On June 19, Senator Barack Obama was asked how he feels about general election presidential debates that include everyone who is on the ballot in enough states to win. Larry Reinsch, the Iowa activist who had earlier asked Senator Hillary Clinton the same question, was also the questioner for Obama.
Obama responded, “I think it’s a valid point, and I will tell you that from the perspective of the voter, if realistically, because we don’t have a Parliamentary System, you’re basically not gonna get a Libertarian elected president.” (this response, of course, was not strictly responsive to the question).
Reinsch then said, “You know why that is?”
Obama said, “Well, because we’ve got a winner-take-all system.”
Reinsch: “No, the biggest problem is because we don’t get to hear about them. If we could hear about them they’d get the polls.”
Obama: “I taught voting rights, and I’ll tell you the problem is, part of it is the structure of our democracy. When you have a winner-take-all system, then what happens, it’s very hard for third parties to get a foothold. Which is why we never really, even when guys like George Wallace did have a hearing, the worse thing when Ross Perot did have a hearing and had millions of dollars, its still very hard for them to get leverage. But the general point, my general attitude is as many people get a hearing as possible. But what we’ll hear from the networks is…look, its nice, we’re not just setting up a platform for a theoretical debate, we’re choosing the next President.”
Reinsch: “But its not up to them to decide.”
Obama: “I understand, I understand…well, that’s not entirely true, but anyway, I get your point and I’m generally sympathetic to it.”
As one can see, Senator Obama didn’t really focus very much on the specific question of whether he would be willing to debate all his opponents who are on the ballot in enough states to win (assuming he is the Democratic nominee). But, it was a start. Congratulations to Larry Reinsch for having raised this important question with two leading presidential candidates. Reinsch will be trying to get a response from former Governor Mitt Romney in the next few days.
I was in Senator Obama’s voting rights class and I lobbied him as a state senator to introduce legislation to implement instant runoff voting. That’s my credential to make the following prediction: Senator Obama is likely to be the most sympathetic to expanding our democratic structures to more voices and more parties than any other ‘top-tier’ presidential candidate. He is a structuralist and a reformer and I believe that he would be open to personally pushing to include other candidates in the general election debates.
I neglected to mention that Senator Obama did file an instant runoff voting bill in the Illinois Senate.
So what happen to the introduction of the instant runoff voting bill?
I am curious to find out…my guess, it was unsuccessful?
I wish I was in one of those classes…but I was a math major.
Citizens For A Better Veterans Home is very weary of Hillary the Peace Candidate. Not only did she vote for funding the immoral, illegal, unconstitutional foriegn military adventures, but there is a story making the rounds that Ms Rodam Clinton claim that her given name is taken from Sir Edmound Hillary and his 1954 conquest of Mount Everest. Clinton [and I] was born in 1946. Any one else hear of this ‘Urban Legend’?
We have no problems with Obama’s skin color and or unusual moniker. However, he sure does remind us alot of ‘Slick Willie’!
Actions speak louder than words. Much louder. Barack Obama REFUSED to debate all the candidates on the ballot running for US Senate against him. Alan Keyes (his R opponent) held a press conference with the Libertarian and independent candidates saying they should be included.
I sat in the room when they were planning the LoWV debate. If everyone agreed to include all candidates, it would have been done. Barack Obama said NO. It wasn’t the TV station or the LoWV (although they didn’t help), it Barack Obama himself that refused to debate all the candidates on the ballot. Barack Obama also supported Illinois’ draconian ballot access laws that were just ruled unconstitutional. If Obama is such an expert in voting rights, why did he not recognize the laws he supported in Illinois were unconstitutional and do something about it as a state senator?
Sorry DJW, but Barack Obama’s ACTIONS speak to the fact that his future behavior regarding elections will be closer to that of Fidel Castro than what our founders intended. Barack Obama is no democrat. He’s just as anti-democracy as the rest of his party in Illinois. Instant run-off voting is worthless when there are only one or occassionally two candidates on the ballot to begin with.
In fact, why isn’t Barack Obama doing anything RIGHT NOW to change Illinois’ unconstitutional election laws? He is our Senator, does he not care that our state has held unconstitutional elections since 1980? Where is Barack Obama’s public statements supporting a bill like SB733? How many phone calls or letters has Obama written to his fellow Democrats in the IL GA asking them to change our unconstitutional election laws?
Barack Obama is the LEAST likely of any of the candidates to support any changes to our election systems. The best predictor of future performance is past performance. When Barack Obama was a state senator he did absolutely nothing to try to change Illinois’ unconstitutional election laws. Barack Obama is doing nothing now, and he will do nothing as President.