• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should 3rd Parties Be Allowed on the National Debate

Do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?


  • Total voters
    71
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 %
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

The actual Catch-22 is very difficult to get over, though we should make the steps through changes to campaign finance and participation in debates to better control on the primary system, etc. which has spun out of control so that only those with the most money can run. However, that being the case, even a little respite would be a welcomed change.
 
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.

our system is stable at 2 main parties because of its setup. It doesn't mean it's stable at the same 2, nor does it mean that it's OK to destroy political competition because there will be 2, nor does it mean that third parties cannot be in office or be present in the system.
 
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.

Sorry but the position I posted is quite achievable for most, third parties.
There is no number limit, just ballot qualifications.



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.

An ignorant assumption that ones belief on this is based on "fear".

Debate times are limited. The american public's attention span is generally low. And we already have a massively underengaged voting base as is. Diluting an hour and a half debate by adding, lets say 3, additional voices to it...when those voices are found to be more attractive to less than 1% of the American public...could be viewed as doing a disservice to the political process and the American People. A person could believe that they don't need to be added to the debate because it would be a detriment to the political process rather than "fear". But because you have an agenda, you immedietely leap to demonize your opponent.

You included it as a suggestion.

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

I can't for my life figure out another reason why anyone would support the current process.
I guess I wrongly assumed it was fear.

The other stated reasons, seem to be quite retarded.
 
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.

And I agree with that to an extent....which is why I'm in the camp of the 2 major parties but am sympathetic to third parties. I also want to hear by far the most from the 2 canidates that represent the two coalitions that will be running government.
 
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 %


while candidates are purposefully kept as "unknowns" we'll never see those levels of popularity change...ever.

these folks are complete strangers to the general public.. and that is by design.
 
I believe the threshold was added after Perot, they were sued (by someone I can't remember) and that person lost.

I just read that the 15% criteria came into being in the year 2000.
 
Absolutely. The public airwaves should be utilized so that 3/5ths of the 6 or so hours that is given to nationaly televised debates can be canabalized by individuals who garner less than 2% interest of the American Public. This would clearly be the only reasonable and acceptable conclussion one could possibly take for any reason other than fear and is the only one that isn't "retarded".
 
Last edited:
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.

It's a lot less.
Having presence in states at grass roots level, achieve ballot access sigs, is a hell of a lot easier than polling 15%.

It doesn't require massive amounts of money or media exposure.
 
Put them in the debates. The Republocrats surely have nothing to fear, yes?

I would rather the debates exist to, in theory anyway, inform the public about candidates who have a reasonable chance to impact the election.
 
I would rather the debates exist to, in theory anyway, inform the public about candidates who have a reasonable chance to impact the election.

I'd rather the debates exist to, in theory anyway, inform the public about the candidates and their political platforms so that the People may judge for themselves which candidate best echoes their political platform and concerns.
 
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?

5% in a general gets the party media coverage and 15% of polls gets the party into the debates.

100% should be included. I understand the "we can't include everyone" argument as you can aggregate up to a number of candidates which makes the debates difficult and too long; but there's no reason we should cap the number at 2. Political competition is a necessity to keeping a Republic.

Haha. 100%? All of the third parties? C'mon. There would be Poes. I'd found the Jihad Party and troll the debate.

You can't fund raise without media exposure and you won't get media exposure without fund raising.
He's 100% right, you're supporting a catch 22.

5% in a general gets media.

I don't know.
I do know that Bill Clinton wanted him in the debates.

I read a book about it several years ago.
It's not a snipe at Bill Clinton, if that's how you're taking it.

I heard it was because Ross has a stained jacket and a box of 'used' cigars. I'm not sure the cigars are evidence of anything, but whatevs.
 
I'd rather the debates exist to, in theory anyway, inform the public about the candidates and their political platforms so that the People may judge for themselves which candidate best echoes their political platform and concerns.

So you would open them up to every one who is on a ballot? If your answer is anything other than yes, you are being hypocritical again. And if you do answer yes, then practical problems jump in.
 
. 100%? All of the third parties? C'mon. There would be Poes. I'd found the Jihad Party and troll the debate.

Not 100% of third parties should be included in debates, but 100% that we should allow and have some third party representation. I believe that if you would have read the rest of what you quoted there, this would have been very apparent.
 
Back
Top Bottom