View Poll Results: Do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    70 88.61%
  • No

    6 7.59%
  • I dont know

    3 3.80%
Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 264

Thread: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

  1. #101
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    None of which changes the inherent catch-22 nature of your own standard.

    I'm fine with you having that standard...or Ikari having his 5 party standard...but don't bitch about the current situation based upon an arugment of it being a "catch-22" and that making it bad, and then present your own alternative containing it's very own catch-22
    Of course it changes it.
    Grass roots support at the local level, is effective.
    While at the national level, can be problematic, unless someone bankrolls it.

    The thresholds for getting onto ballots is lower than than the effective means of getting 15% popular support.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #102
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    HG, they do not have that support by the time of the debates. The debates are irrelevant to the support they garner beforehand.
    I disagree.
    If the debates were real (they aren't) then that could change things dramatically.

    If Jill Stein could reasonably smack down Romney and Obama, the public could change their vote.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #103
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,973

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Is that really a good reason to limit debate participants?
    You say, "well they only have X% of support."
    Yet the very reason they may have so little support is because there is no inclusion.
    Hillarious. You sit here ridiculing the current system for being a Catch-22 while just posts earlier endorsing a system with an inherent catch-22 within it.

    And where did I suggest it was a "good reason". I suggested only that it was ignorant to assume that "fear" of competition was the only reason an individual could possibly be against third parties being given easier access to debates.

    Sorry, some of these things should be self evident.
    The operations and negotiations between the parties included in the debates, more or less show that they are a farce, that they are not debates.
    Supporting dishonesty is not ok in my book.
    Then you should stop supporting yourself since you dishonestly suggested that Redress's stance was based on the notion of "fear" of third parties competing

  4. #104
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Except that it has been reached, so it is not unreachable.
    It was reached when one was allowed to participate in the debates. And after that, they were excluded from the debates for that very reason.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #105
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Sure...for the most part. There have also been situations in debates where individuals opinions have changed (first debate in the last election comes to mind) due to a debate).

    I know it's not a new concept but multiparty debates generally happen in countries with multiparty systems where a canidate with 15% of the vote could technically be a majority in a coalition party in charge. It's a little different when even 10% of the vote gives you no power in this country. If a third party polled at 10% across the country there's a good chance they would have no elected officials in power.
    Well the point is that even if they aren't elected, even in 50 years, that the ideas get noticed.
    It doesn't matter if they win, it matters that the ideas are put out there.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #106
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,317
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Just out of curiosity, I looked at the final election results from 2012. Here are 3 through 5:

    Gary Johnson-.99 %
    Jill Stein-.36 %
    Virgil Goode-.09 %
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #107
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Just out of curiosity, I looked at the final election results from 2012. Here are 3 through 5:

    Gary Johnson-.99 %
    Jill Stein-.36 %
    Virgil Goode-.09 %
    Put them in the debates. The Republocrats surely have nothing to fear, yes?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #108
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,973

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Grass roots support at the local level, is effective.
    Which in no way changes the fact that it's still a Catch-22. At best it makes it a slightly less difficult to over come Catch-22. But it's still there.

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Okay. Once again, many of the arguments you and Ikari are making can also be applied to that. You create a scenario that still has an inherent Catch-22. You can't get onto the ballots without exposure, you can't get exposure if you don't get on the ballots.

    exposure can come in many forms though... but the exposure needed to overcome current threshholds is beyond the reach of all but hte 2 major parties ( I think that is by design, btw)

    i think gaining access to ballots in some states is incredibly restricted.... and much better in other states.
    i like the idea of petitions used to gain access... such as requiring a certain number of good signatures to gain access.
    this type of threshhold is better than a popularity threshold b3ecasue signing a petition does not inherently mean support for that party, it just means you want them included in the race ( for example, I do not support the Green Party, but I would , indeed, sign a petition to get them on the ballot).
    a party seeking signatures can make that very argument, face to face with citizens, as a selling point "we are not asking for your vote, just for the chance to compete for it".

    using popularity as a threshhold means active support for a party would be necessary beforehand, not just support for political competition in general.

  10. #110
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,170

    Re: Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Why is 5 too much? Why should the information the People can hear and the political platforms they are exposed to be limited to under 5? Could it be that the perception of 2 parties only is perpetuated through control of the election cycles, arbitrary limiters placed on the system to specifically allow only two, media misrepresentation and silence on competing political ideologies, campaign finance restrictions, etc. be the reason why it is presented to the People that there are only 2 choices?
    I'm not going to argue against the fact that the two parties want to exclude parties that pop up to the left and right of their parties. Because I agree with you.

    The reason we have 2 parties though I believe is how our systems are ran more than the actions of the two parties. The two major parties have changed over time....but it's always two major parties.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

Page 11 of 27 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •