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 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 264

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

  1. #171
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,188

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Cool. Everyone gets about 3 minutes per debate to answer a question or state their view. This will certainly help educate the American public, add to the political discourse and knowledge of the country, and truly have an impact for those smaller parties.......
    That sounds like just giving every candidate a free commercial rather than a debate. I also don't think this would add any substance to the debate since each candidate could spout off any rhetorical bs they want with time constraints stopping anyone from calling them on it.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  2. #172
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    In all honesty, my goal is not to have the L party win, it's to have a serious competition of ideas, in front of people.
    As it is now, the system is just not honest or just.

    Current debates are just staged, town halls aren't real, it's all a well orchestrated sham.
    Exactly, while a couple of posters may want to make it seem like we're just trying to get our guy in and will go own hysterics about hypocrisy. But the point is that we need political competition. I'm not seeking to force the libertarian philosophy to win, just to give an open forum in which political philosophies can compete. I'm confident that the libertarian ideal can win on its own merits if allowed to free compete.

    Right now we just have a puppet show, and not even a saucy puppet show, for debates. Blah blah blah, say the least amount of crap in the longest period of time. Lighting has to be X, podium height has to be Y (can't look short compared to your opponent); it's just Hollywood. But politics cannot be allowed to degrade to such levels. This is the future of the Republic we're talking about and without an open system of political competition, you will surely lose it.
    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. #173
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    So im taking a class called "Political Parties and Elections", and i was sitting in class today and i thought why should pretty popular 3rd parties not be allowed on the national debate?

    What are your thought; do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?
    yep in my fantasy america i like the following

    a direct vote for president

    3 QUALIFYING parties at the debates minimum and running for presidency.

    Winner is president
    2nd place is Vice President and President of the senate
    3rd place is the speaker of the house of representatives

    No majority allowed in the upper or lower house, at least voting wise

    terms for senate and representatives match and are staggered opposite of the president. Meaning they are up for elections 2 years in to presidency.

    Of course theres more details to work out but but thats the basics in my fantasy

    id like NO parties but thats a super fantasy
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #174
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    No, that would help the two party monopoly.

    No it wouldn't.It would hurt the two party monopoly by exposing the people to more choices.



    Inviting 30 people to a debate, and I'm sure that number would skyrocket with a promise of national exposure, would cause only confusion and not allow any substance to take place in the debate. I'm all for adding lesser parties to a debate, but IMO there needs to be some sort of limit.
    All candidates running for president should get national exposure. The people voting for them should be informed about their choices and what the candidates stand for.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #175
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,188

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    No it wouldn't.It would hurt the two party monopoly by exposing the people to more choices.
    Introducing more choices would hurt it. Introducing 50 to 100 choices over a long debate probably wouldn't. The vast majority of people probably wouldn't be affected by the candidates in the small amount of time they have to speak during a national debate with 50 people. They would just vote for the same two parties that have billions of dollars and control all the other advertising. Give the people something like five more choices, and maybe you could bring down the two major parties support.


    All candidates running for president should get national exposure. The people voting for them should be informed about their choices and what the candidates stand for.
    Trying to give all 133 candidates who ran for president last year national exposure during a debate has serious logistical problems. It would be ridiculous.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  6. #176
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

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

    I say no because they have no chance to win the election....The closest one was Perot and he did not win one electoral vote and cost Bush senior the election.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  7. #177
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Sounds like nothing more than excuse to weasel out other parties and keep the two party status quo. Most people don't even know those candidates exist because the media deliberately weasels them out of exposure and they deliberately weaseled out of debates. All the presidential candidates should be included in the presidential debate or none at all.
    That would be unwieldy and unrealistic. There were more than 400 candidates for president last year, including 20 or so party candidates and a massive pile of independents. Only 6 parties had ballot access in enough states to be able to win the presidency (with access to 270+ electoral votes) - Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Justice. A handful were close to that threshold - America's Party, American Independent Party (229 apiece), Socialist Party (165), and Peace & Freedom Party (153.) You might be able to stretch a debate to include all 10 of those, but it seems like a good qualifier would be having ballot access in enough states to reach the 170 electoral vote threshold, giving us 6 candidates instead of 2. I think that's fair.

  8. #178
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    If they are sufficiently popular. I don't think any of the candidates would've merited inclusion last year, although Gary Johnson was close. I wouldn't mind having some relatively high polling candidates in the debates, but allowing just every third party that fields a candidate in a debate would be too much. I'd probably lower the current threshold of polling, which I believe is 5%, to something like 2%.
    I don't think inclusion should be based on polling of those whose intention is to vote for the candidates. It is disingenuous to evaluate the support for a person's ideas in this way in a two party system. The question asked in the polls should be asked like this: Whose ideas about policy most reflect your own? Then, they should raise the threshold to 10 %. Gary Johnson would have easily been included, as he should have been. And, no, I can't stand Libertarian thinking. I just believe in the marketplace of ideas.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  9. #179
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vapor View Post
    That would be unwieldy and unrealistic. There were more than 400 candidates for president last year, including 20 or so party candidates and a massive pile of independents. Only 6 parties had ballot access in enough states to be able to win the presidency (with access to 270+ electoral votes) - Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Justice. A handful were close to that threshold - America's Party, American Independent Party (229 apiece), Socialist Party (165), and Peace & Freedom Party (153.) You might be able to stretch a debate to include all 10 of those, but it seems like a good qualifier would be having ballot access in enough states to reach the 170 electoral vote threshold, giving us 6 candidates instead of 2. I think that's fair.
    Something has to be done. This two party monopoly has to stop.Granting ballot and presidential debate access to the top 10 parties would help.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #180
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I say no because they have no chance to win the election....
    Kind of hard to have a chance when you are squeeze out other parties from debates and national attention.

    The closest one was Perot and he did not win one electoral vote and cost Bush senior the election.
    So this is about making sure republicans win?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 18 of 27 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... 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
  •