Access to debates, which are funded privately, is not guaranteed. However, get enough support and guess what will happen...
Yes but the elections are public and the way the parties act, would be illegal in other circumstances.
Get enough support?
That's a joke.
Ross Perot was denied access (the second time) and he had, "enough support."
Third parties aren't allowed because the 2 main parties do not want the competition.
From the Libertarian Party Platform(
Platform | Libertarian Party)
Nothing in that quote means, "unregulated."
And what I am saying is that comes off as arrogant(because it is) and is not accurate.
Which is more likely to have the bandwagon effect?
A small, not very well known party, which doesn't have the funds to advertise nationwide and is generally supported in a grass roots manner or a a party with implicit government subsidy, that is very well known and has the funds to advertise on every major tv, radio and internet source in America?
It's not arrogant, it's a statement of fact.
The major parties are more likely to have superficial members, because they already have a large base.
That doesn't even take into account that many voters are already superficial voters.
If you do not see the problem with this type of whining, you are never going to get it. This is a big reason why the LP is not a significant force in politics, who wants to hang out with arrogant, drugged up whiners? And that is the image of the LP. If you want to get anywhere, you have to get the support to get on the privately funded(funny, free market, until it suits you to deny the rights of private organizations) debates to be forced to give your guy debate time. But when your guy is getting 1 % of the vote, it would be stupid and a disservice to voters to put your guy in the debates. The problem is not the process, it is that you guys are spending your time complaining and not getting the support you need.
I've given you evidence, that it isn't whining.
The fact that Ross Perot, "had enough support" (your standard, not mine) but was denied access, gives credence, that political shenanigans has more to do with the presidential election system, than "whining" and "playing the victim."
I do not believe in private control of the public system of elections.
They have a cartel on the presidential debates.
It's not free market.
If our people are so stupid and worthless, allowing us access to the debates, would be of no consequence.
I mean, being stupid and all, our rear ends would surely be whooped. :roll: