• 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
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.

In all seriousness, I'm 85% sure Clinton wanted Perot in the debates, at least the first time around.
I don't think they had a good reason to deny him the 2nd time.
 
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.

I would love it if possible (pssst, that's why it says "in theory anyway", it's called reading....try it). And I understand there are practical limitations; I do not believe that saying that we should have more open competition but being aware of the physical limitations means one is being "hypocritical", just reasonable and realistic. But I'm sure it will go towards whatever propaganda you want.
 
I would rather the debates exist to, in theory anyway, inform the public about candidates who have a reasonable chance to impact the election.

that sounds very circular to me..

barring candidates prevents them from impacting an election.. and not being able to impact an election is why we bar them.
 
that sounds very circular to me..

barring candidates prevents them from impacting an election.. and not being able to impact an election is why we bar them.

It's the Catch-22, 100%. I'm baffled that normally intelligent individuals cannot see this.
 
I thought this was interesting:

Little Support for Third-Party Candidates in 2012 Election


PRINCETON, NJ -- "U.S. registered voters show limited support for third-party candidates this year, with the vast majority preferring Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. A June 7-10 Gallup poll asked a special presidential preference question, listing three third-party candidates in addition to Obama and Romney. Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson is the choice of 3% of registered voters and Green Party candidate Jill Stein the choice of 1%. Another 2% volunteer Ron Paul's name and 1% mention someone other than the listed candidates."
Little Support for Third-Party Candidates in 2012 Election


I think the lack of a message/candidate that resonates with more registered voters is perhaps the biggest obstacle for third parties.
 
I think a message/candidate that resonates with more registered voters is perhaps the biggest obstacle for third parties.

It may very well be. We'll never know for sure less we allow open participation.
 
It may very well be. We'll never know for sure less we allow open participation.

How are 3rd parties blocked from selecting candidates/party platforms that resonate with more than just a handful of voters?
 
How are 3rd parties blocked from selecting candidates/party platforms that resonate with more than just a handful of voters?

Through rules restricting their campaign finance, to refusal by media to cover all the candidates, to the purposeful construct of the debates to forbid third party competition.
 
that sounds very circular to me..

barring candidates prevents them from impacting an election.. and not being able to impact an election is why we bar them.

No it does not. Or are you saying that only the debates get candidates support?
 
No it does not. Or are you saying that only the debates get candidates support?

The debates are one of the major ways through which candidates gain support. yes.
 
.. they are not included in the debates... which is what we are talking about.

Because they do not meet the criterion of support to take part in the debates. The debates are not limited to two people. Those who take part managed to get support before the debates.
 
The debates are one of the major ways through which candidates gain support. yes.

Except that the debates happen after they got enough support for inclusion.
 
Because they do not meet the criterion of support to take part in the debates. The debates are not limited to two people. Those who take part managed to get support before the debates.

The debates are functionally limited to two people. This is just measured fact.
 
The debates are functionally limited to two people. This is just measured fact.

No, they are limited to those who poll above 15 %. Poll above 15 % and you are in.
 
Except that the debates happen after they got enough support for inclusion.

Exactly. The Debates are where candidates can really showcase their political platform and directly interact, respond, and defend their positions from others. It is one of the major forums to gain support. Thus "support" is deemed before hand and the bar set so high that others cannot get in. In this way, you restrict political competition and prevent opposing views from having access to the venues best established to garner support.

The debates are where you get support, but you must have support before you are allowed in the debates. That is the Catch-22 you endorse.
 
No, they are limited to those who poll above 15 %. Poll above 15 % and you are in.

Which functionally restricts it to just the two. This is measured fact.
 
Which functionally restricts it to just the two. This is measured fact.

Except that is not the case. All you have to do is get support before the debates even happen. Get people to agree with you and you are in. Make your own debates and you are in. Lots of ways to be included.
 
Through rules restricting their campaign finance, to refusal by media to cover all the candidates, to the purposeful construct of the debates to forbid third party competition.

I'm not talking about the ability to get on national debates, I am talking about the 3rd party platforms that don't resonate with more than a handful of voters. Isn't that the biggest obstacle?
 
Except that is not the case. All you have to do is get support before the debates even happen. Get people to agree with you and you are in. Make your own debates and you are in. Lots of ways to be included.

Yes, through a restricted forum wherein you cannot possibly hope to garner 15% popular vote, garner that 15% popular vote and you're in. Never mind the fact that the debates are a major venue for garnering support in the first place and that various restrictions from campaign finance to media black out prevents you from getting your message out to get that 15%. Just get that 15% that is unobtainable and you're in.

Do you ever listen to the words that come out of your mouth?

Another thing I'd change, is I'd take control of the Presidential Debates from the government (it's kinda of ridiculous that the establishment can make up the rules for participation in the first place) and return it to the League of Women Voters.
 
I'm not talking about the ability to get on national debates, I am talking about the 3rd party platforms that don't resonate with more than a handful of voters. Isn't that the biggest obstacle?

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.
 
What are your thought; do you think third parties should be allowed on the national debates?

Yes, they should. Maybe then we would see debates with real substance.
 
Yes, through a restricted forum wherein you cannot possibly hope to garner 15% popular vote, garner that 15% popular vote and you're in. Never mind the fact that the debates are a major venue for garnering support in the first place and that various restrictions from campaign finance to media black out prevents you from getting your message out to get that 15%. Just get that 15% that is unobtainable and you're in.

Do you ever listen to the words that come out of your mouth?

Another thing I'd change, is I'd take control of the Presidential Debates from the government (it's kinda of ridiculous that the establishment can make up the rules for participation in the first place) and return it to the League of Women Voters.

So tell me this: how are the debates getting you support before the debates take place?
 
So tell me this: how are the debates getting you support before the debates take place?

They can't, and there's the rub. That's your Catch-22. Are you still unable to see this? The elections do not happen before the debates. You need support come ELECTION time. The debates are one of the best venues to gain that support. But you're putting a requirement that they have support before the elections, support they cannot gain on the national level without being included at the national level. But your inclusion is based on support they cannot get until they are included. Catch-22.
 
Back
Top Bottom