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 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 264

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

  1. #151
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's hard to say. Is that from disconnects of the political platform or because the system is rigged against their participation and getting their message out? If it were a free and open system, we'd know better.
    Do you think there should be any criteria for equal platform coverage, and who pays for that equal coverage?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #152
    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 Catawba View Post
    Do you think there should be any criteria for equal platform coverage, and who pays for that equal coverage?
    Ideally I'd say the only criteria should be being on the State ballots, enough to win the seat. In reality, that could in fact aggregate to too large a pool of potential candidates and you'd have to find criteria to go on that would whittle that down. I think you must be careful, even when noting the reality that infinite time is infeasible, that the pool of people able to participate isn't so restricted that you kill off political competition. Maybe you can do 6 guaranteed spots and if there are more than 6 viable candidates, have rotating positions such that during the course of all the Presidential debates, all the candidates will be given opportunity to compete.

    There could be various ways to address the restrictions of reality while allowing optimum participation by the candidates. But it is a direction I feel is very important to push for. Political competition is a necessity to the future of a Republic.
    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."

  3. #153
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Ideally I'd say the only criteria should be being on the State ballots, enough to win the seat. In reality, that could in fact aggregate to too large a pool of potential candidates and you'd have to find criteria to go on that would whittle that down. I think you must be careful, even when noting the reality that infinite time is infeasible, that the pool of people able to participate isn't so restricted that you kill off political competition. Maybe you can do 6 guaranteed spots and if there are more than 6 viable candidates, have rotating positions such that during the course of all the Presidential debates, all the candidates will be given opportunity to compete.

    There could be various ways to address the restrictions of reality while allowing optimum participation by the candidates. But it is a direction I feel is very important to push for. Political competition is a necessity to the future of a Republic.


    How does that overcome the obstacle of an unpopular platform?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #154
    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 Catawba View Post
    How does that overcome the obstacle of an unpopular platform?
    It won't. Platforms will live and die on their own accord by their own arguments and abilities. This isn't a system to guarantee outcome, but rather opportunity. This would allow higher participation and open competition in which then all parties may compete against each other. It will not overcome poor platforms.
    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. #155
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I think the lack of a message/candidate that resonates with more registered voters is perhaps the biggest obstacle for third parties.
    Lack of runoff voting makes it almost impossible for anyone besides the two main candidates to win. The Ron Paul voters are the best example. Even though they really wanted him to win, he had no chance. Instead, they really really didn't want Obama, so they compromised and voted for Romney. Nader voters didn't compromise and so we got Bush in 2000. The very nature of our system almost guarantees that third parties can't win. A vote for your third party candidate most likely helps the one you really hate to win. But a few elections with runoff voting might allow some third party candidates to actually win, and will snatch power back from the two big parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It won't. Platforms will live and die on their own accord by their own arguments and abilities. This isn't a system to guarantee outcome, but rather opportunity. This would allow higher participation and open competition in which then all parties may compete against each other. It will not overcome poor platforms.
    But at the moment, inclusion in the main parties trumps even the best platform.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #156
    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 Paschendale View Post
    But at the moment, inclusion in the main parties trumps even the best platform.
    Yes, that is the main problem and one of the very reasons why we find it harder and harder to keep control of the government. The rules are all set up to serve, promote, and proliferate the current main Republocrat party while punishing anyone that falls outside that structure.

    For the very sake of the Republic, it is necessary to fix this.
    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."

  7. #157
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It won't. Platforms will live and die on their own accord by their own arguments and abilities. This isn't a system to guarantee outcome, but rather opportunity. This would allow higher participation and open competition in which then all parties may compete against each other. It will not overcome poor platforms.
    I am not at all opposed to opportunity for political competition with with reasonable criteria. You may be familiar with this non-partisan group that seeks to make it less onerous for third party candidates, the Citizen's Debate Commission. I would have no problem going along with their selection criteria:

    Citizens' Debate Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    However, this will do nothing to address the problem the Libertarian Party has for example that people are very familiar with their platform, but only a fraction of voters support it. That is a far bigger obstacle, IMO.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #158
    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 Catawba View Post
    However, this will do nothing to address the problem the Libertarian Party has for example that people are very familiar with their platform, but only a fraction of voters support it. That is a far bigger obstacle, IMO.
    It just may be. But the real point is that we cannot disentangle with our current system if the lack of support is due to bad platform or if it's due to the system we have constructed that most limits and removes their ability to compete in any practical or meaningful manner.

    I'm merely looking to push this so that we can once again push political competition, I am not looking to rig the results.
    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."

  9. #159
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It just may be. But the real point is that we cannot disentangle with our current system if the lack of support is due to bad platform or if it's due to the system we have constructed that most limits and removes their ability to compete in any practical or meaningful manner.

    I'm merely looking to push this so that we can once again push political competition, I am not looking to rig the results.

    I have no problem with the relaxed criteria outlined by the Citizen's Debate Commission. Go for it!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #160
    Student Vapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    150

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

    The national presidential debates are a major threshold for political competition. When an individual is sitting at the debate, the American public knows that they exist, that they really are a choice in this election. When only two men sit upon that stage, it reinforces the belief that only these two men can win. But if you sat Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on the same stage as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, people would realize that they are people and candidates just as good as the major parties. As it is, by excluding third parties from media coverage and debates, they appear to the American public as nothing but political rats who can hope to do little more than squabble over 5% of the vote.

    It'd be foolish to believe that third parties have an equal opportunity in the American political field. Can you honestly believe that a force of volunteers placing posters on street corners has the same level of attention as a multi-billion-dollar-funded political machine that appears every other day on a national news network? You remember watching the Republican and Democratic National Conventions on TV? Pretty cool, huh? Did you happen to see the Libertarian National Convention in Las Vegas, or the Green National Convention in Baltimore? How about the Constitution National Convention in Nashville? How many of the Republican primary candidates can you remember? Off the top of your head, you'd probably be able to throw out the names Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum. What about the Green and Libertarian candidates? Can you name anyone besides Stein and Johnson?

    Third parties are rarely, if ever, allowed on news shows, and it costs huge amounts of money to run commercials on national networks. Republicans and Democrats can afford to put their names all over the airwaves through billions of dollars in corporate campaign funds, but the Libertarians, Greens, and Constitution party refuse to accept corporate donations on the basis of ethics.
    Obama campaign: $442 million raised
    Romney campaign: $283 million
    Johnson campaign: $2 million
    Stein campaign: $400,000
    Goode campaign: $200,000

    With the ruling of Citizens United, it is effectively impossible for third parties to independently garner the same national attention as the Republicrats. Perot was able to make up for the disparity in funding between the Republicrats and the Reform Party by augmenting his campaign with his own personal wealth, but that was before that SCOTUS ruling. Now, not even a millionaire could overcome the odds and reach the 15% mark.

    This past election cycle saw Johnson on the ballot in 48 states (+1 as a write-in), Stein in 37 (+7 as write-in), and Goode in 26 (+16 write-in). Adding Anderson, who had more write-in access than official access, there were a total of 6 candidates who could have, theoretically, reached the 270 electoral vote threshold. Inclusion on the presidential debates should be determined by whether or not that candidate has ballot access in enough states to win the election.

    I also think the debates should be taken out of the hands of the Republicratic-controlled CPD and given to another organization - either the League of Women Voters or the Free & Equal Election Foundation.

Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •