• 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 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.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anagram said:
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%.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Vapor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Navy Pride said:
I say no because they have no chance to win the election....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

So this is about making sure republicans win?
 
Should they be allowed? Sure. Do they have a right to be involved in a debate? Of course not. Freedom of association is a two way street.
 
YES
With a qualififer, that the debates be real and respectful....this, unfortuniately, would be a first on our for profit media...
 
Hatuey said:
Should they be allowed? Sure. Do they have a right to be involved in a debate? Of course not. Freedom of association is a two way street.
Click to expand...

That would be true if it wasn't an integral part of the election process. The two-party system has a tyrannical monopoly of government. Typical of the shills for the two-party system, you are conveniently ignoring this fact. The two major parties are using their control over the political process to keep out the competition. Making this about freedom of association is either disingenuous or naive, and I know you well enough to know you aren't naive.

If the democrats and republicans gave up any and all public campaign financing, and the debates were entirely private, you would have a point. But since the debates are quasi-governmental, it is violative of the rights of the people to exclude the smaller parties from the system by setting guidelines specifically to exclude the smaller parties.

15% is a number no third party could hope to achieve without a billionaire backer. But if the smaller parties are given access to the major debates, it will allow them to get their message out there, and it will only be a matter of time before they present serious competition to the two major parties, which is, of course, exactly what the republocrats don't want. The our government might start to resemble a real democracy.
 
Anagram said:
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%.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the parties themselves continually shoot themselves in the foot and Gary Johnson was a prime example. He gained attention and even some credibility as a republican candidate with libertarian ideals. When he became the de facto libertarian candidate he abandoned the reasoned intelligent approach and commentary that got him that attention and suddenly became a dumbass hipster with stupid youtube campaign messages. The Libertarian party would have been better off with a solid businessman with long term libertarian standing like Wayne Allen Root. It has always been the case. The reform party did it...hell...even the Green party did it.

As much as I would LIKE to see the debates opened up and as much as I despise the two parties and what they have become, the fact of the matter is that no other viable 3rd party has EARNED a spot on the stage.
 
the political system we have is hardly a two party system or republican democracy and maybe never was. Letting third, fourth and so on is necessary for a true political debate.
 
wolfman24 said:
the political system we have is hardly a two party system or republican democracy and maybe never was. Letting third, fourth and so on is necessary for a true political debate.
Click to expand...
Did you see Johnsons Libertarian party "Zombie" commercials? In order to be welcome into the debate you should probably bring something to the table. And I TRULY hope that eventually viable third parties emerge. But...Roseanne ****ing Barr? Seriously?
 
Guy Incognito said:
That would be true if it wasn't an integral part of the election process. The two-party system has a tyrannical monopoly of government. Typical of the shills for the two-party system, you are conveniently ignoring this fact. The two major parties are using their control over the political process to keep out the competition. Making this about freedom of association is either disingenuous or naive, and I know you well enough to know you aren't naive.

If the democrats and republicans gave up any and all public campaign financing, and the debates were entirely private, you would have a point. But since the debates are quasi-governmental, it is violative of the rights of the people to exclude the smaller parties from the system by setting guidelines specifically to exclude the smaller parties.

15% is a number no third party could hope to achieve without a billionaire backer. But if the smaller parties are given access to the major debates, it will allow them to get their message out there, and it will only be a matter of time before they present serious competition to the two major parties, which is, of course, exactly what the republocrats don't want. The our government might start to resemble a real democracy.
Click to expand...

Spare me from your whining. :shrug:
 
Yes, anyone with enough votes to land on the ballot should participate. Take it away from the cable news networks and banish the celebrity hosts. It should be aired exclusively on CSPAN and hosted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Anyone who goes over their time has their mic cut off.
 
Of course they should be "allowed". It is a disgrace that they aren't included in the first place. Some board who has no authority given to them somehow thinks that they can set up completely arbitrary criteria and deny people access? They should have all been hung in the public square years ago.
 
Hatuey said:
Spare me from your whining. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Of course, you are wise to try to avoid acknowledging that you are part of the problem, but it is obvious to any objective observer that I have bested you in this debate and you have no counter argument, so spare me the obnoxious sniping. Put up a counter argument or shut up.
 
I think if a 3rd party can get enough support then they should be allowed in national debates.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
IIRC, Bill Clinton wanted him included.
Click to expand...

Clinton had every incentive to do so.

I'm in favor of lowering the % required to get an audience for third parties. However, I will support rhetorical bashing of third parties to beat hell on the airwaves, and attempts by the major party to promote the most damaging third party for their opponent. Third parties in the United States are best used as pawns.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
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?
Click to expand...
I didn't know there were armed guards keeping them out.
 
Anagram said:
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%.
Click to expand...
Well hold on, OP said "3rd party"...there can be only one 3rd party, because an additional party would be a 4th, and another party would be a 5th, and so forth. Asking if there should be a 3rd party necessarily means allowing only one more party to attend.
 
Catawba said:
I thought Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were in the national debates? Weren't they third party candidates?
Click to expand...

And none since. It is not a democracy we live in. It is like the old Soviet elections where you only had the one choice. We are just given two equally bad choices and told it is democracy.
 
Slateriesling said:
And none since. It is not a democracy we live in. It is like the old Soviet elections where you only had the one choice. We are just given two equally bad choices and told it is democracy.
Click to expand...

Did you watch any of the "third party candidate debates" last year?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Of course, you are wise to try to avoid acknowledging that you are part of the problem, but it is obvious to any objective observer that I have bested you in this debate and you have no counter argument, so spare me the obnoxious sniping. Put up a counter argument or shut up.
Click to expand...

No, you've cried and complained with the same old nonsense. Here's a thought, maybe nobody cares about 3rd party candidates except Libertarians and other disgruntled political minorities?
 
VanceMack said:
Did you watch any of the "third party candidate debates" last year?
Click to expand...

Tried to catch what I could. To busy working hard. I would have liked the debates that included the Dem and Rep candidates to include somebody else.

Why did the Dems and the Reps agree on only one thing, don't let a third party into the debates?

Read my blog I posted to see what I think was really at work here.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That would be true if it wasn't an integral part of the election process. The two-party system has a tyrannical monopoly of government. Typical of the shills for the two-party system, you are conveniently ignoring this fact. The two major parties are using their control over the political process to keep out the competition. Making this about freedom of association is either disingenuous or naive, and I know you well enough to know you aren't naive.
QUOTE]

Indeed, the two parties go through all avenues to make political participation difficult to impossible. They'll pass ballot access laws that can range from minimal to severe - usually, 5,000 signatures will get a candidate on a state's ballot, but in a state like Oklahoma, the target ranges from 50,000 to 60,000 after every election. They'll use their power over the Election Boards to audit the signature pages for authenticity, and then sue to get third parties removed from the ballot. In some cases, if the Election Board will invalidate entire sheets of signatures if just one signator is found to not be a registered voter. Third parties can't just devote all of their resources to running ads and PR because they must first secure ballot access and then fend off frivolous lawsuits to maintain it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom