Yes, I am asking you not to vote just yet. I understand that some people will be out of town and would prefer to vote early, compared to an absentee ballot. But the problem is that we as a country are under siege. Our Democracy is under siege. We are under siege from an evil known as the CPD
The CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates) has held the diplomatic process hostage since 1987. The problem is that the CPD was started by the Democratic and Republican parties. The CPD has moderated every Presidential debate since 1988. So how did things work before that?
The Presidential debates of 1976, 1980, and 1984 were moderated by The League of Women Voters. In October of '88 the League's trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates. They released the following statement.
The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
That is correct. A fraud upon the American voter. Were you aware that there is an agreement made between BOTH PARTIES as to how the debates will go. It is called the Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU for short. Here;s the link for this years agreement. http://www.scribd.com/doc/110073567/The-2012-Debates-Memorandum-of-Understanding-Between-the-Obama-and-Romney-Campaigns
The two major political parties in this country are cowardice, and hi jacking true Democracy. Here is another nice note.
Frank Fahrenkopf, is a former head of the Republican National Committee, and one of the Chairman of the CPD. At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.
My personal opinion, is that these words and actions prove one thing. The two major parties ARE NOT always interested in nominating the best candidate. But the most winnable one. Of course by winnable, I mean a candidate that will follow their respective party's platform.
During the 2000 election, the CPD stipulated that candidates would only be invited to debate if they had a 15% support level across five national polls. Ralph Nader, a presidential candidate who was not allowed to debate because of this rule, believed that the regulation was created to stifle the views of third party candidates by keeping them off the televised debates. Nader brought a lawsuit against them in a federal court, on the basis that corporate contributions violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. After a series of FEC actions and lower court decisions, the D.C. Circuit Court ultimately ruled in 2005 that because Congress vested discretionary power in the FEC (meaning that an FEC action would have to rise to the level of arbitrary and capricious to be challenged), the court would not overrule the FEC's determinations that "found that the third-party challengers had failed to provide 'evidence that the CPD is controlled by the DNC or the RNC,'" and that the CPD provided sufficient rationale for barring third party candidates from entering the debates as audience members out of fear they might have disrupted the live debates in protest over having been excluded as debate particpants.
On September 21, 2012, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed an anti-trust lawsuit against CPD, the RNC and the DNC in D.C. Circuit Court citing the Sherman Act and claiming "restraint of trade" for denying competition to, for example, potentially receive the $400,000 annual presidential salary. Although the complaint recounts the history of CPD formation, it omits any mention of either the Nader/Hagelin 2000 lawsuit or the FEC. The Johnson complaint asks "for injunctive relief by temporary restraining order ... by enjoining defendants ... from conducting presidential debates unless all constitutionally-eligible candidates are included whose names will appear on the ballots in states whose cumulative total of electoral college votes is 270 or more."
If a person wants to run for President, but does not follow the two major party platforms, they have no chance of winning the highest elected office. It's basically the punishment, for not selling out your values.
But we as the American public are missing out. Two politicians that will be debating TOMORROW are Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. There are two others that will be part of this debate, their names are Rocky Anderson and Virgil Goode. I don't know too much about Anderson and Goode yet, but I truly believe that Mr. Johnson or Mrs. Stein are better capable of running this country than the two candidate you'll watch on T.V. tonight. It's to bad you won't see Stein or Johnson with them. But the Democratic and Republican National Committee's has done their best to make sure that won't happen.
It's time to take our Democracy back.................................................................
Watch a real debate tomorrow night at 10/23 8:00 CDT at this link.