Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I disagree.Realize that I'm NOT jazzed by "our" choice this year.. May not support her.. But I just got an email blast from Jo Jorgensen landing her BEST punch this campaign at Trump's whine that the Commission on Political Debates (CPD) is "picking on him"....
Jorgensen to Trump: Join the club!
Libertarian for President Jo Jorgensen finds it hilarious that Trump accuses the CPD of trying to silence him
GREENVILLE, S.C.— “Join the club, President Trump,” said Dr. Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian for president in response to his claim that the Commission on Presidential debates is “trying to silence” him. “The CPD, along with its Democratic and Republican colluders – including you, have been silencing the Libertarian Party for decades. Your hypocritical criticism of your own co-conspirators is hilarious.”
The Commission on Presidential Debates consists of well-connected Democrats and Republicans who conspire every election with media elites to set debate rules that deliberately exclude alternative party competitors
Since billionaire Ross Perot was in the presidential debates in 1992, the CPD has required presidential candidates to poll an average of fifteen percent in polls by five pre-selected polling firms – a percentage that was carefully calculated to make it virtually impossible for an outsider to qualify.
Those same Democrats and Republicans allow presidential candidates to participate in primary election debates with poll numbers as low as one percent.
“Do you want to show some consistency for a change, President Trump?” asked Jorgensen. “Tell the CPD to set rules that accommodate all viable candidates for president.”
Jo Jorgensen is the only alternative-party candidate for president who is on the ballot in all fifty states, plus the District of Columbia -- in spite of rules set by Democratic and Republican lawmakers to make it very difficult to achieve this.
Think I had more faith in national campaigns back when the League of Women Voters were in charge of debates.
This is just one more insult to people's confidence in our election systems.. This election night is gonna look like 3rd world politics with all the ad hoc partisan hacking that PUTIN wishes he COULD have done...
The fact is the commission should be shit canned. The so called "republicans" are never Trumpers. But as of 6 Oct, the libertarians are only polling at 2.2% nationally, so there's no reason to waste TV time on them.
.
America needs to hear a third perspective. Otherwise, it's "vote for me because you have no choice.".
50-state ballot achievement should qualify the party candidate. The Duopoly can fuck off.
The real problem is that 48 or so states have those 'winner take all' provisions re their electoral votes; this is what narrows the field down to the two biggest money raisers; it works no different than the real life economy does, eventually the most 'efficient' end up controlling the 'market' and dominating everything. If the assorted 'third parties' could pick up a few seats here and there, they could eventually get the experience and even seniority needed. Just reduce the influence of money and get rid of the 'winner take all' scam re electoral votes; the latter smacks of unconstitutional political hackery anyways, as it can easily be seen as restricting representation.
Not that the Libertarian Party would win much, since few people would ever vote for one in real life outside a few cranks and crazy rural types, but they do have a valid snivel re how the GOP is always challenging their being placed on state ballots, same as the Democrats do with Greens and other left wingers. Even so, there is little evidence other parties produce better candidates, in any case; without the two major changes above we'll never know. But, look how the Greens swung between a Ralph Nader to lunatic racist Cynthia McKinney ... such wild swings are sure losers, and indicate a base just as loony as the current Democrats are.
You CAN win in a 3 race as an Indie or 3rd party.. And "take it all".. Only have to get 34% or MORE of the voters to PREFER YOU.. And that wouldn't mean that ALL of the OTHER 66% hate you..
Happens all the time in Primary races.. With even 4 or 5 contestants and "winner takes all"...
Not a real road block.
I agree with this. Here at least left and right, small government libertarian and international social democrat should be able to agree. The party professionals, the RNC and DNC, the MIC and corporate Wall Street and media types, all have tremendous advantages. But to make progress against them requires we try to damp down partisan hysteria. I’m for being realistic, being honest and clear about our differences. We can pick “lesser evils” or go independent as our consciences and the circumstances lead us to do. But when we can agree, as here, we should.The real problem is that 48 or so states have those 'winner take all' provisions re their electoral votes; this is what narrows the field down to the two biggest money raisers; it works no different than the real life economy does, eventually the most 'efficient' end up controlling the 'market' and dominating everything. If the assorted 'third parties' could pick up a few seats here and there, they could eventually get the experience and even seniority needed. Just reduce the influence of money and get rid of the 'winner take all' scam re electoral votes; the latter smacks of unconstitutional political hackery anyways, as it can easily be seen as restricting representation.
I agree with this. Here at least left and right, small government libertarian and international social democrat should be able to agree. The party professionals, the RNC and DNC, the MIC and corporate Wall Street and media types, all have tremendous advantages. But to make progress against them requires we try to damp down partisan hysteria. I’m for being realistic, being honest and clear about our differences. We can pick “lesser evils” or go independent as our consciences and the circumstances lead us to do. But when we can agree, as here, we should.The real problem is that 48 or so states have those 'winner take all' provisions re their electoral votes; this is what narrows the field down to the two biggest money raisers; it works no different than the real life economy does, eventually the most 'efficient' end up controlling the 'market' and dominating everything. If the assorted 'third parties' could pick up a few seats here and there, they could eventually get the experience and even seniority needed. Just reduce the influence of money and get rid of the 'winner take all' scam re electoral votes; the latter smacks of unconstitutional political hackery anyways, as it can easily be seen as restricting representation.
One example: www.fairvote.org
I agree with this. Here at least left and right, small government libertarian and international social democrat should be able to agree. The party professionals, the RNC and DNC, the MIC and corporate Wall Street and media types, all have tremendous advantages. But to make progress against them requires we try to damp down partisan hysteria. I’m for being realistic, being honest and clear about our differences. We can pick “lesser evils” or go independent as our consciences and the circumstances lead us to do. But when we can agree, as here, we should.The real problem is that 48 or so states have those 'winner take all' provisions re their electoral votes; this is what narrows the field down to the two biggest money raisers; it works no different than the real life economy does, eventually the most 'efficient' end up controlling the 'market' and dominating everything. If the assorted 'third parties' could pick up a few seats here and there, they could eventually get the experience and even seniority needed. Just reduce the influence of money and get rid of the 'winner take all' scam re electoral votes; the latter smacks of unconstitutional political hackery anyways, as it can easily be seen as restricting representation.
One example: www.fairvote.org
I don't agree with fairvote on the EC (I think the EC is a good thing), nor do I share their general reverence for majority rule, but ranked-choice would push us back toward consensus government - which we need badly.
