should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Pres

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

both democrats and republicans parties work to squeeze out any 3rd party.

debates have lasted 3 hours on TV with several party candidates, yet in that about of time i get to hear very little substance from each candidate, since each candidate over talks his time, tells everyone he loves america, and has to thank everyone for being at the debate.

so we end up with the Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche type debate.

[video]http://southpark.cc.com/clips/154582/debate-2004[/video]

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:

They see the names on the ballot every time they vote.

Click to expand...

That is assuming their state does not **** 3rd party candidates out of ballot access.Seeing a name and party affiliation on a ballot does not tell you what issues a candidate stands for, a candidate's past votes, or the candidate's solutions to various current issues.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Cephus said:

No but a voter guide does and all voters get them, as far as I know, before the election. So again, can these people not read?

Click to expand...

Many states do not mail out voter guides.

And even if they get to the ballot box and haven't done their homework, meaning they really shouldn't be voting at all, are they so daft they can't go home and research these parties for the next election?

Click to expand...

The next election is not the issue, what is the issue is the current election.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

I think ballot access is a much bigger issue for third party and independent candidates. Just look at Americans Elect in 2012. They had deeper pockets than the DNC and GOP combined, spent $35 million, and couldn't even secure ballot access in 40 states. Or look at the legacy third parties, they have to spend nearly their entire national budget to maintain ballot access.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

TheDemSocialist said:

Recently there has been some debate around the Presidential Debates, and how many candidates should be invited. A new group is looking to press for a change in the rules to make it easier for 3rd parties or independent candidates into the debate. Info on that can be found here: New group calls for changes in presidential debate rules - The Washington Post


My question to you is, "should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Presidential debates?"

Click to expand...

absolutely.... they should change the rules to " if you're on the ballot, you're in the debates"... and the debates should be run by a neutral 3rd party (non-political)

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:

If ALL CANDIDATES mean everybody on the ballot for President, that could be a rather large crowd on stage especially once word of this change gets out.

Click to expand...

there's thousands of auditioners for American idol and we seem to muddle through it pretty well....are you saying we can't device a system of deabtes where 12 people will be heard?

So how do you get around the normal objection that the vast vast majority of voters have no interest in the little third party candidates and parties and just want to hear the big two - or in rare years possible three?

Click to expand...

very few people are exposed to 3rd parties... debates lends to exposure... and <gasp!> more ideas and policies... i know , i know, it's hard to believe, but yes, by gawd, there are more than 2 positions to every issue.

not sure why the die hard partisans are so scared of a lil competition... if you're parties are as super-duper as you believe them to be, they'll still capture the office.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

TheDemSocialist said:

Recently there has been some debate around the Presidential Debates, and how many candidates should be invited. A new group is looking to press for a change in the rules to make it easier for 3rd parties or independent candidates into the debate. Info on that can be found here: New group calls for changes in presidential debate rules - The Washington Post


My question to you is, "should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the Presidential debates?"

Click to expand...

I answered "no."

The reason being, while I do appreciate the drive toward more democracy and I do believe we should further explore how this can be accomplished, we have to understand that representative governing power in ALL Western democracies is manifested by way of political coalitions. This is the norm.

In parliamentary democracies such as Canada and Western European nations, the process is more straightforward - political parties form visible coalitions and PM's are elected by way of such coalitions.

In our American democracy, the coalition process is murkier and more ambiguous, however it still happens.... just earlier in the election cycle. For instance, within the Republican party, you have libertarians, tea partiers, more traditional Rino-Republicans, etc. The democratic side of this process and the coalition building occurs during the primaries.... for example Republican primary voters will be able to select from Ted Cruz, a tea partier, Jeb Bush, a Rino, Rand Paul, a libertarian, and a slew of others with varying views.

The same thing occurs on the Democratic side with establishment candidates vying against the more progressive and "green" members for the Democratic nomination.

So, in summary, I think the will of the American People is fairly represented with the current system, although it can be less obvious to the untrained eye than what we see in parliamentary democracies.

I think the biggest problem with allowing a third-party candidate (or more) in to the main presidential debates is that these candidates tend to split the vote for one of the parties involved, thus skewing the results from what they probably should have been.

Ross Perot, for example, more than likely should have tried his hand during the Republican primary nomination... and it could be said that he cost George HW Bush his second term by dividing the right-wing vote.

It could be said, likewise, that Ralph Nader had a similar effect on Al Gore during his presidential run, and the general election would have been more "democratic" - in the sense that the final result would have better reflected the will of the American People - had he chosen to run as a Democrat during the democratic primaries rather than splitting the general vote for the left wing.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

The other thing that people often forget is that political parties in the USA are constantly evolving and are never static. For example, the Democrats and Republicans, at one point in history, were almost entirely flipped around. We once had a viable Whig party.

The best way to get on a ballot as a libertarian, tea partier, green partier, etc is to do so within either the Democratic or Republican platform. Change the party from within, and add to the discourse within that party.

Also, it would seem to me that if the philosophical differences are truly irreconcilable, then the best place for one of these third parties to really begin getting a foothold in the national discussion would be in congress... or even in state or local government.

Why, for example, do we not see many "libertarian" or "green party" candidates in the House of Representatives? Why do we only discuss third parties when the presidential election comes around?

The congressional level, it would seem to me, would be the best and fairest place to start proving your party out to the general public. If we had a charismatic and viable libertarian governor or congressman, for example, the thought of a third party president would become much more palpable to the voting masses.

In summary, I think getting a third-party candidate on the big-ticket presidential ballot "just because," when such candidates are not even viable at the congressional or even local levels, is pointless, actually does more harm than good to the overall democratic process.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Peter Grimm said:

The other thing that people often forget is that political parties in the USA are constantly evolving and are never static. For example, the Democrats and Republicans, at one point in history, were almost entirely flipped around. We once had a viable Whig party.

The best way to get on a ballot as a libertarian, tea partier, green partier, etc is to do so within either the Democratic or Republican platform. Change the party from within, and add to the discourse within that party.

Also, it would seem to me that if the philosophical differences are truly irreconcilable, then the best place for one of these third parties to really begin getting a foothold in the national discussion would be in congress... or even in state or local government.

Why, for example, do we not see many "libertarian" or "green party" candidates in the House of Representatives? Why do we only discuss third parties when the presidential election comes around?

The congressional level, it would seem to me, would be the best and fairest place to start proving your party out to the general public. If we had a charismatic and viable libertarian governor or congressman, for example, the thought of a third party president would become much more palpable to the voting masses.

In summary, I think getting a third-party candidate on the big-ticket presidential ballot "just because," when such candidates are not even viable at the congressional or even local levels, is pointless, actually does more harm than good to the overall democratic process.

Click to expand...

California has a top two primary for US congress and the state legislature. Makes it nearly impossible for minor parties to gain a foothold.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

jamesrage said:

That is assuming their state does not **** 3rd party candidates out of ballot access.Seeing a name and party affiliation on a ballot does not tell you what issues a candidate stands for, a candidate's past votes, or the candidate's solutions to various current issues.

Click to expand...

So in the last few election cycles, 2004, 2008, 2012 - how many states was the Libertarian candidate shut out from getting on the ballot?

Of course voters will have to due their end of the work. That would be true of ANY system that a candidate finds themselves running in.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:

there's thousands of auditioners for American idol and we seem to muddle through it pretty well....are you saying we can't device a system of deabtes where 12 people will be heard?

very few people are exposed to 3rd parties... debates lends to exposure... and <gasp!> more ideas and policies... i know , i know, it's hard to believe, but yes, by gawd, there are more than 2 positions to every issue.

not sure why the die hard partisans are so scared of a lil competition... if you're parties are as super-duper as you believe them to be, they'll still capture the office.

Click to expand...

What I am saying is that the American people have shown no interest in the current crop of third parties and have shown no interest in changing the rules to benefit them.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:

Maybe the Libertarian Party needs to give people a reason to vote for them. They have done precious little of that.

Click to expand...

I will heartily agree with you here. That's why I look for candidates who are as close to libertarian, but not necessarily Libertarian, as I can get. Now mostly they end up being Republican, but I've found some Democrats along the way as well.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:

What I am saying is that the American people have shown no interest in the current crop of third parties and have shown no interest in changing the rules to benefit them.

Click to expand...

Maybe that's a self feeding cycle. People aren't interested because there is little exposure and there is little exposure because people aren't interested.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:

What I am saying is that the American people have shown no interest in the current crop of third parties and have shown no interest in changing the rules to benefit them.

Click to expand...

Ross Perot.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

maquiscat said:

Maybe that's a self feeding cycle. People aren't interested because there is little exposure and there is little exposure because people aren't interested.

Click to expand...

Yes - you are correct - the cycle contributes to the problem.... but that is the way of most things. People have broken that cycle. Wallace in 68 won 13% of the vote and five states electoral votes. Perot in 92 won nearly one in every five votes of the voters.

It can and has been done.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Dragonfly said:

Ross Perot.

Click to expand...

To be clear - I did say CURRENT CROP OF THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES.

And I also have shown Ross Perot as the example of a successful third party effort. Perot did amazingly well when you consider that about 1/3 of the electorate will always vote Republican and another 1/3 will always vote Democratic no matter if Mickey Mouse was running. What Perot did was to capture more than half of the toss up votes that were actually in play. That was a truly incredible thing.

And in the last 20 plus years, the American people have shown no interest in the third party candidates.

There is a hard cold ugly reality that LIBERTARIANS run from and many refuse to confront. In the summer of 2014 Pew Research released a poll which said that 11% of Americans identified as LIBERTARIAN. But at election time for President, the LIBERTARIAN PARTY candidate got just under 1% of the vote.

If 90% of self proclaimed LIBERTARIANS stick up their middle finger to the very group that they pretend to identify with - what does that say about both them and the Libertarian party?

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

maquiscat said:

And this voter guide comes from......?

Click to expand...

I don't know where it comes from for everyone, nor even if everyone gets one (although they probably ought to), but here, the candidates submit position statements that are printed. It arrives by mail several weeks before every election.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

jamesrage said:

Many states do not mail out voter guides.

Click to expand...

That's probably a problem and something that should be covered by the federal government for federal elections.

The next election is not the issue, what is the issue is the current election.

Click to expand...

But you're saying that people have no idea what these parties or candidates stand for. Unless someone is voting in their first ever election, they certainly can and ought to know, or they're too uninformed and lazy to really be casting a responsible vote.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Cephus said:

That's probably a problem and something that should be covered by the federal government for federal elections.



But you're saying that people have no idea what these parties or candidates stand for. Unless someone is voting in their first ever election, they certainly can and ought to know, or they're too uninformed and lazy to really be casting a responsible vote.

Click to expand...

Most voters do not research candidates.They only know who is running based on the debates and commercials they see and who the media is propping up or trying to demonize. Saying oh they can just research the candidates and parties for the election after that is a bogus claim and not a reason to squeeze out other candidates in debates.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:

So in the last few election cycles, 2004, 2008, 2012 - how many states was the Libertarian candidate shut out from getting on the ballot?

Click to expand...

I do not know about other states. I do know in my state during the presidential elections there were no libertarian or other 3rd parties in the presidential election.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

jamesrage said:

Most voters do not research candidates.They only know who is running based on the debates and commercials they see and who the media is propping up or trying to demonize. Saying oh they can just research the candidates and parties for the election after that is a bogus claim and not a reason to squeeze out other candidates in debates.

Click to expand...

I haven't said anything about debates, in fact, I think all candidates that appeal to a minimum demographic ought, not only be allowed in the debates, but be mandated to appear in the debates. However, all of these excuses for third parties is really based on the failure of the third parties. They don't advertise. If they can't afford to advertise, that's because their message doesn't appeal to either a sufficiently large audience willing to donate, or to the wealthy who would be willing to donate. That is a failure of the third party's philosophy. The key to winning any election is to appeal to the voters, get donations and advertise their ideals. If they cannot do so, they are not worth having on the ballot in the first place, they have failed in their most basic responsibility.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:

What I am saying is that the American people have shown no interest in the current crop of third parties and have shown no interest in changing the rules to benefit them.

Click to expand...

3rd parties get little to no exposure, so it's no wonder they aren't on the peoples radar....
the people have noting to do with the rules... the rules are set by your 2 corrupt parties.

you're simply making excuses as to why you personally oppose competition in politics.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:

3rd parties get little to no exposure, so it's no wonder they aren't on the peoples radar....
the people have noting to do with the rules... the rules are set by your 2 corrupt parties.

you're simply making excuses as to why you personally oppose competition in politics.

Click to expand...

Feel free to cite these so called RULES that prevent third parties from getting votes.

I welcome the presentation of that evidence.

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

haymarket said:

Feel free to cite these so called RULES that prevent third parties from getting votes.

I welcome the presentation of that evidence.

Click to expand...

we've been over this issue a couple of times already.... and we both know you are demanding evidence that you will ignore or dismiss out of hand.
... just like you've done in the other cases.... hell, just like you do on every case, on every issue.

I'll choose to sit here and drink a beer and enjoy the sunshine while you wallow in willful ignorance....

Re: should the rules be changed to make it easier for one or more candidate into the

Thrilla said:

we've been over this issue a couple of times already.... and we both know you are demanding evidence that you will ignore or dismiss out of hand.
... just like you've done in the other cases.... hell, just like you do on every case, on every issue.

I'll choose to sit here and drink a beer and enjoy the sunshine while you wallow in willful ignorance....

Click to expand...

So you have no evidence to present. Got it loud and clear. Enjoy that beer and the side of ignorance.