers, sole proprietors and common law partnerships the product of their labor. It is the primary mechanism for the redistribution of wealth from the 99% of productive individuals to the 1% of the super rich.
Ms. Stein and Mr. Anderson, how do you plan to convince Gary Johnson’s supporters of these truths and the need for government to tightly regulate the Frankenstein monsters it has created?
This group claims to be “free and equal”, but where is Tom Hoefling of America’s Party on this debate? He’s on the ballots and write-ins, and growing every day!!!
Pingback: Free and Equal Debate?? | RoseanneWorld
This is a question for the debate:
More than 6 million US citizens were born and/or live outside the US. Will you support the proposal by Carolyn Maloney and Michael Honda, (HR 6263: Commission on Americans Living Abroad Act) to fund an inquiry into the issues and burdens imposed by Congress, the IRS, and Treasury on US citizens ‘abroad’?
The Taxpayer’s Advocate Nina Olson has identified serious issues and inequities in the way that those living or born abroad are being treated by the IRS. What will you do to lift the jeopardy of double-taxation, onerous reporting burdens, and confiscatory penalties imposed by the US under citizenship-based extraterritorial taxation, which has criminalized their local and entirely legal bank accounts held where they live, work, and already pay local taxes – where they often were also born – outside the US?
Excellent question! As a US citizen living abroad I would love to hear this question asked; and please, don’t limit the field. What was the point of the top 2 question being asked just to do the same thing?
INCLUDE JILL REED FOR PRESIDENT. AGAIN JILL REED!!!!!!!!!!
Hi, I have tickets to this debate but I am having trouble figuring out if the debate starts at 8pm central time or 7pm central time as there is conflicting information on various websites. I see it says 8pm-9:30 on this website, but it does not say whether that is central time or eastern time. Please advise.
It appears that “Free and Equal” did not invite presidential candidate Merlin Miller of
American Third Position Party .
I do not think you are much at all about “free and equal.”
I would like to watch the debate tonight, but, I need to know whether plans are in place to make the debate accessible to Deaf and Hard of Hearing voters such as myself, by providing closed captions, or at the very least, subtitles.
An open letter to the Commission On Presidential Debates (CPD)
To Whom It May Concern,
Thank you for another election cycle full of candidate suppression, deceit, lies and deception. I’d like to address your “Mission Statement” with what I feel, as an American with rights, represents:
The Commission on Presidential Debates was established in 1987 (to keep Ron Paul out of the debates due to the threat of him stealing votes from fellow Texan, George Bush) to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best (Democratic/Republican only) possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose (to be a series of non-paid political ads) is to sponsor and produce (staged) debates for the United States (Democratic and Republican only) presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities (once again, only for the benefit of the Democratic and Republican candidates) relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan (albeit, secretive) 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 (except for Free & Equal.org, who has sponsored debates in 2008 and 2012 and invites ALL mathematically electable candidates to participate).
The two major party candidates are restricted by contract from participating in Free & Equal’s debate. Have you ever considered how that looks to someone like myself who has found over the last few decades something lacking in the “two-party system?” You make them look like cowards; unable and unwilling to verbally spar with someone who might be intellectually superior that might make them look bad.
My opinions will continue to follow those of the League Of Women Votors (the CPD perpetrates fraud on the American voter), the sixty-plus organizations endorsing Open Debates (whose findings showed contact between your organization and the Obama and Romney campaigns, informing them of the topics in advance, thus, lending credibility to the “staged” accusation).
My suggestion (and I do mean this constructively) would be to disclose on your website which polls are used for your criteria, what the questions were and how they were asked. Nearly all of the polling calls I received, only included the names of the President Obama and Governor Romney. With those methods, how would any other candidate generate the required 15% threshold? If that is considered fair, by logic, if a poll were conducted just including the names of say, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, would it be reasonable to expect a 15% threshold to be reached by President Obama or Governor Romney? Probably not.
Now, we do realize that there is no mention of a “two-party system” in the Constitution, nor is there a mention of a “multi-party system.” But, I will conclude with a quote from one of its architects, Thomas Jefferson, who said; “Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office…to take part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man.
Kurt B Smith
Very well said and I fully agree. What do you suppose the chances are of 1) the CPD even SEEING your post and 2) doing anything about it? Slim and none are my guesses. Thanks for a very eloquent post.
the PEOPLE need to write something that allows only a non partisan entity decide who has met the qualifications to run and therefore allowed to attend the debates, where they shall be, how many there shall be, what questions shall be asked, what “aids” shall accompany the candidate (why does a board meeting get tons of props but an election doesn’t?) some stuff you need to SEE. like TED. We think this should be the job of the BOARD of Elections and that board should have representation from as many parties as can be obtained.
why eliminate 2 of the 4 Independent candidates????
Where was Jill Reed?
To help SPREAD the word about this next debate: Have coffee shops/cafe’s promote the debate and encourage people to watch the debate at the cafe’, give discounts during debate hour and one hour after, invite everyone you know, put posters up, “come one come all and join us in an interesting debate for someone you might want to vote for as PRESIDENT!” You know that kind of thing. Make it a media frenzy as fast as you can! Then let’s see if we can turn things around in America because WE HAVE THE POWER TO VOTE AND CHOOSE WHO WILL RUN THIS COUNTRY!
Excellent idea! knowledge is power and there’s power in numbers and NUMBERS is what we need at the ballots -voting for another CHOICE!
It doesn’t look as if the donation page is secure. Be careful when donating.
I was slightly disappointed in this debate. The candidate’s answers were nearly as vague as the past debates with Obama and Romney. I want specifics. When a candidate says he/she wants to make education free, what steps what need to happen? Do we raise taxes and/or do we get rid of deductions and other programs to pay for it? Also when a candidate proposes a balanced budget the first year, how would he/she do that? I need specifics, not generalizations, because I vote on a clear plan.
She actually was very specific, for the amount of time she was given to answer. She mentioned specifically a case where it had already been done before, under what circumstances, and with what results. Of course, none of them will really be able to say what they “will do” or how it “will work” because theory and practice are not the same. There are many things that stand in the way of progress and the president does not run our government singlehandedly. What we really need is the right to express on the ballot when we directly oppose a candidate for ANY elected position and have that opposition counted directly against that candidate rather than “for the other guy” as it is done now. Then we would see all elected positions begin to be held by people who the voters put their faith in rather than those they turned to as an escape from what they saw as a greater evil than the one they chose to cling to in fear, #AntiVote
Really like the idea of voting against the greater evil, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils; as a minister I cannot vote “for” anyone I do not support; so my vote is considered an “under vote” and then cast out; but I am free to vote against anyone or anything I do not support if the system would only allow it. And it would also provide a more truthful picture of each canidates support, and how many people felt there was no canidate who accurately represented them A “none of the above”;.option should also be included along with a “write in canidate” even when no one has “qualified”; for the same reasons
I so much appreciated the Free and Equal debates with Jill, Rocky, Virgil and Gary. Though I have my favorite, it was great to hear from a spectrum of loyal dissident parties.
I am concerned, however, with Free and Equal’s truncating the field for the next debate. As the topic is different, on foreign policy, it would be very much in the spirit of open political discourse to hear from tonight’s diverse field on that topic. I think it’s great to have a demonstration of IRV, but only for the purposes of determining who won the debate, if that really is important at this moment (which in my opinion it is not). Winnowing the field is traditionally left to the electorate, usually in the primary. In this short series, which is ground breaking in itself, I do not believe it serves any useful purpose to truncate the field, and could lead to disappointment by the dropped candidates, and controversy for Free and Equal, which it does not need as the emerging body of fair conduct of debates.
Likewise, the criteria for selecting the field needs much more explanation to the public viewer in the opening segment before the debates begin. There are how many candidates for Prez all told? And F&E chose these 4 (6) because they were “qualified?” What does that mean? Spell that out. And is that standard really democratic, considering the hurdles to third party ballot access? F&E had a panel of talking heads on for half an hour who could have covered this issue in particular. Larry King opened with “All voices should be heard.” But not “all voices” were heard. Other candidates are complaining that F&E is picking favorites. If F&E wishes to live up to it’s name sake, it could consider democratic input and better public education.
Please do not truncate the field for the next debate, for the sake of our democracy, and for the sake of Free and Equal’s status as an fair debate body.
Thank you, Steve
I agree. None of these candidates will win in November, unfortunately, although I’d pick ANY of them over the two could. Let’s hear them all.
There is a way that one of them could win… at least one way. It requires an awakening, but that is already happening. The real question is whether it will happen on a large enough scale, soon enough. #AntiVote
I agree #antivote, and for years have been toying with the best slogan for that Revolution. Something like “Revolt! Don’t drink the Kool-aid, vote 3rd party!”
I agree! Please be more democratic about this and let us hear them all!!!
Steve is DEFINITELY correct about next week’s debate. I appreciate the boost to the concept of IRV (which most Americans probably don’t understand), but it should NOT be used to narrow the field for next week, only to determine who won last night.
I agree with Richard and Steve on this on. Also, aside from the debate itself, you can feel the unification of all of these candidates. Even though they differ on numerous topics, there is still this unification for wanting to have a free and equal election in the US. When Gary was speaking, he said something that resonated with Virgil and he clapped for Gary along with the audience. You would never see that in a debate with just dems and repubs. That shows me that they care about the issues and not just making themselves look good on tv.
I agree with Steve and others! With so few opportunities for 3rd party candidates, I wish F&E was not going to ELIMINATE candidates for the next round. I think having all 4 candidates gave breadth and contrast for the viewer, and a rare and important platform for 3rd party candidates who worked hard to qualify but have little opportunity to reach the public. We should not prematurely prune the candidates before people have had ample opportunity to hear from them! As Xristina says, this last debate was very helpful, let’s have more democracy and keep them all in the next debate.
If the field is narrowed for the next debate, I will not watch it…
Absolutely, thanks Steve. Keep all candidates on the stage, Virgil quickly states his opinion and Rocky just hits the point home, of the importance of these other topics missed in the “main” debates, or TV ads.
If we want to hear them all we’ll have to donate more money to fit them all on the stage.
What OTHER candidate would go all the way to the mat for us…by getting arrested for what she believes in !?!?
I agree fully. Jill had some real balls that day. I think that is the most American thing I have seen in many a year.
I really think that you should include all 4 candidates in the last debate!!! That would be more democratic. The last debate was very interesting and helpful. It would be more democratic to include all of the candidates.
People should be aware of the third party candidates that will appear on their state ballot. My understanding is that Gov, Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein have the most ballots. If the electorate truly wants to vote a third party into the presidential office, this ballot issue is significant. Voting for a third party candidate that has the best chance of winning is a factor, even though I applaud and loved hearing all their perspectives. Having any of these third party candidates win the election in 2012 is a boon for all third party candidates in the future.
With that sort of thinking I may as well just vote for Romney then… Really, they should have all 4 candidates in the last debate, because they represent PEOPLE and ideas. You are supposed to vote for the candidate you believe in most. I’m not going to vote, ‘just because it’s 3rd party,’ but because I believe in what a candidate represents.
If you can’t vote for a candidate b/c they are not on your state ballot, this will make a difference to you. They make it so difficult for third parties to get on state ballots that it does become a real issue for voters interested in voting for a particular candidate. Any of these third party candidates is a vote for civil liberties. Voting for either Romney or Obama is not. Part of the significance is getting rid of the two party strangle hold. Any third party candidate is better than more of the same corporate-funded socialism and fascism.
I’m sorry, but if you vote Romney, you’re a coward and too lazy to LISTEN to any one of these candidates! He will be saved when WW 3 breaks out-will you?
Please start a petition calling on Obama & Romney to participate in your 10/30 debate. They obviously won’t but it would be useful to highlight how many Americans want them to.
I completely agree! Let the people demand that Obama and Romney enter the debates with the other qualified parties.
Absolutely, and if they accept… let them… not because they DESERVE IT but to demonstrate how things CAN BE DONE! It would be great to see how they answer questions that were not screened by their puppeteers.
Please have all 4 candidates in the next debate… it defeats the purpose of free and equal to only have 2.
Thank goodness for an ACTUAL debate. As for those worried about “wasting” their vote — as one of the candidates (or perhaps a moderator) pointed out last ight, the only WASTED vote wd be for one of the 2 corporate candidates in the Presidential Reality Show currently running on the MSM. Have voted and am looking forward to the follow-up debate of matters of ACTUAL national and worldwide importance (e. g. climate change, foreign policy).
Go BIG BIRD!
I hope that by narrowing the field, the candidates will have more time to speak or be able to answer more questions. I feel that all of the candidates, with the possible exception of Mr. Goode, had more to say.
I hope these comments are being read. It is vital to me that ALL candidates be in ALL debates. Narrowing the field and limiting what people can hear is the entire problem that Free and Equal should be trying to solve! Don’t reproduce that same problem, FIX IT!
Put ALL of the candidates in ALL of the debates, ALWAYS. Invite the major parties too, though they probably won’t come. I want to support Free and Equal, but this is a deal-breaker. F&E is no better than the Commission on Presidential Debates if it starts choosing who can be heard and who can’t.
Thanks for hosting the debates and everything you do. However, I was disappointed with your immediate runoff voting (IVR) system used after the debate. A key part of IVR is being able not to vote for people you completely disagree with. Your system did not allow this, and so I was forced to support two candidates that are complete morons which skews the results.
Next time please allow the ranking of our choices, and allow us not to vote for the people we don’t support in any way, in true IVR fashion.
I’d like to recommend that the third party debates include two empty podiums with the words “Democrat” and “Republican” posted on them and that they be placed beside the other candidates. That way everyone can see that they were invited and that they should be there but chose not to because they have their own monopoly set up. It also gives greater legitimacy to the third party candidates in my opinion. It says, “This is the real debate for those who qualify and are running for President.” Not, “These are the poor third party candidates that were left out of the other debate everyone sees.
I also think they should stop calling it the “third party debates.” It is simply the “Presidential debates!” Who wants to be “Third”? The title itself suggests you’ve lost or don’t have a shot.
Not sure the anti-people parties deserve a place in such an event, but other than that I fully agree with you. The whole idea that we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd…. is a bit deceptive anyway. We have one party that wins by pretending to be two parties and scaring people into voting for it, and then we have the real choices we’re convinced every election not to bother taking a chance on. First thing we need to do is WAKE UP THE POPULATION who have not noticed their historic and present lack of a right to represent their DIRECT OPPOSITION to the two headed party which keeps winning against most people’s wishes. #AntiVote
We’re trying to achieve ‘democracy’ (Greek
‘power-of-the-people’), free & equal worldwide. From Montreal, Quebec
Indigene Community http://www.indigenecommunity.info promotes humanity’s worldwide
universal ‘indigenous’ (L = ‘self-generating’) heritage. ‘Economic-Democracy’
as the foundation of a secondary but empowered Political D. is based in
organization of Multihome communities with privacy & opportunities for
mutual-aid in proximity. Specialized Production Societies organize progressive
ownership recognition of individual contribution, investment, knowledge &
experience with apprentice-mentorship.
What if the European economic & ecological refugees coming to the
America’s had properly immigrated to the nations & confederacies here? If
we had obeyed the laws & customs of this place & by the way humanity’s
multiple indigenous ancestry? Indigenous Circle of Life is a constellation of
checks & balances. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/indigenous-circle-of-life ‘Debate’ (French ‘de’ = ‘undo’ + ‘bate’ = ‘the fight’) should be the ‘Dialectic-right’ of every human-being in every social & economic situation in which we find ourselves. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/1-both-sides-now-article
I like the fact that you recognize the linguistic ties to our current situation and the understanding of its potential solutions. I’ve actually created a language for just that reason… but that’s a separate subject. Please research Weighted Net Approval elections (although much has already been censored on the subject) and help us fight for an #ANTIVOTE option so we can put an end to the elitist tyranny which has long kept our world economically, morally, and socially poor. We should be THRIVING by now, and with this small seed of awakening, we soon will!
#AntiVote! Who’s up to supporting our right to say “NO” as in “NOT THIS PERSON” in elections, rather than having to decide between “YES, ABSOLUTELY THIS LESSER EVIL”, “yes this good candidate who can’t win” and “I’ve got nothing to say”? Show me such a candidate and they have my support. Right now, only one candidate I know of has promised to support a Weighted Net Approval election system or some similar system that the people decide upon and that would be independent write-in candidate Nadine Hays who will be getting my vote if no more likely to win candidate makes such a promise.
It is not a certainty that none of the better candidates will win, and I agree that any of those who participated in the #ThirdPartyDebate would VERY LIKELY be an improvement. Disenfranchisement of voters and an increased average understanding of how futile the individual vote is have lead to more than half the people in the United States of America who CAN VOTE simply deciding not to. If a reasonable percentage of those people were to recognize that their otherwise “wasted vote” could help us to get something other than one of the supposedly unavoidable outcomes, someone else very well COULD win.
What I would like to know is, do we have an alternative out there among those who have gotten on the ballots anywhere who would fight for our right to vote DIRECTLY AGAINST someone in future elections, and our right to represent as many facets of our intended vote as we wish so that our elections will actually represent a consensus of the people for a change?
Why did you not invite the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for President, Roseanne Barr; nor did you invite the Socialist Party USA candidate, Stewart Alexander. You are not playing on an equal playihg field. Free & Equal is just as guilty as the two major parties for its discriminating against other third party candidates.
How many states is Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party on? Roseanne Barr is on California, Colorado and Florida, plus a write in in 15 other states. What is your criteria?
I’m not sure what you mean about being a write-in in 15 states. Shouldn’t people be able to write her in pretty much anywhere? Anyway they did sort of mention during the debate proceedings that they had a bit of a funding issue. I’m guessing that had something to do with it, although I don’t actually know that to be a fact. As it stands I am not certain whether Free and Equal is trying to give us better choices for our own sake or trying to help some elitist group to exchange one of either the Democratic or Republican party with some other party they have a personal interest in, which is why I would REALLY like to see them support the right to an #AntiVote since that would end the inability of the people to have their objection counted in elections. Yes, I know, some people fear that if we had the right to cast a vote directly against someone the results may show that the people really don’t favor ANY of the choices they’re being given… but if that is the case, wouldn’t it be better to know and to deal with the problem than to keep it swept under the rug?
I looked into this. Turns out state law in some states DOES NOT allow write in. That’s sad. So much unfairness.
All 4 debate candidates disapproved of the top 2 run-off election plan. Why, then, are you offering that as the only choice for the second debate? I would appreciate hearing from all 4 candidates again and I am sure the candidates want all 4 of them(selves) in the second debate.
Oh, the “top two” that they disapproved of had nothing to do with that runoff vote… although I understand where the confusion comes in since it is obviously to select the “top 2″ of those 4. As for their motivations, I wish I could be sure. Would love to talk with them. Maybe they are trying to select a candidate who will put that plan into place at a national level? I hope its nothing like that, especially after they heard what those 4 candidates felt about it, but I would not blame them if they felt it was a good plan. There is a potential benefit to it which is not really obvious, but I would rather not discuss in public what that benefit is because if they are trying to outsmart the elite then I would not want to ruin their plan. On the other hand, there is an obvious down-side to the “top 2″ system which is that it could potentially squash smaller parties into non-existence. It has occurred to me that someone who WANTS that to happen may have been behind it in the first place and presented it in such a way as to obscure that facet of its potential effects on our future. Again, I do not know, but I will say that it is best if we simply recognize the good and bad in everything and weigh them ourselves, without trying to judge the motives of the people involved since we lack sufficient information to do that and anyway their motives are irrelevant if the people wake up and fight together for what we practically all agree upon. I say “practically all” because insanity must be accounted for in the math. Right now the people practically all agree that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party is likely to do us any good, and most people practically all agree that one of them is bound to win in practically every elected position no matter what any of us tries to do about it as an individual. What we need people to see is WHY that is the case. WHY are we unable as individuals to do anything about it. WHY would it take a collective conscious maneuver of which we are likely not capable to defeat the practically inevitable? The answer is simple. We have been denied the right to a simple negative vote option for as long as elections have existed. THE GAME IS RIGGED AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN! But… it is fixable. In fact it is easily fixable… but not by any of us as individuals. On the other hand, it would take many less of us to force that repair to be made than it would take to alter the course of the rigged game. I say we should do both. We can… but we must connect our awareness more if we wish to do it quickly. Please research and discuss an #AntiVote option. Not the “non-vote” version, but the one that allows you to cast a vote which is counted directly against a particular candidate without regard to any other particular candidate, so it is effectively an “any candidate would be better than this one” vote, which reduces the final net-positive vote regarding that candidate by having the final “opposing” count subtracted from the final “supporting” count. It’s part of something called a weighted net approval election system, in which you are able to vote for or against as many candidates as you wish, as strongly or weakly as you choose, for each elected position. Research weighted voting and approval voting for more details on some of the concepts involved, but keep in mind first and foremost that without the right to express opposition we are being used to make a system look legitimate by turning our internal feelings of disapproval into an external official expression of approval on the election ballot. This has to stop and asking individuals to quit doing the best they can figure out how to do is NOT the way to stop it. Anyone who understands this, please… share it every way you can. #ANTIVOTE
I am glad to see that Free and Equal is using list proportional voting to choose the two debaters for the next debate, on the other hand I find it disappointing that the less democratic form, redistribution of votes, is being used rather than the more democratic form of carrying of votes which gives the consensus candidate rather than a bias to first choice. An example some time back in the LP there where about a dozen candidates for National Chair of the LP, the chair was elected on the fifth round of preference votes when the accumulated votes equaled 50% (of all candidates total) plus one. The consensus chair.
Our election system guarantees that there will only be two political parties. We need runoff elections or ranked choice voting – or else any emerging political party will be labelled a spoiler and squashed. Please – everybody get behind election reform, not just ballot and debate participation.
I am for keeping all the candidates on as well, and when I pasted this URL to fb the only photos in the list were Gary or Free and Equals logo…. seems like smarter marketing to include all the candidates photos in the list so constituencies can help promote the debate, and yes a vote on who won the 1st debate would be much more interesting.
The Constitution of the United States enabling our federal government to protect the rights of the individual lives on through the efforts of these candidates and their parties and it is a testament of our society and to our society that if personal responsibility and choice continues to be erroded away then what we face is a strenghthening of centralized governmental control sadly all too governed by special interests and greed.
Steve, I agree with you and Larry (King) that all voices should be heard at this time.
Integrity and responsible governance, term limits and PAC’s/corporate stranglehold on policy making…(so many more): if we stick to the priciples of The Constitution as penned by Mr. Jefferson, then answers to so many issues would become ‘self evident’
I did vote for my top two, but I do agree with whom ever said that all 4 should be allowed at the next third party debate. I guess I understand the reasons why but at the same time let them all be heard again. It may be the last time any of them will be heard again in such a forum. I really want to believe that some real change can happen in this country and these candidates seem honest about what they say unlike Obama and Romney. I just wish that more people would get behind third party candidates and not keep letting them selves be brainwashed by the two party system. Which to me feels more like a one party system with two heads sticking out of the same body. Saying that here is like preaching to the choir, but at least you guys feel the same way. Thats why we are here on this site.
Also, is there a way to watch last nights debate again??????
Yes! Go to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Third-Party-Presidential-Debate/10737435220/
It would be interesting to know by what criteria the 4 candidates were selected. I think expanding at least one debate to include all the qualified candidates would be edifying.
This poll lists 14 presidential candidates (including Obama and Romney) http://www.whiteoutpress.com/ and vote for your favorite!
Like Brian Moore, I would like to have heard from the Socialist Party candidate and others if possible.
Include JILL REED in the debates. JILL brings more value to politics than any other candidate in history. LOOK UP AND INCLUDE JILL REED!!!!!!!
Let’s get Ron Paul on the next debate.
Thanks for the debate forum, I have narrowed my search down to 3 great possibilities! I respect all of the candidates and their stances but found Virgil’s position out of alignment with my own. Now how to determine the best of three intelligent and articulate nominees!
This debate was very inspiring and refreshing. I liked it the way that it was, however, I wonder If Obama and Romney were allowed in these debates, if it would get more air-time on major media and, we could hear what they both had to say about the war on drugs, climate change, etc. However, they probably wouldn’t come even if they were invited. Gary Johnson!
It would be nice to have had more time for hearing from all 4, perhaps next year we can arrange for that. For this year, I understand the reason for the harsh cut, to help push votes towards one centralized candidate to defeat the Duopoloy.
I am finding it very difficult to choose between Jill, Rocky and Gary as I vote by mail.
Jill Stein won the debate! Rocky Andersan came in 2nd. Johnson 3rd. and Goode 4th. Please cast my vote for Jill who I have been supporting! I have been unable to cast my vote until now.
Why did she win? She was quite clueless and wants to take my money and give it to college students. Why is this better than taking my money and giving it to Egypt? Just more poorly thoughtout emotional arguments to garner votes from those who would benefit from her government handouts. And she thinks she is different than Romney or Obama? Hardly
Count me among those who want to hear all 4 candidates again. F&E debates are great, but you do a disservice to your mission by narrowing the field.
Can anyone attend the DC debate? If so where is it and how can I get a pass?
I wish everyone take alook at whats happening tomorrow. UFAA.
If these 2 forces unite it would be great. 3rd party candidates and UFAA
live telecast tomorrow united front Against austerity!,,
Steve Showen, your statements could not be any truer. Another political fiasco taking place even under the title of “Free and Equal”. What is free and equal about hearing one debate with the other candidates. A second debate in which “only two great candidates were chosen” and the others will be sidelined. This wreaks of the same old two party tactics and manipulation.
I was unable to view the first debate because I was unmable to locate the debate place or channel. I WAS GOING TO VOTE FOR ROCKY FOR PRES & JILL FOR VICE PRES. It is very important for someone to contact me, as I have vital court evidence that could turn the tide for the only party that should be running, OURS.
In the market place of free ideas, I believe that mine will win a majority as do most people. This is why we speak up. Unfortunately I have seen in my own area money coming in to congressional as well as senate races from people outside of my voting district. They do this to get the individual elected that promotes their agenda. This person would never be elected or even stand a chance without this help. Thus they can then subject those who would never contribute to that individual to their agenda.
So it is simple just a simple one sentence law could change the whole dynamic of the political process in the USA and this is it.
(No person may contribute to a candidate for whom they cannot legally vote.)
This would then also apply to the PACS. If they run an in a race they can only use money from people who can legally vote for the race in question. This allows people in a district to pool their money to run ads on TV and not have to be affiliated with any candidate or candidate’s party.
Another great consequence of this one sentence law is that the two major parties couldn’t pool their national money and pour it into local elections for congress or senate. It would effectively cut them off at the knees.
Is the debate open to the public? How could someone in the DC area attend?
Why does this site not have a video gallery??? Big mistake. Get that up immediately.
POOR VIDEO DIRECTION on the Debate.
It started with a graphic and music that cut abruptly to, instead of faded into, the shot of the announcer.
6 min 30 seconds of the lady talking about how wonderful it was to have the debate is 6 minutes too long.
Then she introduced Larry King who had been sitting in the two shot, unaware probably that he was on camera because he is just fiddling with papers and drinking water and not looking at her or the camera, while she in stark contrast does look at the camera. The shot should have been a closeup of just the announcer until she introduced Larry King.
The stadium was half full. Was no one in charge of filling those seats, for free if necessary?
I turned it off as the candidates finally were introduced, I was so demoralized and ashamed and it was past my bedtime. For you to rent such an expensive room and spent so much money on video and publicity and to have made such amateurish mistakes, so easily fixed by anyone who puts their mind to it is just disheartening. Next time get a quality director and get some intelligent successful people to review the opening announcement. Please.
I also agree with Steve’s comment below. All four candidates offered a fresh voice and interesting and individual insight into many issues that the GOP/DEM candidates won’t even touch or acknowledge. It is a disservice to the voters to limit this to just Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. All FOUR of the 3rd Party candidates deserve this exposure, as ANY of them offer a far better choice than Obama or Romney; and their viewpoints on foreign policy might help unhappy voters make a decision for one of these four vice the pathethic choice of Obama or Romney. Even though the topic of the next debate is foreign policy, I would also hope that Christina Tobin would allow questions to be asked of these fresh candidates about the disturbing topics of GMOs and the corruption of the FDA and Biotech companies, like Monsanto, to monopolize seeds and food; and the unacknowledged issue of Chemtrails/Geo-Engineering of our weather, and the aerosol spraying of toxic chemicals on American citizens, almost a daily basis, by our government without the consent, knowledge, notification, or an explanation provided. Congress refuses to even answer inquiries from the public about this. This is not being done for global warming, but rather population reduction.
I saw the reporter on the chem-trails and I doubt it’s validity. Those people were Tea Party jerks who use scare tactics to distract or rally people for their underhanded causes (Koch Brothers had sent out 35 organizers to rabble-rouse). As to the debates, much more media time (one month, in the summer) was needed for each area of concern, wherein four or five candidates could have been accommodated.
“Winner Take All” are code words for Voter Nullification.
Currently only 2 States (Maine-4, Nebraska-5) cast unmodified Congressional District votes for President. In the other States like Washington we are only allowed to vote for Electors. For at least the last 20 years, Washington State has changed the 4th Congressional District Electoral vote for President to that of another Candidate. This is not a democracy! This is worse than a violation of the “One Person, One Vote” principle, they are giving our vote to someone else! The vote must be “One Congressional District Vote, One Un-Modified Presidential Vote”. Since the Senators are no longer representatives of the States, but the War Machine, they should have no vote, but this needs to be done at the National level.
ALL States must abide by the “One Congressional District Vote, One Un-Modified Presidential Vote” principle so they are not in violation of the “One-Person, One-Vote” rule.
Has anyone ever thought of a way to be able to vote online? Is that such a far fetched idea? Dont say no because of voter fraud. I’m sure there is a way for some techies to make it legit. Heck, we can use a thumbs up system for vote!
The Open Source Voting techs have been trying to mobilize that system. They seem to know more about security measures than the state department in my state. Also, there is the idea of using the ATM machines at the banks. Most have a bank account, and it is secure. Others could go to the County Clerks office to similar machines. We do know that the public needs to own the source code, in order to have any leverage in the courts, with inside election fraud.
Having a run off with two candidates is the stupidest thing you could do,,,if you really wanted to be free and equal you could have had four different candidates,,,there are many other people running for president,,,you could have had a different format with the same four candidates,,,audience questions, town hall etc,,,narrowing the field to only two is what we want to get away from,,,extremely disappointed,, you have lost any respect I had for this organization,,,you are acting just like the two party system we hate,,,,four completely different would have been best, until we have heard from everyone running,, I don’t care how wacky their ideas,,that’s the whole point of being fair and equal isn’t it??,,giant failure!!!
Please have all the third party presidential candidates debate rather than 2. We want to hear more of what each one has to say. Let’s be fair.
Now THAT was a debate! THANK YOU. Both candidates were excellent, as well as the moderators. “Vote for a candidate you believe in,” Jill said, and for me that means Jill. I
think she put her finger in the main difference between herself and Gary
(though she didn’t say that directly). She is does not espouse
idealogy (which Gary does so convincingly and passionately) but she is
pragmatist who looks at track records. And believe me, she had done her
homework. I just wish all my friend who are so embrolled in current
political battles would take time out to view this debate and vote for a
When you think about the problems and solutions for voting; we hope
that your thoughts are expressed below. We the people want our voting
protected and perfected.
1) The Right to Vote
2) Former Felon Voters
3) D.C. rights to vote
4) Representation via Constitution rules
5) Board of Elections
6) Campaign Finance Reform
7) Ballot Access
8) Ballot Access (non party)
9) Debate Access
10) Instant Run Off Voting
11) Verifiable Counting (paper)
12) National Popular Voting (no electorate)
13) Gerrymandering (neutral)
16) Bills (single issue)
18) Voter ID
19) Election day holiday
20) Congress to provide funds
We think that all of this will finally make voting fair and equal for
all citizens, from the homeless to the millionaire. Read it in it’s
Pingback: Free and Equal Thanks Sinclair News | Sinclair News.Net
I am curious… what you mean by FREE???? As I see nothing which promotes the restoration of the Common Law legal system our nation had…. before 1938…. see — http://mosheh.org/Freedom-and-THE-LAW.html fact is…. there has been no FREEDOM… for over 80 years….
I’m sorry, It’s Michael Ossipoff again. I ran out of characters–couldn’t quite say what i wanted to in 1000 characters.
(I sent my comment in your “questions” space)
I want to continue about IRV. In the Green scenario, IRV is _excellent_.
A mutual majority (MM) is a set of voters who consist of more than half of the voters, and who all prefer the same set, S, of candidates, to all of the other candidates.
IRV guarantees a win to a sincere-voting mutual majority. They can rank sincerely, choosing strategy-free and sincerely among their preferred set, while guaranteeing a winner from that set. You can’t say that about any other voting system.
The Mutual Majority Criterion (MMC):
If a MM vote sincerely, then the winnner must be one of the candidates whom they all prefer to everyone else.
[end of MMC definition]
IRV isn’t perfect. It can eliminate a Condorcet winner (CW).
That instability isn’t bad enough to outweigh IRV’s big above-described advantage.
But IRV can be improved upon, by Condorcet-IRV. Condorcet IRV says to search for a CW, before doing IRV. A wordier definition:
X beats Y if the number of voters ranking X over Y is greater than the number ranking Y over X.
If there is exactly one unbeaten candidate, then s/he wins.
Otherwise, do an IRV count of the rankings and elect the IRV winner.
[end of Condorcet IRV definition]
A slight modification:
Same as above, except, if some, but not all, candidates are unbeaten, then delete the beaten candidates from the rankings before doing the IRV count.
[end of Condorcet IRV2 definition]
I don’t know which is better, Condorcet IRV or Condorcet IRV2.
I’ll henceforth use the term “Condorcet IRV” to include both. I’ll abbreviate it “CIRV”.
IRV is the ultimate deluxe, for the members of a mutual majority.
CIRV is the ultimate deluxe, period. CIRV has IRV’s unequalled strategy-freeness for the mutual majority, while avoiding its instability, because CIRV elects CWs.
A CW is a middle compromise. Electing the CW means that no one has significant favorite-burial incentive, and there won’t be a dis-satisfied majority.
I hasten to repeat that ordinary IRV, with its amazing strategy-freeness for a MM, is very much good enough, in the Green scenario.
IRV meets MMC, and also Later-No-Harm (LNHa). LNHa compliance means that ranking a 2nd choice can’t hurt your 1st choice, etc.
The combination of MMC and LNHa is a _powerful_ combination that gives IRV its big advantage.
CIRV, though not strictly meeting LNHa, does meet CD, meaning that it automatically avoids the chicken dilemma. MMC and CD, too, are a powerful combination that confer the same strategy-freeness for a MM.
CD’s page-long definition can be found at electowiki.
I recommend CIRV as the best there is, for the Green scenario, and for your organization’s polling.
I’ve developed and worked with this venue (database ‘connections’ for outreach) since 1998 and it is VERY effective! We had a campaign called “Operation Full Slate” where, for the first time in history, we a candidate on every ballot on the State of Florida using pre-printed petitions with the candidate and voter data. The State only had to validate signatures. We were 100% successful.
I personally ran with zero dollars against an incumbent who had $100K and I still got 21.5% of the vote! I FULLY RECOMMEND THIS CONCEPT! The extended uses are endless, e.g. walking lists, mailing labels, petitions, simple outreach, et al.
You’ll find examples now in place for FL and TN here: http://ANewSLate.com dedicated to replacing the elected at every election with non-partisan citizen candidates willing to serve on short term at local average wage as their ONLY income.
The music of Tom Neilson really speaks to this cause. Please check out his website
http://tomneilsonmusic.com/ You should contact him to play at this festival. Very inspiring!
TIME FOR CHANGE. THIS NATION HAS BEEN SOLD OUT BY OUR ELECTED GOVERMENT. EVERYONE HAS FORGOT THEY WORK FOR THE PEOPLE NOT BIG COMPANIES AND BANKS. I DON’T WANT TO BE A SLAVE NO MORE. WE ARE GIVING UP TO MUCH OF OUR RIGHTS. WE CAN’T TAKE CARE OF THE WORLD ANYMORE CAUSE WE CAN’T TAKE CARE OF OUR ON PROBLEMS HERE.
You need to add Vince Vaughn to your invite list.
It is somewhat discouraging to see so little recent activity on the message boards; it should suprise no one that, the mainstream media began talking almost immediately about which democrat or republican will be the next president and the third parties don’t even rate an after thought.Those of us who seek fix our broken system by building a true democracy, must learn to start earlier and work harder or we will suffer the same two party fate over and over again. We must increase our numbers; and improve our unity with better organization: But most of all we must find the will and courage required to overcome the corporate enemies of freedom, equality, and justice, which have seized wealth and power from the people by destroying our democracy; and that will commit any act necessary to maintain the status quo
Gov. Gary Johnson
Shop the Free &
Copyright ( c ) Free & Equal · All Rights Reserved · · Login