An amazing post from Chris Telesca:

Met up with some friends last night at the Flying Saucer. It was “glass night” and you could vote for a presidential candidate (Obama or McCain) by buying their glasses. You could buy more than one, so I guess this was “approval voting” night at the Saucer - no IRV for these people.

And even though there were only two glasses, there was plenty of choice to go around - you bought the glass, but could put any one of 200+ beers in the glass. So there were no crybabies bitching about not having choice or how people couldn’t vote their hopes and dreams. Everybody supported the candidate and drank the beer of their choice!

Um….there were only two candidates. People were not allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice, and could only vote for one of the alternatives presented by state-sponsored parties. That’s fine, it’s quite realistic.

But to treat this as a test of IRV is rather strange. And to say, “I am taking that as a good sign - and an endorsement of approval voting that produced an actual majority winner with no one arguing about it!”….there were only TWO CANDIDATES. Of course you get a majority, barring ties, if there are only two candidates…..I’m pretty sure that one of you math types could prove that pretty definitively.

I am not aware of anyone arguing for IRV in two-candidate elections. It appears our friend Chris T had quite a bit of the CONTENTS of those glasses at the Flying Saucer.

Let us begin with following poll result, just to establish the baseline. This is from Public Policy Polling, January 2008, just before the Debate televised by WRAL here in Raleigh.

Pat McCrory 18
Fred Smith 16
Bill Graham 13
Bob Orr 8
Elbie Powers 2

Did Bob Orr get invited to the Debate, on January 17? Yes, he did. Polling at 8%.

Now, the email that WRAL sends out, generically, to anyone who asks why I am not included in the Debate coming up:
Dear [NAME] -
Thank you for your feedback regarding the candidates participating in our gubernatorial Debate on September 9. At WRAL, we believe that issues are at the heart of our political process and we give careful consideration to all of our election coverage. Our threshold for inclusion in the debate is that a candidate should have 10% support among likely voters in a WRAL News poll or another poll conducted by an independent entity. Currently, Mr. Munger, the Libertarian candidate, does not meet that threshold and therefore, will not participate in the debate.

However, Mr. Munger will be invited to participate in other platforms which will give his views and positions exposure. He currently has a candidate profile on WRAL.com and he will be invited to record an issue-message for voters to view on demand on our website. Other coverage will be afforded as we draw closer to Election Day.
Best regards,
Leesa Moore Craigie
WRAL News

Now, the press release that went out as my response:

RALEIGH (Aug. 28) — WRAL TV’s exclusion of the Libertarian candidate for governor from their September 9 debate amounts to a “separate but equal” policy, said Dr. Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for governor.

The station has refused to include Dr. Munger in the debate, citing their policy of only including candidates who poll at least 10 percent.

Further, on January 17 the station sponsored a gubernatorial primary debate in which one candidate, Robert Orr, was then polling at less than 10 percent.

“So, the policy is applied arbitrarily and is simply something concocted to restrict voter access to information,” charged Dr. Munger.

WRAL did invite Dr. Munger to tape a half-hour interview, which they said might be made available on their web site, as a substitute for full participation in the televised debate.

In reply to the e-mail invitation from Ms. Leesa M. Craigie, WRAL operations manager, Dr. Munger cited a 1950 civil rights case, Sweatt v. Painter. Heman Sweatt, an African-American, applied to the University of Texas Law School, but was told a “separate accommodation” would be made for him.

“This was one room, over a pool hall, with some law books,” said Dr. Munger. “The State of Texas cared so much about keeping blacks out of their school that they swore, under oath, that this one-room law school was just as good as the main UT Law School, one of the best in the nation.”

Sweatt rejected the alternative. “There is now a gym named after him on the UT campus,” Dr. Munger noted.

“You seem to think that you are doing me a favor by offering me the equivalent of one room over a pool hall, when by any standard my application for participation in the debate deserves your full consideration,” Munger wrote to Craigie.

As a media company that affects to care about the public good, WRAL should not make decisions that clearly protect the entrenched interests of the political duopoly that controls this state, said Munger. “More than 100,000 North Carolinians signed petitions to ensure that they got to exercise a real choice in November. But you are denying it to them.”

Dr. Munger has testified before the U.S. Senate, been the President of an international academic society, and director of the master of public administration program at UNC-Chapel Hill. He has been chair of political science department at Duke University for nearly a decade.

“I’ll not be bought off by your insulting ‘one-room-over-a-pool hall’ offer,” he said. “I am a qualified candidate. I should be in the debate.”

UPDATE: Apparently one version of this release contained an error, saying that there were THREE candidates below 10%. Mea culpa. There was only one. I don’t see how that makes much difference, but that has been the amusingly Jesuitical response from Jesse Helms’ old TV home, WRAL.

On Saturday, an invitation arrived from UNC-TV. Mike has accepted the invitation to participate in two debates on public television, Sept. 24 and October 8.

This adds momentum to the effort to include Dr. Mike in ALL the debates. Previously Dr. Mike was invited to one debate, in October, at Queens College in Charlotte. The campaign staff was apprehensive that one candidate would cancel at the last minute and thereby scuttle the event. So the UNC-TV invitation is especially welcome: the terms of the debate say that the event goes on, even if “not all” candidates accept. This means it would be very risky for Bev (say) to decline, giving Mike and Pat a show of their own.

We still have other debates and events that are excluding Dr. Munger. Please visit the campaign website for information on how you can help.

UPDATE: 2008 is the first time any Libertarian candidate for either North Carolina Governor, or North Carolina US Senator, has been invited into a televised debate with his or her major party opponents. Thanks to Richard Winger for the question.

Quite a bad day at the Munger campaign, and for journalistic consistency.

1. First, the Charlotte Observer runs this story. Notice the total ABSENCE of any mention that I even exist.

Now….I have a PhD in Econ. I have worked as an analyst at the Federal Trade Commission, I have taught energy economics at Dartmouth College. I have published extensively on energy, including work on low level radioactive waste disposal siting and technology.

Oh, and I almost forgot: I’M A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR! As a candidate for Governor, just like the two who WERE mentioned in the story in the Big O, I issued a press release, and wrote up my position on drilling on my campaign blog. If you Google “munger drilling”, you get my position in the fourth line. If you Google “munger libertarian drilling”, you get it in the FIRST line, and three of the first four entries. Even a reporter, I think, should be able to use advanced research techniques like this. If he WANTED to, that is.

Shame on you, Mark Johnson. If you want to email him, here you go.

2. Then, the News and Observer actually goes out of its way to deliver the coup de grace. (Ryan, I though we were tight, man….sad, really). Here’s Ryan’s story.

Mr. Beckwith goes through all the permutations of Bev Basnight’s different names, her travels through the many lands of marriage and names she doesn’t even use any more. He also talks, at length, about whether Pat McCrory goes by Pat or Patrick.

Ryan…sweetie…what every HAPPENED to us? Nothing about “Mike” or “Michael”? Not one word about the other candidate in the race?

You could at least have said this:

“The other candidate, Mike Munger, Libertarian, uses “Mike” rather than “Michael” because it is shorter. He knows that improves the chances of getting included in the last sentence of stories.” Only 25 words. How hard would that be?

I want my nickname included with the others! Then, I’d feel like a REAL boy, just like Pinocchio. (He went by “Woodie,” as you might know.)

A final lagniappe: Bev Perdue’s nickname in the Senate was, and is, “Dumpling.” Yet, Mr. Beckwith, in a clear show of journalistic timidity, left this out of the story.

Sad day for journalism in NC. A sad day.

There is now a new feature on the blog called the “Holla Point,” where registered users can post a message to other users. Within two days users will be able to add other registered users as friends, and send each other messages. We’ll have a more vibrant community than the McCrory and Purdue campaigns combined (if for no other reason their websites are about as pleasant to the senses as Pierce Brosnan singing ABBA songs).

The kinks have been worked out on the server’s end. Some firewalls and stuff may prohibit you from entering the chat room, so if you’re behind a work firewall or whatever, you will probably be SOL when it comes to being able to connect. Windows may try to block it too, but the setting can be easily overriden by simply clicking “allow” or whatever option is made available.

As this progresses, we will be holding chat room townhalls for supporters and the like to speak with Michael.

Michael was recently profiled on NBC 17’s coverage of the gubenatorial election. Here is the clip:

The original clip on the YouTube was cut off by the cropping of the clip or something, this should be the full profile of Michael by the local media.

As the blog evolves, I’ve decided to upload the new theme I’ve been spending most of my time on while working on the chat room and the message center for the blog. Here is a brief description of the new changes you will see within the next week:

- Chat Room: A chat room will be added so supporters can discuss things amongst themselves. It will be an Internet Relay Chat system, so any former gamers will be comfortable with the set up and feel. Those who are unfamiliar with IRC will have a help guide written for them.

- Messaging: You will be able to send and receive messages from other registered members from this site. In an effort to make this a budding social network for Libertarians, libertarians, as well as liberals and conservatives who are giving us Libertarians an honest look, we felt more communication between members.

I hope you all enjoy the new look and feel. Also enjoy this movie trailer for the movie The Watchmen (which I didn’t know was a graphic novel till I saw the new Batman movie), which is so f*cking good it should be the winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture. It’s the “There Will Be Blood” of movie trailers:

The Volokhs point out that L. Spooner made it into a Supreme Court decision, cited approvingly.

Amazing….

(Well, Randy Barnett was the one who wrote the post, I should note…)

(Nod to the Bishop, btw)

I have an old metal sign, framed and hung on my office wall.

It says: Help the President with Law Enforcement! Repeal the 18th Amendment….for Prosperity!

Lots of stuff is illegal just because it happens to be against the law. Or to paraphrase the old gun slogan: If everything is criminalized, then all citizens will be criminals.

Interesting conference at Heritage; MP3 here.

Thanks to William G. Atwell, Prison Fellowship Ministries, for sending it along.

But…I have to ask: Ed Meese? Ed MEESE? I accept that big Ed has it right on the federalism (return police power to the states) issue. But yikes.

By itself the pure “return power to the states” perspective is only a half measure, or quarter measure. Here is my view…..

The ideal is self-ownership, and self-responsibility. I drink too much, I have an accident, I owe very large restitution, and since I committed violence, I go to jail. I have violated, egregiously, my promise not to initiate violence against others.

In most matters, I would like for the “policy” choices (say, do we smoke marijuana?) to be “local.” Meaning, I decide for me, and you decide for you. My mind decides for my body. That’s local control.

Once politics gets into it, then I start deciding for you, and you start deciding for me. Not good, but less is better. Better if these choices are local, made at the small town level than at the county level. Better at the county level than the state level. And better at the state level than the federal level. And better at the federal level than at the North American Union level. (EEK!)

So, sure, moving from the fed level down to the states is a small improvement (although the states abused that right in Jim Crow, and resisted basic human rights for blacks for decades).

But the real problems is criminalizing everything. It’s not FEDERAL criminalizing everything, it’s making crimes of consensual behavior at ANY level. Moving from fed to state control simply makes it easier to get some states to do the right thing, the opposite of Madison’s argument in Federalist #10.

I don’t see that it matters that much if you are in fed prison, or a city jail. In both cases, you might as well free your mind, ’cause your ass ain’t goin’ nowhere.*

Help the President, the Governor, the Mayor, and the traffic cop with law enforcement. Get rid of a bunch of laws.

(*Plagiarized from John Stewart)